|
|
May 24, 2013
|
|
|
|
 America’s 5 Political PartiesPosted on Jan 5, 2012It would seem that the United States has a five-party system right now. What was done in Iowa last Tuesday could unravel in New Hampshire, but whatever happens next, the United States is more politically fractured than it has been in decades.
Iowa is the beginning but has never been the bellwether of presidential campaigns. Too white, too rural, only 5.7 percent unemployment, and all that. But hard ideological lines shone through the Iowa results, even if the state had caucuses rather than an all-out primary, which means most of the folks who showed up were not only ordinary American citizens but also activists to some degree.
So this is the American political landscape at the moment:
Moderate to liberal Democrats, led by a president tangled in a country still unable to provide jobs for many of its people. Read Barack Obama.
Liberal Democrats, who believe the president is too moderate and too willing to compromise with an intractable Republican opposition. Read Matt Damon and other celebrities who think life is a movie with a happy ending.
Advertisement
Socially conservative Republicans, interested in only two pieces of literature—the Bible and the Constitution, though they understand neither. Read Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann.
Libertarian Republicans, who deeply believe the less government the better, and that includes isolationism. Read, of course, Ron Paul.
The Democrats don’t have to fight out their differences. Obama is effectively unchallenged. The Republicans, though, will get to the point of uniting to try to defeat Obama. That’s the only thing the three Republican parties agree on right now. There is something disturbing about the fact that the Republican candidates rarely seriously address the economy or national security. Their only mantra is getting rid of Obama. What would they do? I don’t know, and I don’t think most of them do either.
The Republican parties—or factions—are fighting a vicious internal battle because three-quarters of them hate Romney; they think he is a secret moderate and an open Mormon. Fundamentalist Protestants consider Mormonism a cult and Romney some kind of anti-Christ. In some ways, the 2012 campaign mirrors attempts to destroy the Mormons in the mid-19th century when the country was literally at war with Mormonism in the western territories. Tribal warfare in a new country then; now tribal warfare in the Republican Party.
(It’s fascinating to speculate on how many God-loving people will vote against Romney for his religion or against Obama because of his race. That’s what a secret ballot is about. More than 60 percent of Iowa caucus participants identified themselves as evangelical Christians.)
Despite all that, Romney will probably be the Republican nominee. Odds are that many of his current adversaries—candidates and voters—will hold their noses and vote for what they consider the lesser of two evils. The question is how many?
I’m not sure how this five-sided battle will turn out. I would guess that there will be a third-party candidate this year—probably Paul or Gingrich. That would be very bad news for Romney. But he got good news and good luck in Iowa. If any of the God-loving conservatives to his right—say, Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry—had not been in the race, Romney would have lost, and we might be busy writing his political obituary.
On to New Hampshire!
 TAGS:
|
Three Questions Left Unanswered by Obama’s Counterterrorism Speech
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By gerard, January 11, 2012 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment
Note: The main idea of the Occupy Movement is obvious: “Get together!” This is the most dangerous idea in America today. Therefore, every effort will be made to silence that idea and the people who promote it—in spite of the fact that it was this idea at the roots of the country. “Rugged Individualism” was a Christian capitalistic invention grafted onto the policies of community-building, barn-raising and “We, the people…”
Report thisOccupy made itself clear from the beginning by using the 99% tag. The 1% has isolated itself.
Our big problem is that “rugged individualism” has had us by the throat, competing, working against each others’ interests, that we have nearly forgotten how to “get together” except as “authorized” gatherings like political parties and cocktail parties and “Republicans etc.”
Occupying stands for getting together—anywhere, anytime, anyhow, to preserve democracy, even to preserve life on this planet. We can’t do it alone.
By Hank Van den Berg, January 10, 2012 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The writer states: “the United States is more politically fractured than it has been in decades.”
Mission accomplished! The 1 percent is safe.
Report thisBy Aquifer, January 9, 2012 at 7:34 am Link to this comment
Alan,
“if the “Democratic Party” were in fact a real political party, Obama would be thrown out for being
a right wing Republican!”
Well, I think you would be correct IF the Dem party were a real LEFT political party, but the fact that they accept and support this right wing dude would indicate to me that they are a right wing party, just like the Reps ...
Report thisBy Aquifer, January 9, 2012 at 7:30 am Link to this comment
Artsy,
“The 2 parties are as corrupt as each other, so I agree that they are really the same one. It is time to break them up and reorganize before they destroy the country completely.
