An Extemporaneous Look At Why The Two Party System Isn't Working Today
Are we really supposed to have political parties in the U.S? I'm sure there isn't any mention of them specifically in the Constitution, but then, they didn't start until after it was ratified and Washington was trying to get things rolling. It was Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton who started the party system, as each had very different ideas on how the Federal Government was supposed to be run, thus putting into motion the gridlock we face today, whereby the only means of getting anything done is by way of compromise, unless, of course, your party has a clear majority and can bully the country around with little recourse on the part of the party in the minority.
Is that democracy? Well, let's look the word up... - Democracy (from the Greek δημοκρατία (demokratia), δημος (demos) the common people + κρατειν (kratein) to rule + the suffix ία (ia), literally "the common people rule") is a system where the population of a society controls the government.
Hmmm... Common people? Let's see what the word Common means - As an adjective, common may denote:
Ordinary or most frequently occurring; prevalent. The property possessed by those who are vulgar, especially those who are working class. Well, I know I'm supposedly considered a working class person, but am I also to be considered vulgar as well? We all know what the Upper Crust consider as working class, those who have to work for a living, instead of simply continuing to draw breath in order to rule over the masses. But let's see what they refer to as vulgar - The term vulgar originally meant "of the common people", from the Latin vulgus. The term is now commonly used to describe things that are, from the viewpoint of the person using the word, in bad taste, indecent, or profane.
It is starting to look like the framers saw their creation as something that was a bit less than monumental, when you stand back and look at it. Government of; by; and for the Indecent and Profane? I think that the current administration has been reading their dictionaries! Can we really describe W or Cheney as anything but Indecent & Profane? With the White House in so many scandals and the rest of the Republicans running scared, distancing themselves as much as they can from the administration and its policies, it appears that neither Indecent nor Profane are welcome in the halls of Congress. When Indecent lies to the congress about WMD in order to start a war for nothing more than oil, his administration awards no-bid contracts to Haliburton, (a company which Profane has a large financial stake in), to re-build the infra-structure that his military just destroyed to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, he comes to Congress and delivers a State Of The Union Address in which he states that we're too dependent on foreign oil, after awarding American oil companies more tax breaks after a record quarter profits, and the right to drill for more oil in an Alaskan wildlife refuge, refuses to allow stem-cell research by American scientists, thus opening the door to record profits for foriegn scientists who don't have the same controls over their work as here, describes the first female Chancelor of Germany during a joint news conference as "Really smart", brags to a graduating class during a commencement ceremony that, "Even a C student can grow up to be President", etc; etc; he basically earns the label INDECENT! When Profane tells a U.S. Senator on the floor of the Senate to "Go fu@k yourself", has a hunting accident, (he waited until the next day before even reporting the incident to police, or even the White House), travels throughout the country giving speeches in which he tries his best to scare the hell out of people by telling them that the only thing keeping mushroom clouds from filling the sky over America is the administration of INDECENT & PROFANE, then he also deserves his nickname.
So where does the two party system come in here? There are more than two political parties in this country. There are even more than two parties represented in Congress. There are even members of certain parties who identify more with the other party than their stated party of preference. There are those who change parties after being elected by the voters of the party he ran on. Does such a person really represent those who've elected them? Do the elected representatives really do our bidding in government? Or are they simply filling a seat and marking time 'til the next election, time spent more fruitfully standing on corners with their hands stretched WAY out, than actually drawing up legislation or even voting on it. When the leadership of the party in control of government is under indictment, on trial, or being investigated by the Justice Department, is there really true representation going on? If you take the meaning of democracy literally, then YES! Indecent and profane people take pleasure in being represented by like-minded people, don't they? How else could we be truly represented by these representatives we've elected to speak our minds than that they be truly representative of us? We have to ask the simple question, "Are these people who run for government truly representative of us?" I've asked myself, and have come to the conclusion that none of them are representative of me. I know that we can't each have a personal representative in government, or else we'd have the same problem they had in ancient Greece. What we have to rely on is finding some COMMON ground, a place where we can at least agree on a number of issues that need addressing, and then elect one of our own number to take those issues to the halls of government and address them, work with the other representatives who, likewise, have been elected to address these same issues, or even others, and fix the problems beseiging this country. When these issues have been addressed, these representatives can then return to their lives and we'll elect others to address new issues. Political parties would obviously still continue to exist, since very few of us can completely agree on everything, but the party of affiliation shouldn't be the final arbiter of what is accomplished in this country, but should merely be the platform on which certain issues are addressed. When the COMMON people begin to take their government seriously, actually learn how it works, (or, rather, how it's supposed to work), and then make their voices truly heard by taking back their right to vote, to truly vote, not push a button on a CRT screen which is programmed by companies affiliated by the very political parties that are vying for the votes that are supposedly being cast, hoping to continue to rule by fiat and not by true representation, then we will have representative government in this country. If it takes fourteen different parties to make a coalition government, then that's what it will have to take in order to have truly representative government.
