I was reading a post by BehindBlueEyes entitled "How Does All That Hope and Change Taste Now?", an excellent article btw, I heartily recommend it, in which he essentially laments: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". In his article one phrase in particular stood out and is the subject of my post this morning...
"The Democratic Party is dead. It might be walking, but it is effectively dead. It is time for a third party. "
The really sad and ironic thing is that this isn't supposed to be a "two-party"system at all. The founders of our government envisioned a robust marketplace of ideas put forth under the banners of many parties-- "e pluribus unum", "out of many, one", meaning one nation forged from the union of many voices, ideas, and individuals both able and willing to act for a common cause greater than themselves. To set aside their individual differences and come together to serve the greater good.
We've gone from being a union formed from many voices to a tired old hag formed from just two, and that's on a good day. But of course its easy to vilify the politicians, who for their part make it so damned easy, but what about the pluribus-- "the many" (the people) they represent ??
Well, at least it all sounds good on paper.
E pluribus unum -- "out of many, one". There is such deep irony in that slogan being stamped and imprinted on all of our nation's currency. For in that one symbol of exchange is neatly summed the whole of our national animus (character and spirit)-- It is what drives us, and commands us, and unites us, and bind us. And perhaps the most ironic, what we flip when we close the little curtain and choose whom to vote for.
Sometimes it seems like it hardly matters. However, either way, it should be noted for the record:
Caveat Emptor.
Drawings belong to whomever I got them from.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Amanda Gulledge
a woman somewhere
Sally Swift
Robin Sneed
KristyCC
FirthofForth
Salon.com
Comments
How many political parties can you name?
Thought provoking piece and I will keep my curse words to myself as to what I think of the Amerika politic....
It has gotten to the point where, as far as I can tell, the Democrats and Republicans are essentially the flip sides to the same coin. Blue State, Red State-- what difference does it make if the real power in control-- the oil companies, big pharma, the insurance companies, the agriculture giants, the big box retailers, and the good ole' military industrial complex-- stay the same?
Sure the face is different every four or eight years. And sometimes they talk a good game out on the campaign trail. But nobody expects politicians to keep their word any more-- not even a little bit-- and when they get into office and continue pouring crap down our throats-- nobody is surprised. Same shit, different day is all.
The public seems extremely hopeful but ultimately jaded in their belief that a political "savior" will emerge and "reset" the system. The people want change but don't believe that their politicos actually have the moxie to make it happen-- or the will. The people believe that the politicos are simply big marionettes dancing to the tune of their corporate puppeteers pulling the strings.
And yet, every election cycle sees them back at it again-- hoping, wanting to believe that this year will be the one-- and pulling those levers again in the vague hope that maybe this time things might be different. And things will change, for the better. Maybe this time--
And that is the *REAL* American dream. All the other stuff is just what you see in the movies.
nowhere does it say that the nation will be run by the people for the people, and lincoln was only right in 'of the people.' hardly surprising as that principle is universal.
there are two parties because the group dynamics of unregulated individuals leads groups to form and coalesce, as groups always dominate individuals, in congress as on the battlefield. the number of parties seems to depend on the voting process, which can encourage multi-party parliaments, and independents. the british tradition of 'winner take all" seems to favor two parties.
the number of parties doesn't matter. any party is anti-democratic. the cure is not more parties, but more citizen participation. this is easy, the process is called 'referendum' and 'citizen initiative.' until you get democracy, you can not expect democratic behavior.
The ubiquitous "of the people, by the people, for the people" is from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. However the words are there in the Constitution, Lincoln just said it a little more eloquently. The leaders are elected by the people and from amongst the people-- as indicated in Article I of the Constitution. The will of the people is understood by inference-- they get to choose, so presumably they will choose leaders that represent their interests. However it is this last bit that I think is most insidious. Too often politicians promise the moon to get elected and then once in office kowtow to the special interests.
"the number of parties doesn't matter. any party is anti-democratic."
I get your point. Regardless, this country has a rich history of multiple party affiliation and influence, as well as some true independents. In fact, both current majority parties arose in the mid 1800's, though the Democratic party can trace its roots farther back than that. And the lockout we see today is fairly recent.
"until you get democracy, you can not expect democratic behavior."
I do not expect democratic behavior since we do not live in a democracy-- surprise though that may be to many people. We live in a republic, a representative form of government. You are correct that the language of the Constitution and many of the framing documents borrow much from old english law and practical structure. But both governments are heavily styled and influenced by the Roman Empire.
However all that said, I agree with you that it is perhaps time to gently restructure the government of the U.S. so that it is a direct democracy. When the Republic was formed the direct communication channels needed to reach the body of the people in a timely manner did not really exist. So a true democracy in that sense would have been difficult to achieve as a practical matter. However, the ability does exist now and perhaps its time to do away with some out-moded concepts.