Ron Paul is our only hope. If you think he can’t win, you are listening to too much “punditzi” spin! Oh yes, he can!”
So please explain how electing RP as a Rep. pres breaks up the 2 parties?
i agree, anyone “can” win - the question, it seems to me, is who do we WANT to win - I want Jill Stein ...
Report thisBy Aquifer, January 9, 2012 at 7:24 am Link to this comment
Balkas,
“usa a system thus runs on a THOUGHT.
i use the most pristine language i can come up with to limn or define it: me-better/smarter/more capable-than-you.”
Ok, but do you really think this “system” had to wait for the onset of “priests”? Perhaps for the “better than” part, but isn’t that a “refinement” or extension of the “different from” that is as old as human tribes - the extension that justified intergroup conflict?
“i avoid to use the word “capitalism”. and i have never used the framing “capitalism v. socialism””
Didn’t say you did - only that that is an answer i often hear when i ask the same question I ask of you (I ask a lot of questions ...)
“you may be conflating two entirely different phenomena: ideologies with what people do, how they use money
and run publically- or privately-owened banks.
i am not sure whether you do it deliberately or not.”
Sorry, how am I, me, myself, conflating two different phenomena? I happen to think that the capitalist/socialist “dichotomy” is not what it appears - both are fundamentally materialist philosophies and both fail, IMO, to the extent they are ... the idea that the only important thing is how we split up the “goods” ...
Report thisBy Alan, January 8, 2012 at 9:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
We have no political parties in the U.S.
Report thisThis is a no-parties corporate fascist state.
If we did have political parties, if
the “Democratic Party” were in fact a real political party, Obama would be thrown out for being
a right wing Republican!
By Artsy, January 8, 2012 at 6:58 pm Link to this comment
The 2 parties are as corrupt as each other, so I agree that they are really the same one. It is time to break them up and reorganize before they destroy the country completely. The crooks rule.
The good-looking and useless punditzi (my coined word for media spinners) keep spinning and spinning pre-conceived garbage over and over to help maintain the 2 party status quo. There are 2 views, just change the station - there are several for each party. When the cool aid is strong enough, the masses believe it. Whether you pick RepubliCON or DemoCRITE stations, you still end up with garbage. Everyone just argues over the same nonsense and we remain divided as planned.
I would personally like to yank out the “punditzi’s” ear plugs and turn off the prompter. Where did the real news go? While the 2 parties usher in FASCISM, we suffer from spinned lies and sit through cazillions of drug and car commercials (thanks to all the bail-out money and subsidy cash) just to hear SOMETHING important.
If you are broke, you can get free prescription drugs to keep you going or down or if you can’t afford to buy gas, you can dream about a car that goes 120 MPH in a few seconds. That will certainly do you a lot of good in a 55 mph police state. Better watch out for those ticket cams and road blocks looking for every excuse to arrest you. Don’t laugh in the car either because they will stop you for that too. Soon, the military will be policing us in hummers and tanks of we continue on this course of destruction…send thanks to the current party system for that!
Ron Paul is our only hope. If you think he can’t win, you are listening to too much “punditzi” spin! Oh yes, he can!
Report thisBy balkas, January 8, 2012 at 11:15 am Link to this comment
aquifer,
Report thisi avoid to use the word “capitalism”. and i have never used the framing “capitalism v. socialism”
according my understandings of capitalism, both the socialist and asocialist structure of society and
governance would have to apply capitalism; i.e., finance, purchase, sell all that humans do.
you may be conflating two entirely different phenomena: ideologies with what people do, how they use money
and run publically- or privately-owened banks.
i am not sure whether you do it deliberately or not.
i know that all MSM columnists, most clergy, congress and onepercenters do so knowingly—and in order to
deceive the unwary.
the idea is to defend their THOUGHT- first by calling it “capitalism”, and then to point out to peasants/rubes
that also socialist have capitalism; so, see, there is nothing wrong with it.
and the rubes never know what hit them! tnx
By balkas, January 8, 2012 at 10:46 am Link to this comment
let’s put it this way? safeway owners need s’mone to manage
Report thisthe store. america owners [0001-10%] also need a manager
to run their store.
