RE: Peace & Freedom VT

Per Nick's separate response, my observation isn't based on the money
machine (i.e., the campaign finance issue), but is instead about the
realities of a system based on majority rule.  Some of the founding
fathers abhorred the idea parties of any kind, but they built a system
that guarantees it, and 2 dominant ones at that.   It's a math thing.
1836 - 1860 is a particularly good era for illustrating my point.   The
ultimate result was that the Whigs were displaced by the Republicans.
It's a period that one of my political science professors used to
demonstrate that 2 dominant parties are inevitable in the U.S.

Third parties do add to the political debate, and there are boatloads of
them.  But only a small number of people ever really hear what they are
saying, so it's of marginal value.   The best a 3rd party can hope for
is that it will displace one the 2 dominant parties.   In the meantime,
they help deflect votes from one of the 2 dominant parties.  Fine and
good when it's a right-wing 3rd party.  I'm much obliged to Ross Perot,
who was a tremendous help in electing Clinton in 1992.  Indeed, Clinton
would have lost that election without him.  Given current political
divisions, left-wing 3rd parties and independents are primarily boosting
the power of the Republicans.  That's the reality.  Don't shoot me, I'm
just the messenger.  

California isn't likely to vote for Bush either, but I'm not willing to
risk casting a protest vote against the Democrats and thereby possibly
help give the state to Bush.   How would you feel if Bush wins Vermont
because enough people voted as you plan to do?  I'm ok with Kerry (and
so, apparently, are the majority of voters), but am not vehement in my
support for him.  Same went for Clinton and Gore.  I AM vehemently
opposed to Bush and will vote for the person who can possibly beat him.
Dean had promise, and I was sorry to see him go down in flames.  Edwards
could still pull a surprise win, and I'll vote for him if he ends up
with the Democratic nomination (which is highly doubtful).  I like
Kucinich and Sharpton, but they don't stand a chance with the general
electorate.   Same thing goes for Peltier and Nadar.  I would have voted
for Leiberman in the general election, but did not relish the prospect
and was elated to see him fail.   Similarly, when she's up for
re-election, I'll vote for any viable alternative to Diane Feinstein in
the primary (but it's doubtful one will be on the ballot), and will gag
if I have to cast my vote for her in the general election (I won't if
her opposition is sure to lose, with an emphasis on "sure").   I'll also
continue to contact her office to complain about what she does wrong
(which is a lot).


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adam Miller
Sent: February 26, 2004 5:51 AM
To: BH.org List; Eric; Anita Miller; Charlie Miller; Amy Watker
Subject: RE: [ballistichelmet] Peace & Freedom VT


>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/