the politics of cliques. - a long rant by Reno

[I AM ME]

[nikki4982]

Reno, awesome rant. I agree wholeheartedly... well, mostly. I don't think there's anything that can really be done to fix the problem. Heh.

The sad truth is most people don't care about anything about the world around them. This is why Bush is still in office, this is why our government doesn't work, it's because for a democracy to work the people must be informed and passionate......the people are ignorant and apathetic. It kills a little of me everytime i see the world turn as blind eye, or not even notice at all when governments and politicians bumble through their jobs, lying, and cheating.

I'm never going to be an anarchist, or Communist, but i can tell you that Democracy is no longer working, we just don't have other options.

Our world is truly a sad, dark, and dangerous place. As we grow old we come to realize this, or we become something even worse, we become ignorant. It's a lose-lose, ussually the talented/informed and intelligent are tortured by what they understand of the word around them, it's a heavy burden, and ignorance is truly bliss. So our society medicates itself to bliss with denial, apathy, and lies. There's so much wrong in the world around us that our fragile minds can't cope, and we either end up apathtic or get so wrapped up in our causes that we no longer see a clear picture. All we can do is take happiness from the small things in our life, live it morally, and try to leavethe world a better place then when we came into it.

I think that's the most I've ever agreed with you on anything. Especially the "torture" part. Ugh, I hate being informed and actually caring. It's so depressing.

[Bandalero]

i read one of matt good's entries today reguarding plutocracy and the two party system. it's like were kind of on the same page, but i might have won this one. so here today i will quote Mr. Good's article and of course i'll have a little more to add. enjoy.

It's Given Me A Headache
If there is one thing that I just can't stand about American political blogs its the inability of most of them to divorce themselves from party lines. The United States is a two party nation, one in which the President only addresses the public or houses of government in highly controlled atmospheres. Unlike a parliamentary question period, in which a Prime Minister can be called out by the opposition, the President of the most powerful nation on earth (China and Russia aside for the moment), can pretty much pick and choose his confrontations, all of which, even Presidential debates, are highly scrutinized by his party or staff before hand.

I don't follow many blogs, nor do I care for many other than Mr. Good's mblog. The United States is indeed a two party country, and I for one would like to see it slowly become a no party country. I don't just want my president to be scrutinized; I want all of my political leaders to be available for scrutiny. I sent a letter to my US Senators and my representative in D.C. and only got one reply that didn?t answer my question. My state reps and senators will be hearing from me soon. Will they listen? No of course not. And Mr. Good picks up on why they will not listen to me later in his entry.

For a nation that considers itself a democratic world beacon, the lack of a serious thirty party option is worrisome. And before a debate begins in the comments that anyone in the US can start a political party or, if the proper conditions are met, run for President, let's lasso some reality. The Democrats and Republicans control the American political landscape. From the Democrat's Tammany Hall days to the Lincoln White House, which was the first Republican White House and far removed from what we now know as modern Republicanism, those two forces have made very sure that they remain the political majority.

Mr. Good is right here, well kind of. Any one in the us can and history, (at least Texas history anyway) has proven that it can be done. Many of you have often seen me reference the Raza Unida Political party from time to time and I'm not sure if I've gone into detail about this, but it was a legitimate political party that did some good. The basis for this party started in a town that even today only has about 5,000 people in its respected population. The conflict that brought about this radical party was a high school policy that made the Hispanic population the minority in representation when it was by far the majority. I often wonder why this has not been made a movie yet, because I'm not sure many people can write a script as good as the human drama that unfolded in Crystal City, Texas back in the 60's. From a walkout opposing policy that allowed only one Hispanic girl to be on the cheerleading squad, began a massive campaign of activism. It blanketed all of South Texas and made clear that Hispanics in Texas were the difference between democratic rule in Texas and republican rule in Texas. 250,000 votes were cast for a Raza Unida candidate for governor of Texas. This is just a prime example of a small grass roots movement that can become a major force in politics. People control the political landscape of the United States, not parties.