having also a black person to run it, just made much sense
to to the store owners and especially after so many people
beat on bush. [and, sadly, also around bushes]
all the vital decisions had been already made for safeway
and america stores. all they have to do is to watch for those
sticky fingers of all of the people in that store. tnx
By balkas, January 8, 2012 at 10:30 am Link to this comment
aquifer,
you’d need to have read all my posts [which is not possible] and put my explanation about the SYSTEM, THOUGHT, IDEOLOGY [of any
land] in that context, before you’d understand what i am saying.
for now, let’s just talk about the THOUGHT in usa, shall we?
before i define the THOUGHT in usa, i would like to aver that on that THOUGHT rests usa system of rule and structure of society.
i do not see how we can continue talking unless we agree that whatever is it we do or don’t do; set up or don’t set up, is initiated by
the THOUGHT, idea, hunch, ideology, an ism [religious also]; which is followed by verbalization of it.
and always in that order: deep, silently running hunch/bend [or hunch/feelings] first and words thereafter.
usa a system thus runs on a THOUGHT.
i use the most pristine language i can come up with to limn or define it: me-better/smarter/more capable-than-you.
to me, the THOUGHT is not an american invention. it had been invented by priests millennia ago in mesopotamia [or egypt; possibly
also indus valley] and from there spread northward and west ward thruout europe and asia.
however, the ideology never ever reaching inuit and indigenes of n. americans. and the reason that the hunch never reached n.
america is? you guessed it! indigenes had no priests nor organized religion.
what is unique about america is the fact that in modern times, say last 300 years, no land or empire had been able to convince as
much of their respective populations of the validity and degree of believability of that shared ideology as the onepercenters of
america had. [ok, maybe surpassed only by japanese, but i am do not know that]
even hitler, who also shared the THOUGHT with much of the world—including americans—persuaded only about, say, 70% of
germans that the ideology was true for all times.
it goes without saying that my definition of the thought would be complexified by all those people who accept the THOUGHT as the
Report thisonly valid one.
By Korky Day, January 8, 2012 at 3:03 am Link to this comment
The system that’s preventing democracy in the USA is the 2-party system, which is mostly effected by the lack of proportional representation. Most countries have pro-rep in their constitutions, but not the USA, Canada, the UK, India, or China.
Report thisBy litlpeep, January 8, 2012 at 12:52 am Link to this comment
Much ado about terribly little.
Another missed opportunity to invite some public deliberation on creating a parliamentarian democracy so we can overcome the kleptocratically controlled bipartisan degeneration and stagnation now killing politics and government across the US.
More reason to go to the neighbors, and build political trust from the bottom up. No top down solutions have a prayer’s chance in hell.
Report thisBy cclauson, January 7, 2012 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I totally disagree with this article. The mistake here is a mistake frequently made by people who eat, breathe and sleep politics, which is the assumption that the American public is tuned in to the same political outlets that they are, and put as much effort into following them as they do.
My guess is that the public is probably more anti- things, like anti-corporate, anti-government, anti-war, etc. The fractured political landscape that this article describes is an offshoot of this, politicians trying to build viable election strategies around this sentiment, but in reality do not directly reflect it.
For example, take Ron Paul. Of the major candidates, Republican or Democrat, he’s probably the most anti-corporate (he’s not even that anti-corporate, it’s just that everyone else is so pro-corporate) and anti-war. So people who don’t like war or corporate control of the economy gravitate towards Ron Paul. But you don’t have to be a libertarian Republican to be anti-corporate or anti-war.
So in conclusion, it just seems like the author is reasoning from the limited data available from corporate media oblivious to how out of touch that is with ordinary people. The world isn’t this tidy.
Report thisBy Aquifer, January 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment
OK.
So it is “the system” you want to see a candidate rale against. Could you elucidate - other than arguing against war on moral grounds, which you have elaborated on, what is this “system”? i see the term spat out all over but when i get folks to try to nail it down, which, IMO, is what you must do before you can discuss it, let alone fix it, or even destroy it, if that is your desire, it seems to elude description other than in sound bites as “capitalism” v “socialism”, etc, etc ...
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, January 7, 2012 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment
Oh, I wish Leefeller would comment on all these whining, complaining posts. It’s fun to contemplate and work for a non-machine candidate. But pretending the next President won’t be named Obama or Romney (or possibly Santorum—yech!, Gingrich—ugh, or Huntsman—loooongggg odds) is just that: pretense.
What’s going on in the Dems is irrelevant. Obama will be the nominee and Dems either will or will not vote for him.
