ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

The Bout of the Century: Republicans vs Democrats

Updated on October 12, 2012
Democrats ("Communists") vs Republicans ("Nazis")
Democrats ("Communists") vs Republicans ("Nazis") | Source

In the red corner, weighing in at 11,000 lbs: The party that "can't do anything but disagree with the Democratic Party." In the blue corner, weighing in at 230 lbs: The "Communist" Party.

Doesn't it feel like watching a political debate is like watching a boxing match or at least the weigh in before the fight? Maybe it's just me, but you can't disagree, when it comes to political campaigning, the two major parties let the got ya b**** and metaphorical punches fly.

The more and more I watch from both sides of the aisle the more and more I can't stand watching the news. Can anyone honestly say they enjoy watching the news when, one party claims 'the presidential candidate of the other party is a murder?' Then, you have others who call the President of the United States of America a "communist" out to destroy the country he has sworn to protect and defend. All this does is further divide the country and turn the knife in our gut a little bit more. Whether you're a Democrat or Republican is irrelevant, you're first and foremost an American.

Scene at the signing of the Constitution.
Scene at the signing of the Constitution. | Source

The Founding of a Nation

A wise man once said that 'political parties may become powerful engines, engines in which men with no principle will be able to divert the power of the people and government for themselves. In doing so they will destroy the very engines that raised them to such great power.' The same man was involved in two wars, which defined and formed this country. That man, as a British Officer, got out of the military, but when his country called and needed him the most, he answered. He was the first president of these United States. That man was George Washington.

George Washington saw the problems political parties created in those volatile first years as he and Congress tried to create a unified country out of separate colonies. They succeeded, but Washington, in his fair well address, heeded the above warning for future generations. Yet, his advice fell on deaf ears.

The political parties have changed, but their ability to skew politics and pit the citizens of this country against each other has not. Times change and political parties rise and fall, but would it really hurt to give the words of George Washington some thought? Just think for a second what this country might be like without political parties.

Imagine a U.S. Without Political Parties

Without political parties maybe then people will judge an individual on merit, by what they believe and stand for, and whether or not they will serve the best interests of the country as a whole. The political affiliation next to their name will no longer exist denying voters to judge the ability solely on that fact.

Candidates of all political offices are lumped in with the party they associate themselves. Rarely justified and mostly baseless, this creates an environment not conducive for real work to get done.

When it comes to voting on local leaders, a lot of people base their votes on the individual that belongs to their political party. Not everyone can be spoken for, but a lot of people take no effort in getting to know who is running their schools, court system, city hall, etc. Without having an affiliate group, people would be forced to understand their local leaders' policies.

Those That Disagree

People that have often disagreed with this view have said that the voters will remember with whom the politicians previously associated themselves. This is true, but over time, no longer will someone be deemed a Democrat or Republican. Also, the new and up coming leaders of the country will be able to bring themselves out onto the national stage without being branded one or the other.

Not only will new politicians not be branded, but there is the potential for more leaders to rise that don't want to be associated with a party. The political environment would be given a chance to change and grow with new and innovative policies without having to follow a particular party and the banter that comes along with them.

Democrats Are Communists

Video Source

Will Republicans Work With Obama?

Video Source

Unite Under One Name

Instead of the pointless name-calling and party backing lets squash the whole idea of political parties. Lets get rid of Democrats and Republicans and call us what we are, Americans. Under one name, voters will be forced to look more into the policies of each individual and choose the candidates that will get the job done, not boost party power and dominance.

What do you think?

Are you for having political parties?

See results

© hockey8mn, 2012. All Rights Reserved.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • hockey8mn profile image
      Author

      hockey8mn 4 years ago from Pennsylvania

      I am not certain it would help matters, but could it make them any worse? The country is already so divided and Republicans and Democrats slandering one another only makes it worse. The way our two party system is now, it's not only not unifying the country, it's making things worse. Look at the federal deficit partisan crap that is going on now. Very serious issues are not being addressed for the most childish reasons. However, as Frewway Flyer said, it is a great way to organize large numbers of people. Yes, this is true. But to me, I would rather rally behind someone's message, not party lines. If someone can come in with a great message, a solid plan, and solve issues, they should be in charge. Not the lesser of two evils from the two dominant parties. All I know is that the system is broken (in terms of parties) and needs to be fixed. If the government was working efficiently, which some would argue it never could, things wouldn't be the way they are. Something is wrong with the status quo. There needs to be a new status quo.

