I know we can continue the last string, but I chose to start afresh (see, I AM pro-choice ;) )... This has been a very refreshing and pleasant detente between folks of differing political persuasions (I wish the professions of the 3 O's could have such a civilized conversation).
Anyway, to quote Steve:
Steve, Steve (see, I only used your name twice... I'm now the moderate triangulating myself to the political center :) ), can you seriously posit that there is nary a difference in the paradigms of the Democratic and Republican parties??? True enough, over the years they have transformed themselves- even to the extent that they stand for ideals that were originally identified with their opposition. However, at any given point in time there are real and honest differences between the platforms of the two party system.<FONT COLOR=#FF0000>"Pete, Pete, Pete - you poor misguided tool of the Oligarchy. You believe there is a major difference between the parties because that's what they want you to believe!</FONT>
The historical examples you present are somewhat disappointing (meaning there are better ones out there...). The increase of the national debt during Reagan's term paid for something substantive- the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (that and the fact that a corrupted form of communism doesn't work). What have we to show for 30 years of social spending? In the latter example given, former President Bush could not dictate how his nominees to the highest court in the nation would vote on any particular issue (I don't think it would be in the interest of seperation of the Executive and Judicial branches of government if he could). I think the very fact that Bush's appointments have voted pro-choice is an excellent argument AGAINST the fear-mongerers in the Dem party that argue that George W. will "stack the court." Conversely, I sincerely doubt Ginsberg- or any other Democrat appointed justice- will ever render a pro-life opinion!
A better example of the "two-facedness" and/or cynicism that you allude to in national politics is the "Read my lips" debaucle of President Bush. He promised his party there would be no increase in taxes during his term. There was, and subsequently his base did not support him for re-election. Even here, however, there is a glaring difference between the parties (to my view, anyway). Namely, the Democrats seem willing to tolerate a lot more from their candidate than the Republicans.
When the current Chief Executive (there, I avoided the name ;) ), said "I want you to listen to me, I'll say this again... I did not have --- relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" he openly lied to his party and America. In the seven month course of proving that he lied, he managed to *******ize the very system of justice that our country is founded upon. AND YET... polls among Democrats continue to show that Clinton would be easily re-elected today. I dare say that a Republican who had committed the same errors would have been sent packing by the press, the public, and the party (look at the Republicans who resigned in the past few years for similar indescretions).
So, your cries of "the parties are all the same" are really complaints against the character and/or effectiveness of individuals elected by the parties. A third party will not solve the problems which concern you (to which I have no doubt you agree). This is illustrated by the current spectacle of the Reform Party's national convention.
The real answer lies in <FONT COLOR=#0000FF>character</FONT> and <FONT COLOR=#FFFF00>leadership</FONT>- from whatever party in which it is found. It is Harry Truman saying "the buck stops here," It is FDR railing against a "day that will live in imfamy," it is Lincoln promoting "government of...for...and by the people," it is JFK admonishing us to go to "ask what we can do for our country," and it is a Reagan saying, "Mr. Gorbachav, tear down this wall!" These are the moments of American political greatness, NOT "that depends what the definition of 'is' is," and NOT "there wasn't any controlling legal authority."
For all it's weaknesses (e.g., our current President), America's two-party Representative Republic system of government has seen us through 211 years of political transition without hostility (including 4 years of civil war, which was related to other causes political and apolitical). If the system has failed, it has failed because of the <FONT COLOR=#FF00FF>people</FONT>... People who do not hold officials accountable, people who vote for legislators who will "bring home the bacon," people who agree to be spoon-fed political information by whatever source (be it the mainstream media or the EIB Network). To close, the difference between the parties is best evident in the LEGISLATIVE branch of government, not the Executive.
I'm so sorry for the length of this particular political panache... however, I firmly believe that the answer to our country's crises must necessarily and practically be found in a two party system- and I am convicted that the party with the best answers at this time is the GOP. However, I also enjoy the discussion and exchange of views that we have had here- like a stone to the blade, it keeps one sharp.
Pete "BTW, I like polycarbonate, too..." Hanlin
Bookmarks