Deans Big Day

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by Crusader 4 da truth@Dec 10 2003, 10:16 PM


would you vote for Bush then, Just for kicks?

I wouldn't vote for him, but in a strange way, having him win might not be all bad.
If a Democrat wins, we'll basically have four more years of nothing other than the expansion of government, and they would most likely be replaced by a Republican in the next election.

So, the cycle continues, the status quo is preserved and the duopoly is saved for another eight years.

On the other hand, if Bush wins again, he might plunge us so far into the abyss that a GREEN or some other third party candidate might have a chance in four years instead of eight.

That is, of course, if we all survived another four years of The Shrub.

[Hoppe]

Is none of you going to vote for Harry Browne?

[Alejandro C]

Crusader-

you mentioned that you don't mind that Bush is elected even though he got less votes because that is just the way we elect people. how can we call ourselves a democracy when the elections are based more on gerrymandering than on the people's vote? do you think that its ironic that bush told castro the embargo will not be lifted until there are free elections in cuba that are monitored by a third party. hell, if bush was the third party i wouldn't be surprised to see Jeb in the presidents seat instead of Fidel.

you seem to be comfortable always accepting the way things are. at least you seem to be comfortable accepting the law as being always right. that is something i will never believe in. You have to question the law, you have to question the motivation of the law. you have to look at it closely especially when it is being applied to those who MAKE the law. do you really think that there hasn't been a succesfull third party because there isn't support for one?
you mentioned the recent gubenatorial (?&#33 race in california as proof that there can be multiple parties. do think anyone actually thought someone other that a dem. or republican would win? in the televised debates did they let anyone else participate besides dem. republicans, or former democrats? do think shwarzeneger actually won because he has the best ideas? the democrats and republicans always win because of the physical structur of elections. the televised debates, the single member plurality districts, the public funding, and most importantly the psychological helplessness of it all.
you believe that the people will always drive the public policy. i believe that you are only partially right. a small contingent of people drive public policy. a good example of this is the US embargo with Cuba. the entire US foreign policy on Cuba is dictated by a highly envolved anti-castro group in miami. this group provides the neccesary swing vote not only for the govenors, senators, and representative's offices but for the states electoral votes as well. anywhere else in the country people will not vote for a candidate based on their policy towards cuba, but in florida they will. so every year the pres. candidates go to miami and meet with these people, silently promising to maintain the embargo if the miami cubans will vote for them. meanwhile the rest of the country and the rest of the world recognize that the embargo is wrong and immoral. the percent of americans against the embargo is now in the mid-60's, but these people don't believe strongly enough to vote simply on one issue. this is a perfect example of a small special interest group controlling a MAJOR foreign policy against the wishes of the rest of the country. of course there are hundreds of other special interest groups in washington like the tobacco companies, the pharm. companies, and the oil companies. it is easier to see the corruption of these corporate interest groups because the politicians get money directly in exchange for policy, not just votes.
also you claim that the civil rights legislation is an example of the people of america leading public policy. in reality the people have very little to do with the government. there is a clear and strong detatchment of the government from the people. politicians from both parties have been out of touch with the people of this country since WWII. This seperation lets the politicians do what they like with policy and only make token promises or policy changes in order to get elected. The only time change is made is when the politicians feel the mounting pressure of an issue and fear that they will lose points on the polls if they don't act. in reality this is done very rarely. politicians make laws that superficially look good inorder to try and garner support from a public that is both disinterested and ignorant of what is going on in the government. this is why we have people like ari fliecher and other PR people talking to us instead of the actual politicians. being a politician is no longer about having character and making good choices and standing up for what you believe in, being a good politician simply means having a good PR team. thats democracy, american style.

also do you think the way Malcolm X influenced the system and changed people's minds was less democratic than MLK, or less moral? same goes for the panthers? or at least explain why you singled out MLK for praise as one man who changed everything.

[Hampton]

It took years because the people did not want that change It took a man like MLK and to press for civil rights and argue and debate the issue until the majority of Americans cam around in their political view points. He didn't call for a voilent revolution he used logic and worked within the system that’s democracy.

