|
The Life of the Party
Share
Email
Print
CommentShould the U.S. remain dominated by a two-party system, or is the time right for seismic changes in our voting options?
Sociologist Seymour Lipset made a lifelong study of “American Exceptionalism”- the notion that the history of the United States is qualitatively different from that of most other nations. Defined by some as an asset and by others, a liability, Lipset maintained a scholarly detachment on American Exceptionalism, dubbing it a “double-edged sword.”
Sociologist Seymour Lipset made a lifelong study of “American Exceptionalism”- the notion that the history of the United States is qualitatively different from that of most other nations. Defined by some as an asset and by others, a liability, Lipset maintained a scholarly detachment on American Exceptionalism, dubbing it a “double-edged sword.”
Among his most-cited examples of American uniqueness is that, unlike most other industrialized nations, the U.S. has never produced a viable socialist party. One reason for this, Lipset concluded, is that distinct from parliamentary systems with homogenized parties, America’s two major parties were sufficiently diverse, well-organized, and financed that reformers found it more productive to carve out niches and work within them rather than to splinter off.
The question then, is: do you think this explanation still applies? Can America’s two major parties serve as flexible-enough vessels for the changes required of our future- or have the major party options truly become a choice between lesser evils?
The question then, is: do you think this explanation still applies? Can America’s two major parties serve as flexible-enough vessels for the changes required of our future- or have the major party options truly become a choice between lesser evils?
Former Republican congressman Bob Barr has just secured the nomination of the Libertarian Party, and there is concern that he could be a spoiler for John McCain. Certainly Ron Paul surprised a lot of people by mainstreaming a different conservative message into the Republican primaries that resonated with a significant number of younger voters.
Similarly, many Democrats still begrudge “the Nader effect” in 2000, and the type of internet-based, youth-energized, small donation, grassroots campaign that propelled firebrand Howard Dean to national attention in 2004, is said to be part of the template perfected by the Obama campaign- allowing him to, improbably, overshadow the party-establishment-Clinton machine.
Similarly, many Democrats still begrudge “the Nader effect” in 2000, and the type of internet-based, youth-energized, small donation, grassroots campaign that propelled firebrand Howard Dean to national attention in 2004, is said to be part of the template perfected by the Obama campaign- allowing him to, improbably, overshadow the party-establishment-Clinton machine.
There is growing fractiousness within the two major parties, but is it sufficient to produce dramatic shifts? Whichever party wins the White House this year, the various factions within the losing party are expected to vociferously blame one another. Although unlikely, would it be healthy for this infighting to lead to splintering within a major party? Could we reasonably see the emergence of new parties, an exodus of voters from the two majors into other parties, or the continued growth of independent/ decline-to-state registrations?
Napa County has 31, 331 registered Democrats; 20,013 registered Republicans; 11,961 “Decline-to-State”; 1,621 American Independent; 835 Green Party, 343 Libertarian, 154 Peace & Freedom and 407 miscellaneous including, if memory serves, at least one Communist.
If you are a member of a major party- what frustrates you the most about it? Instead of the familiar tirades against “Repugnicans” or “The Democrat Party”- what is it about your own party that you believe most needs reform?
For example- I was greatly frustrated by congressional Democrats failure to act as the party of opposition during the crucial year of 2002. Instead of standing up against questionable ideas such as the Patriot Act, or absurd ones such as the push for an invasion of Iraq- too many Democrats hoped to play it safe and vote for things that they had to know were not right.
And of course, as is the case for both major parties, I believe that serious campaign finance overhaul is needed. I have been disturbed at the last two California Democratic Party conventions at the number of “welcome” banners on the walls from insurance companies and Indian gaming concerns. In sports, paying the referee is called cheating, and can result in prison time; in politics it’s called “soft-money PAC contributions” and it needs to stop.
If you are a member of one of the other political parties- what is it that you most prefer about your party affiliation, and what would you say to sway or even recruit members- right, left and center- of the major parties? If you are an independent/decline to state- why did you make that choice, and have you ever been a member of a major party?
Napa County has 31, 331 registered Democrats; 20,013 registered Republicans; 11,961 “Decline-to-State”; 1,621 American Independent; 835 Green Party, 343 Libertarian, 154 Peace & Freedom and 407 miscellaneous including, if memory serves, at least one Communist.
If you are a member of a major party- what frustrates you the most about it? Instead of the familiar tirades against “Repugnicans” or “The Democrat Party”- what is it about your own party that you believe most needs reform?
