Does anyone here REALLY understand a Two Party System?

[Tyler Durden]

Like it or not, that's what we're stuck with here. Coalition Governments only work in Parliamentary Systems, so 3rd parties are stupid unless we change the basic concept of how the legislature actually works.

Given that starting point, Answer this most important of ALL questions regarding Political Parties in the House and Senate:

WHAT IS THE JOB OF THE LEADERSHIP (SPEAKER, MAJORITY LEADERS, MAJORITY WHIP)?

The answer is so simple, it's frightening that nobody here knows it.

Time's up.

Their job, is PARTY SOLIDARITY. Their JOB is to keep the troops MARCHING IN FORMATION. PERIOD. Sure the speaker also is supposed to set agendas, BUT WHOSE AGENDA? THE PARTY'S. Period.

Four li'l Frosh Democratic Congress Members just dictated through their actions that a SENIOR HOUSE MEMBER was to be put through a humiliating spectical. Why were they allowed to do this? Because Pelosi and Hoyer were not doing THEIR JOBS, which was to figuratively take these snot nosed little upstarts behind the woodshed AND WHALE THE POLITICAL TAR OUT OF THEM. THEY should have been the ones apologizing to PETE STARK.

So now what has happened and what's going on?

BUSH and the rest of his criminals are laughing their asses off at the entire Democratic Party. We behaved like a fractured PTA meeting where one or two big mouths cowed the rest of the organization. If I were Bush, I'd be sending EACH of the "Gang of Four" an big thank you card and a bottle of champaign.

We have been set back months if not years because Pelosi and Hoyer did not do their job. The most POWERFUL Democrats in the house right now are those four freshman. They stood the WHOLE HOUSE on its EAR and the leadership LET THEM.

Now I'm no DLCer, but if that's all the Democratic Party we HAVE right now, then that's what we have to SUPPORT, or eat more Republican shit for the next 4 years. They know how to stick together, and they WILL. We should bite the bullet and get on with it.

[movonne]

1. Well in a way I agree with you buttttttt, I don't want to eat dlc shit

either...and they know they have us by the short hair and they will continue doing just what they are doing now...we will have a new decider.

[Tyler Durden]

6. I DON'T WANT TO EAT DLC SHIT EITHER!

But I DON'T want another THOMAS, ALITO, ROBERTS, or SCALIA on the SCOTUS.

I don't need another reason than that. Anything else at this point is gravy. Not that I want it that way, mind.

[Devlzown]

2. If I had my way, we would have a Parliamentary

system in this country. As things are now, we have an executive which holds way too much power and a Congress which has given up what power granted to it by the Constitution and is ruled by two ineffective and corrupt parties.

[Tyler Durden]

8. I suggest you start the Constitutional Amendment RIGHT AWAY.

Trust me, I'll support it. In the mean time, we have to dance with the partners that are there, or drink punch and sulk.

[Devlzown]

23. It would take a little more than an amendment.

We would have to adopt an entirely new Constitution, since the entire document is based upon the three branches of government. I was just speaking theoretically. I think if we are going to work within our system, then our best bet is to work within the Democratic Party to get representatives elected who more closely share our beliefs. If they get too much corporate money, for instance, don't vote for them. If we don't like their votes on important issues, run people against them in the primaries. The more involved we are, the more likely we are to get what we want.

[Tesha]

34. There is *NOTHING* in the Constitution about a two-party Congress. (NT)

[RebelSansCause]

20. we can't have more than a 2 party system

if you want the United States to remain the United States. what you will get is sectional 3rd parties. the last time we had those this thing happened from 1861-1865. what was it called again? oh yeah, the Civil War. now whether or not we should keep the country together is a whole nother thing :rofl: :sarcasm: but i love my country, enough to fight to put at least one of the parties back correctly.

[Devlzown]

24. Third parties cause civil wars?

That's an interesting take on history.:crazy: Anyway, I wasn't advocating third parties under our current system. They are, however, almost inevitable under a parliamentary system.

[stranger81]

26. we had prominent third and fourth parties in this country well into the 20th century.

Certainly didn't stop with the civil war, and the implication that having more than two parties in our political system causes fractious civil war is ludicrous. As I recall, the civil war had TWO sides, not three.

[Tyler Durden]

31. The last viable third party fizzled out almost 80 years ago.

We are trying to prevent the further demolition of the country and the world by getting the Republicans out of power all together for a little while.

Talk to me in 2012.

