State of the Nation (specifically political parties)

[Talbaz]

I noticed a interesting point that kinda of needed it own thread

GWB shifted the GOP's 'core'. Reagan and GHWB established what I would call the 'Newt' republican core; low taxes, small government, libertarian social policy, big stick foriegn policy. GWB in 2000 & 2004 was able to score a political coup and set up another core, the evangellical core; religous social policy, pre-emptive and aggressive foriegn policy, and rather large and invasive government.

These two cores do not sit well with eachother, and since the republican brand has turned south a real split has begun (as Hucklebee showed). McCain is trying to hold it together, using Palin and his past record, he is doing an okay job. But a house divided cannot stand, and I see a schisim occuring if McCain cannot win the election.

this has raise many question in my mind most hypnotic of course.

Has Karl Rove won his 1 party majority, unfortunately the wrong party from the one he wanted?

well i personally resonate with some democrat ideas and not others i find this idea of a one majority rather disturbing. Could another Conservative party really form to challenge the Democrats in today's political climate.

so well there are a couple more questions the idea still is there could we possibly be liveing thru one of those rare time in modern American political were a major party falls apart the last one being the Whigs i belive

what could happen? where would be as a country?

what do you think is in a future?

[Каие]

GWB shifted the GOP's 'core'. Reagan and GHWB established what I would call the 'Newt' republican core; low taxes, small government, libertarian social policy, big stick foriegn policy. GWB in 2000 & 2004 was able to score a political coup and set up another core, the evangellical core; religous social policy, pre-emptive and aggressive foriegn policy, and rather large and invasive government.

These two cores do not sit well with eachother, and since the republican brand has turned south a real split has begun (as Hucklebee showed). McCain is trying to hold it together, using Palin and his past record, he is doing an okay job. But a house divided cannot stand, and I see a schisim occuring if McCain cannot win the election.

We can only hope...the Republican party is a disaster, it has completely deviated from it's original purpose and it would be healthy for American democracy to include more than two big parties. Now all we need is the democrats to split into socialists, centrists and Liberals, and the transformation is complete.

[Talbaz]

We can only hope...the Republican party is a disaster, it has completely deviated from it's original purpose and it would be healthy for American democracy to include more than two big parties. Now all we need is the democrats to split into socialists, centrists and Liberals, and the transformation is complete.

true if the democrats split everything would be fine but sadly it doesn't look like that would happen. and could this country really survive with the democrats being as big as they are now with a bunch of strong but split from republicans parties

[Mikelus Trento]

would be healthy for American democracy to include more than two big parties.

I made this exact suggestion, and others, just the other day here, as a means to help us find and elect the best qualified leaders, versus the system we have now.

And I was called on the carpet as wanting to change the Constitution (like it's never been changed before -right).

I hope you don't suffer the same fate.

[Каие]

I made this exact suggestion, and others, just the other day here, as a means to help us find and elect the best qualified leaders, versus the system we have now.

Indeed, the Republican and Democrat Parties are just 'camps' or 'teams' rather than a true Party. Both parties are a conglomeration of different groups.

Democrats - Liberals, Socialists, Centrists, Social Democrats, Secularists
Republicans - Conservative, Libertarian, Religious, Centrists

Might as well split up into a few parties, ending the domination of partisanship on the Presidency. Leaving people to choose the best man and ideas, rather than voting for the yellow dog.

But that's just theory... in practise, as with most of these things, it may actually have the opposite effect and destabilise American politics more.

I hope you don't suffer the same fate.

Don't worry about me. I can handle any of these guys.

[Dunecat]

But that's just theory... in practise, as with most of these things, it may actually have the opposite effect and destabilise American politics more.

It's just different, I would say. Much of latin america uses this example, that parties mean little and any allegiance is situational.

[Kiljan Arslan]

WHat I feel America needs is a nice progressive nationalist party.

[Accius]

I noticed a interesting point that kinda of needed it own thread

Originally Posted by Sphere
GWB shifted the GOP's 'core'. Reagan and GHWB established what I would call the 'Newt' republican core; low taxes, small government, libertarian social policy, big stick foriegn policy. GWB in 2000 & 2004 was able to score a political coup and set up another core, the evangellical core; religous social policy, pre-emptive and aggressive foriegn policy, and rather large and invasive government.