    • wba108@yahoo.com profile image

      wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY

      Good observations in this Hub! I certainly agree that its troubling to see the partison bickering that has increasing been evident in politics! It seems that there's an on going disrespect for those in authority in government, this I feel contributes to the choas we all feel today!

      I am not entirely sure that dissolving the two party system, will help matters. Like the many aspects of our Constitutional government, few have studied the founders purpose in them. It is my understanding that the two party system was designed to unify the country. In nations, that have dozens of political parties, where the party with the most votes wins, that party can still represent a very small segment of the population. Because of this the country gets divided up regionally and lacks unity. This was the case in Germany and Italy right before the fascists seized power.

    • hockey8mn profile image
      Author

      hockey8mn 4 years ago from Pennsylvania

      I know what your saying. Gary Johnson couldn't even make 5% of the vote. It is just extremely frustrating to see people be so for or against another party. It doesn't allow the business that needs to be done get done. Politics always seems to find a way in everything we do and corrupt it. It is sad, but a fact of life. My hope is that someone can find a way to make it work. I don't think I can do it, but I am sure there is someone out there who can. Hopefully the political arena will change (not for the worse) in the coming years. However, in regard to the political arena, I am not very optimistic.

    • Freeway Flyer profile image

      Paul Swendson 4 years ago

      It's a nice thought, but parties seem to arise inevitably in political systems that have elections. To win, you have to organize large numbers of people behind a candidate or a set of vague ideas, and the winner is often the best organizer, not necessarily the one with the best ideas. Today, there are a fairly significant number of independents and members of minor parties. But how often do these people who refuse to be affiliated with the major parties get candidates elected?

      Parties also make it easier for many people to make sense of the world. If you buy into the notion that one party is significantly better than the other, it can give you a sense of empowerment. To make a better world, just vote for the better party. It saves the trouble of actually digging into complex issues.

    • RK Sangha profile image

      RK Sangha 4 years ago from USA

      Thanks for clarification and agreeing with my comment in total.

    • hockey8mn profile image
      Author

      hockey8mn 4 years ago from Pennsylvania

      You mentioned how we should continue to "reverberate those voices" of the people from our history and was in agreement.

    • hockey8mn profile image
      Author

      hockey8mn 4 years ago from Pennsylvania

      No, not at all. I mean that history is pointless unless we in fact study it and learn from it.

    • RK Sangha profile image

      RK Sangha 4 years ago from USA

      Hockey8mn ! do you mean that I commented without knowing history ?

    • hockey8mn profile image
      Author

      hockey8mn 4 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Rk, thanks for the comment. What good is history if we don't study it? It can help us find out where we are going.

    • RK Sangha profile image

      RK Sangha 4 years ago from USA

      Democracy can be good or bad but it is better than other forms of Govt. And, in democracy, two party system is better than one party or many parties. Ultimate test of a democratic set -up is the voters themselves, despite the fact that money power is always working behind the scene. So, what is required a person like George Washington , a Mahatma Gandhi or a Martin Luther King (for example) to keep watch and educate the voters. Such great men are not there, but their voices are still reverbirating. As writers, let us continue reverbirate those voices. Thanks for this hub.

    • hockey8mn profile image
      Author

      hockey8mn 4 years ago from Pennsylvania

      I agree with you on changing campaign finance laws. There is no such thing as your "average" American running for president. They all make a lot of money. Many other politicians are millionaires as well. The way it currently is you pretty much have to be.

    • kw colorado profile image

      kw colorado 4 years ago from colorado

      What I would like to see is more of a parliamentary system, such as Britain has. Any party which meets certain minimum criteria for adherents, a platform, legality, etc, gets to be on the ballot. Then, instead of our outmoded electoral college, we just go with popular vote, or a runoff if tied.

      Campaign finance laws should be overhauled, and the Citizens United decision overturned, so that infinite amounts of secret cash from a couple of dozen billionaires can no longer determine election outcomes.