Which people are you referring to? Call me crazy but I don't think all those people were happy with having seperate bathrooms and schools for 80 years. I wouldn't call all of what MLK did logical, laying down, beating beaten, and arrested dosen't seem logical. Taking up a gun and defending yourself, now that's logical. Robert F. Williams was logical and that's why King wanted to dismiss what he was doing in the South and urged him to bet booted out of the NAACP. And bearing arms is democracy.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Wow I’m glad to see this thread has prompted some real lively intellectual debate! Let me respond in two post to break up the length for my replay. First lets deal with Depaver’s post.

we'll basically have four more years of nothing other than the expansion of government,

Surprisingly I agree with you. Bush’s domestic policy isn’t all that ‘conservative’ at all (aside from the tax cuts) He has presided over an enormous expansions of government, is doing nothing about abortion, and is spending money like LBG, Prescription drugs, bloated federal education programs, Air-line bailouts, huge farm subsidies, absurd new bureaucracy like the Dept of Homeland Security, steal tariffs (although he did remove these recently). Its triangulation, the same strategy Bill Clinton used in 96 neutralize your opponent’s issues by co-opting them. Why then does he enjoy my backing, all of these issues are minor in comparison to WWIV.

On the other hand, if Bush wins again, he might plunge us so far into the abyss that a GREEN or some other third party candidate might have a chance in four years instead of eight.

You could be right here a lot depends on what Dean supporters do and how disillusioned they become with the process after he crashes and burns. Irony is that as governor of Vermont he didn’t govern with the kind of radicalism he now espouses, but his shift to the extreme left coupled with bush’s co-opting of classic democratic issues threatens to completely destroy the Democratic Party. However Hillary is clearly running for president in 2008 and she will have a powerful pull on them. As Blogger Andrew Sullivan points out because she can campaign from the center and still count on support from the left she could be a force to reunite the party after the Dean fiasco but only time will tell.

But if you are concerned with the expansion of government I don’t think a Green Party candidate fight that, growth of government is one of their party’s platforms.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Sorry this is along post but you took the time to write a thoughtful response to my post witch I appreciate and I wanted to address your points in detail.

you mentioned that you don't mind that Bush is elected even though he got less votes because that is just the way we elect people. how can we call ourselves a democracy when the elections are based more on gerrymandering than on the people's vote?

I really didn’t want to get into a lengthy civics lesson but with the government maintaining virtual monopolies on education (up to high school level) and refusing to allow competition students are more likely to know how to put condoms on bananas then the rudimentary workings of American government (and forget about calculus). So here goes…

When people speak of bringing Democracy to this place or that they generally mean democratic values, some sort of broadly representative, pluralist government that respects the rule of law and the liberty of its citizens in a words liberalism. Not specifically a Democratic system of government so for the sake of avoiding confusion I will use little d to denote the values and big D for structure of government.

Your right America is not a pure Democracy it’s a Federalist Republic. Recall the pledge from grade school; “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Simply put a Democracy is a dictatorship of the majority; our government system has safe guards to insure minority rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. In a Democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority because sovereignty rests in the whole body of the free citizens.

Further limiting the scope and power of government is federalism; the sharing of power between the states and the national government. This has been a major issue throughout U.S. history with one party or another arguing for and expansion of Federal power.

That’s our government in a nutshell. Now we can begin to understand how we choose the President in this country.

The Electoral College is used to elect the president (opposed to a direct vote). The advantage of this is to grant people in smaller states a voice choosing the President they would not have otherwise. It’s a tool to ensure a broadly representational vote. So how does it work? Simple each state gets two votes (for each senator) plus each state receives the number of electoral votes equal its members in the House (which depends on population). There for no state gets fewer then 3 electoral votes. The District of Columbia also receives 3 votes. 538 total votes possible of witch you need a majority to be elected president that works out to at least 270 electoral votes.

No, this isn’t purely Democratic because this system does grant smaller states more of a voice in selecting the President. Contrast this with Cuba where the people have zero say in government and anyone who questions its authority is persecuted.

do you think that its ironic that bush told castro the embargo will not be lifted until there are free elections in cuba that are monitored by a third party.

