So what party will you attend?
Now that we have discussed ideologies and philosophies, let's talk political parties. What party do you wish to be associated with and why? What do you want to know about other parties? And what does an Independent stand for?
posted by Meyer at 1:34 PM
128 Comments:
Independent was spelled wrong on the subquestion...But more importantly than that, I dont necessairily want to link myself to a political party. The two major parties, Democrats and Republicans, are both equally corrupt, and I only consider myself an Obama Democrat. ( I support Barack Obama in the party, but dont want to be linked to all of the other candidates... namely Hillary). There is a lot of power in being an independent voter, and you are never considered a traitor if your views change. To fit the mainstream, most people identify with only one party, but both parties have legitimate ideas, and both also have very serious flaws that need to be fixed before I officially label myself a democrat.
Personally, I do not wish to be associated with any party. I believe that the two-party system of politics and voting has thrown our country into a rut. There are many worthy candidates for today’s political positions that are prevented from positively changing the world by a system that is ultimately hurting us. As Mr. Meyer mentioned, Lincoln and FDR wouldn’t win an election today; only a sleek politician who doesn’t scream or pay $400 dollars for a haircut can do that. When it comes to an election I will vote for the best man. The problem is, however, that the democrats and republicans usually don’t have quality people in the running.
I do not want to be bound to party lines as well. The two party system creates an �us vs them� mentality. In addition, many people stand the way they do on a particular issue because they couldn�t possible disagree with their party. Another thing that should be pointed out is that Republicans are not conservative. The Patriot Act, going to war, No Child Left Behind, and deficit spending are all big government.
I might label myself as a Republican, but only on the surface and just to have a title. Although I am on board with most general Republican views, I don't despise Democrats and other parties and think they are totally wrong or absolute idiots that should be exiled. Overall, I believe siding with parties and concerning ourselves over some rather trivial matters, our government should do a serious assessment and begin not only doing patch-up work but also begin slightly reforming how it runs things. We see ourselves as a great civilization, one incomparable to all others when in fact we have only been a small dot on history with only about 230 years as a nation, and not all of them united. Other civilizations have histories 2-6 times longer than ours. And at the moment we are beginning to stumble and fall and find large leaks in our system. Not only as parties but as a people, we need to stop bickering over the tiny details and consider the bigger picture while looking toward the future to see what must be done in order for us to survive. (Highly improbable, but we can wish)
Linking yourself to a party is not the worst thing in the world, as so many people make it out to be. I used to be one of them. But the more I got involved in politics, the more I understood why we have parties. Sure, it's power in numbers. Look at it this way, you have 20 people all trying to play football, at the same time, on the different teams. It's not 10 v. 10 or even 19 v. 1, it's 1 v. 2 v. 3 v. 4 v. 1. Everyone against everyone. But with parties, you align yourself with those you most agree with, understanding that no one is perfect. As much as we like to think it's not true, human understanding is limited. People can't fix it all. The "problems" with our government have little to do with our political parties. Our problem is lack of participation. It's people with big mouths that don't offer a solution. I believe, that whatever you are, be action-oriented.
Firstly,to comment on Ashley's post, I don't know if football would be a proper analogy here just because politics involve so many different aspects and angles, and each participant in politics whether it be a candidate or voter, could all withhold different objectives, goals, or mindsets. In football, teams and individual players withhold the same mindset and ultimately the same goal. I am not cutting this analogy down in a derrogatory way, but I don't know if it would be something to use as an analogous example in this type of situation.
Secondly, as I agree with almost everybody who has posted, I am going to take Meyer's role for this post and ask how our contry would preserve any structure within society and within the government if there weren't any existing parties? In addition to that, how would that ultimately "trickle" down to the community and individual citizens? If there were not any existing parties, how would many citizens grow into the beliefs they hold in future years. I think that we could all agree in saying that for many communities, individuals form the majority of their beliefs based off of a political party, no matter how this party came to their choice (one issue or parent's upbringing). But my focal question is, if we were to eliminate the political parties, how would the demographics of our nation change and what kind of shift would we see in the political clusters throughout our country?
