The Commie Elephant and the Rightwing Ass

[Prince Kassad]

I think there is an interesting trend going on concerning Western political terms. This post will focus on the American ones, as those are the ones I understand the best - due to my being an American.

I think that the old system of placing politicians and people on the left or the right is dying.

True, the two main parties in the American system, Republican and Democrat, have their differences - but they both agree on the most important agenda: increase the power of the government.

The thing that they disagree on is just how to do it. For example the liberals want to outlaw opinions they don't like by labelling it "hate speech", and supress religion. The Republicans get Bush into office and what does he do? Pass the Patriot Act and refuse to vetoe a single spending bill - no matter who it was who wanted the spending bill.

Or how about our open borders that riff raff is passing over by the thousands every day? The liberals love it! All of that cheap labor to watch the kids and mow the estate lawn and vacuum clean the mansion. Most of the "little people" hate watching their property values go down and losing their jobs to cheap immigrants - so lots of people hoped and prayed when the Republicans gained power. And what did they do about the problem? Nothing at all. (Though a few of the minor republican leaders, like Awnold the Governator, are passing some legislation, nothing large scale is happening.). I suspect they like these criminals for similar reasons the liberals do: cheap labor and potential votes.

Now that everybody has realized that the big dumb elephant is just going to sit on his ass, people are starting to take action themselves, like the minutemen. Vigilanteism is an American tradition and has gotten our country out of more than one tight spot.

Various writers like Peggy Noonan have noticed another interesting trend. Politicians from opposing sides used to hate eachother and could never get along personally (Just look at John Adams and Thomas Jefferson!) but now Republicans and Democratics are sharing bro hugs and taking photo ops together, like Bush Snr. and Clinton, or Mcain and Hilary.

Though people come up with all kinds of theories for this, the most likely one is actually quite simple: Why get all angry at a person who shares almost identical political views? I mean, what big doctrinal differences are there between Hilary Clinton and Mclain? Sure, there are small ones like how high the taxes should be, but really no difference on the big issues, concerning government power.

I think this is an extremely important trend, and should cause us to reconsider our whole political system.

Some of you may disagree with a point or two in this, but we can't ignore the overall event.

[Farnan]

Actually John Adams and Thomas Jefferson became friends after both of their political careers were over, much like Bush Senior and Clinton.

[Guderian]

I think it is a good thing, most people on both sides as you said want only what is good for thier country and thier people. It is politics that makes enemies of people who otherwise would probably have been good mates with differences of opinions.

[Prince Kassad]

I think it is a good thing, most people on both sides as you said want only what is good for thier country and thier people. It is politics that makes enemies of people who otherwise would probably have been good mates with differences of opinions.

True, but that was only one point in the article. And the fact that they can stay on good terms during their careers implies they don't feel nearly as strong about these so called "differences" any more.

I and many others think that the Reps and the Dems are becoming branches of the same party.

[Lord Kal]

Right now we are seeing countries (US and Britain lead the way) where thw main poltiical parties are practically identical. It's false democracy at work - the current democratic system is halting progress. Look how we've strived for equality and justice over the years... how we've done away with emperors, kings, dictators... and since we've introduced democracy we've really come no further at all.

[Prince Kassad]

Right now we are seeing countries (US and Britain lead the way) where thw main poltiical parties are practically identical. It's false democracy at work - the current democratic system is halting progress. Look how we've strived for equality and justice over the years... how we've done away with emperors, kings, dictators... and since we've introduced democracy we've really come no further at all.

I disagree with the democracy thing - we've had much progress. But I agree with you that this is really a false democracy. The only thing we vote for now is a name - as the actions of the two are practically the same.

[Guderian]

I and many others think that the Reps and the Dems are becoming branches of the same party.

Have you played the game Deus Ex: Invisible Wars? It quite an interesting game if you ask me, it has the Illumanti creating two opposing idealogies so that it may cater two different aspects of the human being. Which I think is what politics is, politicians may start off young and idealistic but in the end they all become part of the same game.

[Prince Kassad]

Have you played the game Deus Ex: Invisible Wars? It quite an interesting game if you ask me, it has the Illumanti creating two opposing idealogies so that it may cater two different aspects of the human being. Which I think is what politics is, politicians may start off young and idealistic but in the end they all become part of the same game.

Didn't used to be that way. I think The Democratic Republicans actually believed in states rights and a weaker central government - unlike the morons who run the party now.

Of course "morons" would be a better suited term for us, the voters - since we were dumb enough to elect them in the first place.

[Guderian]

If you are suggesting that both parties are begining to follow the same idelogy then I disagree. Their core idelogies must always be opposite, there are some idelogies which are political and change with the time and then there are some that both parties agree on but will never admit it, this is nothing new, it has always been like this, and not only in America.