See my post on Cuba; the fact that so few leftists will denounce this fascist régime speaks volumes about your worldview. Many leftists are now arguing that Cuban’s needs Fidel because they are incapable of democracy the same is being said of Saddam and Iraq (I notion I find abhorrently racist).

you seem to be comfortable always accepting the way things are.

No, I said I was comfortable accepting the fact that because I do not belong to any political party I cannot influence who it choices as its nominee.

at least you seem to be comfortable accepting the law as being always right. that is something i will never believe in. You have to question the law,

Didn’t say this either, of course you have to question an unjust law, I think what your are referring to my statement when I said “As long as they adhere to the rule of law I’m completely comfortable.’ I won’t be surprised if I’m the first person to talk about the rule of law on this whole board, it is essential to foundations of democratic governments its what set US apart from a Tyranny like Cuba, Nazi Germany or Present day China. With out getting into a long winding discussion Abiding by the rule of law means a couple of things
1 Government decisions are made according to written law and rules
2 Government sanctions cannot be made up after the fact (ex post facto)
3 Rules are applied as much as possible consistently to all
4 Courts provide citizens consistent, written process (due process) before life, liberty, or property is taken

That means when a law is unfair or unjust in a liberal society we petition the government and work inside the system to change it using legal means as opposed to perpetrating a violent revolution. It seems like an obvious principle but in many countries the government does not operate in such a manner the laws and rules are arbitrary and subject to change any moment.

do you really think that there hasn't been a succesfull third party because there isn't support for one?

I think we are going in circles I already answered this question above, but my reiterate my answer yes. Sometimes when there is enough popular support for a third party movement they succeed, this is what happened in 1856 when the Republican Party supplanted the Whigs, with Jesse Ventura winning the governors race, and Bernie Sanders in Vt winning a seat in congress. Political discourse is all about persuading people to vote for your.

you mentioned the recent gubenatorial (?&#33 race in california as proof that there can be multiple parties.

Yes, but its not just the California’s governors race that was an extreme example with 100 + candidates running next time you are in the voting booth take a look at ballot usually at least 5 other parties on it (depending on the election and your state) in NY I think it was at least ten parties each with their own candidates for governor in 2002.

do think anyone actually thought someone other that a dem. or republican would win?

Sure, a recall election of a governor had never happened in California before the pundits had no idea what was going to happen. Both the Republicans and democrats had multiple candidates in the race and where splitting their supports. Therefore it was entirely conceivable that an independent might win, a lot of people where pointing to Peter Ueberroth as the sleeper including Chris Mathews on Hardball.

in the televised debates did they let anyone else participate besides dem. republicans, or former democrats?

Yes, the final televised debate before the election 5 candidates where involved including the Green Party candidate, 2 Republicans (including the terminator), 1 Democrat, and 1 independent (a left winger). It was also the most watched political debate I California history so plenty of people where exposed to candidates and their positions. Plus it reared on C-span so you could watch it if you missed it the first broadcast.

do think shwarzeneger actually won because he has the best ideas?

While I’m not arguing that his celebrity played no part his election; it certainly fascinated many people and brought an unusual amount of media attention to the campaign it was not the primary factor. To answer you question yes I believe he won because he convinced the greatest number of voters that he had the best plan to turn the state around. I have enough faith in people not vote for some one because it would “cool”. But I think this question helps illustrate why I believe your ideology is dangerous, it highlights your distrust of the people to make their own discussions are run their own lives when they choice something or someone you disagree with. Despite communist rhetoric of workers solidarity and fighting for the proletariat, the ultimate appeal of this ideology is that it is an elitist’s anti-populist dogma, rewarding the follower’s egos that they possess esoteric knowledge about how to fix society if only the dumb public would follow.

the democrats and republicans always win because of the physical structur of elections.

