Re: Peace & Freedom VT

Stop living in the past Adam....

Anthony Gierzynski, a political science professor at UVM, has an  
excellent book about the fundamental reasons for what Vicki said,  
called Money Rules.  I highly recommend it.  However vibrant the third  
parties were 150 years or so ago, can you name one (besides  
independents that don't belong to any party like Bernie) that has  
gained significant national office in the last 30?


On Feb 26, 2004, at 8:51 AM, Adam Miller wrote:

>> Like it or not, the U.S. government's structure fundamentally  
>> guarantees
>> that two parties, at most, will be politically powerful.  The current
>> structure "accepts" more than party, but they are powerless unless  
>> they
>> ascend to displace one of the two dominant parties.
>
> This is true if you're limiting your scope of view to the last 150  
> years or so - beyond that, the situation really did change election to  
> election. Parties rotated in power, which I think is the real issue  
> with having two parties and only two parties - The "Party" itself  
> serves only the Party, and not the actual needs of the people they  
> claim to serve. The Whigs, Democrats, Federalists, Republicans,  
> Americans, Constitutional Unionists, even independent candidates have  
> garnered significant amounts of votes throughout our electoral  
> history, among MORE than 2 parties at a time. Check the info:
>
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html
>
> 1836 - 1860 is a particularly good era, and in 1948 Strom Thurmond got  
> 39 Electoral Votes in a third party. The misconception that the  
> American political system is built for two parties is preposterous,  
> and would make any of our founding fathers turn in their graves. I  
> don't understand why so few people see this.
>
> Now, if you're arguing that the current special interest-oriented,  
> corporatist and partisan governmental structure is unadaptable to more  
> than two parties, you're right: How can those poor embattled drug  
> companies pay millions of dollars to MORE THAN TWO CANDIDATES?!  
> They'll go bankrupt! Or, even worse, they'll not pay the guy who wins  
> and have their "needs" neglected.
>
>> You'd either need to rewrite the U.S. Constitution so that it calls  
>> for
>> a parliamentary system or work to promote a different party to  
>> displace
>> one of the 2 that are currently dominant.
>
> It's important not to confuse the ideal of the our system and the set  
> of structures it's become. And yes, it does need to change, but saying  
> that the basis of our American political system would need to be  
> overhauled for an entirely different model is preposterous. While I do  
> happen to believe that a parliamentary system is superior to the  
> Republic for pure democracy (if not short-term economic gains, but  
> then again, look at the economic "miracles" the fascists accomplished  
> in Italy in the 20's and 30's), I believe that a republic can sustain  
> itself in the long term. The ironic thing is that it NEEDS the party  
> turnover to do this - if things stagnate, as they did starting in  
> 1876, it is the CORPORATIONS and the RICH who benefit. Let's not  
> forget that this is the era of the robber-baron, where real wages  
> actually fell for the first time in our history, and the middle class  
> was reduced in size. What we gained in infrastructure and economic  
> capability, we sacrificed in democrat!
> ic
> control and class equality. It took an insanely powerful judicial  
> branch to reign things in, and the control the Executive branch wields  
> over them today makes that an impossibility in the current system.
>
> I understand your vehement support for Kerry, Vicki, and I am happy  
> that you've found your guy. But I know that I'm not alone in saying  
> that I'm not happy with my choices. If the democrats nominated  
> Lieberman, what would your story be? I think that would be a dumb move  
> on the Dems' part, of course, and Kerry does stand a very good chance  
> of victory, but I still don't want the guy leading my country. Have  
> you even realized how close you're telling me to support him because  
> "his views are closest to mine" is to the "he's our president, we need  
> to rally behind him" line that made Bush so popular immediately post  
> 9-11? Honestly, he's a corporate whore just like anyone else who has  
> "worked hard enough" to get as far up in governmental circles as he  
> has, and his interests are most certainly not any more in common with  
> mine than are any of the dems (except Kucinich or Sharpton).
>
> The "party of the left" is now the party of the center, and that  
> leaves those of us who fill that end of a spectrum to make a choice:  
> do we a) submit the will of our better personal judgement to the  
> "lesser of two evils" argument, or b) "waste" our vote on a candidate  
> who won't win? Well, here's a question for you - Did you vote for Gore  
> or Bush last election? I'll go ahead and assume Gore, as no one here  
> is actually crazy. Does that mean that I wasted my vote on Nader any  
> more than you did on Gore (keep in mind I vote in Vermont, and we're  
> in no danger of giving our meager 3 e-votes to Bush)?.
>
> I'm getting so sick of people telling me that you can't win outside  
> the current system. Well, shit, do you think we don't know the odds?  
> I'm not working here for the next 4 years, I'm trying to work for the  
> next 50. Yeah, I want Bush out of there as much as the next guy, but  
> if the majority of people are stupid enough to elect the guy, then  
> that's what the constitution says is gonna happen, regardless of my  
> intentions. If MORE people thought like me, the right would be just as  
> splintered as the left is. As it is, the sad fact that the uneducated  
> masses tend to vote republican, against their interests, is proof that  
> more than two parties would force some tough questions to be asked  
> that haven't occurred to these uneducated many.
>
> I'll finish up with one final point that I stole from David: We live  
> in a country where if you go to a car dealership, but they don't have  
> your Grand Am in Chartreuse like you wanted, you'll have them order  
> one up or go elsewhere with your money. If you go to Wal-Mart and they  
> offer their air conditioner for $20 less than your local hardware  
> store, you'll most likely buy it there, regardless of the fact that  
> you're harming your neighbor. If you get chicken nuggets at  
> McDonald's, you can have bbq, sweet & sour, hot mustard, honey  
> mustard, or ketchup, and if they don't have your flavor, you'd go to  
> Burger King.
>
> Yet we only have 2 choices for the most important man in our country?  
> That's bullshit.
>
>> I predict you'd burnout trying.
>
> Well I guess we'll find out.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
> http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/ 
> default.asp?SRC=lycos10
> _______________________________________________
> heads mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
> http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/
>

_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/