Other parties will put up candidates and hope to get enough votes to be taken seriously, like Ross Perot in ‘92, John Anderson in…‘80(?), George Wallace in ‘68, Strom Thurmond in ‘48 or TR in 1912.
But really is that it’s all in what the GOP will do. Will they pick Romney who 60% detest like he’s a child-molesting priest or worse still..an ATHEIST!? Of the other 45%, 25% like him and 15% are holding their noses. So he’s NEVER going to be a charisma-generating candidate like Obama was in 2008, or Reagan in 1980.
Or will they upset him for the sure loss, Rick Santorum…who will go down in a landslide to out-do McGovern’s? Will they come back to Newt, who NOBODY likes, not Conservatives, not moderates, not TeaPartiers, not even corporatists?
Or will it FINALLY become Huntsman’s turn, the ONLY person besides Romney who isn’t bat-shit crazy, is actually WELL-educated and well-versed in foreign relations, speaks Chinese, has two adopted kids (one from China, one from India) but…HORRORS!...worked for Obama as Ambassador to China, right now the most important economic partner and rival we have?
But, OH! NO! Huntsman’s a Mormon, too, like Romney. And while Mormons are better than Atheists or (maybe) child-molesting priests to fundie-nuts, they are still bad.
Yet, in the voting booth, I suspect that when the right-wing southern red-neck fundie “christians” have to choose between a White Mormon and a Black Christian, they, with all the hypocrisy of the last 250 years, will vote for the White guy. Hell, they might even vote for a White Atheist or White Jew over a Black Christian!
Despite nearly 60 years since Brown v. Board, nothing, and I mean NOTHING has changed in these people’s minds.
Report thisBy Korky Day, January 7, 2012 at 3:42 pm Link to this comment
In Canada you need about 100 signatures to get a party onto the ballot.
Report this[Balkas, don’t be lazy. Learn to use the shift key and SpellCheck.]
By balkas, January 7, 2012 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment
aquifer,
Report thisi was just about to take my beauty walk, when i spotted your question about why i consider also
greens as part of the system, ideology, thought [me-better/smarter/more deserving- than-you] or
whatever one wants to call the phenomenon.
greens, as far as i had been able to find out, consist of leftists and the rightists. i have also noted that
many leftists do not want to change the system.
most harp on individual, a govt’s, MSM faults/failings and never on systemic or system of rule’s faults
or failings.
i also have not encountered even one leftists or anarchist who condemns a war on a panhumanly
recognized principle.
the objection to, say, an usa war is based on expediencies, rationalizations, etc.
such as: wars cost too much money, they’d bankrupt america, we lose too many people, the wars are
based on lies.
this last rationale, appears much aggravating, as it tacitly posits a notion that one can justify waging a
war if based on truth—as if the one percent cannot instantly manufacture one.
it seems to me that OWS—even tho i do not correspond with any of its members—have espied this
fact!
pay attention to what cyr says. he pushes jill stein for presidency and makes the same plaints over
and over again; however, as far as i know, never about the SYSTEM.
it’s alway some individuals, govt or govt members, columnists that he blames, but never the
GOVERNANCE.
btw, the GOVERNANCE is a constant; govts come and go. it is probable that some people deliberately
conflate the two very different phenomena.
govt is really just a temporary management. tnx
By Aquifer, January 7, 2012 at 11:46 am Link to this comment
Balkas,
Why do you think the Justice party, or Socialist parties are (possibly) superior to, say, the Greens?
Report thisBy siwanoy, January 7, 2012 at 9:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I don’t buy this categorization nonsense in this article. I see the majority of Americans “un"described and unrepresented by all these categories. It seems to me and most people I know that folks want largely to be left alone and free from government interference in most of their lives, and do not want overly burdensome taxes. And, at the same time, they want government to do the traditional things, which is important but limited work, and includes things like a single payer health care system (like exists in the rest of the civilized world), a clean environment, safety laws that protect against unscrupulous or uncaring employers and vendors, and enforcement of antitrust laws that protect free markets against market power. A national bank might be needed as well at this point given the abuses that have run wild in this totally unregulated yet vital sector.