Yeah, like the fact that you have to convince people to vote for you! These two parties have endured because they encompass the broadest swath of the electorate; from left to right. Where as a Libertarian party caters to a parochial group of benefactors, A Republican party on the other hand encompasses all the right of center views in a “big tent”, including libertarians. Alas the requirement of having to have an actual constituency in order to win elections means that extremist parties on all ends of the political spectrum Nazis, Communists, Islamic Radicals and other fascists have very little chance of actually acquiring power. Hence zeal of extremists to use violence; persuasion is much to slow and requires diligent arguments.

a small contingent of people drive public policy. a good example of this is the US embargo with Cuba. the entire US foreign policy on Cuba is dictated by a highly envolved anti-castro group in miami. this group provides the neccesary swing vote not only for the govenors, senators, and representative's offices but for the states electoral votes as well.

I think your analysis here is murky and confused to say the least. The Cuban exile community is against Castro with good reason having lived through his rain of terror and oppression (see my Cuba post) but they are hardly “swing voters”. The modern democratic party are soft on despots and Castro is no exception (look at Gore in 2000). Further they do not constitute a majority in the state of Florida and therefore can not install any elected official they like, they do have the ability to help elect one governor, that of Florida, and the he no baring on US foreign policy witch is a function of the federal government. Those that could influence this policy they can only help elect 2 senators from Fl, and the congressman from the Miami Dade area. Hardly enough people to high jack an entire foreign policy as you claim.

anywhere else in the country people will not vote for a candidate based on their policy towards cuba, but in florida they will. so every year the pres. candidates go to miami and meet with these people, silently promising to maintain the embargo if the miami cubans will vote for them.

Again I think your analysis is confused, did Al Gore go to the exiles community and promise freedom for Cuba, no. The Cubans are not swing voters they are part of the Republican constituency, have been for years and this not out of whack with the parties platform. Non-Cuban Republicans (like myself) also support a vigorous opposition to communism. Even after the disintegration of the USSR.

and the rest of the world recognize that the embargo is wrong and immoral.

Unfortunately this is true the majority of the rest of the world doesn’t care what the circumstances are in Cuba as long as they can make money. The UN and the EU have always had a habit of looking the other way they did the same thing in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq the list goes on and on.

the percent of americans against the embargo is now in the mid-60's, but these people don't believe strongly enough to vote simply on one issue.

I’d like to see what your source is for that data, I find it hard to believe the majority of Americans are willing to forsake the principle of freedom simply to have access to Fidel’s blood money.

this is a perfect example of a small special interest group controlling a MAJOR foreign policy against the wishes of the rest of the country.

I think you are threatened by their outspokenness because they have lived in his country seen his rule and have rejected it, this doesn’t square with your ideology and so you have to repeat the same cliché over and over again. As I stated above they have not swing the Republican party into an Anti-Communist stance that’s been the position of the party since the 50’s. They are not going to abandon that stance because the USSR has disintegrated in effect saying that Communism was not ok in Russia but it is just fine in Cuba.

of course there are hundreds of other special interest groups in washington like the tobacco companies, the pharm. companies, and the oil companies. it is easier to see the corruption of these corporate interest groups because the politicians get money directly in exchange for policy.

Scary ‘special interests” groups have been the topic of scorn for activists on both sides of the political isle; the whole argument is largely a canard. When people decry special interests they only manage to point out the groups they disagree with (like you did above) but what about the trial lawyers, Unions, and Environmental groups all of whom are equally well organized and financed and have diametrically opposed agenda to the those groups above.
I have no problem with groups of citizens who organize and petition their government to adopt a certain stance on a policy issue, in fact I encourage it, people label it ‘special interests’ when they don’t agree. It might surprise you but many people don’t want the government involved in business and agree with the ‘special interests groups’ you mentioned.
On the other hand I don’t agree with the Unions, trial lawyers, environmentalists, the ACLU and other left wing groups most of the time, but I respect their rights to organize and try and influence government. The key is that in order for this effort to work the issue has to have some base in support among the public. For example I was watching South Park the other day it was the repeat of the NAMBLA episode. NAMBLA is a special interests group but so far has been unsuccessful influencing many legislators, because their base of support is too weak (thank god&#33.

politicians make laws that superficially look good inorder to try and garner support from a public that is both disinterested and ignorant of what is going on in the government.