Personally I see myself as somewhat of an independent. Our society is in self denial about so many troubling societal issues. We are unwilling to deal with matters until they are smacking us in the face. In the pluralist theory, it is said that groups with one interest in mind compete for sway upon policy makers. In elite and class theory, it suggests that one percent of Americans control most of the policy decisions. I believe that the elite hold most power until a pluralist group is able to gain enough support to persuade policy makers otherwise. This system of going in the direction of the most support (be it votes or money) has been going on, and I believe that our government should be changed to the point where officials no longer need the support of the money or multitudes. Because lets face it, by the time the masses are beginning to address an issue it is often already in a critically flawed state. With healthcare, few officials will deal with the issue simply because they do not want to lose popularity. With this and other issues that will become worse before getting better, officials are reluctant to deal with the matters. Having officials who are in support of what we ourselves believe in is a great idea, but what is it that we really want? We go for candidates who can promise security and positive moves even if those moves might not be so positive farther down the road. The new ethanol that is being advertised is a great example. It is very costly to prepare and use the ethanol. (still maybe cheaper than gas) Weeds and grasses could be easily manipulated to produce similar effects, but even so, ethanol is promoted because the farmers and manufacturers of ethanol have a strong political presence and are able to persuade policy makers to go with their product. As we discussed in class the other day, medicine is another example. The masses want the best and cheapest medicine but many doctors are given favors in return for prescribing certain drugs. Officials should not be biased by such pressures in some cases. We must admit that we are not always aware of what needs to be done and should let the government deal with issues without the pressure of needing to constantly please special interest groups that are formed by the elite or by multitudes. I am honestly unsure which political group this falls mostly into. So I thought I’d express most of my thoughts on this blog instead of the others. Sorry this is so long.
To begin, Brooks, since when is "firstly" a word? Kidding we all no my grammer is not much better...But on a serious note, I agree with Brooks, I think that having set parties is necessary to establish some foundational beliefs, but I see what Ashley is saying. Though football is probably not a correct annalogy overall, there is a valid point in saying that an individual is only powerful when acting in numbers. The parties are useful in grouping people with similar beliefs, so that our country has a prayer of getting anywhere. If we were all acting as individuals, we would never be able to make progress, because as Brooks said, there are so many angles in politics. I bet you could go so far as to say there are no two voters with exactly the same beliefs on every single issue. Therefore, I believe the parties are useful to an extent. As it fits with politics, nothing is black and white. I would be very impressed with the one who could give a sound arguement saying that parties are either one hundred percent good or bad. They are useful in establishing beliefs and making progress. However, society has turned them into restrictive parties where one is either a strict republican or democrat, with a few independants and single issues thrown in. This places unnecessary restriction on people, which is where the party system creates problems.
Firstly is a word.
Secondly, I would have to agree with the commonly stated premise that the multiple-party system adopted by the founders of our country has evolved into a biparty system most useful for lobbyists. I simply have a different take on the solution. I think that the puropse of a political party should be to further the political, social, and economic interestes of its constituents. This seems to be what our Democrats and Republicans are trying to do. They are, however, failing by no fault of their own. Democrats and Republicans draw support from across the country, and from incredibly varied groups of people. No matter how cooperative and effective a party is, it cannot possibly represent the best interests of each and every one of its members. The simple fix to this inherent flaw is to localize government. The way our nation is organized right now, the national government has a huge say in how we carry out our day to day business. In fact, one of the largest spheres of influence our government has is on business. Because we are, like it or not, centered around making money, the national government exerts a great amount of force on us. I do not think that each state should govern itself, because we would lose much of our advantage as American citizens. I only believe that the government should disband to a degree, keeping such nationalized services as a small standing army and a very basic, low level, defensive foreign policy machine. The states should essentially function independently. Federalism is the primary reason for the inefficiency of our government, and if we wanted our great nation to function to its maximum potential, then it only makes sense to make each state its own political mini-system, made up of its own miniature parties.
Vote Foothills Colorado Liberal
Thank you dug, Ok Shelbs, you want to talk grammar and spelling, check out how you spelled independent (second to last line). Dug also supports my statement that the parties are not in palce to satisfy each and every belief of every "constituent", but many members of society ultimately tend to conform to the beliefs of a party they ran parallel with due to some other issue.
Shelby, I am not fully on board with your statement that society has turned the political sides into "restrictive parties". I do not think that restriction is placed on the people, because there are people out there who can share varied degrees of each party and there are voters like Meyer, who are not restricted in any way, and vote based on the current status of politics and based on how they can have the greatest impact. Stating that there are restrictions in place contradicts the statement regarding black and white. A system with such bold parameters and borders would surely promise black and white. But in real life, it truly is a blurry haze of gray created by citizens who are not restricted to a party and are able to express their entire belief system through some form of governmental system.
