The W
Views: 97825333
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.7.07 2041
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - New Political Parties? Register and log in to post!
(1216 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (16 total)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 128/2692
EXP: 8776604
For next: 212215

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#1 Posted on 10.11.03 0850.37
Reposted on: 10.11.10 0852.36
There seems to be a wide enough range of political views among Weiners to ask a question. I am curious what you all think.

When I was growing up, we had Dems and Reps. Each party had a conservative, moderate, and liberal wing in the party. Over the last ten or so years, it appears that at least on a national level this is no longer true. You can say conservative for Rep and liberal for Dem without saying the party and everyone knows what party you mean. I remember the Reps having the Rockefeller and Goldwater wings and so forth in the 60's, early 70's. Do you agree?
Over the 200+ years of our country, the two major parties have evolved and changed. Are we heading towards the evolution of two new majority parties?

I am reserving comment as I would like your opinions without my opinion intruding for a while.
Promote this thread!
Gugs
Bierwurst
Level: 83

Posts: 679/1857
EXP: 5311092
For next: 121152

Since: 9.7.02
From: Sleep (That's where I'm a viking)

Since last post: 433 days
Last activity: 25 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on 10.11.03 1258.52
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1259.04
The political system is always changing. In the beginning, there was no Democrat vs. Republican, there was Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist.

There are still liberal, moderate and conservative sides to each party; they're just not widely used. Arnold Schwarzenegger would best be described as a liberal Republican. George W. Bush would probably be a moderate/conservative. Howard Dean is seen (to me at least) as a moderate/conservative democrat. Finally, Ted Kennedy is a liberal drinker.
Leroy
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 207/2250
EXP: 7204166
For next: 264775

Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 10 hours
Last activity: 47 min.
#3 Posted on 10.11.03 1311.41
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1311.42
There's just too much money invested in the two parties now existing.

I really believe that the only way to change things in any significant manner is for one party to either have enough money to not be ignored (which Perot almost got away with in 1992, but the Dems and Rep are unlikely to let that happen again). Or for people to grow so disgusted with either party that they abandon them (which will happen with the Democrats before the Republicans - an absolute disaster for any liberal voice).

I really hate to say it - because I am so disenchanted with the Democrats (Republicans in donkey clothing), especially in California - but I am more leaning to a reformation of the Democratic party before I start strongly backing a 3rd party.
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 518/3341
EXP: 13049512
For next: 41841

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 23 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on 10.11.03 1314.24
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1315.11
I'd have to agree with Gugs. There have always been those devoted to radical change, both ways. Most of the time this is centered around government size.

The whigs were the radicals in 1830, the Republicans in 1860 and the Dems in the 1930s

But Liberal/Conservative - they are words that have taken on new meanings

generous, abundant, lavish, broadminded, tolerant, enlightened, charitable among others - that is what I would consider most conservatives today.

Most that I know give a lot to charity, have stuff, build big places if they can or work hard to get the bucks to build big places, they put up with a lot, they just don't want laws that rubberstamp it. Few conservatives, I think, would ever be involved with laws to outlaw homosexuality - but I think most would be against laws equating it with hetrosexulaity in marriage.

Except that thing above? That's the definition for liberal. Yeah, they're tolerant - as long as you agree with them. Otherwise you're a bigot. Al Gore gave like 200 bucks to charity one year out of his half-million in income.

Do we have liberals and conservatives in each party? Sure. W's Daddy isn't a conservative. Neither is McCain. And others. Zell Miller sure isn't a bleeding heart liberal as a Dem and there are others.

Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst
Level: 36

Posts: 167/259
EXP: 281687
For next: 26426

Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2460 days
Last activity: 563 days
#5 Posted on 10.11.03 1425.43
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1426.55
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Few conservatives, I think, would ever be involved with laws to outlaw homosexuality - but I think most would be against laws equating it with hetrosexulaity in marriage.




Then who are involved with these laws? I ask because I don't follow your argument.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2443/4700
EXP: 21379443
For next: 457219

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1185 days
Last activity: 981 days
#6 Posted on 10.11.03 1457.05
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1459.02
    Originally posted by Mr. Heat Miser
    Then who are involved with these laws? I ask because I don't follow your argument.
I think he means actively try to ban homosexuality, but I'm not going to speak for AWA.