This can be true to an extent but fortunately the ultimate effect of polices are felt by the voters who ultimately have the power to hold those in power accountable. Example, with the tax cuts, or with Medicare bill voters will be able to assess for themselves whether they like these policies or not. Granted some issues are esoteric and their impact not felt by the voters in obvious way, like new campaign finance laws or new bond issue. That’s why a free press is so important to the health of democracies; aside form the tradition network news the multitude of newspapers and magazines the cable outlets, radio programs there is the Internet. This is why tyrannies (like Cuba) has always sought to ban the freedom of the press they are a direct threat to those who miss-use power.

being a politician is no longer about having character and making good choices and standing up for what you believe in.

Some politicians do and others don’t, you may not like him or his ideas but the President is currently standing up for what he believes in. And so have past officials from all political parties, that’s what democracy is all about resolving political difference by taking ones ideas to the public and trying to win broad based appeal. That’s why left is losing today in America they can’t convince the public of the validly of their ideals.

also do you think the way Malcolm X influenced the system and changed people's minds was less democratic than MLK, or less moral? same goes for the panthers? or at least explain why you singled out MLK for praise as one man who changed everything.

Malcolm X and MLK did have profoundly different approaches to the civil rights movement in part because disagreed on what the conflict was. MLK want a harmony of citizens, he called America to live up to its creed, to be true to its values. Malcolm and the Panthers where the polar opposites of that; a profoundly illiberal movement. In the context of government and changing the system let there be no doubt that MLK leadership changed America and got that legislation passed. The panthers I believe scorned the 64 legislation as meaningless. Sadly as much reverence is paid to MLK’s legacy today’s civil rights leaders have largely forgot his ideals.

[Alejandro C]

The federal republican nature of the US is absurd. You claim that the electoral college is used to give smaller states a bigger voice! you don't actually believe that anymore do you! that idea has been laughable for over a century. the conflict between states is dead and rotted. The electoral college is only in place now to maintain the two parties. for instance lets say the green party in the 2000 election gets 7% of the popular vote. how many ACTUAL votes does nader get 0. Lets say nader had gotten 15% or even 20% in some liberal states like california, how many ACTUAL votes does nader get for his millions of popular votes- 0. The winner take electoral college acts like the opposite of the an equalizer, it gives those in power an absolute power. You have to win overwhelmingly if you are to win. how can a third party do that. would you call it a coincidence that every other 'democracy' in the world has more than two recognizable parties, while the US with its unique federal republic has only two parties (and the majority of people do not want to vote for either party) for the last 150 years! thats awfully strange... It seems the structure has many safe-gaurds to ensure that a democracy doesn't brake out.

thanks for the civics lesson but i could already see that the electoral college and the single member plurality districs are tools that keep the powerful in power. not only that but it reduces the fight between the parties into petty politics instead of something honorable. The politicians will be playing state savior for a little bit for two years while not focusing on whats good for the nation.
some form of porkbarreling and gerrymandering- these are what the great 'federalist republic' is reduced to.

[Hampton]

Malcolm X and MLK did have profoundly different approaches to the civil rights movement in part because disagreed on what the conflict was. MLK want a harmony of citizens, he called America to live up to its creed, to be true to its values. Malcolm and the Panthers where the polar opposites of that; a profoundly illiberal movement.

Malcolm did the same thing. And the Panthers were more than some liberal movement.

In the context of government and changing the system let there be no doubt that MLK leadership changed America and got that legislation passed.

Yea wow, but so did a dozen other civil rights groups, when people talk about civil rights it's always either Martin or Malcolm and who do you like better but when you suggest only those two you're missing about 2/3 of the movement itself, and saying that yea, Martin did the most discredits a lot of other people those who believed in non violence and those who advocated self defense.

And it makes so much more sense that Martin would get more things down, people are willing to listen to the man who takes the blows and dosen't strike back and loves the person that is killing them, rather than the alternative.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

The electoral college is only in place now to maintain the two parties.

