Toward a Reorganized Two-Party System

Gamesterism

Play games with us.  We like it.
Play games with us. We like it. | Source

Things Ain't What They Used to Be

It is nicer to make friends than enemies, but often enough one's own conscience will not permit it. Point blank, Democrats are not recognizable as such, based on an informed look backward in time. Are they still as admirable as they once were? They continue to outperform Republicans unskilled in the dark craft of managing thoroughly corrupt cities. I hasten to add that at present there are no other kinds. But the current crisis overseas and an economy at home that is more exclusive than inclusive calls into question Democratic leadership. As to the etiology of the current situation, I hardly qualify to comment upon it. I am not a student of all things political, I rarely watch the news, and I almost never read an entire journalistic article to completion. This hub is at best a knee jerk reaction to the events that come to my attention without my having to ask. I merely turn on the computer, and there they are, headlines that underscore the thesis, however fanciful, that our system, especially in terms of suffrage, such as it is, needs to be re-organized.

One of the problems with the regnant administration is that it ran into partisan blockages that it simply could not blast through. As things began, in '08, there was a great deal of hope that two main actions would take place. One, there would be less hostilities overseas. It was one thing to retaliate against aggression, another to simply linger about like haughty conquerors. Two, our bureaucracies, to my mind, would undergo intense scrutiny, analysis, and a healthy, more budget-conscious revision. The President constantly used the word "overhaul". Now, the idea, a good one in my estimation, is rusting away on the political junk heap. Stonewalled, the administration drifted toward more non-partisan matters, since they alone stood a chance of winning. There is light ahead in the tunnel still since Democrats lead the way in terms of domestic issues, such as health-related concerns, that Republicans routinely ignore.

But what if instead of being Democrats, the ruling insiders had been Liberal Republicans? Few take seriously the notion that our healthcare sector is the envy of the entire world. Prices alone give rise to principles at loggerheads with what the country truly stands for, that it is not a nation created for an elite. Further, the indispensable use of mandatory insurance suggests a commercial favoritism that is also out of sync with our sense of fair play. So, Uncle Sam does not want you anymore, just your premiums, huh? A latter-day Jeremiah might also add, "Why do the rich survive and the poor die?" An all-Republican political arrangement might actually have made real progress instead of generating sheer controversy, which seems to be the chief output of Obamacare, and so much else besides. But then, conservative Republicans would probably stymie all efforts on behalf of individuals to alter a heartless, money-happy system they appear to champion.

Moreover, not irrelevant, I think, it should also be said that the level of animosity toward this particular Presidency is seriously alarming. President Lincoln was steadily attacked in the newspapers till the day he was shot. Cartoonists never gave him a break. All this mockery spills over. Who is insured against it? Mockery is a useful weapon. It leaves no trace. It sheds no blood. Sometimes it is unbearable -- for the recipient. Lots of fun for everybody else. Certain snobbish suburbs are locally well-known for obnoxiousness. Their expertise supercedes ethics and laws. I have seen this practice in action, unremarked upon and unreported. To so sophomorically target the President without letup is to lend a hand in the creation of a new endangerment.

You May Grow Up to be a Republican

Source

Unbalanced Republicans

At first, the Republicans of the late Seventies, early Eighties, were a breath of fresh air. Dumping Republicans in the earlier part of the Seventies did not do the job Democrats had hoped for. What did it solve to cause Republicans to lose their jobs? Nothing. Now, descendants of those scrappy new breed of Republican drone on about the same positions with so little variation among them that it is as if they were Germans. Back then, Liberals faltered. It was obvious. Conservatives attacked. Conservative triumphed. It was not true that mass murderers, to purposely exaggerate, only needed proper love and affection to gain full rehabilitation, or that the de-criminalization of hard drugs would, contrary to the staid wisdom of the time, not adversely affect our relatively civil social relations. Only recently has conservatism been so lock-linked to Republicanism. It might be unfair to evoke the name of Lincoln once again, but his Republicanism, to be sure, was not so utterly conservative. In fact, given the constraints of the time, it was not at all conservative. The dissolution of the Democratic Party and its absorption into a novel Left Wing of the Republican Party would re-vitalize the political stagnation that obtains. Maybe -- since this is all pure conjecture and at best a mental exercise. Maybe not.

Democrats Forever?

Leave the two-party system alone no matter what.