Report thisBy balkas, January 7, 2012 at 8:45 am Link to this comment
the MOVEMENT, the THOUGHT, or the SYSTEM is all. all political parties [i am not
sure about the justice party, tho] and all individuals who run for presidency,
governorship, congress, judiciary work for the SYSTEM OF RULE.
thus, the movement encompasses not only ?ALL so-called political parties,
congress people, a govt’s members, judges, but also all privately owned media,
education, cia, fbi, army echelons, et al.
the only parties which are not of the or for the SYSTEM appear to be socialist
parties; with 0001% of usa pop supporting or voting for them.
this bodes unwell for the ‘aliens’ and some americans. expect also more wars. usa
Report thisneeds them, because americans are stirring like never before, now more than ever
before.
OWS, i think, knows that the system would not change an iota if americans just
complain. one has to also do more than that. what OWS need to do is also go door
to door and start educating americans.
=======
about paul? i’d say that he represents a s’mwhat different movement-party.
however, as soon as he’d get elected, his party-movement would be gone the day
he get’s sworn in.
he would have to swear allegiance to the same THOuGHT that each president had
to swear in order to be inaugurated. tnx
By Patricia Norris, January 7, 2012 at 8:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
When will someone start talking about the cult like fevor of Ron Paul and the Ayn Rand followers. They base their beliefs on a novel she wrote that would never work in a real society.
Report thisBy jones, January 7, 2012 at 8:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Obama’s policies (protecting torturers, military commissions, dirty wars, Iranian “axis of evil” antagonism, warrantless surveillance, indefinite detention, extrajudicial assasination, etc.) are in keeping with the neocon agenda.
There will be no real political process in this country until we come to terms with what happened under the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, Congress is unlikely to investigate because they would reveal their own complicity (it was Nancy Pelosi that took impeachment “off the table”). The judiciary is unlikely to investigate because they’re complicit right up to the Supreme Court that installed Bush in office. And the executive is unlikely to investigate because Obama seems content to continue Bush-era policies.
Voting behavior has a minimal impact on policy in large part because it is primarily a means of legitimating the power structure that both parties rely on for their influence. Leadership is not a viable means to enact social change because belief in leadership is itself a tool used to enforce conformity. Conformists don’t bring about social change.
An alternative to 3rd party voting, which is often denigrated as “throwing your vote away” is to use voting as a means to coordinate the attitudes of the disaffected—that is, to use the existing electoral system for a purpose other than installing an individual in office. Such an alternate use of voting would be to vote for yourself as a write in candidate coupled with the advocacy of such a tactic.
The purpose of such a voting tactic is manifold:
1. Focuses on individual initiative rather than rely on some external organization for efficacy
2. If enough people participate, will create a spectacle that the media can’t spin.
3. Lets disaffected voters know how many others like them are out there—a pre-requisite for more organized behavior
4. Vote for what you believe in rather than against what you fear
5. Non-violent
6. Inexpensive
7. Able to distinguish the angry of the apathetic
If a prospective participant is afraid of appealing mostly to disaffected democrats, and fears this might tip the election in the favor of a republican, then, first and foremost, advocacy of this tactic should be directed towards non-voters. Also, keep in mind another way of interpreting how close our elections have become:
In 2000, the Florida recount was triggered by statute because less than 0.5% of votes separated Bush from Gore. If you deny that the election was rigged, you must then accept that an election settled by less than the statistical margin of error by definition says nothing about voter preference. An election so close might as well be settled by chance.
A statistically-significant degree of participation in such an action would be 5% of the popular vote, as this is what is required for federal election matching funds. This could be the youth vote. The purpose is to create a numerical “black hole” that the nation will have to examine, both in terms of voter preferences and with respect to the integrity of the voting system overall.
If you’re like most voters, then you believe polarization is a problem in contemporary American politics. Voting for Democrats and Republicans (read: more polarization) is unlikely to help things much. At some point, you’re going to have to take just a little bit of a risk and change your behavior.
Report thisBy scott anafas, January 6, 2012 at 9:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
i can not stop laughing…
Obama and the National Democratic Party are frauds. So too the GOP.
And Mr. Reeve’s 5 parties thesis is ridiculous.
Occupy the truth, dude…
Report thisBy Ted Whitney, January 6, 2012 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m still trying to understand how choosing to elect one person to one office really
Report thisis a viable way of changing anything. One man/woman cannot change this
system, no matter what party or parties they belong to. Believing that one
man/woman can somehow change everything is very american ... a complete
fantasy.
