There are clearly major problems to be considered at this time in US electoral history. the economy, foreign policy, and the blurring of lines between combatants and non-combatants, for instance. But it's just possible that there are obstacles in the system itself that make those issues difficult to deal with.
For instance: When did party politics begin to supercede personal conscience? In this particular electoral season, for instance, the cry of the parties was for 'party unity' long before the voters had registered their final choices in either party. The Democrats began to din 'superdelegates' in March to fall in line behind one candidate despite the fact that there were weeks, even months, to go before the convention that is meant to choose candidates.
Question: What happens to a democracy in which "the party line" supercedes personal conscience? Are we electing the party or the person who, we can now guarantee will vote with the party at all times. Have we built gridlock into the system?
And while we're talking about conscience: What happens to other voices in the country as an increasingly stronger two-party system crowds them out of the electoral arena. In some countries proportional voting brings all the voices to the table at once. If the Greens get three percent of the popular vote, they get three percent of the seats at issue. But where in our system do other voices go? And is that slowing this country's consciousness of emerging issues like greening, trafficking and immigration. Among others.
Maybe we should be discussing political issues like these before democracy becomes more a rallying cry in the American imagination than the real thing and personal conscience becomes a thing of the past.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Sister,
The reason superdelegates were being pushed to fall in line is that by then, Obama had mathematically guaranteed that he would have a majority of the delegates at issue, and it was also mathematically guaranteed that neither candidate would have enough pledged delegates to gain the nomination. If the superdelegates had held out until the convention, that would have been an expression of political cowardice, not conscience.
Third parties become more popular when the line between the two major parties blurs. Such a blurring takes place when individuals in a party are all over the map, rather than "voting the party line". When you have two parties that draw clear contrasts, two large coalitions is apparently good enough.
What we should really be having a national conversation about is why Democrats were too weak or frightened to impeach Bush and Cheney, or doing anything beyond issuing impotent subpoenas in response to the large number of crimes committed by this administration and a popular outcry for upholding the constitution, why Republicans have been willing to go down with Mr. 28%'s ship, why the media has been such an enabling machine for Republican and corporate interests (but I repeat myself).
Ask those questions, and we'll find the real weaknesses in our system of government.
Sister Joan makes an excellent point. John Adams knew that political parties would cause divisiveness and severe damage to the democracy. He wrote about this threat often. He believed it would lead to governing decisions good for the party but not for the country. Hillary said in her campaign it was time a Democrat won the White House. Why? Because a 3rd party candidate could not possibly be good for the country? Party first, country second. Not good.
While we have a ineffective two party system, there has not been a viable third party to arise. The reason for this is that the "others" who would like to to the leader of the band are to radical, unstable and just plain nuts. We will not ever have an effective third party until the moderates and progressives get together and decide that the Left/Right battle is passe'.
Meanwhile, we have to make our choices based on who we think is less a fool and will do the least harm. Last time we got it wrong, this time we may have better choices.
Citizen of the Cosmos has this absolutely right and there isn't anything else to say, except, we had better all stay awake and alert. We need to pay attention and be loud in our response to our government, also our church, which has the opinion that most of us are very stupid.
I applaud the thoughts and agree with sister. If we continue to focus on party politics then the issues which we seemingly voice a belief with our furvor are dealt with second class passion. Another way of dealing with the two party system would be to have a democrat as president, a republican as vice president and then after two years they would be required to switch roles. Now just think about the problem solving that would have to happen. Its like putting two enemies in the same room and shutting the door. The two entities would be forced to get along. What a concept. Maybe they actually would help America. Wow.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.