You believe that the Electoral College is what is holding back a third party presidential candidate from winning and not a lack of grass roots support as I claim. Then an obvious question arises; why have these third parties failed to capture a significant amount of Senate seats or State Governorships which are decided by a direct vote? Fortunately I have already answered this question:

These two parties have endured because they encompass the broadest swath of the electorate; from left to right. Where as a Libertarian party caters to a parochial group of benefactors, A Republican party on the other hand encompasses all the right of center views in a “big tent”, including libertarians. Alas the requirement of having to have an actual constituency in order to win elections means that extremist parties on all ends of the political spectrum Nazis, Communists, Islamic Radicals and other fascists have very little chance of actually acquiring power. Hence zeal of extremists to use violence; persuasion is much to slow and requires diligent arguments.

The winner take electoral college acts like the opposite of the an equalizer, it gives those in power an absolute power. You have to win overwhelmingly if you are to win. how can a third party do that.

Apparently I failed at explaining the electoral college. One does not have to win overwhelmingly to be elected President, there have been many close presidential elections including one in 2000 you may recall.

would you call it a coincidence that every other 'democracy' in the world has more than two recognizable parties, while the US with its unique federal republic has only two parties

I’m not confident you are reading my posts, you keep regurgitating the same questions after I have addressed them. I’ll quote from my previous post.

any one can run for office and a overabundance of political parties are on the ballots on most states (look at the recent Cali governors election), The right to life party, the Green, the libertarian, ect, ect, I think people use this argument because they have failed to persuade people on a grass rotes level that their ideas are valid they get frustrated and blame the “system” it’s a cop out for failure. Sometimes if you convince enough people third party candidates can win like Ventura, and Barry Sanders in Vermont.

We keep going around in circles you ask a question I answer it and then you ask the same question again. Put away the liberal playbook Re-read my posts and think about my argument at the very least you’ll stop repeating the same questions (it’s unbecoming).

[Alejandro C]

the nature of national elections is very different from that of local elections. if you look at the voter turn out difference you'll see what i mean. i hate to say the same thing over and over but most of the problems have the same root. people are dissinterested in politics as i've explained before. the regional elections bring only those partymembers and hardcore supporters to the polls. last regional election where i'm from didn't even get a 40% turn out. thats why the two parties hold power regionally. only their supporters turn out to vote.

also you still didn't adress the question about the world wide democracies having more than two parties. if you think you answered it then you really believe that a third party has signifigance in america? you can't really think that there is another party with ANY political significance in america?! your current answer simply says that in america there is no support for another party. and there hasn't been for 150 years. you need to think about that.

you are the one who chose to answer those parts of my post. you didn't anwer to other parts, like the idea that the electoral college is outdated and that the conflict between states has been dead for a long time, that the electoral college acts to suppress the minority parties within each state instead of giving each 'little state' a stronger voice.

also i've got an example of why third parties cannot win locally. In the early 70's a man near and dear to all our hearts- Hunter S Thomspon- ran for sheriff of his small town of aspen colorado. he ran on the freak power ticket and rapidly gained not only local support but national support. he was expected to win by a good margin over both the democrat and republican candidates. However, two weeks before the election the leaders of the democrats and repulicans in that state got together. they decided that it would be disasterous if thompson were to win. They made a pact that the democratic candidate for sheriff would step down and the republican candidate for another minor office would step down. in both resignation speeches the candidates told the voting public to vote for the dem/rep representative instead of themselves. in this way the two parties united to ensure that HST would not become sheriff. this, while a rare and strange example gives you the true nature of the dem/rep machine. thats real democracy, american style.

ps. if you think i'm saying the same thing over and over i apologize, i'm not trying to. i don't think that i am; but since you do and still respond -thanks for the patience.

[SonofRage]

I totally forgot this thread. To answer the question on defining the term "Radical Middle," Someone in the radical middle to me is someone like Dean or John McCain. They both are pretty much moderates overall but are not the "squishy center" type moderates who are viewed as being indecisive or as having weak opinions. They are not dogmatic about their ideology and are conservative on some issues and progressive on others. When they see something they view as corruption, they will strongly speak out against it.

So basically they cannot really be described as being left nor right.