By Artsy, January 6, 2012 at 5:36 pm Link to this comment
Cliff said this and it is very well stated: “However, there is a pathway to freedom from tyranny if only America’s multitudes will realize that Party Loyalty is their prison.”
The parties are designed to divide and conquer. The polls are designed to do exactly the same thing. Obviously, they both work like a charm and the criminals who run the country always win. Check out that pyramid again on the back of a dollar which is really worth about 20 cents now….the left side is the DemoCRITES and the right side is the RepubliCONS. Underneath them is US and we are seriously screwed.
The law is changed so we have no rights. The prisons that will hold Americans for protesting are ready. There will be no good coming out of this. Sorrow, starvation, the loss of property and ultimately, the outright end of the USA. All these bastardized elections do is give false hope and no solutions. This is the way the system was designed.
The lesser of evils, is always evil.
Report thisBy Skip Mendler, January 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Besides the obvious omission of the Greens, Reeves also completely glosses over the conservative Blue Dog Democrats. I think the landscape is more like this:
Greens
Liberals
Moderate Centrists/Technocrats
Fiscal Conservatives
Business Interests/Plutocrats
Social Conservatives
Libertarians
And that’s just for starters. We need true multiparty democracy in the US, but we’ll have to change electoral law to make it happen. See http://www.voteother.us for more…
Report thisBy Cliff Carson, January 6, 2012 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment
I care not who Richard Reeves is. What I recognize in his article is the observation “If you want more of the same, vote for one of the two elites - if you want more for your family and your ‘class’ - get someone else.” This statement is absolutely true.
This country is under the control of a criminal cabal that bribes the current Government to act in the interest of the 1% instead of the 99%.
Voting Democrat or Republican or voting for a Third Party candidate with no chance to win won’t solve anything either.
However, there is a pathway to freedom from tyranny if only America’s multitudes will realize that Party Loyalty is their prison.
The people of America need to choose an independent Constitutional disciple and rally behind him shunning the Party of Elites.
And one more time: The Party of the Elites is both the Republican and Democrat Party. How many times do they have to prove it before you catch on?
Report thisBy BrilliantBill, January 6, 2012 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment
Wow. This is hard to watch.
Report thisBy balkas, January 6, 2012 at 3:50 pm Link to this comment
if we could resurrect plato, aristotle, atilla the hun, newton, planck, tolstoy,
Report thiseinstein, dostojevski, copernicus, gallileo, jesus, ghandi, lao tse, bwana
nganga, crazy horse, geronimo, kochish, and then get them or force them to
read bible, quran, constitution, they’d either scream in anguish or die one
more time.
or, in order, to end persecution and torture, tell you what the one-percenters
want to hear. tnx
By GradyLeeHoward, January 6, 2012 at 2:39 pm Link to this comment
Richard Reeves used to be a contender, but now he’s
Report thisan old bum. I recall when I was a boy he was valiant
and courageous, and that saddens me. Reeves is old
and tired now, and heartily deserves his rest. Rest
well, old friend, Obama doesn’t remember you either.
By gerard, January 6, 2012 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment
It begins to appear that in Amaerica now nobody is loyal to anybody or anything because the country has been hollowed out by too much war,fear and dishonesty. The result is widespread anomie where nobody can appear who is worth being loyal to, and no way that an idea worth being loyal to, can arouse enough emotional energy to get traction.The “empire”
Report thisis running on empty—which is not at all surprising to anyone who believes in justice.
By ardee, January 6, 2012 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment
This author has basically nothing to say and says it.
If this nation did indeed have a multiple party system we might actually be able to move forward.
Report thisBy inL.A, January 6, 2012 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment
LOL… This is originally from The Onion, right?
Report thisBy IzItAllGoUnder, January 6, 2012 at 10:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Our current political system is so corrupted and controlled by corporate elite money that whoever is elected, we can only expect more of the same. Legislation which benefits ‘business’ or control passes without mention. Legislation which would benefit the mass majority is tangled up in ‘partisan’, divisive, theatrical bickering. In the end, more liberties, justice, social wellfare are shovelled onto the ever-growing pile of what we have lost in the past 35 years. Get money out of politics is the only hope…..and, unfortunately, that isn’t going to happen without an actual revolutionary mass demonstration.
Report thisBy Cliff Carson, January 6, 2012 at 10:48 am Link to this comment
By bpawk, January 6 at 8:47 am
“If you want more of the same, vote for one of the two elites - if you want more for your family and your ‘class’ - get someone else.”
