|
|
June 19, 2013
|
|
|
|
 The Fracking of American PoliticsPosted on Mar 15, 2012LOS ANGELES—In the 1980s, I lectured on American politics at Sciences Po (l’Institute d’Etudes Politique) in Paris, the elite French school of political science. When the time came for questions, the first one from students was always the same: "How can you tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans in the United States?"
I would answer that Republicans smell better.
A joke, rather than an answer.
To the French students it was barely possible for them to see the difference. For most of my lifetime, the two major American parties agreed on most issues, particularly during the Cold War, and on what might be called a capitalist welfare system. I’d say then that if you could question President Ronald Reagan and Sen. Edward Kennedy on the fundamental political issues of those days, the most celebrated men of the two parties would agree on almost every question. They agreed on goals, even if they might have disagreed on methods of reaching those goals.
The question was natural from students in a country whose two major parties were the Socialists, led by Francois Mitterrand, and the conservatives, led by Valery Giscard d’Estaing and then Jacques Chirac. There really was a difference in France then (still is), even if French conservatives were generally to the left of American Democrats, to say nothing of American Republicans. The best example of that is that both of the French parties considered health care a right rather than a product. Other significant French parties ranged from Communists to racists (still strong) to monarchists (not so strong).
Advertisement
The Republican Party is breaking down or up over that question. Obviously, many conservative Republican voters, as indicated by primary votes and exit polls, believe that the front-runner, Mitt Romney, judging by his record as governor of Massachusetts, is not one of them. He may be the party’s most likely prospect to defeat President Obama, but as in 1964 with Barry Goldwater, many Republicans would rather go down in flames than choose a guy they don’t trust to impose their value system on the rest of the country.
Romney may be a Mormon, which could become a campaign issue in the fall, but that does not pass the God question for many fundamentalist Christians. It is astounding that in some exit polls in Alabama and Mississippi, more than 70 percent of primary voters said the most important issue in an American presidential candidate was that he or she reflect their religious beliefs. That, to me, sounds more like the Middle Ages than the 21st century.
Where will this end? The "values" voters are going to be disappointed in how this turns out, perhaps enraged, if President Obama is re-elected or if he is replaced by Mitt Romney. Their next move then will be to try to change the electoral system—to make it easier for third parties to get on the ballot in all of the 50 states. As things are now, the election rules in this country are a contract between the two major parties to protect each other from outsiders.
 TAGS:
|
Guantanamo Prisoner’s Case Demonstrates Unfairness of Military Commissions
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 berniem, March 19, 2012 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment
In this day and age I’m beginning to think that the US has become too big not to fail! The chasm between the reactionaries and true progressives has grown to the point of triggering another civil war should one side or the other overwhelmingly prevail. Unfortunately the political center in this country has either become woefully truncated or inactive and just might drop out of the whole affair altogether leaving the door open to extreme minority governance. Should such occur with a victory by the “conservative” right we may find ourselves amidst a Cromwellian revival! Perhaps the US should consider desolution of the Union and let all the factionalized bygones be bygones. This nation no longer seems to be manageable via the democratic process as evidenced by our steady march towards authoritarian rule and is failing miserably as an empire. Size matters not when substance diappears. FREE BRADLEY MANNING!!!!
Report thisBy Marian Griffith, March 19, 2012 at 4:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
@Kerryrose
—-Obama is scarcely distinguishable from a Repubican.—-
True, but be fair and admit that the entire USA politics have been dragged inexorably, and often gleefully, to the far right.
And to retain their position of ‘right wing’ the republican party had to shift even farther, to the point that they are now leaving reality behind and are firmly embarking on a colonisation of fantasy land.
And in another decade the democrat party will have followed them there…
Report thisBy moonraven, March 16, 2012 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment
Sorry about the typos. I am using a particularly DARK internet cafe today.
Report thisBy moonraven, March 16, 2012 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment
Mario Vargas Llosa was wrong when he called Mexico, with its one-party sustem in place for 72 years, The Perfect Dictatorship.
That Perfect Dictatorship, with a one-party system in place for a whole lot longer, is the U.S:
Both countries give lip service to being democracies.
Here is Mexico we know that’s bullshit.