[RebelSansCause]

35. yes it had two sides

the North and the South. a major breaking point that caused the civil war was the fact that the republican party was a purely SECTIONAL party. as in, none of the southern interests were being adhered to. the amusing thing is that the way votes are going now, with the majority of the states predetermined we are moving in that same direction. i am not saying 3rd parties cause civil wars, what i am saying in that a large and expansive country, we need parties that proclaim to be representative of all of the people. so if we were to get a 3rd serious party it would need to be non-sectional.

[Dhalgren]

3. Bohner is a Republican. But I generally agree with your post...

[Tyler Durden]

9. Sorry. I'm really pissed off and even I forget on occasion.

[LSK]

13. You mean Hoyer

[Tyler Durden]

15. I changed it.

Too much adrenalin.

[LSK]

19. I tried calling Congress RIGHT FUCKING NOW last week

Little good that did.

[mmonk]

4. I think I remember one.

[mondo joe]

5. I believe I do. It's why I'm extremely Democratic Party loyal.

It's our job as much as their to show solidarity.

[Tyler Durden]

12. I'm a SOCIALIST, but I support the Party.

[mondo joe]

16. I don't know about that. I don't follow your posts patricularly.

[Tyler Durden]

21. Why not? I'm a Realist, as are most Socialists.

We really aren't the starry-eyed utopians most people take us for.

Democratic Socialism is the method of the future to prevent what happened to this country and the world over the last 27 years from ever happening again.

Unfortunately, we will likely not be putting it in place except when we are digging out of the ashes.

[DaveJ]

7. I still think they represent the people

Unfortunately it's unbelievable and frightening how many people still support things like preemptive war, healthcare for those who can afford it, and denying women's right to choose. This may be why we see liberals become more conservative once elected, and sometimes, vice versa.

[Tyler Durden]

14. I have four words for you:

THOMAS, ROBERTS, SCALIA, AND ALITO.

You have no other reason not to completely support the party in 2008.

[Dhalgren]

10. Let's say, for instance, that the Greens won 15 seats in the house

and two Senate seats (not saying it will happen, just "let's say"). They would caucus with the Democrats and give the Dems a majority. The same would be true if say the Libertarians or the Ku Klux Klan won some seats - they would caucus with the repubs. So multi-parties can work...

[Tyler Durden]

17. Will they work in 2008? I repeat the four most dangerous words in politics today:

THOMAS, ROBERTS, ALITO, AND SCALIA.

Now talk to me about greens. They won't make it this time. Think about 2012 if you want.

[Skidmore]

11. Well they've failed miserably then.

"Their job, is PARTY SOLIDARITY. Their JOB is to keep the troops MARCHING IN FORMATION. PERIOD. Sure the speaker also is supposed to set agendas, BUT WHOSE AGENDA? THE PARTY'S. Period."

Demens are doing neither now--keeping the party in line or promoting the party's agenda. As for eating Republican shit or biting bullets, there is little difference between them now. I will not bite a fucking bullet when we don't have to. I will fight for change.

[Tyler Durden]

18. I'll repeat those words again: Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Scalia.

Work for change in 2012. By then it may be too late for the country to salvage the court. YOU WON'T CHANGE THINGS THIS TIME.

[Skidmore]

29. May I remind you that Roberts and Scalia were

approved by a Senate that contained MOST of the Dems currently in it. AND this has nothing to do with the make-up of the House or its leadership, which are not representing the needs of the people but are pussyfooting so as not to offend the Little Fuhrer and his sidekick and let the Rs one up them all the time.

[Tyler Durden]

32. Do you remember the words "Nuclear Option?"

I thought so.

AND I am just as disgusted with the Pelosi/Stark affair as you are.

[Skidmore]

36. My, are we a quivering mass of jelly.

Yeah, I remember very well they threatened to Cheney us. How easily we cower. If we spent half the energy on fighting that we do on making excuses for not standing up, we might accomplish something.

[Tyler Durden]

39. Enjoy your war.

They're never fun, always messy, and they seldom leave anything standing but hungry refugees.

They don't threaten on anything they don't plan on following through on, contrary to our party where if you don't check all of the right boxes...well, you get the idea.

[Alcibiades]

22. I do

I think it's wrong to assume that people at Du don't understand political parties. I'm a political scientist, and I think I understand them fairly well.

Don't be fooled by the people who have written here about third parties, or not supporting the Democratic nominee if a certain person gets the nomination. They are a small but vocal minority. Most people here are loyal Democrats who will work like hell to make sure whoever we nominate wins the general election.

I do think many Democrats are rather tired of the job done by the House and the Senate. Some people here are a little fed up with that, but I think that, when push comes to shove, our activists will do their jobs.