Nothing could be better said or more accurate for the current political situation ion America.
Report thisBy bpawk, January 6, 2012 at 9:47 am Link to this comment
Your article states: “It would seem that the United States has a five-party system right now…”
No it doesn’t have a five-party system - it is two parties serving the same elites with much smaller parties trying to find root to grow (both parties, but especially the Dems, would try to crush any party that has social democratic leanings - remember them keeping Ralph out of the debates and off the ballots). Another party needs to be formed to serve the 99% people who are not elites - there is no choice now - signatures are needed for getting candidates on the ballots. If you want more of the same, vote for one of the two elites - if you want more for your family and your ‘class’ - get someone else.
Report thisBy Michael Cavlan RN, January 6, 2012 at 9:38 am Link to this comment
My God
TruthDig is allowing this corporate drivel and spin? Really?
You forget the Green Party with Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson with the Justice Party.
Can TruthDig readers see beyond this blatant attempt at propaganda? I believe they can.
I look forward to TruthDig allowing stories and authors that promote Rocky Anderson, the Justice Party, Jill Stein, The Green Party etc etc.
As well as exposing how thew Democrats and Republicans are attempting to squelch parties developing in response to their one money party policies. Happening in California, Pennsylvania, Ohio and elsewhere.
Or is TruthDig being exposed as just one more propaganda tool of the one money party?
Michael Cavlan
Report thisCandidate US Senate 2012
Minnesota Open Progressives
By David J. Cyr, January 6, 2012 at 8:26 am Link to this comment
The New York State Board of Elections’ Voter Registration Form used to recognize the existence of only 5 political parties:
Democratic
Republican
Conservative
Working Families
Independence
... 5 not much different from each other automatic ballot status ways to vote for the same corporate state agenda result.
Then, in the 2010 gubernatorial election, some sensible NY voters decided that they would no longer support the corporate party’s agenda. They voted for the Green Party’s Howie Hawkins, instead of the Big Money pre-installed corporate party’s Andrew Cuomo (D).
Now there are 6 — **SIX** — recognized political parties on New York State’s Voter Registration Form.
The tired old 5 still supporting the corporate state’s agenda are still there, but now there’s an actual alternative with automatic ballot access — the non-corporate alternative party of actual opposition to corporatism — the Green Party.
With the Democrat’s Governor Cuomo working so corporate compliantly hard to be a more effective Republican than any Republican could be, with his policies to separately and unequally regulate an insane fracking of the environment, and to ruthlessly privatize what’s public, and his austerity plan that punishes working people for the crimes of banksters and war-profiteers, we should expect far more people (who are not corporate persons) to wake up, get up, and stand up to sensibly vote Green in 2012.
Jill Stein for President:
http://www.jillstein.org
Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:
http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1
Report thisBy Thorstein2, January 6, 2012 at 8:21 am Link to this comment
So feudalism is the new “moderate”??
Report thisBy Charles, January 6, 2012 at 7:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Interesting dismissal of the democrats who dare criticize Obama. Nothing but party
Report thisloyalist drivel here.
By theamazingrando, January 5, 2012 at 11:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree with kerryrose. Ron Paul orbits the masses.
To quote Murray Rothbard, “The Transformation of 1896
and the death of the third party system meant the end of
America’s great laissez-faire, hard-money libertarian
party.”
Since then, we’ve been offered “an echo not a choice” -
two “moderately statist” centrist parties that are
scarcely distinguishable from each other.
The assumption that he’s “not electable” seems based on
Report thisthe fact that he’s ‘orbiting’ and not in the box. As if
in the box is somewhere we think we’re supposed to be.
The box is what got is in this mess in the first place.
By Blueokie, January 5, 2012 at 11:14 pm Link to this comment
Another meaningless hack from the DNC Marketing Department.
Report thisBy MeHere, January 5, 2012 at 9:57 pm Link to this comment
When you consider the problems the country is facing -short-and long-term- none of the “5 parties” mentioned in the article speaks with a voice that distinctly qualifies it as a separate party. It is just One Party with fractures, which indicates it is merely a struggle for the power granted by the usual big interests.
Report thisBy kerryrose, January 5, 2012 at 6:49 pm Link to this comment
I beg to disagree. We have a one-party system with Ron Paul orbiting it.
Report this