I voted republican. And about half of the voters did also. There has been alot of Republican vs. Democrat going on in my lifetime. But I must confess about half of the voters voted as Democrats. This is just for debate and discussion. But if I was to take about 10 steps back and look at our process I don't know if I would call it a republic like the founders did, or a democracy like we read it today. It looks like something more like this- Dialectic- Thesis vs. Antithesis Dialectic materialism- Thesis vs. Antithesis= Synthesis In all my study of Hegel and Marx they took this concept to an artform. Marxism is the philosophy of two parties in conflict constantly compromising to reach consensus. The consensus is a specific agenda achieved by leaving the masses in conflict and driving opposing ideals to consensus. The strategem is Problem/Conflict/Consensus The problem is created. Now a solution is demanded. The conflict is created by thesis vs. antithesis or two opposing sides. The consensus is acheived through synthesis the process of community compromise. Thus the objectives of rule or goverance (control of the masses) can be acheived through this process much easier because the opposing sides believe that they are after different solutions and they will always settle for compromise (the desired objective) without a fight. Without typing for another two hours here is how it looks to me when I take ten steps back. 1. Both political parties say they want to balance the federal budget. However the objective is just the opposite the goal is to borrow more money (increase federal spending). So the problem is created - balanced budget. The conflict is then determined by the method each party proposes to acheive the balanced budget. The synthesis is the compromised budget which increases spending. As each party has done for the past 100 yrs. So now the citizens have a 7 trillion dollar debt we are accountable for. 2. So we republicans and democrats don't have much choice but to argue over issues, reach a consensus and keep accepting the results. We are not allowed to elect anyone but a republican or democrat anyway no matter how much of a liar or cheat or whatever else we feel they are. And some of the time both of us are exactly right in our opinion of the other's candidates. 3. This is classic Marxism. Now I don't mean we are Marxists here in America, I just mean from ten steps back it sometimes looks like we stumbled upon it to near perfection. So let's argue about every issue from our Republican and Democrat deer stands, shoot at each other and let's all look puzzled at the politicians and bureaucrats from both parties who party together, strategize together, rule together and then come out in public and debate issues for hours on end on CSpan while we use our credit cards to buy gas. I do not suggest that our politicians are smart enough to do this to us. It takes a lot more money and smarts than they show to acheive this type process. In fact it only seems this way to me sometimes. Most of the time (99%) I don't even think about it. But I thought it would be worth debating since I read alot about how bad the republicans are and how bad the democrats are in threads. It is crazy how much this looks dialectic to me.
A lot of stuff to ruminate over here but I think your main point is why do we have a two party system? I've been a supporter of the Independence Party in MN which was Jesse Ventura's party and this has been a big issue in party circles. I think on the federal level the structure of our government naturally favors a two party system because of the disproportionate power vested in the presidency and also the amount of resources it takes to elect a president. Also under our winner take all electoral system in most states favors well organized and entrenched political organizations. Finally even in the Legislative branch the majority rules make a huge difference in power available to parties. So any small party legislator must caucus with one of the major parties or be practically irrelevent. For me pesonally I would like to see more parties but I think that's going to have to take place on the state level rather than federal. I think the Jesse Ventura / Angus King model is the way to go. Have a charismatic leader win a governorship and then from their work to build up a party base within the state legislature. Even though Jesse said he wanted to do that he largely shirked his responsibilities party building and so the MN Independence party is suffering. OTOH Jesse's victory gave the impetus to other small parties to organize and now the Green party in MN has won a few offices.
Well actually my main point was why do politicians and bureaucrats go to meet with bankers and industrialists to come up with our national policies and then both parties take large contributions from each group and perpetuate the cabel. It reaks to me that I vote for a 'conservative' who spends money and proposes legislation like a 'liberal' when the alternative is voting for a 'liberal' who spends money and passes more legislation increasing the debt and size of government. And everyone has a republican idea or a democrat idea about an issue be it foreign policy, education, or health care- yet when we get through with the process Americans as a whole suffer horrible consequences- huge debt, federal control of everything under the sun and foreign policy that is neither in our best interest or security. The problems don't get solved they get more complex all the time. The only thing we haven't tried is full on socialism or Marxism and globalism is close enough to pass for it. Collectivism is simply allowing the federal government to solve all our problems for us by borrowing money taxpayers have to pay back and then spending it on special interests. Collectivism is another word for globalism which is another word for socialism which is another word for Marxism. And yes it makes me way too tired to respond also. I guess none of it matters as long as we can keep borrowing money as a nation. Stay employed and pay off our credit cards. I just find the current system too close to other systems that fail eventually. It is classic dialetic materialism. But that can't be true because we live in a democracy. You know like Russia today.
