Wednesday, July 29, 2015

What is the purpose of the parties?

 Why does the democratic party exist.  To serve their constituency.  When a Democrat is elected as president are they the president of the US or the president of the Democratic party serving it's following.  The ACA is the perfect example of a president serving his followers and not representing the majority.

I would argue their president serves their party and it's members.  Majority means nothing.  The rest of the country means nothing.  Serve the party faithful is everything to a democrat president.  The current president is the president of the Democratic party.

Why does the republican party exist?  Perhaps you believe the Republican Party exists as the party of limited government and free markets.
Not likely as the Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell went so far as to blatantly make the lie he told his fellow Senators that no deal had been cut with interested Democrats during an earlier debate to reanimate an entity of pure corporate welfare, the Export-Import Bank – a priority so critical he would box out all other attempts to attach amendments to what is considered a “must-pass” measure, the Highway Bill. 
Perhaps you believe the Republican Party exists as a national security party, which believes in a clear-eyed trust but verify approach to dealing with our enemies. This is impossible after the past few months, where the Senate Republicans completely ceded their Constitutional duty regarding the Iran deal, putting them in the wonderful position (so politically advantageous in the realm of domestic policy) of decrying this deal as awful without being on the hook for anything that happens because of it.

As the purpose of the Democratic party is clear, the purpose of the repub's seems unclear and undefined.

The democrats serve a minority and the repubs serve themselves.  Seems it's time for a party for the rest of America.

17 comments:

  1. Fundraising - at least it used to be before Citizens United.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still is all about money.

      Citizens United allow both parties to tap more money than ever before. Love the super PAC's

      Delete
    2. Now you don't need a party to raise money, Lou. Just a billionaire sugar-daddy ...

      Delete
  2. There are 16 candidates currently going into the 1st Pub primary. 16. Pretty sure there's never been that many before. If you want to run for Prez, all you need is a wealthy backer who wants to enter a horse in the race.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The field will narrow rapidly.

      Delete
    2. 17. Gilmore announced yesterday.

      Delete
  3. GOP:
    17 candidates and no one running that represents the people.
    Dems:
    5 candidates and no one running that represents the people.

    p.s. They all want your money.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cynicism always contains a degree of truth, but it never tells the whole story. I think what many in the electorate want is to have a president who 100% is in line with their views and never offers so much as an ounce of compromise. No Republican will ever likely look back and think to themselves that Obama did anything of value for the American people. This same group, however, will probably look back and feel the same about W Bush.

    Same stuff, different day for me. The government we elect will be no better and no worse than the intentions of the voters who send them there. I'm willing to give some things up in order to see others do better, provided they work to get ahead, because it's in my best interest, I believe, that the country has as many people as possible to succeed. I'll consider any candidate who I think fits that mold regardless of how badly handicapped the process has become by money.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would argue that both parties exist to serve their constituencies. Otherwise why exist at all?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I might also point out that the 4 current Democrat candidates have strong disagreements on several major issues while the 17 Republican candidates agree on all major issues. Here is an interesting analysis:

    http://theweek.com/articles/568912/gop-presidential-field-four-times-larger-than-democrats--four-times-boring

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was an interesting article. It suggests to me, that for the moment at least, there is still some room for moderation left of center. At my position from left of center, I am not a huge fan of Hillary. Bernie, to me, is much more pragmatic and a realist than socialist, but that's not a debate worth having on this board. As for Webb, I kinda like him as well, even though he is basically more of a old school moderate Republican who doesn't have a seething resentment toward American workers earning a decent wage. Hillary, at present, kinds of presents to me what has been kind of a Republican primary theme for awhile, which is that if you grow support and wait your turn, you eventually get the nod. She probably does represent the best chance for the Democratic party to win. Whether she really embodies a consensus view from left of center remains to be seen.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps a little research is needed by the author.

      While some have similar positions other positions are quite different.

      http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

      Delete
    3. I clicked around a bit there, but I didn't see a ton of nuance that really separated any single one of them on the Republican side. Primaries always force candidates to go away from center toward one pole or the other and then they try to loop back to center for the general. At this stage of the game, the guys on the Republican side are to some degree doing what should be expected. Come debate time, however, we will hear endless worship of Reagan, foot stomping claims that the supremes got it wrong on gay marriage, more promises to repeal Obama care and replace it with a plan that doesn't exist and likely, open threats to attack Iran one way or another when elected. Disagree?

      Delete
    4. A good article which promotes discussion and in turn forces us to re-evaluate our own perceptions about something we only think about nearing election time.

      The democratic system must have some value as it is the most used system of government in the modern world.Varients therof have existed since the times of Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. What is always apparent is the continued questioning of the purpose of democracy and the value to the nation of the way the system affects us the people, at the present moment in time.

      We in Australia have a democratic form of government, moulded in the main from the Westminster system. In America, you too have a variant of the same system but yet it is a system made more complex by the constitution which was written at a time when the likes of William were in the majority, rather than the oddities and rebels without a cause they have become in the modern era.

      It is human nature to question those ideals, rules, regulations and laws enacted in our name by our democratically elected governments. Most of the questioning takes the form of Loumans article. We rail at the system because we want something more. What we do not know is what it is that we do want! Lou wants to provide the nation with a new party which will represent those in the population not currently represented by the major parties. I think this is a reasonable argument but if you have only 30 percent of eligible voters who actually cast a vote; from whence will the support for a new party come and how can such a party claim to represent the “people” when so few actually take the trouble to become involved.

      It seems to me that democratic progress is only possible when the entire population becomes engaged in the process. You are once more going to have the situation next year when billions of dollars will be poured into campaigns supported by lies ,wealth, naked ambition, ego and more lies. What is apparent is that about sixty percent of the population do not care and after the election these people will be the first to holler blue bloody murder at every action the government proposes. At some point in the future democracy will break down, those such as Louman with a deep interest and who care for the country, will simply refuse to pay taxes and engage in a campaign of civil disobedience. When that happens, I say to democracy, beware the ides of March.

      Cheers from Aussie

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  7. In America, you too have a variant of the same system but yet it is a system made more complex by the constitution which was written at a time when the likes of William were in the majority, rather than the oddities and rebels without a cause they have become in the modern era.

    And yet the constitution from day one has given those who were so numerous and so passionate about a necessary change in direction a clear and unambiguous way to achieve that change... Apparently 60% of those so enraged by the antiquated propositions contained therein, stayed home and only the noisy minority of the minority rattled their cans unable to push the country in the direction they espoused on any particular day. Perhaps life isn’t so bad under the original provisions… The thing that is bad is the usurpation of those provisions because without law, what do you really have.

    Democracy is an interesting word. I was in Indonesia when Suharto was finally kicked out of power… His powerful ‘Golkar’ party had a slogan that stuck with me because I thought it represented all of those in power who work tirelessly to deceive… “Democracy without opposition”.

    It is however a frightening thing when the people of a nation do wake up. I happened to be staying in a hotel in Bandung that was owned by a family member of Suharto…. Close your eyes and imagine 3 million people coming past your hotel window in one day... knowing a good many of them would have cheerfully destroyed the hotel, an object of their hatred, had it not been for the many automatic weapons guarding the place.

    ReplyDelete