It’s high time you gringos wised up—you’ve been deliverately suping YOURSELVES for more than 200 years!
Report thisBy kerryrose, March 16, 2012 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment
lilpeep
What the F are talking about in terms of me not understanding a values voter? To me, support of the commons, meaning the support of our common humanity and our common environment is being a values voter. When life means more than money and profit.
And yes, idiot bitch, the military is huge government, but the term big government refers to ‘entitlement’ spending in political lexicon.
Now F off and mind your own business.
Report thisBy Airborne855, March 16, 2012 at 11:50 am Link to this comment
The difference between the Democrat Party and Republican Party is this: The Democrats say, “tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend.” The Republicans say, “no, no! it’s borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend.”
Religious convictions do matter. All presidents engage in war and killing. Jesus never killed anyone, and commanded his disciples to follow his example. So, when the president or presidential hopeful claims to be Christian you know he or she is lying.”
Report thisBy Hammersmith, March 16, 2012 at 7:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Republicans need to resign themselved to permanent disaffection from the current U.S. political system and explore other avenues. A multi-party system would give them an means of expression and participation for a spell perhaps, but in the end they will have to accept extinction as white America continues it suicide/disappearing act.
Report thisBy litlpeep, March 16, 2012 at 6:50 am Link to this comment
There are no easy fixes. Some want a top-down solution to our political morass. Some want us to jump from where we are politically, which is radically confused and ignorant, into an academic and otherwise sterile theoretical garb, which is untested in any known real world. We will re-create our politics and government from the bottom up, or we will contintue chasing fantasy candidates and other fantasies into oblivion.
Kerry Rose hasn’t noticed that big government includes the Defense Department, which destroys the world, and the Veterans Department, which pretends to repair the humans the defense department almost completely destroys, and the State & Commerce Departments which provide diplomatic cover for corporatism exploiting peoples far and wide across the planet, and so on. In other words, like the R party, the D party is devoted to ungoverned corporatism, or corporatism governed only by corporate insiders. Nazism is still nazism, even if you call it democratic republican America.
Kerry Rose also doesn’t seem to grasp what it might mean to be a values-oriented citizen. Not all of us who think in terms of values are right wing nuts following Santorum/Bachmann/Palin, et. al. Obama pretended to be a values candidate, but has since abandoned those pretenses, until he began recently cranking up his re-election campaign. Now he is again a values blabber.
We may or may not be able to transform the bipartisan hack parade into a parliamentarian democracy. There are many paths to failure. But if we cannot try, we are chasing an even more remote fantasy. Or we are remaining aloof, above engagement with actually existing politically active citizens.
Taking full responsibility for who we are, and as we are, in all our enthusiasm and ignorance, is not always an easy task. We need much discipline: political, social, economic, spiritual, theoretical, and so on.
Anything else is less than responsible civic life.
Report thisBy Big B, March 16, 2012 at 4:45 am Link to this comment
Inherit is correct. There is absolutely no chance of the 2(1) political parties supporting any movement that would empower a true multi-party system. You could soon get a job in a pie factory, testing them.
However, the author does finally mention the elephant in the GOP’s smoke filled room (no pun intended) and that is the “mormon-ness” of their pro-tem front runner. I do media research for a living, and while largely anecdotal, nearly every home i go into that describes themselves as conservatives/christians all seem to share the same 2 views. First, immigration from central and south america will be the downfall of america. And second, they can never vote for a NON-CHRISTIAN candidate for president. In this they are completely inflexible. A Romney nomination will split the GOP in two. But keep in mind, the big business oligarchs already have a fallback guy in the white house. President Barry has done nothing to threaten the status quo of the 1% in his first fours years. Our biggest and richest, as per usual, have nothing to fear this fall.
Report thisBy TomDegan, March 16, 2012 at 4:43 am Link to this comment
They have spent the last thirty-one years trying to appeal to the kind of people who historically were not too interested in the political process: insanity junkies. And all of their efforts have payed off quite well for them - a little too well as it turns out. The “party of Abraham Lincoln” has devolved into the party of Uncle Fester. That demographic that the political scientists refer to as “moderates” (I call them “purple agitators” myself) have taken a good look at what the GOP has become and they’re headin’ for the hills. And many the so-called “Reagan Democrats” are disillusioned to say the least. It’s almost as if they got all decked-up for that dream date with Marilyn Monroe, but when the door opened, standing there to greet them was Typhoid Mary in her loveliest party dress.