I'm a little put off by your tone, your assumption that "nobody here" knows what the jobs of the floor leaders in the House and the Senate are. You make a number of points that about Congress and political parties that are rather cartoonish, spurious at worst, debatable at best. Also, if you're GOING TO SHOUT, and to imply that everyone at DU needs to take a civics lesson, then you at least ought to use the spell checker.

[Tyler Durden]

28. Don't pick nits; it's unattractive.

Seriously, If you include yourself in a rhetorical "NOBODY HERE" that is designed to attract attention, well....

Also, when you make accusations, it's polite to cite what you're talking about. You are boorish, and I directed no slur at you personally. Therefore, you exhibit bad manners in your reply.

And "spell checker" slurs are silly. This is a Message Board. If I took a few minutes, I could use my almost completed minor in English to dissect your grammar, but what would that prove; that I was a boor as well.

I do not accept your "appeal to authority" and your "Poisoning of the Well." Try again, or maybe we can just shake hands and forget about it.

[Alcibiades]

38. Easy, Tyler-please don't smash my face in

Boorish? I meant no offense. I had thought such a mild comment as "I'm a little put off by your tone" would have made that evident. My intent was heuristic. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. My admonition to use the spell checker was simply advice on how you could present your point of view to better advantage, as was the comment on the use of the shift key.

As for my declining to clarify some of your description of Congress and political parties, I did so precisely because of a desire to avoid boorishness.

I didn't make any claim of authority in support of my points. I don't go around waving my PhD as though it were some sort of trump card that entitles me to win every dispute: most of the people with whom I actually have meaningful differences have their own Ph D's anyway. I only mentioned it as evidence that some people here actually have studied politics. Since you've contended that your generalization was purely rhetorical, I'm sorry I brought it up.

:pals:

[Tyler Durden]

41. Truce.

I would say that using the word "cartoonish" to describe the words and opinions of others (especially old pissed off curmudgeons) is a little like ringing the bell at a prizefight.

By the way: how did you get "cartoonish" by the spell checker? I checked DU's, WORD, Word Perfect...none of them recognized it. Even on line WEBSTER only refers obliquely to an adjective form of the root word.

Just being needlessly picky...

[Alcibiades]

45. I knew I had spelled it correctly

and that it's a real word, so I just hit ignore. It isn't necessarily that bad--a cartoon is, after all, a sketch, and it basically means an oversimplification. Of course, with cartoons meaning something like Sponge bob these days, it's probably a worse word than it used to be.

[Tyler Durden]

49. You can't get too deep here.

And frankly, in the words of Howard Beale, I've just run out of bullshit, so the dissertations get simpler over time.

[stranger81]

25. I really think this is a myth.

As recently as only a hundred years ago in this country, at least three (and arguably four) political parties were prominent, fielded candidates and affected the national political landscape: the Republicans, Democrats, Populists and even the Prohibition Party. In a lot of states, my home state of Kansas included, the Democrats adopted the Populist slate of candidates in election after election and ran them as their own.

We keep hearing over and over that only two parties are viable in American politics, but this is the first century of the American experiment in which only two parties have dominated the political landscape (wasn't true for the first 200 years), and the only people that benefit from repeating this myth over and over are those who have a stake in maintaining only a two party system.

[Tyler Durden]

30. It isn't what it should be, it is what it is.

And at this time, with the power and consolidation of the Republican Party as demonstrated over the last few years, perhaps a united front is called for at the moment.

When you have a vibrant and vocal Green or other party set up, give me a ring.

[stranger81]

33. or maybe a socialist party!

though I don't like my local ISO and stopped going years ago.

Seriously, though -- I understand we don't have the infrastructure to pull this off now, but it shouldn't be written off as a goal to work towards, since history shows it's possible.

[Tyler Durden]

44. Works for me Comrade.

That was a Socialist term before it was Communist.

[Blue_Tires]

27. ttt

[MadHound]

37. You do realize that a third party can become a major party fairly easily

It happened before with the Whigs, they pissed off their base and lo and behold, four years later they were gone and we had ourselves our first Republican president.

The Dems have just pissed off their base royally, so don't be suprised if they're gone soon. There's only so much that people can take, and for many of us leftists who've stuck with the Dems through thick and thin, this is the last straw.

[Indi Guy]

40. There is no "two party system" anymore...

Both parties are now owned by the trans-national cooperations.

Sad but true.

[LWolf]

42. Perhaps some of us understand it well enough

to oppose the two-party system, and to work to end it.

[Tyler Durden]

43. Absolutely no disagreement.

My issue is that I'm 54 and I'd like my children to live long enough to make that change.

The current situation (if the Democratic Party does not take over Congress AND the Presidency) will only lead to one of three outcomes (as the Democratic Congress accomplishes NOTHING as long as the veto threat and less than veto proof majority exists):

1. The nation continues to dwindle down into 2nd World Class. Production will continue to sag, and we will continue to slide into decline and decrease of civil liberties.