It all boils down to money, of course, and those that financially support them for whatever benefit they feel the relationship will produce given winning results. Thus, the United States, like many other nations, consists of political parties bought and paid for by the wealthy.
[See Plutocracy]

It has nothing to do with money. It has to do with choice. People today have only two choices. (Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche) If people had leadership, and a cause they would rise up like Raza Unidas did so long ago and take back their school boards, their city councils, their state representative seats, and senator seats. Today's problems facing many cities and states in the US have come from State legislations and not the president himself. Then, if the process is incubated and has been given time to grow, it can and will take US national politics by storm. You cannot take on the two political powers right away; you have to build your forces under you. You need to be successful at the local level to be considered a solid candidate at the state level, and you have to be successful at the state level to take on National Politics. The Raza Unida candidate for governor did not have the proper time or power to take on respected candidates for the governorship, and even then by his actions, and by 250,000 strong, it was granted that things had to be changed. Raza Unidas had a tough time finding/keeping jobs because of their affiliation. They were shut off from the rest of the state, profiled, and even kept under surveillance. The same can be said if the same thing were to happen today, and it is up to the people of their respected movement to not be intimidated or coerced into the norm. Like everything else in the world, money makes things a lot easier. But at the local level you don't need money, and when you have the support of your respected town and/ or city, you do not need as much money. Think like a general take your city, then advance to the next city and take it as well.

That's something that you should never forget when you're being bombarded by the brouhaha come election time. That the democracy you believe to exist in fact does not. One way to change that? Participate in the system to such an extent that it disrupts the traditional political landscape.

I was taught at a very young age that we do not live in a democracy in the United States; we live in a Democratic Republic. There is no such thing as democracy, democracy is mob rule and mob rule is generally not a good thing. The problem with our republic is that it is mired in lobby groups and conflicts of interest. We have people in our republic that care only about themselves and their bank accounts rather than their constituents. Matt is absolutely right, this is plutocracy. But why should you only remember this at election time? You should be well aware of this all the time not just every 4 years when the whole world tunes in to see some puppet be installed into an office that doesn?t do much in terms of the republic. The structure of 'Democracy' is one where the representatives are more important than the ass hole in the white house. Instead of protesting in the streets, write a letter to your reps. Write several, because they tend to use them as napkins when the lobbyist takes them out to eat that $500 T-bone steak. Let it be known that if they do not listen to you, a political revolution will come and bury their careers in the shit they like to throw at each other. Then act on your promise. The problem with activism is that no one acts. And when you do, don't expect to see the changes your going to eventually make. I'll be dead and gone when US politics becomes a zero political party system, but hopefully I'll play a part. So I'll only leave you with a quote: Whenever death may surprise us, let it be welcome if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear and another hand reaches out to take up our arms.

[nelison]

That was well said Reno. I think a main problem with any country attaining 3 meaningful parties is the feelings of those who support the third party. Canada has the same problem. I'm going to be general in this example but I think it explains things clearly.
Let's say we have a right wing party, a central party, and a left wing party (debatably this is what we have in Canada, at least that's what most of the population believes... I'll get into that more in a second). Most North American left wing parties are rather new to the world, mostly stemming from post-depression sentiments. Seeing as how they are new they are typically considered the third party. Now, the supporters look at their chances to win, and because they are newcomers and typically seen as promoting a little bit more radical ideas (thus reducing the amount of corporate support) they usually perceive themselves as the weakest party. Now what happens is that in comparison to their own beliefs, right wing beliefs are incredibly undesirable, and most left-wingers don't believe they can live under such agendas, and so because they feel their own party is unable to compete they tend to vote for the central party in an attempt to defeat the right wing. Instead of voting for their party, they vote against another, AKA strategic voting. Another problem these third parties have is the fact a lot of their beliefs cater to those individuals who do not vote: i.e. youngsters (18-30) and the uneducated.

There are a few problems that we see in Canada. The first is a lack of class consciousness. Half of a population tends to be considered the working class, 30% middle class, and 20% elites (or bourgeosie if you want to use the marxist term). In Canada though most people feel they follow under the middle class. In fact there are some scholars who have determined that up to 60-70% of the population believes they fall under the middle class, when in fact most of them are not. Now here's the thing, who do the right wing and central parties tend to campaign for? That's right, the middle class. So while the left wing party attempts to draw in the working class voter, those working class individuals are over looking at other parties because they don't believe they are in the working class, thus making the system a two party system.

This brings me to my next point that occurs often in Canada (and is pretty obvious in the US too). In Canada we have the Conservative party and Liberal party which have pretty much the same economic agenda, but the liberals tend to slant to the left when it comes to social issues (gay rights for example). While the NDP, who has never had any considerable power at the federal level have the same economic agenda, but throw in a bunch of leftist ideals to cover it up. So basically we have 3 parties who are incredibly similar, and differ only around campaign time. During the 90's we had two "right wing" parties and because of that they split the right wing vote and allowed the central liberal party to win incredibly easy majority governments. It almost seems like the more parties thrown into the system, the easier it becomes for a central based government to win.