I'll just give a quick response to your assertion that both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for a 7 trillion dollar debt. (I'm using your figure) Take a hard look at who created the bulk of that debt. You'll find, amazingly enough, that it was the Republican Party. I may come back with more later. Gotta go. Keep D&D Civil!!
Deckard- I would agree with you and the greatest budget increases have come in just the past few years. (so why do I vote republican? Don't ask that question. That is why I don't have a clue what the answer is, it is a hobby of mine to ask the questions) But borrow, spend, borrow, spend, is not a process that only one party can brag about even if they are setting records. my point in this one example is that it throws us into cycles of recession, recovery, worse recession, less recovery, etc etc etc. inflation is nothing more than creating fiat currency through government borrowing at taxpayer expense, so expect prices to elevate in the next cycle. In other words get your home loan quick interest rates are going up, the more money in circulation the less value the paper with green ink has, inflaction drivers can be delayed when countries like China fix their currency to the dollar and buy about 30% of our treasury bills and export goods with $1.00/ hr labor, but that is a very temporary fix. If you and I handled our finances like government we would already be bankrupt and in jail. You know, create prosperity by borrowing money and spending it with an unlimited line of credit working against a dwindling % of income to repay. So the fundemental question is why should the government kiss the feet of the central bankers both here and around the world by borrowing mind boggling sums of money from them and then expect all of us one day to enjoy paying it back wrecking our tax structure and standard of living in the process. It takes two household incomes today to keep the standard of living one would keep in 1970. So in 2015 based at the rate we are inflating currency we should allow poligamy and marry two wives, because the three of us will need jobs if they are available. That is at the current rate of borrow spend, bprrow spend by the government. And that is just one small pebble in my shoe concerning the value of two political parties. Which brings me back to the question. Why do the party politicians work together behind the scenes in the most strategic planning scenarios around the world- you know the economic summits the think tanks the foundations and policy nonprofits and then fight it out on Nightline, Face the Nation and congressional committees?
Nice post, rhester. I certainly wasn't implying that the Democrats were "innocent" when it came to creating the deficits we're seeing, and the debt that has already been incurred, and I know you didn't think that from, reading your post. It's just amazingly ironic that the President, and the party in power in both chambers of Congress, should be beyond the pale when it comes to fiscal insanity, and yet they were the traditional party Of "fiscal responsibility, smaller government, states rights," and so on and so on. I don't know how old you are, and it doesn't really matter, of course, but I had my own place in 1970, a car, and had grown up with a stay-at-home traditional Mom. Dad was a university professor and department chair, which wasn't traditional at all in the lower middle class, southeast Houston area I grew up in. I guess my point is that I remember the one income family, watched it morph into the required two income family, in order to maintain the same standard of living, and I absolutely agree that polygamy may be required to keep the middle class, Middle Class. To your last question... they know they have to get something done, but the increasingly strident partisan assaults by one party upon another, along with the ending of any semblance of comity in the House and Senate, combined with a complete lack of any attempt by this President to restrain spending for the special interests who helped him retain power, doesn't bode well for the future. When was the last time Bush vetoed a bill? How about never. When has he made a sincere attempt to try to insure bipartisanship in Congress? Except for during the aftermath of 9/11, his finest period as President, how about never. He has made no effort to promote comity in Congress. He nominates judges he knows Democrats will oppose ardently, just so he can come up with the bogus charge that they refuse to ratify his choices for the lifetime Federal bench. You would never know, from listening to him, and the Republican Congressional leadership, that the overwhelming number of nominees he's put forth have been confirmed. I could go on, but you should get the point. When there is no rational leadership from the top, and no rational leadership from the Republican Congress, and not one chamber of Congress, or the Presidency, to check the stupidity and abuse of power we are seeing, and it's going to get worse, then how optimistic should we be? Keep D&D Civil!!
Rhester; It sounds like you're looking for another major party since you're saying that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to deficits.