I agree with Ashley in that whatever you support, be action oriented. Politicians spend so much time during their campaign tell people what they WILL DO if elected to office, but many seem to put those things away once they make it there. If one feels passionately about something, they should get something done about it, not just complain. Even if I don't agree with someone's beliefs, but they get something done about it, I would respect them because they did something about it.
I agree with Shelby. Is firstly a word?
Ok, I'm going to admit that I think that I am republican but once I started talking about it (with Steven and Joe and whoever else was around me in the computer) I'm beginning to wonder what I am. I'm going to list what I think on a few issues and maybe someone can help me out. Thanks :).
Alright so here we go. On the issue of abortion I think that it should be pro- choice with a limit. I don't think that abortion should be a form of birth control. I think that there should be pro- choice because of the risk of the potential world that baby could come into. If the woman is forced to have the child then she may be forced to bring it up in a home where it is not wanted. That woman could be in an abusive home, or one that is in poverty. She could be a drug addict or homeless. She could have a disability that doesn't allow her to be a proper mother. Do you really want a child going into a world with a mother like this that doesn't want it? What if the woman was raped? What if she is 14? Is still not allowing abortion ok? What if we banned abortion, think of the black market that would go on? There would be illegal doctors performing illegal procedures and you may find now that both the mother and the child will die. On this issue of gay marriage, to be honest it is hard for me. I’m going to be honest and say that if it were what I think because of my religion, Gay marriage is in sense wrong according to the bible which says marriage is between a man and a woman. But, government according to the constitution has to separate church and state. This is where my beliefs on gay marriage do not matter in respect to religion. So, in terms of government it is not my place to say that they should not be married. They are not affecting me in any way, shape or form and I do not have the right to tell them who and who not to be married to. If that is who they want to spend the rest of their life with then so be it. This is where government should draw the line on marriage. What I mean by this is that now all the sudden people can’t marry their dog…
I also believe in tax cuts but not large enough that public services will not be able to be funded properly. This is really all I have to say on this topic.
On illegal immigration, I think that we need to regulate it more but also find a way to allow immigrants to come into our country maybe easier? I think that if we make it more open as to how to be a citizen of the United States then maybe immigrants will be more willing to try and be a legal citizen. Have you seen the test that immigrants have to take??? I don’t think I could have passed! To also regulate illegal immigrants, businesses should be punished more for having illegal immigrants working for them. If we can crack down on businesses having illegal immigrants ( because aren’t they coming to have job opportunities?) then maybe they wouldn’t feel obligated to even try to come in as an illegal immigrant.
Brooks, on what you said about what I said: That's pretty much what I'm saying. Being in teams makes the game easier to play, and easier to win. No, it's certainly not the best analogy in the world, but what I'm saying is that there is comfort in numbers. Besides, saying you are a Republican once doesn't contract you to that for life. Certainly, people can believe what they like. They can be independent, or Democratic, or Republican. But, people shouldn't turn choosing a side, or a party into something irrational. I am a Republican, but I am rather liberal on many issues. But I join the Republican team because if you want to play the game, you have to play the game. They value what is most important to me. It may be not the way it "should" be, but that's the way it is. So my view is "Pick a team and play for it." If altogether you can no longer stand for what they stand for, change teams.
But, honestly, my number one concern is respect and action. Respect other opinions, but take action on those you believe.
as the illustrious jacob already mentioned, i believe that the two party system that we have in place is ultimately damaging the nation. Americans today seemingly cannot see past party affiliations, and therefore opposing parties cannot compromise. This leaves us in a hopeless situation- we will not get anything productive done, and we will ultimately make decisions that are bad for america simply because we cannot compromise on big issues. Instead of voting along party lines, I am going to attempt to educate myself and choose the cantidate that is in my view the most qualified and capable. As for my party affiliations, I will probably register as a republican, although I am not an altogether conservative minded individual.I am fiscally conservative, and therefore I oppose big spending as well as big welfare (and therein lies one of my only problems with Bush- he says he is conservative, but he spends money faster and in more quantities than nearly any president in history). However, I consider myself socially moderate. I believe in stronger immigration regulation. I do not believe that It is my place to decide whether or not gay couples have the right to marry, and therefore I don't have a strong opinion either way on the topic. As for abortion, I personally don't have a womb and therefore I don't think it's my place to tell a woman what to do with her body: I am however against abortion as a form of birth control. I believe that we should conduct stem cell research because of the opprtunities it provides to cure major diseases. I am also for protecting the environment, and I believe that we should attempt to harness a more renewable energy source than oil. I realize that this may cost an astronomical amount of money, and would therefore conflict with what i said earlier, but I believe that if we are able to manufacture hydrogen powered vehicles we would save in the long run.
first·ly (fûrst'lē)
adv.
