Why the American representative system is a dream for the Capitalist class

[RGacky3]

1. The obvious, campain financing, pretty much all campain financing is corporate, or run by corporate funded special interest, because of that corporate lobbyists are always welcome in congress.

2. The 2 party system, This is PEREFECT for corporations and TERRIBLE for the public, its perfect for corporations because its pretty much a given that if you turn down the corporation for money, they WILL go to the opposition, so the 2 parties will fight over corporate money, the way they fight is to go out of their way to be corporae butt boys

Its terrible for the public because there is'nt much politically pulling to the left, for example if the democrats stop being progressive, what are poeple gonna do? Vote republican? they don't really have anywhere else, this is why the new democrats (espececially) are extremely dismissave of progressives, even though they make up the vast majority of democrats and really the majority of the country, and they are the biggest democrat block in congress, because corporations can go republican, progressive voters cannot.

In Countries with a parlimentary system and many different parties its not the same, for example if the social-democrat party is'nt doing its job the people CAN turn to the socialist party, on the flip side if the conservative party is'nt going for family values conservatives can vote christian democrat.

Thas also the the all or nothing system in America is great, because it keeps the 2 party system.

3. The Senate, Senators are more succeptable to corporate pressure than congressmen because they arn't representing actual people, they are representing states, also its less decentralized and their elections are more media and less grassroots.

4. They control the economy, in other countries where the government controls the major national means of productoin and resources, they can afford to not bow to Corporations and keep their economy, corporations can't bankrupt the country, not so in the US, thus, especially senators, are OBLIGED to serve the economic interest of their states, which means serving the corporate interest of their state.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's a dream because the Framers set it up that way.

[GPDP]

And to think it used to be WORSE.

[Publius]

It's a dream because the Framers set it up that way.

That's just not true.

George Washington specifically warned against party politics in his farewell address as President.

It was just an accident that our first-past-the-post system coupled with the way the branches of government are set up (electoral college, for example) that a two-party system is just the most natural state of affairs.

Of course this is a terrible thing, but it wasn't by design.

[GPDP]

That's just not true.

George Washington specifically warned against party politics in his farewell address as President.

It was just an accident that our first-past-the-post system coupled with the way the branches of government are set up (electoral college, for example) that a two-party system is just the most natural state of affairs.

Of course this is a terrible thing, but it wasn't by design.

Actually, as I understand the issue, the Founding Fathers, when speaking about "parties," were not so much talking about political parties as we now understand them, but against "factions" or divisions. Remember that prior to the Federalist/Anti-Federalist split, there was effectively no such thing as organized, programmatic political parties.

What I've noticed is that Washington's "warning" basically echoes James Madison's comments on "parties" back during the Federalist Papers (as I recall, his supposedly anti-party sentiments were written in Federalist no. 10), which were published between 1787 and 1788, at least a year before the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties came into being. How could Madison be decrying the evils of " political parties" when such parties didn't even exist at the time of the Federalist Papers?

IMO, it is much more likely they were speaking of general factionalism rather than outright opposition to political organizations with programmatic goals and ideas for government i.e. modern political parties. That their comments came to be seen as anti-political parties is, IMO, a modern after-the-fact misunderstanding.

[Publius]

Actually, as I understand the issue, the Founding Fathers, when speaking about "parties," were not so much talking about political parties as we now understand them, but against "factions" or divisions. Remember that prior to the Federalist/Anti-Federalist split, there was effectively no such thing as organized, programmatic political parties.

Yes, but the point is political parties, as we know of them, didn't exist, so the US governmental system could hardly have been set up to aid them.

And many of Washington's criticisms would seem to apply to modern political parties as well.



What I've noticed is that Washington's "warning" basically echoes James Madison's comments on "parties" back during the Federalist Papers

Yes, I remember writing those.


(as I recall, his supposedly anti-party sentiments were written in Federalist no. 10), which were published between 1787 and 1788, at least a year before the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties came into being. How could Madison be decrying the evils of " political parties" when such parties didn't even exist at the time of the Federalist Papers?

IMO, it is much more likely they were speaking of general factionalism rather than outright opposition to political organizations with programmatic goals and ideas for government i.e. modern political parties. That their comments came to be seen as anti-political parties is, IMO, a modern after-the-fact misunderstanding.

Here's a passage from his address:



In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?
To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced.

He clearly thinks these parties will be geographical, but he that's because he thinks that they will "excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection."

I think this warning clearly applies to modern political parties. He was just mistaken (though it's understandable why he thought this would be the case) that political parties would necessarily arrange themselves around geography (though that has certainly happened too) but his warning seems to be against factionalism in politics.

I suspect he'd be none too happy with current partisan politics.

[GPDP]

Yes, but the point is political parties, as we know of them, didn't exist, so the US governmental system could hardly have been set up to aid them.

It may be so, at least in regards to the two-party system. After all, they expected the House of Representatives to have to step in to elect the president quite frequently, believing that candidates would rarely ever gain a majority of votes, implying a multi-candidate election rather than a two-candidate one as we now have.


And many of Washington's criticisms would seem to apply to modern political parties as well.If they do, it's, again, after-the-fact.


I think this warning clearly applies to modern political parties. He was just mistaken (though it's understandable why he thought this would be the case) that political parties would necessarily arrange themselves around geography (though that has certainly happened too) but his warning seems to be against factionalism in politics.

I suspect he'd be none too happy with current partisan politics.And yet he also wrote the following in the same paper:


...the most common and durable source of faction has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society.

Marx himself could not have said it better. Here we have the "Father of the Constitution" openly admitting what the main cause of "faction," and thus "parties" in the context of Federalist no. 10, actually is.

And yet Madison was no lover of democracy, as evidenced from his belief that only the "men of best qualities" should govern (and where would these men come from? Take a guess!), and definitely no socialist, as he believed in the Lockean liberal right to property.

So forgive me if I don't sound too sympathetic toward Madison perhaps being disgusted by current partisan politics. The man knew exactly where the real, meaningful fault lines of factionalism lied, and yet he chose to do absolutely nothing about it, and in fact played a major role in arguing for and crafting a document and system of government that would cement those factions in place. It matters little whether he and the vast majority of the Framers expected the political system to turn out the way it did today or not. They crafted the document to protect their property, wealth, and privilege, and they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. That's what really matters.

[RadioRaheem84]

The founding fathers spoke of class just as much as Marx. The only difference is that the fathers favored class division and for interests to favor the capitalist class.

[NGNM85]

What we need is public financing of campaigns, then it would allow for more of a plurality and weed out some of the corruption. However, especially in the light of the recent ruling by the reactionaries on the Supreme Court, I don't see this happening.