So... Do you feel COMMON?
Is that democracy? Well, let's look the word up... - Democracy (from the Greek δημοκρατία (demokratia), δημος (demos) the common people + κρατειν (kratein) to rule + the suffix ία (ia), literally "the common people rule") is a system where the population of a society controls the government.
Hmmm... Common people? Let's see what the word Common means - As an adjective, common may denote:
Ordinary or most frequently occurring; prevalent. The property possessed by those who are vulgar, especially those who are working class. Well, I know I'm supposedly considered a working class person, but am I also to be considered vulgar as well? We all know what the Upper Crust consider as working class, those who have to work for a living, instead of simply continuing to draw breath in order to rule over the masses. But let's see what they refer to as vulgar - The term vulgar originally meant "of the common people", from the Latin vulgus. The term is now commonly used to describe things that are, from the viewpoint of the person using the word, in bad taste, indecent, or profane.
It is starting to look like the framers saw their creation as something that was a bit less than monumental, when you stand back and look at it. Government of; by; and for the Indecent and Profane? I think that the current administration has been reading their dictionaries! Can we really describe W or Cheney as anything but Indecent & Profane? With the White House in so many scandals and the rest of the Republicans running scared, distancing themselves as much as they can from the administration and its policies, it appears that neither Indecent nor Profane are welcome in the halls of Congress. When Indecent lies to the congress about WMD in order to start a war for nothing more than oil, his administration awards no-bid contracts to Haliburton, (a company which Profane has a large financial stake in), to re-build the infra-structure that his military just destroyed to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, he comes to Congress and delivers a State Of The Union Address in which he states that we're too dependent on foreign oil, after awarding American oil companies more tax breaks after a record quarter profits, and the right to drill for more oil in an Alaskan wildlife refuge, refuses to allow stem-cell research by American scientists, thus opening the door to record profits for foriegn scientists who don't have the same controls over their work as here, describes the first female Chancelor of Germany during a joint news conference as "Really smart", brags to a graduating class during a commencement ceremony that, "Even a C student can grow up to be President", etc; etc; he basically earns the label INDECENT! When Profane tells a U.S. Senator on the floor of the Senate to "Go fu@k yourself", has a hunting accident, (he waited until the next day before even reporting the incident to police, or even the White House), travels throughout the country giving speeches in which he tries his best to scare the hell out of people by telling them that the only thing keeping mushroom clouds from filling the sky over America is the administration of INDECENT & PROFANE, then he also deserves his nickname.
So where does the two party system come in here? There are more than two political parties in this country. There are even more than two parties represented in Congress. There are even members of certain parties who identify more with the other party than their stated party of preference. There are those who change parties after being elected by the voters of the party he ran on. Does such a person really represent those who've elected them? Do the elected representatives really do our bidding in government? Or are they simply filling a seat and marking time 'til the next election, time spent more fruitfully standing on corners with their hands stretched WAY out, than actually drawing up legislation or even voting on it. When the leadership of the party in control of government is under indictment, on trial, or being investigated by the Justice Department, is there really true representation going on? If you take the meaning of democracy literally, then YES! Indecent and profane people take pleasure in being represented by like-minded people, don't they? How else could we be truly represented by these representatives we've elected to speak our minds than that they be truly representative of us? We have to ask the simple question, "Are these people who run for government truly representative of us?" I've asked myself, and have come to the conclusion that none of them are representative of me. I know that we can't each have a personal representative in government, or else we'd have the same problem they had in ancient Greece. What we have to rely on is finding some COMMON ground, a place where we can at least agree on a number of issues that need addressing, and then elect one of our own number to take those issues to the halls of government and address them, work with the other representatives who, likewise, have been elected to address these same issues, or even others, and fix the problems beseiging this country. When these issues have been addressed, these representatives can then return to their lives and we'll elect others to address new issues. Political parties would obviously still continue to exist, since very few of us can completely agree on everything, but the party of affiliation shouldn't be the final arbiter of what is accomplished in this country, but should merely be the platform on which certain issues are addressed. When the COMMON people begin to take their government seriously, actually learn how it works, (or, rather, how it's supposed to work), and then make their voices truly heard by taking back their right to vote, to truly vote, not push a button on a CRT screen which is programmed by companies affiliated by the very political parties that are vying for the votes that are supposedly being cast, hoping to continue to rule by fiat and not by true representation, then we will have representative government in this country. If it takes fourteen different parties to make a coalition government, then that's what it will have to take in order to have truly representative government.
So... Do you feel COMMON?
posted by Bob at 4:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home