Reason why I don't think a new third party will take off is the fact that the two major existing third parties(Libertarian and Green) have had years to get moving and haven't quite taken off. Why? Because of the money. The Libertarians got going because some wealth libertarians wanted to start a party. The Greens aren't exactly rolling in dought in the first place.

If the parties realign, I think it would be a three pronged alliance of:

Democratic Greens: The shrinking liberal Democrats merged with the Greens
Mainstream Moderates: Zell Miller Democrats and most of the Republican Party
Right-Wing Conservatives: Bob Smith, Bob Dornan and that crowd
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 133/2692
EXP: 8776604
For next: 212215

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#7 Posted on 10.11.03 1500.41
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1500.47
    Originally posted by gugs
    The political system is always changing. In the beginning, there was no Democrat vs. Republican, there was Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist.

    There are still liberal, moderate and conservative sides to each party; they're just not widely used. Arnold Schwarzenegger would best be described as a liberal Republican. George W. Bush would probably be a moderate/conservative. Howard Dean is seen (to me at least) as a moderate/conservative democrat. Finally, Ted Kennedy is a liberal drinker.


There were more prominent factions to each parties in the past. Zell s basically an outcast. Arnold is being used and not taken seriously. Do you really think on the natinal level that our two major parties are that diverse. I don't
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 106

Posts: 1867/3273
EXP: 12659951
For next: 12033

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 114 days
Last activity: 114 days
#8 Posted on 10.11.03 1948.18
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1948.24
The parties are not diverse, because they're both made up of the same type of people: Politicians who sell their beliefs to the highest bidder.

-Jag

Wheee, I'm being cynical
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 137/2692
EXP: 8776604
For next: 212215

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#9 Posted on 10.11.03 2243.16
Reposted on: 10.11.10 2248.54
    Originally posted by Jaguar
    The parties are not diverse, because they're both made up of the same type of people: Politicians who sell their beliefs to the highest bidder.

    -Jag

    Wheee, I'm being cynical


That's partially true but more to the point who on the national stage is a real conservative or liberal. The last real conservative I know of was Barry Goldwater and he was often replulsed by the neo wannabes. Wellstone was the last true liberal I can think of. I admired both greatly. Didn't always agree but they seemed real men of conviction.

Pat Buchannan isn't a conservative, nor were any other candidates in '96 or '00. Clinton, Gore, or Dean certainly aren't liberals. In fact what are any of these pols other than self serving?
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 520/3341
EXP: 13049512
For next: 41841

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 23 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on 11.11.03 0621.32
Reposted on: 11.11.10 0623.24
    Originally posted by Mr. Heat Miser
      Originally posted by AWArulz
      Few conservatives, I think, would ever be involved with laws to outlaw homosexuality - but I think most would be against laws equating it with hetrosexulaity in marriage.




    Then who are involved with these laws? I ask because I don't follow your argument.


No one is trying to outlaw homosexuality in a serious way in North America. Oh, I don't doubt some of the most crazed on the far political spectrum of either end might give it a try, but real conservatives are about values and fiscal responsibility and constitutionality. So I would be surprised to see an attempt to outlaw the practice, no matter how personally abhorrent they might see the practice, they recognize that the people involved are adults and consenting.

(For a practice that does NOT involve two consenting adults, see the long-running thread on partial-birth abortion, running in this very forum)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 140/2692
EXP: 8776604
For next: 212215

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#11 Posted on 11.11.03 0857.54
Reposted on: 11.11.10 0859.05
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by Mr. Heat Miser
        Originally posted by AWArulz
        Few conservatives, I think, would ever be involved with laws to outlaw homosexuality - but I think most would be against laws equating it with hetrosexulaity in marriage.




      Then who are involved with these laws? I ask because I don't follow your argument.


    No one is trying to outlaw homosexuality in a serious way in North America. Oh, I don't doubt some of the most crazed on the far political spectrum of either end might give it a try, but real conservatives are about values and fiscal responsibility and constitutionality. So I would be surprised to see an attempt to outlaw the practice, no matter how personally abhorrent they might see the practice, they recognize that the people involved are adults and consenting.