  • Yes
  • No
See results without voting

Values

Our enemies in Iraq watch television, too. They know that sexual politics are part and parcel of the life-spring of the Democratic Party. This is not necessarily bad. All it means is that tolerance must never be lost sight of. But they also think that to fight for the right of gays to shoot bullets or file joint tax returns is not comparable to their own, loftier motivations. They hold themselves on higher ground. Democrats, it might also be said, have yet to prove themselves capable of dealing with terrorism. The Prophet Mohammed is not the issue, though at times it seems as though the current politicos in positions of command are fearful of trampling upon his name. That might hurt the feelings of his lackeys. Thus, we must understand our enemy at least as much as fight him. The belligerent fanaticism that surrounds a religion that, practically speaking, means our own deaths, does not affect their decisions. I'm also echoing popular sentiment, not saying anything original. Religions of the East are obscure and incomprehensible, but we do not object to their practice. Yet Mohamedism underscores almost the whole of terrorism today. Republicans, on the other hand, have developed values that are as time-worn and traditional as those cherished by hardcore anti-Americans, the kind who regard Americans as infidels -- to be nice about it. They do not oppose the bedroom against the mosque. They are therefore, put otherwise, in a better position to deal with what is happening right now in the Middle East. All this is hypothetical but not unimportant. Hostilities might blow over and die down. Still, that cannot be the guiding light of our international policy. The American people know that Republicans can deal effectively with terrorists. The Democrats are still being tested. Very probably they will succeed. They will have to with skin in the game.

The Two-For-One Party System.

I am just running a flag up the pole. Anyways, there are trends that are hard to buck despite their irrationality. One of them is the word "liberal", which gets bashed time and again. It all depends. The extremes of conservatism are just as outrageous as the bleeding heart liberal who cannot differentiate authentic concerns from idealistic ones. From a distance, not to be too cute, it seems as though every once in a while Democrats are given an opportunity to prove themselves as qualified as Republicans. We are fairly certain that if there is trouble overseas, Republican leadership will not waffle. We are also reasonably assured that Republicans will not be as greedy as Democrats, though they are both somewhat addicted to taxes. We are also confident that Republicans will tweak the economy, if they can, so that it gathers momentum. Either way, despite all the entangled rhetoric, entitlements are relatively safe, whether in the form of social security, medicare, or food stamps. But no matter what the subject of contention, whoever resides in the Oval Office is going to encounter tremendous friction based on nothing greater than a stubborn, obsolescent two-party system. It is, to be precise, ruining government. The wheels of legislation will come to a standstill just when they are needed most. Unfortunately, the Democrats at present have personalities and Republicans do not -- all this independent of substance. We seem to elect the candidate who looks and sounds best on camera, so that is that. We need to think more thoroughly. I cannot myself propose a solution except the unrealistic idea of a single party split between liberals and conservatives.

The World is Watching

It should not matter, but the fact is, America is a high profile nation. Does anyone know what is happening in British Columbia at the moment? Can anybody name five major cities in Russia in addition to Moscow and Leningrad/St. Petersburg? You can travel across the globe and likely as not strike up a conversation about Chicago. Our best men and women in government have always believed that Democracy should be universal. They mean well. But I maintain that despite everything, including the whole of human history, especially in regard to its awful struggle against oppression and tyranny, most people like strong leaders. Freedom is not a factor. Look, I find our endless debates interesting. What little I have seen on the tube in Parliament in the UK is also interesting. But I seriously doubt that billions of human beings throughout the globe agree. In democracies, much talk proceeds little action. This is a virtue, however, most of the time. Change is always problematic. Thus, the pendulum eternally swings from Democrat to Republican and Republican to Democrat, and similarly so in the Parliamentarian nations. The catch comes about during crisis, which ancient Rome prepared for with a theoretically benign dictatorship. It was designed to dissolve after the crisis was successfully confronted. My impression is that the Obama administration is a multi-headed entity. It is oligarchical at best. Too many Democrats at the wheel. . . . Incidentally, I only just found out recently that nearly fifty million citizens in the USA need help with getting meals. This much shows first and foremost my own ignorance. But secondarily, it is a stunning statistic. At the same time, further instability in the Middle East is unsettling. How much more anarchical breakdowns can be safely brooked? Terrorism has already reached our shores, and that section of the world, by the Mediterranean, which otherwise would only attract the attention of tourists and import/exporters, houses the supreme headquarters for the hatching of major plans to hobble the West. A two-party system is still the best, but its current shape and form makes one wonder.

Or Would You Rather Be A Democrat?

Source

More by this Author


1 comment

someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 2 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

Democracies only work in a perfect society.That 's not likely to happen in the near future. A Republic form of government may be imperfect; but it's far better than a simple Democracy where you don't have to be a citizen in order to vote.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working