In the first place; to begin with.
That settles that discussion. Anyways, Jordan I'd love to hear more of your beliefs because to me, they sound liberal.
Secondly, I wish to be associated with the Democratic Party.
Thirdly, what is with this tax cut nonsense? I think it is important to put money into our country so it can provide services for us. I know conservatives want to conserve their money (some might call that greedy) but I think the money needs to be put into our country so we, as a country, can benefit.
Ashley, could you expand on your philosophy behind "playing the game" and just give us a detailed summary of the mindset, actions, and certain approach angles you must adhede to in your "form of game"?
Sarah, I don't think that Jordan meant completely eliminate taxes. Our society is in a state where if we were to do that, economic infrastructure would crumble. But I agree with her in that maybe instead of eliminating taxes, we alter the focus and concentration of the taxes we pay to things that impact us on a greater level. And thank you for the vocabulary support.
When looking up the definition of political parties I came to find that there is no exact definition. What I did find is the definition of the word political, (of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.) This to me I found to be interesting. All political parties are groups of people dealing with the nations problems in their view point. The beauty of living in America is the fact that all of can say what we feel about issues facing us today. We are not forced to think one way. I would say that over all our system of government is pretty good. Of course it is not perfect, but the fact is it has been working for a while. The U.S. has not had a major war over the way our government is run. Yes, there is the civil war, but that is a whole other topic. I would consider myself a Republican. I do agree with my parents because right now they pay the bills. So, I look at it as if a law passed effects them. Then the law will also effect me. Part of the reason I am a Republican is the money factor, and immigration. I am not saying that I agree with everything Republican’s are saying. Just that right now my vote will impact my family the most. When I get out on my own I will look at politics, like I do now. What will effect me the most, and where will my vote actually count. Like many others have said, voices in numbers.
People like tax cuts because that money comes back to the people immediately. Tax money gets lost in the system sometimes, and as Mr. Meyer has said several times, Colorado only get something like .75 for every dollar we spend back which means we dont get to see all of the things that our tax dollars can do. America has a problem looking to the future and investing in the future, they would rather take their mone back immediately and buy a new ipod. If we really want a change, we have to invest money in programs for the future instead of considering only the here and now.
When asked in class on Wednesday I raised my hand for both liberal and democrat. Though I do not agree with political labels, I feel those are the two groups I have most in common with, which is why I commented under the "Why am I a Liberal?" blog.
I think being a independent entitles you to share both democratic and republican views equally. Annielo, when you say you think our government is working do you mean effectively or as in us being content?
I was just wondering if someone could better exlain to me the ideology behind being a libertarian (spelling?) ?
Everyone will probably think i am closed minded, but as long as the democrates are against pro-life i will never follow them and neither will the about half of the Roman Catholics in the USA.
When the next year comes around, I will most likely associate myself with the Democratic party because I want to be able to vote in the primaries. However, I don't think I will always remain affiliated with the party because I want to vote for the candidate that appeals most to me, not necessarily the one that is associated with the party I side with. I think that the political parties in our country have diverted the government from its purpose. Instead of focusing on the real issues, people in Congress are already planning for the next elections.
I agree with Suzanne's point that associating yourself with a party in order to vote in the primaries can actually be beneficial. In response to Umbertok, I'm not sure if it's right to base your whole political set of beliefs on one issue. I'm not going to get into the issue of abortion because I think that would open up a HUGE can of worms, but aren't Roman Catholics not supposed to advocate killing fellow human beings, which is what Republicans support through the death penalty? I think that, when choosing a party to follow or at least somewhat agree with, one should examine all issues the parties stand for. I am a Roman Catholic and I tend to fall more often than not on the Democratic side of the spectrum, so I don't think it's fair to make a blanket statement like that. Back to the main issue, I, like almost everyone before me, say that being politically Independent allows the freedom to really examine one's personal beliefs and choose the right candidate instead of just choosing for the sake of a party. I also agree that having political parties in this country is completely necessary. In an absence of political parties, single-issue groups are probably the most likely to spring up and then you have someone running for president with the platform of "Vote for me because I am pro-life". Having parties allows people within the party to have more than one similar belief, making them stronger as a whole.