    (For a practice that does NOT involve two consenting adults, see the long-running thread on partial-birth abortion, running in this very forum)



AWA, I agree about you point regarding true conservatives, but where are they. The administration and Congress don't seem to have any. They want to control people's lives and freedoms, their values seem about the same as those called liberal, and their version of fiscal responsibilty makes Clinton look like he's to the right of Barry Goldwater. Who are the true conservatives? I mean c'mon, in reality Regan wasn't a true conservative, especially by your definition..
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 521/3341
EXP: 13049512
For next: 41841

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 23 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#12 Posted on 11.11.03 1006.25
Reposted on: 11.11.10 1009.29
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Who are the true conservatives? I mean c'mon, in reality Regan wasn't a true conservative, especially by your definition..


Reagan was. The only thing he'd really, really spend money for was defense. (and you gotta admit, it finally killed off The Sovs once and for good. Of course, "they were gonna die anyway" is the standard argument and you can go with that, but it is another thread..) That's constitutionally mandated.

The rest of the crap isn't, for the most part and good conservatives want to kill the beast.

But... they live in the real world. Welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid and the rest of the new deal is certainly not mandated or covered by the constitution and they all should not be a part of our government. With some exceptions, the world worked fine before them, but I suspect it wouldn't be able to go back. Privitization of as much of this crap as possible is the goal of any conservative.

Who are they? Not many of the ones I like. President Bush is a so-called compassionate conservative, which means he favors social programs not mandated by the constitution.

people like Richard Lugar of Indiana, Kay Baily Hutchinson of Texas, Carig Thomas in Wyoming, Jeff Sessions in Ga, Jim Inhofe of OK, and others have solid conservative voting records. Not enough, though, for real change. (And the not-so conservative say, collectively, "Thank Goodness" )
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1501/2093
EXP: 6485833
For next: 164857

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#13 Posted on 11.11.03 1154.32
Reposted on: 11.11.10 1159.01
Welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid and the rest of the new deal is certainly not mandated or covered by the constitution and they all should not be a part of our government. With some exceptions, the world worked fine before them,

Wow, tell that one to anyone who lived through the Great Depression. I quite prefer the shape the U.S. is in post-welfare, social security, medicare, and medicaid myself.

As for a political party and third parties, while the Dems and GOP still have nominal conservative and liberal wings, the two parties are much more starkly defined as right-or-left wing parties than they were before the early 80s, mostly on a cultural/social level. For instance, in 1976, the vast majority of Christian Conservatives got out to vote for Jimmy Carter. Most of the Conservative Dems - Liberal GOP really get elected on local levels nowdays. Even in terms of statewide offices, there probably less than a dozen or so elected officials that could potentially switch parties and be ideologically comfortable.

If there is a hope for third party, is does not lie along ideological lines. It won't be some version of "we're left on economic issues, right on foreign affairs, and in the middle on social issues" or whatever. It will spring from some kind of reform movement. As more and more areas get less competitive on a local or statewide level, the respective parties will get more and more entrenched, and voters will start to face choices of "elect the corrupt guy I agree with ideologically, or the non-corrupt guy I disagree with ideologically."

This is compounded by the fact that neither party really has a reform wing anymore. The last one to have one was the GOP, which kind of had one in the early 90s, but it just turned out to be an election ploy. In the mid 70s the Dems kind of had one, but the longer they were office, the less reform-minded they got, naturally.

Anyway, I think it's not unfeasable that you'll see real strong reform, anti-establishment wing of either one or both parties emerge soon. Howard Dean's candidacy is kind of starting that (for some reason, a lot of folks are misinterpreting the energy behind his candidacy as being motivated by liberal ideology, when it's actually almost all reform-anti establishment motivated. Dean's not a liberal at all). John McCain kind of had that going in his run, and I think (hope) that there is still a wing of the GOP out there that is frustrated that they passed over a genuine leader, unifier, and by far the best and most qualified person for the job, in favor of the guy whose daddy had the most rich buddies. I think whatever party really gets a reform wing going first is going to be in the best long-term political shape, and I think if both get them going at the same time, you could see a separate reform party formed.

The thing that really would stop a separate reform party, or even moderate party, made up of a coalition of moderate GOP and Dems (not "some Democrats and most of the Republicans, as Grimis seems to think defines "moderate"), would be the hot-button social issues, gay-marriage, abortion and the like. There's plenty of common ground ideologically to work with on a reform level, foreign affairs level, and even economic level.

