Since President Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council(DLC) there is little difference between the Republicans and Democrats, that being said I believe that it ridiculous to think that two parties can represent 300 million Americans. There are fiscal conservatives, liberal democrats, social conservatives, conservative democrats, etc. I started out arguing for multiple party system to cover all these different people. I have come to realize that grouping an individuals politically is impossible. Again so the best way to move forward is to get rid of both parties. The Tea Party seems to be doing a job of destroying the Republican party.
I had heard sometime back that the political parties are a creation of the media because ut was easier for the media to group politicians by party. I have been researching the history of political parties today without luck of finding anything that support this argument. I did find everything2 which basically stated that political parties predate the revolution. They were basically ignored by the British Crown under the policy of salutary neglect.
So political parties have been around for quite sometime. The next point I have come across about parties is that the Founding Fathers despised them. That can be best summed up in George Washington words, “All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
“However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
With the Founding Fathers’ despise for political parties, the fact that we the individual citizens are so far removed from our actual representatives, and that it is hard for any political party completely represent the views of an individual it is best that we get rid of them all together.
Throughout history both parties have switched which “side” of the political spectrum they are aligned. Sam Tanenhaus in his book titled THE DEATH OF CONSERVATISM? put forth Samuel Lubell’s theory of the solar system of politics. “And what he says is what we think of as an equally balanced, two-party system, is really a rotating one-party system. Either the Republicans or Democrats have ruled since the Civil War for periods of some 30-36 years.” Back to everything2 after the revolution we started out with the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist and after the states ratified the Constitution the Anti-Federalist disappeared and everyone was basically under one party the Democratic-Republicans, until the split with the Civil War.
Tom Anderson on a very long drawn out comment (like this post has become) to a Facebook status update I made Saturday, May 15, 2010 made the following statement:
“Let’s suppose for one reason or another your party begins to move in another ideological direction and begins to favor, let us say, racial segregation.
Soon you may find your political opponents begin to use the segregation issue against you and you argue endlessly that you do not believe in racial segregation and that Democrats who do are not true Democrats, but Democrats in name only, that is, DINO’s.”
When I read Tom Anderson’s comment, I laughed. For his contention to be true you have believe that both parties are top down models. Again with the raise of DLC the Democratic party has gotten more top down hence why Hilary thought and ran her campaign for President as she had already won. The fact that she lost shwos the slight difference between the parties and how Tom’s supposition could not happen in the modern Democratic party or as long as the “grass roots” keep control of the Democratic party. Because the Republican party continues to be top down his contention continues to happen. The Republican nomination of John McCain was more based on he had done his time and it was his turn. If the Democratic party was the same the Democratic nominee would have been Hilary Clinton. The conservative (all kinds) “grass roots” have chosen to leave the Republican party, leaving the Republican party even more out of touch with the people.
His coining term DINO along with the RINO shows another major issue with both parties. Both parties now have a check lists of what it means to be a representative from the party and run for office. First item one the check list of course is money. Emanuel’s warning to former Rep. Eric Massa before his 2006 election sums up this problem, “You gotta raise $200,000 each month for the next four months, otherwise it ain’t’ gonna happen.” Then both parties have their various issues from there. For example the pro choice debate.
Until we get the money and the parties out of politics we are not going get our government back.