These two cores do not sit well with eachother, and since the republican brand has turned south a real split has begun (as Hucklebee showed). McCain is trying to hold it together, using Palin and his past record, he is doing an okay job. But a house divided cannot stand, and I see a schisim occuring if McCain cannot win the election.

There are many things wrong with this quotation.

First of all, Ronald Reagan was the first President to appeal to the Christian Right as a political demographic, not George W. Bush.

Second of all, the "Newt" core isn't so much a core but an amalgamation of people who vote Republican and cannot be grouped all into one. Low taxes and small government have always been (if not in practice then at least theoretically) at the center of the Republican cause. As for libertarian social policy, don't joke. As any Ron Paul voter will tell you, today's Republicans do not even pretend to be libertarians by any stretch of the imagination.

Third of all, I can also assure you that the evangelicals are not in favor of an invasive federal government. Other than the government itself and extremists on both sides of the political spectrum, I don't think anyone is.

So to answer the OP, it is very unlikely that the Republican party will divide. As this coming election will probably demonstrate, and one of the real differences from 2000 and 2004 is there is no one "core" group the Republicans can count on that will outvote the Democrats. Bush's policy of focusing solely on right wing voters won't work for McCain, because after two costly and still undetermined wars and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, people are simply fed up.

The most likely rise of a new party, therefore, will probably not stem from the branching off the Republican party, but rather, if Obama's administration proves disastrous in the wake of the financial mess and people are still unsatisfied with the Republican opposition, then a third party might gain popularity.

[The Dude]

I think the following things would be really good for american politics:

1. Broaden the political spectrum. As I have said many times, what Americans deem left wing is what the rest of the world deems center, or center right wing.

2. Introduce more political parties to the show. This includes proper press coverage aswell. Currently these parties cannot be taken serious as they have neither the funding nor the experience to pose a threat to republican/democrat campaigns.

3. Take a step back from religion. America is the only christian nation on earth where religion is so deeply interwoven in politics. This needs to change.

[Plan C]

Doesn't this belong in Political Academy?

[Calamari]

I have a political question to ask americans. Why are liberals viewed as being somewhere on a par with kitten killers? It seemes a bit strange wo me that americans go on about "land of the free" n' all that jazz but demonize people who want to choose what they do?

I might have this all wrong but maybe the american public need to know what they want, not what the group wants.

[Noble Savage]

Doesn't this belong in Political Academy?

Good Point , Moved.

Ta

Noble Savage

[Oglethorpe1983]

Well... there have been several good points made here...

I'll just try and put in my two-cents...

While I wouldnt be opposed to a multi-party system.. it would only work if we did have a complete dismantleing of the two existing parties... if the Repubican pary were to split (even in two) and the Democratic party remained reletively whole.... well we'd see a Super-Super-Majority...and thats not good at all...

(One thing to keep in mind though... initally a split would be a good thing...though lets be realistic... in a short time 5,10,20 yrs we'd start to see multi-party coalitions... and basically end up where we left off.

More to the point of the Repblican party...

I consider myself more of a Reagan/Newt Republican then a GWB/McCain Republican... however...I'll go further to say that in reality Im a conservative more then anything... and thus its my conservative principles more then party ideology that moves me.

Some have suggested we need a "broader political spectrum" I have heard this several times and will use this as as a means to address that issue as I see it. America doesnt need to broaden its political spectrum in theory... America as a nation has always been a more conservaitve nation... forcing more "left wing" political candidates on the bulk of America would be fruitless... changing political ideologies is a slow process.. it cant just happen.... it wont be accepted by the populous at large.

Does there need to be a change in the American Political System....Yes.... Will it happen? Most likely not....

[Mikelus Trento]

I noticed a interesting point that kinda of needed it own thread



this has raise many question in my mind most hypnotic of course.

Has Karl Rove won his 1 party majority, unfortunately the wrong party from the one he wanted?

well i personally resonate with some democrat ideas and not others i find this idea of a one majority rather disturbing. Could another Conservative party really form to challenge the Democrats in today's political climate.

so well there are a couple more questions the idea still is there could we possibly be liveing thru one of those rare time in modern American political were a major party falls apart the last one being the Whigs i belive

what could happen? where would be as a country?

what do you think is in a future?

I foresee a very viable third party developing, and the Republicans recovering over a lengthy period of time, say after the next 2 8-year terms. Then a big fight between three parties.

[Каие]

that's how parties should be. Allegiance shouldn't be a question unless you are a member and a candidate. If you're a voter, the perfect candidate must be in mind, not his party.