On an economic level, Debt reduction, tax cuts for the lower and middle-class, closing corporate loopholes (offshore shelters and the like), raising the minimum wage, a national healthcare plan for children, social security reform, doing something about our over-litigious society, stuff like that. The GOP would have to get rid of their far-right, ivory-tower, Cato institute, supply side Libertarian-indoctrinated wing, and the Dems would have to get rid of their entitlement-mentality wing. A philosophy of Equality of Opportunity (something sorely lacking under economic policy) coupled with personal responsibility. Something that can be summed up as "someone who wants to work hard at a regular job deserves a secure, decent living, and someone who wants to try and take risks and get rich deserves the opportunity to succeed or fail based on their own merits. If people don't want to do either, it's their choice, but they don't deserve any rewards from the government for this."

As an aside, Dean could score a knockout blow and make a really strong statement by asking McCain to be his running mate. That would be interesting.

(edited by MoeGates on 11.11.03 1316)
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 522/3341
EXP: 13049512
For next: 41841

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 23 hours
Last activity: 23 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on 11.11.03 1213.15
Reposted on: 11.11.10 1213.57
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid and the rest of the new deal is certainly not mandated or covered by the constitution and they all should not be a part of our government. With some exceptions, the world worked fine before them,

    Wow, tell that one to anyone who lived through the Great Depression. I quite prefer the shape the U.S. is in post-welfare, social security, medicare, and medicaid myself


Preferences are fine. I was talking about our constitution, not popular opinion. I prefer to make my own opinions about who gets my charity, but I am forced by my government to give charity to all sorts of people I might not make the choice to give to. I don't like it.

And regarding the depression era folks. My Parents were that and they voted solidly republican. Especially for Goldwater who ran on a platform of eliminating most of the New Deal.

I wish they'd try and amend the constitution to make the current entitlements part of the constitution. Never pass.

MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1502/2093
EXP: 6485833
For next: 164857

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#15 Posted on 11.11.03 1225.40
Reposted on: 11.11.10 1226.24
(deleted by MoeGates on 11.11.03 1326)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 141/2692
EXP: 8776604
For next: 212215

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
#16 Posted on 11.11.03 1436.47
Reposted on: 11.11.10 1437.40
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      Who are the true conservatives? I mean c'mon, in reality Regan wasn't a true conservative, especially by your definition..


    Reagan was. The only thing he'd really, really spend money for was defense. (and you gotta admit, it finally killed off The Sovs once and for good. Of course, "they were gonna die anyway" is the standard argument and you can go with that, but it is another thread..) That's constitutionally mandated.

    The rest of the crap isn't, for the most part and good conservatives want to kill the beast.

    But... they live in the real world. Welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid and the rest of the new deal is certainly not mandated or covered by the constitution and they all should not be a part of our government. With some exceptions, the world worked fine before them, but I suspect it wouldn't be able to go back. Privitization of as much of this crap as possible is the goal of any conservative.

    Who are they? Not many of the ones I like. President Bush is a so-called compassionate conservative, which means he favors social programs not mandated by the constitution.

    people like Richard Lugar of Indiana, Kay Baily Hutchinson of Texas, Carig Thomas in Wyoming, Jeff Sessions in Ga, Jim Inhofe of OK, and others have solid conservative voting records. Not enough, though, for real change. (And the not-so conservative say, collectively, "Thank Goodness" )



I am a life-long Dem, yet I think in certain respects, eveyone would benefit if "true" conservatives got their way sometimes. But, constitutional arguments aside, there are times when true liberalism would benefit our country.

That is why both parties would improve and serve the country better if they had a true cross-section of poilitical ideology. Having to thrash your ideas out by being able to justify them to your opponents is good for everyone. Bush would greatly beneift from a diversity of ideas and may have avoided some of his problems.

Of course the loyal oppostition party could provide this but neither side wants to debate ideas.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: CNN Planted Questions for "Rock the Vote" Debate
Next thread: Partial Birth Abortions Banned
Previous thread: Ronald Reagan miniseries shelved
(1216 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - New Political Parties?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.219 seconds.