2. Fracture: the country will cease to exist as a combined entity. Not that this is a big possibility, but it could happen.

3. Uprising: the least possible and most violent option.

Get the Republicans OUT, politically CASTRATE them in any way possible fair or foul, THEN fix things.

[LWolf]

46. I understand your points.

Most of those in my current state of mind have been there, were there for many years before finally moving on.

The issue now is that I no longer believe that many Democrats will change anything.

That makes the "get the Ds in office and THEN they will do something" very frustrating, especially since that's just what we did a year ago.

[Tyler Durden]

48. Frankly, I don't believe it EITHER.

What I do believe, is that if we let the Pig Bush, His Minions, and the other Neocons keep ANY foothold, what has happened to this point will pale in comparison to the horrors they have yet to release.

[Individualist]

47. Damn DLC!

I'll never support the organization that wants to destroy the party! Fortunately more people are becoming aware of their agenda, and any attempts to sugarcoat that vile organization fall flat on their face. I support progressives!

As Kucinich said, "The lesser of two evils is still evil."

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-32.htm

The progressive movement has not just threatened this message monopoly -- it is undoing it. Through MoveOn, the rise of popular documentaries, blogs, think tanks, etc. It's not just that we talk about real values and innovative strategies. It's because we're talking, period, that the centrists feel threatened.

Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=721

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_agenda_undistinguishable_from_Neocon_0813.html

DLC Watch, the wicked shall not escape justice http://dlcwatch.blogspot.com

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11275627/the_low_post_democrats_walk_themselves_to_the_gallows

[Swamp Rat]

50. Supporting DLC = Supporting PNAC

I will never support neocons, Dem or Repuke.

_____________________________________________

Will Marshall

Democratic Leadership Council: Cofounder
Progressive Policy Institute: President
Project for the New American Century: Letter Signatory

Affiliations

Progressive Policy Institute: Cofounder, President
Democratic Leadership Council: Cofounder
U.S. Committee on NATO: Former Board Member
Committee for the Liberation of Iraq: Former Board Member
Project for the New American Century: Signatory to various letters

____________________________________________________

(snip)

A core member of a neoconservative-like vanguard within the Democratic Party establishment, Marshall has been instrumental in creating organizations that have worked to move the party to the right on everything from foreign to economic policies. With Al From, in 1985 Marshall cofounded the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), an important bastion of center-right Democrats that was once chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT). In 1989, Marshall founded the PPI, a think tank that is affiliated with the DLC. Marshall and From were both staffers for Rep. Gillis Long (D-LA), who was the chairman of the House Democratic Party Caucus in the early 1980s. Marshall served as Long's speechwriter and policy analyst and was also senior editor of the 1984 House Democratic Caucus policy blueprint, “Renewing America's Promise.”

Marshall helped establish the DLC in the wake of Walter Mondale's landslide defeat. The DLC has aimed to create a “New Democrat” movement to shift the party toward the center-right on domestic, economic, and foreign policy issues. Part of the DLC's success can be attributed to the agenda-setting capacities of the Progressive Policy Institute, which was often referred to as “Bill Clinton's idea mill.” The PPI was responsible for many of the Clinton administration's initiatives, including the national service agency AmeriCorps.

(snip)

Marshall was one of 15 analysts who co-wrote the PPI's October 2003 foreign policy blueprint, “Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.” Using language that closely mirrors that of the neoconservative-led Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the PPI hailed the “tough-minded internationalism” of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which in its founding statement warned of grave present dangers confronting America, the PPI strategy declared that, “Today America is threatened once again” and is in need of assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. The authors' observation that, “like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades,” echoes both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. As the “Progressive Internationalism” authors explain, the PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq “because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as to his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of UN Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law.”

The PPI has a vision of national security that extends to fostering democracy and freedom around the world in “the belief that America can best defend itself by building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy.” It's likely that PNAC itself would heartily agree with this PPI comment: “While some complain that the Bush administration has been too radical in recasting America's national security strategy, we believe it has not been ambitious or imaginative enough.”


(snip)

Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neoconservative figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson. At the request of the Bush administration, Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with former DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with former Democratic Sen. Robert Kerrey of Nebraska (who coauthored “Progressive Internationalism”), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. Other advisers included James Woolsey, Eliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

_____________________________________________


Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
A Complete List of PNAC Signatories and Contributing Writers

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/charts/pnac-chart.php

[mudesi]

51. The DLC are RESPONSIBLE for the fractured party

They're the ones who actively divide the party in order to keep power with their Republican friends.