Taking back the Republican party

[The Cid]

cause people can't accept a no party system. Makes me sad.

It's not the concept of political parties that bothers me so much. It's that there are so few, and that even third parties are more umbrella terms than actual political ideals.

For example: think of all the sections of the Republican Party. You have your Religious Rightists, your fiscal conservatives that aren't very socially conservative, your Log Cabin Republicans (who I feel may clash from time to time with the Religious Right), social conservatives who aren't entirely fiscally conservative, "neo-cons" and the occasional borderline Libertarian. All of these groups share a party and we wonder why that party is struggling for an identity?

Wouldn't it be great if, instead of two major parties and a small number of marginal third parties, there were five or six "major" parties sharing power? If there were a party that Colin Powell could truly identify with, and one for the Cheney types and the Sarah Palins? Those three people really share a party? And the same party has Rudy Guiliani? I'm not convinced they're all in the same species! Obviously there's still some struggle for identity on the left as well, or their primaries in 2008 wouldn't have been such a mess.

I think we've outgrown the two party system, in part because our country often proves to be much larger than we seem to think. What's good for one part of America is not necessarily good for all of it--and a lot of the time there's going to be somebody adversely affected by something that benefits somebody else. And here we are, still trying to fit everybody into two groups, as though there are only two ways to approach these matters. As a result, the parties struggle to unify, but why should they unify? With more parties, we would have more angles represented on an issue. There would be more room for discussion, and I feel, less resentment toward opposition since any majority vote in Congress would require multi-party cooperation. It would force cooperation and common grounds. And if we can't find any common grounds, I'm pretty sure we have a huge problem on our hands.

[Deacon]

Why doesn't that happen naturally? Do you give up some measure of power in doing so?

[adciv]

Lets just say some interesting things will happen if no party has a majority in the House or Senate.

[The Cid]

I don't see how. What power does being in a majority hold if you have to give up important ideals to join up? And what kind of a majority can you have in a country where the majority of people old enough to vote don't?

It's not like there would be fewer offices to hold. In fact, in a system with more than two dominant parties each Congressional vote is going to matter that much more, meaning that the individual politicians would actually hold quite a bit of sway within their own business they don't hold today. Going to need every vote you can to get a majority.

Like if there were more than two major parties, there would suddenly be no money in fundraising and no way to get an edge. I'm not saying this is some kind of a route to paradise, but at least the minority of Americans who vote will actually get to vote for people and ideas they truly agree with, as opposed to what they detest least.

And with more parties and more ideas swirling around Washington, it's going to be that much more difficult to herd all of Congress into a panic that causes more trouble than the crisis behind the panic. But would anybody give up any power in a move to more parties? I sincerely doubt it. Maybe the extreme end of the media Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore would lose some power. And boo hoo about that, I'm sure we'd all cry for days if we didn't get to hear from them anymore.

But no, I can't imagine anyone would have to give up any real power. If anything this would lead to more super-rich politicians pulling strings behind the scenes in party offices, not less.

IMMEDIATE EDIT: Just looked it up. Actually, in presidential elections, voter turnout is just over 50%. In 2008, it was 56.8%. Midterm elections draw under 40% turnout though, so I still assert that the majority of people don't vote.

[Mav]

To be honest, after seeing how far the religious right pushed Bush into power, I'm rather terrified of the idea of breaking up parties and allowing the religious right to concentrate. I don't think they'd hold a majority, but it would be a very strong 30% to 45% group, versus everyone else who splintered. Not to say I'm not willing to do it - I've support a more-party system, it just has some scary draw backs.

[ampersand]

Log Cabin Republicans? Does that have any correlation with Lumberjack Democrats?

[The Cid]

I don't think they'd hold a majority, but it would be a very strong 30% to 45% group, versus everyone else who splintered. Not to say I'm not willing to do it - I've support a more-party system, it just has some scary draw backs.

I don't think it'd work that way though. The Religious Right isn't 30% of the people Mav. It may influence that much of the populace, but I don't all of those influenced would join up with them. I think a neoconservative party would take a number of those people, a more fiscally conservative party (the Religious Right isn't always for being prudent with money) would take some, and I think there'd end up being a lot of in-fighting in a religion-based party. Y'know, since religion is involved and all.

Log Cabin Republicans? Does that have any correlation with Lumberjack Democrats?

I don't know what a Lumberjack Democrat is. Neither does Google. You'll have to explain that one to me.
----
A Log Cabin Republican is an openly gay member of the Republican Party. Shockingly, there are enough of those to actually have their own label. I suppose self-loathing is a popular attitude to carry nowadays. (Joking. ...Sort of.)

[collegestudent22]

Except for the fact that the Republican party has redefined what the "right" stands for. Moving left these days might mean giving up the religious tones, or backing off the pro-life and homosexuality issues, not government rights and controls.

Redefined? When? The majority of the party was always rooted in religion, making it the party where the folks who were against what they define as sin in the first place. That never changed; it just became more apparent as some parts of society moved against those notions. Furthermore, there are many conservatives that are indifferent to the homosexual marriage issue and would be fine with putting it up to a vote (myself included). Pro-lifers are slightly trickier because they believe that abortion is a form of murder. However, the real "difference" that the "right" supposedly stood for was the idea of fiscal and personal responsibility. While that may have been true in the past when the budget was on the way to being balanced by Reagan (and then by Clinton - a surprisingly moderate Democrat financially), it is far from true now that the right has pulled to the left on that issue.

I mean, have you watched Fox News? They're not the only news station that does it, but they're certainly the leading example of the news anchors not just reporting the news, but telling you what to think of it. How the hell is that the traditional meaning of conservative? Ungh.

Strange. Whenever I watch Fox News, they make a clear distinction between the "news" shows during the day and the "opinion" shows during the evenings. As opposed to news stations that didn't even cover the murder of Pvt William Long by 24-year-old Abdulhakim Muhammad, aka Carlos Bledsoe "because of what the military had done to Muslims".

This thread really made me realize that I wouldn't be so staunchly supporting the Democratic party if the Republicans hadn't fucked up so bad. You should pray Powell get's the spot light, at least he won't make the party look so fucking nuts.

According to you, if only because Powell will agree with almost everything the Democrats want politically.

[Mav]

Sorry, you're still a fuckstick, please try again at a later date.

[Mae Dean]

/seconded

[Arres]

The majority of the party was always rooted in religion, making it the party where the folks who were against what they define as sin in the first place.

Wrong.

However, the real "difference" that the "right" [republican party - editor] supposedly stood for was the idea of fiscal and personal responsibility.

Right.

Seriously, the Republican party has never been the Bible party. It is, unfortunately, HEAVILY influenced by the "religious right" however. You'll note that they aren't simply the "right" because that is the people in the second quote. They are the "religious right", because they add on all the other stuff to the traditional views of the Republican party.

[adciv]

Furthermore, there are many conservatives that are indifferent to the homosexual marriage issue and would be fine with putting it up to a vote (myself included).

Why not just remove Government from Marriage in the first place?

[Deacon]

It's been done ad nauseum, but...how so? Marriage is a fundamental social and legal construct and has been for thousands of years in pretty much every human society we know about.

[Arres]

I would think that the easiest and most sensible way is to make EVERY government sanctioned joining of humans for tax purposes a "civil union". Then allow churches to handle "marriages" in whatever fashion floats their boat.

[adciv]

Would that include for more than two people?

It's been done ad nauseum, but...how so? Marriage is a fundamental social and legal construct and has been for thousands of years in pretty much every human society we know about.

Social, yes. Legal, not so much. Seriously, when did people start needing a 'marriage license'?