For example- I was greatly frustrated by congressional Democrats failure to act as the party of opposition during the crucial year of 2002. Instead of standing up against questionable ideas such as the Patriot Act, or absurd ones such as the push for an invasion of Iraq- too many Democrats hoped to play it safe and vote for things that they had to know were not right.
And of course, as is the case for both major parties, I believe that serious campaign finance overhaul is needed. I have been disturbed at the last two California Democratic Party conventions at the number of “welcome” banners on the walls from insurance companies and Indian gaming concerns. In sports, paying the referee is called cheating, and can result in prison time; in politics it’s called “soft-money PAC contributions” and it needs to stop.
If you are a member of one of the other political parties- what is it that you most prefer about your party affiliation, and what would you say to sway or even recruit members- right, left and center- of the major parties? If you are an independent/decline to state- why did you make that choice, and have you ever been a member of a major party?
Join the conversation
Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
|
|
Bill wrote on Jun 5, 2008 3:47 PM:
One aspect that has struck me about Americans is, when all is said and done we tend to do what is pragmatic. We are jokesters and pleasure seekers. We profess to love peace yet hardened opinion won’t get you far with out a fistfight. So we tend to generalize thought into an amorphous ball we can make fun of and call it politics.
Watch the conservative/liberal blog to see the difficulty people have with thinking about the opinions they hold. Lots of amusing stories and posturing, quick barbs analogies but little defining of what and how we think.
It is difficult to examine why one holds the opinions one has and try to define them in an unemotional and dispassionate manner so we opt for the glib and wind up with the two party system which for all its faults, works.
We opt for meaningless labels of conservative/liberal, left/right so we can demonize or poke fun without thought. We refuse to look at the aspects we claim to cherish. The words freedom, equality, liberty and democracy are real world concepts with complex meanings. This is why libertarians are experiencing such revitalization. They frame the concepts in these words and use their meanings.
The real problem maybe that social safety net thinking and concern for real public welfare has been tarred with the dogma of socialism as an iconoclastic belief that does not change and cannot adapt.
Americans are becoming less inclined to identify with either party because they view each as a club and not as a serious place to advance their grievances or address their concerns. "
matt@newspeak wrote on Jun 6, 2008 4:39 PM:
"Americans are becoming less inclined to identify with either party because they view each as a club and not as a serious place to advance their grievances or address their concerns"
- is about as accurate and well stated assessement of how many, if not most Americans are feeling towards our political process as I have read in some time.
I've also been thinking all day about your point that "It is difficult to examine why one holds the opinions one has and try to define them in an unemotional and dispassionate manner".
I will admit to having as much fun as anyone on the neighboring 'liberal/conservative" post, but, when I get a minute, I'm going to try to rise to the challenge and construct my beliefs in an affirmative and dispassionate manner and see what shakes out. Hmmm "
kevin wrote on Jun 6, 2008 5:30 PM:
As a Republican, it is going to be interesting to see if we can re-energize the Conservative base now or if we have to wait for 4 years of McCain's Presidency before we "hit bottom". Some Republicans view Obama as a "black Jimmy Carter" and a few are actually going to vote for him for that reason. They believe we can't have another Ronald Reagan without him. Part of me wants to dismiss that idea as silly, but my own personal experience of reaching maturity under the Presidency of Jimmy Carter really did turn me into a life long Conservative when President Reagan literally rescued the country.
The downside for the Republican Party when McCain wins will be the fact that he will declare his "'wide stance" of accepting Liberal ideas and working with Democrats to be the reason he won. (As opposed to running against an unqualified black man with no experience).
Looks like a long 4 years to start re-building... "
Bill wrote on Jun 6, 2008 7:33 PM:
I am leaning along the lines that we may all hold similar accurate beliefs based on the same definitions but some become inflexible. The great leader thing always leads everyone down a garden path and analogy merely exposes thought to justification by story telling while interesting and sometimes informative rarely does it resolve the defining aspect we seek.
Perhaps if you can pin yourself down accurately with your words then you are literally pinned by your word. That could be a good thing if one recognizes that there are new sets of problems presented all the time that require new sets of answers where the is no formulaic response. Opinion and belief change they adapt which is why the labels we use eventually become nebulous.
