Has The Party Left You?
I have posted how the current party system is failing. I have posted how we need to refocus on the candidate and stop focusing on the party. Our current system gives us the candidate the party wants not necessarily the candidate the people want. Many have suggested that we need to stop giving to the party of choice and make direct choices with our money on the candidate. I have even given money to candidates I can't vote for simply because they represent values and ideas I would like to see advanced in our government.
The other day I was listening to talk radio and I heard an older women's shaky voice suddenly gain strength as she professed her political party. Once the name came out in all its glory, the strength left her and she once again continued in her feebleness. This tone and confidence change really got me. The power and history that welled up in this small voice made a strong impression and sent my mind off in other directions. I don't remember the program or topic but that voice stuck with me. Once again, I pondered how far our political parties have wondered.
We still use gross generalizations when speaking about ones political party. We tie them up with all kinds of labels and bows and present them to various people we come in contact with. These can become welcome conversations or bones of contention.
The reality of it all is the parties are no longer what once made them great. They are a mere shadow of what once unified and strengthened this nation. They carefully cloak themselves to gain favor and power. Often they rely on past triumphs to cover their less them stellar performances. How many times will past presidents be dug up and held high?
Have you ever considered how your values stack up to your party of choice? If you are an independent, how does your values stack up against the party of power?
I would love to see a national poll that actually shows how well the party stands up to its constituents. If a poll could find all registered voters for each party and list the main platforms to see how well the party is advancing those platforms and how many of those platforms actually represent those who would vote in their behalf. My bet is many are sucked in by single platform items. They may find much of their party of choice in direct opposition to where they stand. Yet, one or two key issues force them to hold fast. This very reason should force us to choose our candidates wisely. We need to stop the partisan separations and start focusing on key issue candidates who have similar values to our own. This subtle change in political choice may be the key to returning our nation to prosperity and uniting the divides that are tearing our nation apart from within.
The other day I was listening to talk radio and I heard an older women's shaky voice suddenly gain strength as she professed her political party. Once the name came out in all its glory, the strength left her and she once again continued in her feebleness. This tone and confidence change really got me. The power and history that welled up in this small voice made a strong impression and sent my mind off in other directions. I don't remember the program or topic but that voice stuck with me. Once again, I pondered how far our political parties have wondered.
We still use gross generalizations when speaking about ones political party. We tie them up with all kinds of labels and bows and present them to various people we come in contact with. These can become welcome conversations or bones of contention.
The reality of it all is the parties are no longer what once made them great. They are a mere shadow of what once unified and strengthened this nation. They carefully cloak themselves to gain favor and power. Often they rely on past triumphs to cover their less them stellar performances. How many times will past presidents be dug up and held high?
Have you ever considered how your values stack up to your party of choice? If you are an independent, how does your values stack up against the party of power?
I would love to see a national poll that actually shows how well the party stands up to its constituents. If a poll could find all registered voters for each party and list the main platforms to see how well the party is advancing those platforms and how many of those platforms actually represent those who would vote in their behalf. My bet is many are sucked in by single platform items. They may find much of their party of choice in direct opposition to where they stand. Yet, one or two key issues force them to hold fast. This very reason should force us to choose our candidates wisely. We need to stop the partisan separations and start focusing on key issue candidates who have similar values to our own. This subtle change in political choice may be the key to returning our nation to prosperity and uniting the divides that are tearing our nation apart from within.
Labels: America, Democrat, Election, Republican
posted by ablur at 12/15/2006 01:31:00 PM
17 Comments:
Republican and Conservative are two entirely different things.
I'm a rabbid partisan democrat, and I'm more conservative than the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership.
Mudkitty - What holds you to the Democratic party? Are there things that differ for you?
I don't see the Bush Administration as Conservative. He is a demonstration of my point. He has one or two issues but the rest doesn't fit.
I am an independent with Republican leanings. I choose to be independent for the very reasons I wrote this piece. My loyalties to my own values and convictions far out way the party.
Fr starters, I'm an FDR dem, vs a Clinton dem. But hey, ya gots ta dance with the feller dat aksed ya.
I don't see the Bush Administation as conservative either. I'm more conservative than the Bush Administration...and you know what that means!!!!
Mudkitty - You come from a very left leaning town. Those that lean right don't stay working long. Being conservative in such an environment must be a challenge as well.
We both seem to have agreement on where the Bush admin stands but what about my questions?