    • hockey8mn profile image
      Author

      hockey8mn 4 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Thanks for the comment angel. I would like to believe no politician does what they do to ruin the country, but because they think its the right thing to do. Whether or not it is constitutional or what the majority wants is up for debate, but I can't believe an elected official would enter into office to destroy the country. It would be nice to see your "average" American (whatever that may be) be elected president, but it will never happen in our current political environment.

    • angel115707 profile image

      Angel Ward 4 years ago from Galveston, TX

      eek, I agree but I am not so polite about it, I do think our president is destroying the country, DUH the proof is in the pudding, it all comes out in the wash, you know them by their fruit, however you would like to put that, you just cant sugar coat a natural disaster, problem is, he isn't the soul problem, just a puppet scapegoat for a culture of political thugs, on both sides that are shaking hands behind closed doors, but duking it out on the big screen so folks believe it and actually vote for their idea of the lesser of two evils...and how has evil worked for us thus far? Our kids lose more freedom every day, and are drugged up from the fluoride Nazi water to the GMO neuron destroying gluten/wheat processed products and then when they cannot function we will medicate them to shut up and conform! both parties are currently sold out and have no ones best interests in mind, especially our children, I for one want to puke when I look at the news and think if we have to choose one or the other, with no "none of the above" as an option, I am not allowed to vote....my choice isn't listed so they shut up anyone who isn't sold out. Honestly, presidents are pawns, puppets, baby dolls with no clue why they do what they do, its the creepy guys behind the scenes that control the media and presidents that we need to deal with by completely refusing to cooperate with this current system.... I could go on and on, but I will shut up before I get in a cramp, it won't do anyone any good... I do think it is a good choice for a Hubnugget nominee because it is something more and more people need to become aware of, that we have a bigger and brighter future, and bigger and brighter than minds than options A or B.

    • hockey8mn profile image
      Author

      hockey8mn 4 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Agreed ripplemaker. Thanks for the comment.

    • ripplemaker profile image

      Michelle Simtoco 4 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

      In our country we have so many political parties, it can be insane!

      Congratulations on your hubnuggets nomination. Please check this link to read, vote and enjoy the Hubnuggets adventure https://hubpages.com/community/A-HubNugget-Magic-L...

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 5 years ago from Southern California

      hockey

      Now on that we can agree.

    • hockey8mn profile image
      Author

      hockey8mn 5 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Radmaster, it is very much like the chicken and the egg. The media is even more to blame for the fiasco.

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 5 years ago from Southern California

      hockey

      Interesting, but it is like the chicken and the egg, which came first.

      Not in chronology, but in this bashing duel you mentioned.

    • hockey8mn profile image
      Author

      hockey8mn 5 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Thanks for stopping by and the comment, Prakash.

    • Prakash Dighe profile image

      Prakash Dighe 5 years ago from Dallas, Texas, USA

      Our nation has been at the forefront of many innovations, so why not on this very bold front, hockey8mn! A great proposal, but ib radmasters does have a valid point that voters need to vote independently. And like the Loonlady 162, I 'd love to see the US eliminate political parties!

    • hockey8mn profile image
      Author

      hockey8mn 5 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Radmaster, thanks for the comment. It is thought provoking, but I think the two (candidates and voters) are the problem. The candidates create the bashing and the voters perpetuate it. To me, they go hand-in-hand.

    • profile image

      Loonlady162 5 years ago

      Great hub hockey8mn. Very forward thinking, just like George.

      I would love to see the US eliminate political parties. They are not part of the solution, so they must be part of the problem!

    • ib radmasters profile image

      ib radmasters 5 years ago from Southern California

      The problem of the democratic and republican parties is the blind loyal voters. It is the voters that allow the party their power. You can keep the parties, but the voters have to be independent.

      Right now when a voter registers with either party, that party cashes in their vote. The voters then vote Row A or Row B, and that is a problem.

      The voters need to control the parties and their candidates, and demand better candidates, so that the elections are not always about voting for the lesser of two evils.

      Party loyalty is the problem.

    • bankscottage profile image

      bankscottage 5 years ago from Pennsylvania

      Let the rumble begin! This campaign season is particularly nasty. We don't need an election, we need Thunder Dome. Maybe cage fighting is the solution.

      Voted up, interesting and shared.