As I see it, the reason for the two party system, or for that matter a party system at all is to categorize all the potential candidates. Without a party system, and the primaries that accompany, all of the candidates that we see now in all of the parties would be on the ballot. In two thousand four, John Kerry, George Bush, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, Ralph Nadar, etc...would all have been on the ballot as well as many others. Can you imagine the confusion? The winner could easily have a very small percentage of the vote and as a result lack the loyalty of the people. I can agree that it may not necessarily reflect all of ones views to be associated with a party, but if nothing else it allows you to vote in the primaries. I associate myself with the Republican Party, not because I parrot the party line but because it is the more powerful party where I live and I agree more with Republican ideals than with Democratic ones. I am in accordance with the party as far as most foreign policy and national security, as well as more conservative economics. I am more liberal to basically unsure when it comes to social issues.
As for Dug's comment that the states should be allowed extensive amounts of autonomy, it may be wise to loosen the federal government's hold on business, but to destroy it completely would induce chaos. The United States, in the business world, must be able to have relations with other countries. If those other countries have to deal individually with each state, they will have a tendency to neglect the smaller states since it is too much of a hassle. Continuity is essential for any country on the International Business stage. In almost every other respect I agree with dug that the Federal Government has become too large and particularly like the picture in our book which shows a man, presumably the President, telling the genie (big government) that he has to go back into the lamp after the war is fought.
Suzanne brings up a very good point. There has already been a ton of hype about the up coming election. What will congress be doing for the next year? What will their productivity be? These people seem to be elected simply to have the title next to their name, not so that they can actually do something.
Alex, so far as I understand, and please everyone else correct me if I am wrong, the Libertarian party believes in having the people make the decisions themselves. Less governmental control over everything. As far as what this means for their belief systems, I am a bit in the dark.
It would seem that the general dispute here is an argument pertaining to political parties. Questions are being raised... Are linkage institutions a necessity, and if yes, why? If we recognize the influence the parties have on politics, which is obviously quite substantial, we start to see trends in which these very parties we created are "binding" us. To answer this question, we must first look at the origins of these two parties. These two groups once held political hands under one party: the Democratic-Republican party founded by
Thomas Jefferson in 1793. It was another 30 years before any split came. After losing the presidential election of 1824, Andrew Jackson created a faction from the existing party in order to combat the elections of 1828. This move by Jackson set the real foundation for our modern Democratic party. A few years later, the Democratic party was substantiated in 19th century politics by strictly abiding by the tolerance of slavery. Meanwhile, the Republican party was created in a pre-Civil War America, spearheading the no slavery movement sweeping the Union. I find it particularly interesting that the origin of both parties are what we would call single-issue groups. So what is the purpose of this really boring history lesson? It helps to bring clarity to our modern parties and their motives. Why the hell did we really start these parties?! Perhaps the answer lies in a notion that is quite elementary: convenience. How could a nation of 300 million people expect to be equally represented when our only oppurtunity for our voice to be heard is by claiming right or left. That is our voice. Right, or left. All too often do we condemn our politicians, and each other before we even hear a word of each others beliefs. Perhaps this is why Meyer refuses to tell us where he stands politically. As humans, we fight for that "pie in the sky," if you will. Common logic tells us to band together, that we have power in numbers. This has created a blinding and perpetual system of never ending competition that has turned us into "me monsters." Insatiability and gluttony is what drives our politics, for that is the American way. We have morphed the two words Democracy and Capitalism into one voracious, gormandizing way of life. For example, I take a look at Jake's (umbertok) response and am filled with sorrow. There are Democrats out their who are pro-life. There are Republicans out there who are pro-choice. I suppose nothing has been concluded in this massive tangent of mine, yet I suppose all of our blog responses have been digressions from the original questions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Todd,
I'm not understanding your connection between our initial political parties and single issue groups. Please explain.
Patrick I agree wth your comment about the confusion Americans would have if we had too many political parties on the ballot... I think that creates a huge stray from our American demoracy in the sense that majority would still be a small portion of Americans. It would not really be majority at all. I do not think our government would function better if people just voted for candiatates because of how they stand on solely one issue.
The connection I make is that these two parties started as single issue groups, and they still act like single issue groups. Ya know what I mean? What our your thoughts about it?
Well actually I feel that the political parties, Democrats, Republicans, exc. are much more broad than single-issue groups. I was under the impression that single issue groups are interest groups that focus on one particular issue as a opposed to a politial party that has views on several different issues.