I think that our system is based more on pragmatism than polarized left and right dogma that are the poles of equality and liberty. "
kevin wrote on Jun 6, 2008 9:00 PM:
matt@newspeak wrote on Jun 7, 2008 1:00 AM:
Ironically, Clinton and Reagan are also both viewed very similarly by their critics in the opposing parties, that is to say Clinton is derided by many R's and Reagan is derided by many D's the same way: over-rated, ruled by political showmanship, morally malleable, and largely taking credit for historical happenstance that they claim as actual accomplishments.
Of course in Dem circles Mr. Clinton's star has been tarnishing by his performance during Sen. Clinton's campaign.
Even before then, however- when liberal firebrand Howard Dean made an early splash in 2004, and later became DNC chair, it indicated that the anti-war, liberal wing of the party was re-asserting itself and Clinton's "3rd Way" had begun to fade. Kerry, Edwards and Sen. Clinton were hobbled by the albatross of their Iraq war votes. Rhetoric or not, Obama symbolizes a new type of politics to many and a changing of the old guard.
Perhaps this is along the lines of what former Speaker Gingrich is trying to tell the GOP?
Also, Kevin, as a liberal I disagree that we want to deny American Exceptionalism, but perhaps we have different definitions. To pick one of many examples- look at the Marshall Plan. The US' conduct after WWII forever changed the conduct of victor nations after a war. Although I'm simplifying- the idea of rebuilding enemies instead of pillaging and humiliating them ushered in a new era. That type of exceptionalism makes me very proud of my country.
Imperialism and swagger on the other hand, are not worthy of America- one reason I opposed the invasion of Iraq. "
Bill wrote on Jun 7, 2008 12:01 PM:
More and more Americans see the polemics of the past as fruitless. I believe they do not see solutions as having a particular philosophical orientation but a practical and pragmatic need. I think those who tend to be liberal (equality, these are truly meaningless labels but must suffice) approach problems from a conservative (liberty) point of view and attempt to seek a solution based on what is workable not on dogma.
Third parties fall victim to the great personality promising to address not just perceived but real problems. Their down fall is their narrowness. Still their voice is essential to the process and should be given more sunlight. "
Bill wrote on Jun 7, 2008 12:21 PM:
It is the “better than” that exceptionalism exemplifies which draws a distinction between two poles, one the belief without doubt that one path is superior to another one place or one idea the penultimate. Others recognize that between the act and the deed the shadow of doubt falls and the effort to recognize that choice is not limited to a singlre view.
The sword of exceptionalism has an edge that cuts, like arrogance and hubris. It forces a one sided view of the world. The ideas of freedom and democracy may have incubated here and produced a magnificent society but they did not come about in an American vacuum. The blame game of “government is the problem” crowd ignores the reality that with out law there is only anarchy. It is an obscuring phrase meant as a misleading sound bite in the hopes that a public used to glib comments will accept it as a cogent and productive position "
a teacher wrote on Jun 9, 2008 6:32 PM:
An opposition party should oppose. If you're going to go down, go down swinging. It's no surprise to me that the Democrats get no respect. "
matt@newspeak wrote on Jun 10, 2008 1:12 AM:
It has a great deal to do with why Obama is the nominee, in my opinion. "
ADark1 wrote on Jun 10, 2008 10:06 AM:
I agree with most of your column. There is one thing:"Can America’s two major parties serve as flexible-enough vessels for the changes required of our future- or have the major party options truly become a choice between lesser evils?"
Having been fortunate to travel outside the USA in my younger years, I managed to receive input from citizens of other countries in their perceptions of Americans.
Granted the answer is way too complicated and involved to answer at short length. However, "Can America’s two major parties serve as flexible-enough vessels for the changes required of our future-..." .
Answer:We actually have the better decision to make.
What we need to do is find the flexibility in the candidates , take the BEST, from ALL sides of the political spectrum and integrate that into a working mold. This will NOT ONLY add to the American Democratic mystique, but ensure we use the best of the best . No need to reinvent the wheel , add a few more improvements !
Unfortunately, this means having a viable force ( as in message and quality of content), and change that will appeal to the average American and NOT only media controlled conduits of information / dis - information.
Another MAJOR reason Obama IS the Democratic Party nominee, is due to his "Yes We Can, Inclusive" approach!
Being a Deputy Registrar for years, its amazing most new voters rarely take / took the time needed to make an informed judgment on whatever issues of the day were. Until American voters stop being led like sheep, Until we understand we have the RIGHT to question our leaders, and until we no longer allow dissent to be muzzled as "un - patriotic" these issues will continue. "