And now the invisible movers and shakers within that disgusting party are desperate for a moderate who will lead them out of this wilderness and into the Candyland of their most twisted fantasies. Are you ready for the punch line?
THERE ARE NO MODERATES ANY LONGER! THEY WERE ALL DRIVEN OUT OF THE PARTY YEARS AGO! ISN’T THAT A HOOT???
The Republicans
1856-2012
That epitaph is not as farfetched as you might think. The wounds that the Republicans have inflicted upon themselves could very well prove to be mortal. When they created and then embraced the so-called Tea party three years ago, it was akin to French-kissing a viper. The lethal venom has been slowly circulating through their system ever since. The GOP is now paralyzed and barely clinging to life. It is only a matter of time before it closes its eyes forever and the agony is no more.
What we are now in the process of gleefully witnessing are the death throes of the party where Theodore Roosevelt once made his political home. He wouldn’t recognize it today.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Report thisGoshen, NY
By Tom Degan, March 16, 2012 at 4:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
They have spent the last thirty years-one trying to appeal to the kind of people who historically were not too interested in the political process - insanity junkies. And all of their efforts have payed off quite well for them - a little too well as it turns out. The “party of Abraham Lincoln” has devolved into the party of Uncle Fester. That demographic that the political scientists refer to as “moderates” (I call them “purple agitators” myself) have taken a good look at what the GOP has become and they’re headin’ fer the hills, pardner. And many the so-called “Reagan Democrats” are disillusioned to say the least. It’s almost as if they got all decked-up for that dream date with Marilyn Monroe, but when the door opened, standing there to greet them was Typhoid Mary in her loveliest party dress.
And now the invisible movers and shakers within the gland (No, that wasn’t a typo) old party are desperate for a moderate who will lead them out of this wilderness and into the Candyland of their most twisted fantasies. Are you ready for the punch line?
THERE ARE NO MODERATES ANY LONGER! THEY WERE ALL DRIVEN OUT OF THE PARTY YEARS AGO! ISN’T THAT A HOOT???
The Republicans
1856-2012
That epitaph is not as farfetched as you might think. The wounds that the Republicans have inflicted upon themselves could very well prove to be mortal. When they created and then embraced the so-called Tea party three years ago, it was akin to French-kissing a viper. The lethal venom has been slowly circulating through their system ever since. The GOP is now paralyzed and barely clinging to life. It is only a matter of time before it closes its eyes forever and the agony is no more.
What we are now in the process of gleefully witnessing are the death throes of the party where Theodore Roosevelt once made his political home. He wouldn’t recognize it today.
The Republicans are imploding before our very eyes. Life is beautiful.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, March 16, 2012 at 3:57 am Link to this comment
How are you going to get at least 35 states to agree to an amendment to change the national election system to a popular vote system? It changes the WHOLE system from state by state to strictly going where the voters are.
Right now, the system is biased
a) in favor of large states where winner-take-all means you only need HALF the votes in California or Texas (or even just a plurality) to win the electoral votes. But each electoral vote represents nearly 700,000 voters
b) in favor of small states GUARANTEED 3 votes where each electoral vote can represent 200,000 voters or less.
If state lines don’t matter, small states lose their influence, and they have NEVER been willing to give that up.
You STILL don’t get a multi party system until you award seats in Congress based on the number of votes you get. If we did that, Democrats would hold at least 60-65 Senate seats and 65% of the House…Republicans would be FINISHED!
Not happening. Unfortunately.
Report thisBy kerryrose, March 16, 2012 at 2:31 am Link to this comment
Sorry. Obama is scarcely distinguishable from a Repubican. He is to the right of the right on Civil Liberties, such as the new NDAA or 6 Whistleblower prosecutions compared with 3 in all the previous history of the US. The Korean trade act was also just approved.
Obama pledges no money to be spent on the ‘commons’ or as you put ‘big government.’ None. He does not protect Labor and is blind to the public sector decimation in places like Wisconsin and Ohio.
On and on. This is a fluff piece.
Report this