Yes, they are much much more broad than single issue groups. Think outside of the box of the actual issues inside of the parties. More importantly, look at their behavior and the influence it has on the American nation. These parties ACT like single issue groups in the sense of their train of thought, seeming persistence and unwillingness to compromise. Right? Or wrong? And Alas, the Libertarian Party. This post is in regard to Alex's inquiry of the party. The foundations of this party our found within their central theme of a decentralized, small government. Libertarians are known for their non-conformity to the right-left political spectrum when dealing with single-issues. Their opinions are much more ambiguous than a Democrat or Republicans, yet it is this ambiguity that is the most concrete. This means that they are not blinded by mindless supporting of a political party and their interests. For example, a well known Libertarian presidential candidate, Ron Paul, is claiming Republican this year because the majority of his social ideas fall within their boundaries at this point in time. Sadly, Libertarian candidates our looked down upon by both right and left wing politicians for their lack of supporting big business, big government bills and ideas. Just yesterday at the Fox News Debate, during Ron Paul's questions, Fox News increased the volume of fellow candidates laughing at him, marking him as a fool. He was misquoted by Fox News and other candidates as well. I find this interesting because Ron Paul is a Republican, thus leading us to believe a fairly conservative media outlet such as Fox News would support him. Perhaps it goes back to the idea that Libertarians are not on big spending, and big business, like the politicians that directly fund Fox News are. If Ron Paul is pinned as an idiot, the owners and investors of Fox make more money. But this is a conversation for a later day...
Btw Alex. I look at the Democratic and Republican party as a (multi) single issue group... If that makes any sense to you. Like I said, its not the actual number of beliefs they have, but the way they do business.
Ok I see your point thinking outside the box about single issue groups....
but switching to Libertarians- do you find their beliefs more political or social? I think the reason they are looked down upon is because people disregard the unfamiliar, which is sad. Do you agree with libertarian beliefs?
I was reading a book recently called "Dont think of an Elephant." It is a "progressive handbook" on why republicans always win. It is interesting, but one point in the book really stood out to me. It explained that in the 1950's, all the different types of Republicans came together, decided they were stronger together, and that if each group gave a little on each issue, they would be much stronger as a whole. So the entire Republican party is a larger group comprised of people who support sections of the Republican point of view- which had been developed from all these groups combined. While the Republicans did this, the Democrats still sectionalize their politics, and fall into social, economic, or a million other types of democrat. I suppose each group was a little too headstrong to allow any give and take,but thats only a guess. Because of the seperation it becomes harder for them to take votes because it is less unified. I found the point to be pretty legitimate, and something to think about when defining the party you stand by, etc.
Initially I might have called myself a Republican, but the more I learn, the less I want to be associated with one party or another. Like Jordan said, I think abortion should be pro-choice. But everything is relative and this issue would require
boundaries. Some say it is taking a life, which technically it is, but what if the woman is raped? However, I lean to the more conservative side on issues such as taxes. I understand that they are necessary for our nation to function and thrive, but I believe that lowering them would be beneficial for Americans.
alex.And I'd like to hear your thoughts pertaining to single issue groups vs. political parties. If you think there are any trends between the two etc. Do you think it has an influence on American culture? At least somethin to think about. And now switching gears here. Do I believe the Libertarian beliefs are more political or social? In order to answer this question, I would have to compartmentalize the Libertarian party, in turn condemning (inadequately judging) this party the same way the Republican and Democratic parties have been. ha. how disgustingly ironic. I suppose this is how the Dems and Repub stereotypes were started: a conversation just like this one. I find Libertarian beliefs much more social than political because the majority of this party are Constitutionalists. This means that they stick by the original Constitution and deal with domestic and foreign policy accordingly. Re-adopting laissez-faire principles, opposition to a conscription, very very strong civil liberties, destruction of big business and their role in American politics are all fundamental beliefs in this party. If this party was more political than social, they would be out for the money. Politics is synonymous with capitalism. And this is a big reason they will never ever win a presidential election. I do agree with a large amount of their beliefs. I am a constitutionalist.
I am as my grandmother has so eloquently put it before a "fence sitter". I cant really take offense to this cause to tell the truth that is basically what an independent does. When I feel that republicans are making a bad choice I will often times steer more democrat and vice versa. In the end I feel that every decision has its roots in compromise. To be an independent is to try as hard as possible not to be biased. I know everybody is somewhat biased, coming from the place thy grew up to the place they live now. Yet independents are free thinkers and are given to the ability to vote for what is right, not what is for the party.