This poses the question for you, Reno. What does a zero party system look like? Is the only reason a zero party system would exist is because everyone has willingly admitted that they are catering to the same agenda? or do you really feel that there is enough of a burning fire underneath enough people to willingly get rid of partisan politics and think of politics as the representation of the region/constituents, and not the party?

The Canadian parliament system is a first past the post system and is perfect if you don't have parties. The problem is the parties have too much power for our system, and I think you'd agree the same is happening in the USA.

[happening fish]

dearest reno,
hope you don't mind, but i fixed the title
'twas driving me bonkers
much lurve,
alex

[joe_canadian]

*loves Alex*

[happening fish]

vote alex for spelling nazi
three years running, baby!

[closeyoureyes]

dearest reno,
hope you don't mind, but i fixed the title
'twas driving me bonkers
much lurve,
alex

thank freaking god.
i couldnt even look at the current events forum.

[trentm32]

good rant, Reno. Kudos on good points.

[Corey]

The problem with a non 2-party system is something you get in Canada.

You have two parties, both of which lean on the left side and then one party that leans on the right side. Say a majority of the people vote for the two left leaning parties but because their votes are split, the right leaning party wins the election. This doesn't really reflect what the majority of the country wanted even though the right leaning party had the most votes. Maybe this doesn't happen often but it could.

That is why in the US we have primaries. You narrow down which candidate you want from both sides and then they battle it out in the final election. Sort of the March Madness of politics. Nader hurt (possibly cost) Gore's chances at election as well as Kerry's. Perot hurt Bush Sr's reelection against Clinton. The more I think about it, the more a 2-party system makes sense.

[nelison]

Canada's weird in that all of it's parties are left wing (they all agree to universal health care, and other socialist ideals). Even our Conservatives would probably be democrats under the American system. They're almost more of a central party, with The liberals only slightly more to the left, and the NDP a little more to the left.

The thing is the Liberals have dominated Canadian politics so it's not a matter of splitting the vote. A three party system shouldn't split the vote as one group should be the most right wing, another the most left wing and one in the middle. I guess that's where the US would benefit from a strong third party. The dems would have to move over to the left (which has hurt them lately in comparison to the republicans) or stay centrist, forcing the new party to try and develop on the left. Considering the levels of poverty and unionized workers in the USA I'm surprised a left wing party has never really competed.

Even then Canada has a fourth party in the bloc quebecois which only confuses things more. There could never be anything like them in the US just because our system is parliamentary whereas the American system is a republic.

[happening fish]

Don't forget the up-and-coming Green Party!

[closeyoureyes]

Yay green!

The conservatives here are the dems there. And i think the conservatives are evil

Canada is lucky for so much leftism. We should make an even lefter party. Lefter than Green and NDP combined

As a child, i wanted to vote for Marxist Leninists

[nelison]

why? (to everything you said lol)

[closeyoureyes]

Umm..

Yay Green - I like the environment.

Conservatives Evil - Against Gay Marriage. Harper is like satan, they unnerve me in general for being like SUPER CREEPS.

Another left party - T'was a joke. Too many parties that have interest will most definetly mean another minority government. I dont want another.

Marxist Leninist Fan - When i first started studying russian i learned alot of political history, and though what Lenin and Stalin did was like, REALLY horrible, the also that communism can never work, it intrigued me that modern day people would make such a party.

[nelison]

ok then. lol

I wouldn't go as far as saying the conservatives are evil but I think Canada needs a party that has the social ideals of the left (like pro gay marriage and human rights) but a right wing economic standing. Even more right wing than the current tories. Basically right now the liberals and the tories are the same except one is pro-gay marriage and the other isn't. It was proven in the last budget when the conservatives didn't show up to vote because they agreed with the entire budget.

[closeyoureyes]

Yeah. Like, to me, hearing the word conservative, or rightwing, makes me feel dirty. I think its because for such a long length of time i've like, conditioned myself to HATE it, for my own personal reasons and insecurities. That and stephen harper, is just. Ugh.

I dont really know about the economic side, however I do know enough to say that the NDP, isnt good with Money.

[nelison]

I will grant you one think I like about being a student in a leftist system... Income tax.