How does the Democratic party stack up to the real you?
voting for the person and not the party is a great concept that everyone should look at, but it won't happen until you can change the government to where it is ruled by the person and not the party.
Most people vote for 'the party' simply because that party is closer to their goals, even if the other guy in the race is a perfect match, they know that the party that wins, rules
fiscal conservative btw, pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-religion, anti-tax, anti-big government, anti-pork, anti-illegal immigration, pro-personal responsibility
Ablur - it stacks up poorly. But it's all we got. Next to the Bushies, it stacks up well.
I come from the United States of America is where I come from...:)
Lord Nazh - Choosing the person not the party is a build block approach. If we took our vote more seriously by actually looking at each candidate and not accept party affiliation as the basis of voting, it wouldn't take more then a dozen years to make a big difference.
We need a long haul strategy not a quick fix. The inpatients of America has gotten us the government we have not the government we want.
Mudkitty - Your only stratagy seems anti Bush. There isn't much left of his final term. Try to look past the moment and think about where you want to see CA and then the US, say two administrations from now.
My anti-Bush stance is real and palpable, but it's only a start, it's not the only issue.
Yes Ablur, I seen what you were saying, but I'm saying that voting the person won't matter even in years to come if the way power is meted out in Congress doesn't change.
It does not matter if you get the person you want elected EVERY time if the party they belong to is against your issues. Heath Shuler is a good example. In every respect he should be categorized as a Conservative Republican but he ran under the Democratic ticket. He agrees with lots of things that Republicans agree with so by person over platform they would have picked him.
In congress, however, Heath Shuler's vote doesn't count for much for the people that voted for him, his party is the key in that element and the D party isn't friendly to most of the things a republican would like in Heath.
We can change the people we want to elect in the primaries or we can vote on the person that reflects us the most, but we really need to change the way congress is ran if we want to change anything
Congress is ran from a party controlled position. They are the ones with power because we let that happen. We feed the party our hard earned dollars and they use that power to direct policy.
If power in the way of cash was less available to party purposes I think some serious changes would actually occur.
With this in play independents would actually hold some meaning. They would suddenly be more electable. This broadened participation would force the rules of congress to change. These changes would be very good for America.
The party system has all the cash and all the power locked up. We need to start removing this from the equation. If we actually elected people to office based on the afore mentioned criteria and stopped feeding the party, Congress would be very different indeed.
Nothing will change untill we have public financing of elections.
Mudkitty - How do you see public financing as a way of change?
Up near me in Portland Oregon they have public financing. This last election cycle has several court cases and huge finacial abuse issues of public money. How can this be better?
Ablur - because it removes institutional bribary from the equasion.
Liberals don't seek utopian solutions, we seek mitigating solutions.
There a so many things wrong with our system, I don’t know where to start. I think our system is still is as good as any, if not still the best. However, I fear that it has and continues to morph into something far different than what the founders wanted; and the changes are not necessarily good.
First of all, the campaign finance reform was a blunder. I don’t know if it was meant to be of good intention and that it simply went awry .... the old proverbial unintended consequences came into play ..... or if the politicians knew exactly what they were doing. After all, Bush had reservations, saying that he thought it was unconstitutional, but yet he withheld vetoing it and signed the d@!n thing into law anyway. WTH is up with that anyway?
When a President takes the oath of office, he pledges to uphold and protect the Constitution. Oops! So I don’t necessarily see where public financing is the answer. The
government rarely runs things well and you alluded to this, ablur, with your examples in Portland.
A third party is difficult to achieve ... I mean one of real consequence ... and would have to start from the ground up and would require lots of time to evolve.
We the people are partly (and to a large degree actually) at fault
for not being active at the grass roots level and at caucuses and primaries and getting the “right” candidates to run as opposed to the ones typically hand picked by the party. But it does take a lot of money to run, particularly at the Senate level; the average Joe has no chance.
Sorry for the long post, ablur.
Mudkitty - government is an institution of bribery. Look at how departments and agencies interact and share. The smell of greed is ripe at all levels.
HH - No problem with the length.
We the people have stopped looking for the right candidate. We have stopped investigating and requiring standards to hold office. We have allowed others to supersede our interests with their own. Look how easily we fork over our proxy at the asking by cooperate America. We just as simply forfeit our political vote.
We need to change this. We need to take back America.
Government is only an institution of bribary if we the people allow it.
Post a Comment
<< Home