Todd and Alex, I would like to chime into your conversation and put in my word about my opinion regarding the parallel characteristics between single issue groups and the political parties. Todd, you make a good point in regards to how the parties more or less operate by single issues. Like todd said, Alex, I think that the government has been conformed around the foundation of a single-issue "structure". Todd has solidly supported this arguement through his brief, historical reiteration. Single-issue has been the laying foundation to political parties and are still immenent today; but at a much greater intensity. If you think about, the parties are not exactly planning and acting on a basis of one, meshed-like belief system. Political parties are acting through clusters and numerous counts of single-issues. Evidence of this is magnificently discoverable in our own debates on this blog!! What are the bases of the heated debates between us all in the other blogs? Abortion, immigration, tax cuts....single issue topics??? I believe so...
Very true Todd. The majority of Americans are not going to vote for a party without central concrete political beliefs. Economically, however, it seems that there beliefs lean more towards to liberal ideology- in reading a definition of liberalism, I found laissez-faire to be a dominant belief. I definitely agree with the libertarian belief of non-conforming.
I think that single issue groups definitely affect American cuture. They can be powerful in the sense that not very many Americans feel strongly about several different issues... in many cases it can be only one that they want to put their focus on. In which case that single issue group becomes more powerful, and they still have a lot of opportunity to expand.
Brooks- I definitely see your point. The majority of each debate in all of these blogs is usually concerning one primary issue... how strange.
I think that my previous post is also relovant in the sense that these single issue groups are certainly on the rise.....
Jordan, I hear a lot about immigration and I know that now it is even harder to come to the US legally than ever.
Krista and Suzanne, I agree that putting down a party name to vote in primarys can be good. I mean, the primarys are pretty important since most of the US will probably vote for those candidates. Don't you want to put in your two cents?
So I would put myself down as a Democrat, not because I have strong liberal views however. For the reason stated above, and also I was in Young Democrats sophomore year and I have great ties to them.
I'm really curious to know what everyone's parents call themselves, and if it is like their kids. So far, most people who have blogged would not put Democratic or Republican.
Ben, I cracked up halfway through your comment because yes, you don't have a womb so probably won't feel as strongly as say, the females around you.
Todd, I also agree with you that I was saddened by Jake Kilbarger's comment. To quote Todd, "There are Democrats out their who are pro-life. There are Republicans out there who are pro-choice." I am pro-life, and I would never give up a baby, but I understand people's viewpoints and understand what must be done about this issue, but I won't say anymore as to not offend anyone.
Sorry for this terribly long comment.
Excellent articulation Brooks and Alex. Response to Alex. Libertarians don't have a specific belief in which they establish themselves as non-conformists. This seeming non-conformity is simply a trend in their policy compared to that of the current American political pop culture. If most politicians agreed with their beliefs, they would be the biggest conformists the world has ever seen. After all, non-conformity is conformity at its greatest.
To be totally honest I really don't know that much about politics. So, at this point in my life I could not say which party I am associated with. When different policies and issues come along I do not lean towards one party. Ashley, I really like your view on picking a team and playing for it; trying this may help me to better understand the different parties.
Very true, Todd. Cheers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sarah, what topics do you want my beliefs on? And thanks for helping me figure out what I am. I was beginning to wonder if I'm a little liberal...oh man.
And as far as tax cuts. I don't think we should eliminate taxes, I just think we should balance where they are taken from and where they go. We need to make sure we have enough to still keep up with public service and things that taxes should be spent on. Regulation on how these taxes should be spent should also be inforced. Don't you parents ever talk about how they wonder where some of their taxes go?
I would have to classify myself as a republican because of my stance on many political issues. I almost always go toward the republican’s point of view. For instance on immigration I believe that the United States really needs to gain control of its borders and put an end to illegal immigration, also as unpractical as it would be I think we need to work harder at finding and deporting those that are already here. Also I’m against abortion. I realize many people who are pregnant don’t want a baby but there is always putting it up for adoption.
I agree with you Jordan. We should have a voice in where our tax money goes. I mean, supporting that museum of that guy with the variety show (the name escapes me, I just remember Kara liked him) with our money from Co is kind of stupid. We could use it to help build better bridges (which we talked about today on my off hour!) or somewhere beneficial to US.
For those of you that register as an "Independant": What are your motivations for not choosing a party? Even if you register as Republican or Democrat, you can still choose to vote the other side in the election. Registering as a Independant doesn't allow you to vote in the primaries for either party. So why?
This comment has been removed by the author.
There are two reasons why when asked what political party I attend I say Moderate. The first is that my knowledge of the stances of these political parties is not very good. The second is that I don't base what I feel about something on a certain party I belong to. I am one of the people that look at a situation and, based on the circumstances, makes my decision. For example on the immigration issue I think that we should be relatively easy on letting people in. However if in years to come over population is starting to look like an issue I would have to take the democratic stance and try to close the boarders as much as possible.