[Prince Kassad]

If you are suggesting that both parties are begining to follow the same idelogy then I disagree. Their core idelogies must always be opposite, there are some idelogies which are political and change with the time and then there are some that both parties agree on but will never admit it, this is nothing new, it has always been like this, and not only in America.

Their ideology disagrees only when it has too. If the Republicans started becoming atheist, their religious base would get annoyed. If the Democrats started advocating more rational spending policies for schools, the teachers would get irritated.

But this isn't the "core" of their ideology. They are simply pandering to the groups that are supporting them at the moment.

Their "core" beliefs on whether the government should be big or small are the same - the government must get larger and assume more power and control over our lives.

[kungapa]

1) The US is essentialy a two-party system. Any vote for a third party is effectively a vote against the party you would vote for had the third party not been there (look at Nader).

2) Since a large part of the country feel they have only one party they could possibly agree with, the voters effectively deciding the elections are the undecided ones, the ones who could tip either way.

3) Now, what does a party do to gain as much as possible and lose as little as possible of those middle votes? According to Professor of Political Science John DiJulio at the University of Pennsylvania the most important thing is not to divide the voters with strong issues. Instead, the parties try to capure as large part of the middle voters as possible with so called valance issues.

For example, last election, Kerry's "Stronger America!" says absolutely nothing but is really hard to disagree with. Same goes for Bush's "Opportunity!", which he kept repeating. Issues like abortion and and gun control are divisive, and as such mostly avoided.

[Guderian]

An example of the opposite would be gay marriage, which is a purely political issue.

[Guderian]

Their "core" beliefs on whether the government should be big or small are the same - the government must get larger and assume more power and control over our lives.

Or in other words who should run the country. The government or the people...if that is what you mean this is nothing new either. But that does not mean government is not neccessary.

[Prince Kassad]

Or in other words who should run the country. The government or the people...if that is what you mean this is nothing new either. But that does not mean government is not neccessary.

Yes, but you may have noticed that both are advocating an expansion of power. In the past it was only one side that wanted expansion, while the other side dragged its feet. But now, both sides are going in the same direction, effectively trashing the equilibrium between progressiveism and conservativeism.

[Guderian]

You are right but by core beliefs I mean thier political stances, i.e in a two party system each party must have different core beliefs, the core beliefs could swap between parties over time but they will always be opposite. This is purely political.

Now to address your point, the reason I belive that both parties are starting to become pro government is because of Bush. The republicans are being forced into becoming pro government by the Bush administrations powerplays. And the democrats who were already pro government for reasons not so sinister (i.e welfare) are also being forced to be more into the government for government's sake stance in order to compete with Bush.

[Prince Kassad]

You are right but by core beliefs I mean thier political stances, i.e in a two party system each party must have different core beliefs, the core beliefs could swap between parties over time but they will always be opposite. This is purely political.

Now to address your point, the reason I belive that both parties are starting to become pro government is because of Bush. The republicans are being forced into becoming pro government by the Bush administrations powerplays. And the democrats who were already pro government for reasons not so sinister (i.e welfare) are also being forced to be more into the government for government's sake stance in order to compete with Bush.

Of course Mclain is just as pro-big government as Bush is, and he's the most likely Republican candidate for the next election.

[kungapa]

You are right but by core beliefs I mean thier political stances, i.e in a two party system each party must have different core beliefs, the core beliefs could swap between parties over time but they will always be opposite. This is purely political.

Each party must not have different core beliefs, as you call them. If there are only two parties and they are moving closer to each other, nothing will happen as there ís no place for the voter to show his disagreement with the situation. Only if a viable third alternative came along change would be possible - but the only chance for a third party to win is by drawing votes from both old parties, and thus placing themselves in the middle.

See also my post above on the valance issues.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Yes, but you may have noticed that both are advocating an expansion of power. In the past it was only one side that wanted expansion, while the other side dragged its feet. But now, both sides are going in the same direction, effectively trashing the equilibrium between progressiveism and conservativeism.

Thats because the only thing both sides are interested in in reality is getting elected. The problem is we keep electing politicians instead of people whos only concern is the good of America. Instead their only concern is in gaining and maintaining power.

Again they all know this to be true

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts
from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for
the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with
the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal
policy

Its now all become about who can promise their constituancy the most money in return for their vote. In reality its us. The American taxpayer who foots the bill. We need to rid ourselves of proffesional politicians. Do as Washington did. Serve a few terms and go back to what you did before. Not make politics your proffesion but a service to your nation.

[Zuwxiv]

Most of the "little people" hate watching their property values go down and losing their jobs to cheap immigrants

Read this.

I hate all politicians, except for a few. Very few smart people will bother getting involved in politics.

[Prince Kassad]

Read this.

I hate all politicians, except for a few. Very few smart people will bother getting involved in politics.

This is a perfect illustration of my point! Criminals sneaking in illegally and replacing us because they can live on lower wages.

So you want to force us all to accept lower wages just so we can compete with people who shouldn't be here in the first place! Great idea.