Replies to post #49108 on Simply Politics & News (GOV)

[Koikaze]

Good Morning, Hap

I want to start by thanking you for the background on political parties. The material is interesting. Some of it I'd forgotten and some it (the specific partisans, for example) I never knew.

If I can do so in a non-contentious manner, I'd like to mention that George Washington was not an advocate of partisan politics. In his Farewell Address he specifically warned against "the baneful effects of the party spirit generally."

I agree the exact date of the formation of the first political parties is unimportant. For my purpose, it is sufficient to recognize that nothing in our Constitution institutes, enables or supports the existence of political parties. That leaves us free to consider other methods of selecting those who will represent us in our government.

I'm not surprised that you are unable to understand why I consider political parties a bad thing. Most folks see political parties as a necessary evil. Perhaps you do, too. In any case, you are among the majority. Most Americans have fallen victim to the common malady of believing our press clippings. We've been told so many times through so many years that our political system is the best in the world, some of us can't recognize it as a cesspool of corruption, funded by special interests that buy the laws we endure. I beg you to consider the possibility that the status quo may not be the best thing, even though changing it will take a lot of careful thought and may require us to face our own errors in judgment.

I consider political parties a bad thing because, as you cited:

* The Jeffersonians and Federalists invented the modern political 
   party with permanent party names, voter loyalty, newspapers, 
   state and local organizations, campaign managers, candidates, 
   tickets, slogans, platforms, linkages across state lines, and 
   patronage.

Which items in that list put the interests of the people above the interest of the party? None. They are part of the minutia of manipulating the public, not for the benefit of the people or the nation, but for the benefit of the party. Here are a few other reasons why I consider political parties a bad thing:

CORRUPTION
Corruption pervades our political system because the parties control the selection of candidates for public office. Candidates are not chosen for their integrity. Quite the contrary, they are chosen after they demonstrate their willingness and ability to dissemble, to obfuscate and to mislead the electorate. They are chosen when they prove they will renounce principle and sacrifice honor for the benefit of their party.

The result is a circular process that intensifies over time:

*  Candidates for public office cannot mount a viable campaign 
    without party sponsorship, so they agree to the party's terms 
    in order to acquire that sponsorship. 
  
 *  The party, assured of the loyalty of its candidates, attracts 
    donors because it can promise that its candidates will support 
    the objectives set by the party, i.e., the goals of the donors. 
  
 *  From the donors, the party obtains the resources it needs to 
    attract appealing candidates and bind them to the party's will.

Over time, this cycle makes political parties conduits for corruption. Businesses, labor unions and other vested interests give immense amounts of money and logistical support to political parties to push their agenda and to secure the passage of laws that benefit the donors. The political parties meet their commitment to the donors by picking politicians who can be relied upon to enact the laws and implement the policies the donors' desire. The politicians so selected are the least principled of our citizens, but are the only choices available to the American people in our "free" elections.

None of this is a secret. The parties conduct their business with our knowledge and tacit approval. We know, full well, how they operate. We know about the "party bosses", "pork barrels", "party loyalty", "slush funds", "party whips", and the whole lexicon of political manipulation. Since we know these things exist and do not prevent them, we are party to the very corruption we decry.

A system that renounces virtue is ruled by cynicism.

SEPARATION OF POWERS
The U. S. Constitution separated the powers of government in such a way as to operate as checks upon each other. Among the methods used were the definition of separate Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, and the further division of the Legislative Branch into two distinct bodies, each intended to represent a different constituency, namely, the interests of the several states and the interests of the people of those states, and the Electoral College to insure broad-based support for a successful Presidential candidate. Separation of Powers is lauded as a cornerstone of our Constitution. I'm unaware of any substantive disagreement with this view of the intent of our Founders.

Political parties persistently attack the Separation of Powers. They use their immense resources to maximize their power by forcing our public officials to vote en bloc on crucial issues, making a mockery of the safeguards we rely on to protect our freedoms. When a single group of people with a common interest succeeds in controlling multiple branches of our government, it is ludicrous to imagine we have a system of checks and balances.

PASSION AND INTELLECT
Political parties appeal to emotion by applying the principles of behavioral science to manipulate the public. They mount, finance and staff campaigns designed to inflame the passions of the electorate.

Communication during election campaigns is one-way. There is no genuine attempt to consult the public interest and the serious issues are seldom those raised during a campaign. Surveys are conducted to find "hot buttons" which generate a desired response and professionals use the information to mold "messages" which the candidates and the parties feed the public in a flood of misinformation. It is a rabble-rousing technique.

Intelligent decisions require dialogue; assertions must be examined, not in the sterile environment of a televised debate, but in depth. The electorate must be able to examine candidates and discuss matters of public concern, and, with the knowledge so gained, make decisions. They have no opportunity to do so.

Intelligent decisions are anathema to political parties, which encourage the passions of their constituents. They will do everything in their power to prevent the ascendance of reason.

The current process is a farce ... but what is the alternative?

And, there, we come to your observation that "... it is difficult to imagine an alternative." I agree it's difficult ... but it's not impossible (if you're interested, you can look at one rough idea outlined in #msg-6311737). We have the technological ability to support a more democratic method; the big hurdle is to get people to acknowledge the problem and the need for a change.

Fred

[Koikaze]

Good Afternoon, Hap

The response I posted yesterday addressed the way our opinions make us vulnerable to manipulation by political parties. It also described how vested interests slip the laws they want in among the thousands of bills our Congress considers while they divert us with an unholy clamor about everything from Jack Abramoff to public officials' sexual exploits (incidents which repeat like clockwork.)

These comments will be at a more personal level. They will look at your concern about the rough idea I sketched. You said, "... and the fault I would have with you suggested solution (#msg-6311737) is that under that system, I would have no idea what the final selected candidates stood for or were committed to enacting".

Do you have any reason to believe your views are not shared by the majority of Americans? Do you think you're the only person opposed to the vote-buying social programs that kept one party in power for decades? Are your views so different from the high moral principles of "Middle America", which the party system buries under heaps of claptrap, that you'd oppose a method of giving them a voice in our government? Can you doubt that most Americans will, just like you, eliminate radicals from the process at the lowest levels of such a process.

As I was trying to say yesterday, the crux of the matter is that we have to believe most Americans are good, honorable people that we can entrust with our government ... and we need to find a way to select the best of them ... rather than the worst ... whether the one I suggested or another.

Fred