Unless I’m trying to infuriate my brother, I never completely affiliate myself with a single party. While I may lean to one side or another at times, I tend to try to stay neutral and see both sides of an argument. I do however tend to see more conservative on economic issues and more liberal on social issues. Also, I believe that an income tax should be against the law since they’re taxing your labor and also because the sixteenth amendment was falsely ratified by secretary of state Philander Knox.
Okay, let's just say I've called myself a democrat becuase I want change in the government. (I know democrats are starting to have more influence nowadays). But it is mainly the war in Iraq and my opposition to it ever since it began that has put me in my place of Democrat--other than that, I have a very vague idea of what the difference is between Democrat, Republican and Libertarian.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alrighty, I tried to skim all the comments that led to other discussions as best as I could, but I'll first start out by saying that I would probably be an Independent. It kind of goes along with my comment as to why I am a moderate. I find myself agreeing with some stances of the Republicans but disagreeing with many as well. The same thing with the Democrats. I think that the two parties try to distance themselves far too much from each other and that creates a rift in the nation. This to me is rather ridiculous, seeings how this is our country, and don't we all have some similar goals? Now, don't get me wrong, I do understand that there are differences in opinion as to what those goals are (or rather, how to reach them), but after all, we are all citizens of the same country, so shouldn't we try to work together and compromise on certain issues? I think that is a key of being Independent...compromise. I realize that registering as an Independent, I will not be able to vote in the primaries, but I would really like to know what their purpose is anyway. Are they truly needed?
The independent party is free from the concrete barricades of the conservative or liberal parties. Why should I pick from only one column when I can select a little from column "A" and little from column "B". Then, mix in some Democratic and Republican beliefs, and by jove I've got a stew!
Knigge-out
Would any of you register as something other than Dem, Repub, or Independent? It seems to me that those three are the only ones we've talked about so far.
I would have to say that I am a lot like Ryan. I too lean from side to side on the different issues, but if I had to choose, I would label myself as a democrat only because I support their views more than that of the republican party. I would like to see a dramatic change in the government and I would like to see our troops brought home, and I believe that the democratic party can accomplish this.
I will register this year with the Democratic Party. And I discussed more about my views and questions in the other two blog posts. However I do have a quick question for Jake Kilbarger. I understand the idea of being single issue, but can you hoenstly say that none of the other issues matter to you? Because I respect you greatly for the fact that you care so passionately about the abortion issue. But being a male, it seems that other issues would affect you more directly and I am just wondering how you view that and why you choose to base your decision soley on that one issue. I just want to try to understand more about your ideology behind this.
I think it is interesting that many people have said that being an independent gives them more freedom. That is why the two party system fails; people lock themselves into their party and feel it is a sin to change viewpoints. I am fine with voting for a democrat because he agrees with you on the most important issues to you, but when you vote for a dmocrat, or republican, just becuase of his party name that is a problem. People need to stop reading so much into party names and start looking at what a person believes not just what party he belongs to.
Also @ umbertok. I find it interesting that the most important issue in your life that you can ever imagine is abortion. To make a statement that "as long as the democrates are against pro-life i will never follow them" is quite drastic.
Also "calling illegal aliens undocumented immigrants, is like calling drug dealers unlicensed pharmacists."
I like that quote and it sums up my beliefs pretty well
So, I thought I just posted this, but i dont see it, so I'm sorry if there is a dupiclate floating around somewhere.
Reading through everything, I noticed that no one has addressed the issue most central to political parties: differing views on the role and appropriate size of government. Dating back to the days of federalists and antifeds, Americans have been arguing over states rights versus national powers. Everything else, from economic policy to social issues, stems from the basic foundation of where you stand on small vs. large federal government.
And Shamita- I'd be interested to hear you elaborate on your statement "I know democrats are starting to have more influence nowadays."
For lacking time to read the volumes already discussed, I'll go straight to the question. I don't think I would register republican or democrat; it's a toss up b/t independent and libertarian. My views aren't quite as laize-faire(sp/usage, I have no idea) as the libertarian's is and the only reason I wouldn't immediately jump to independent is because there are a huge variety of views in that group, it is terribly broad.
and jake's stew sounds delicious, i hope it has mini carorts...
I would consider myself to be associated in the democrat party however I don�t look down upon republicans. Being a liberal I don�t agree with some of the issues conservatives bring to the table but again I don�t have anything against any other political views and I�m open to hearing their ideas. Independents usually don�t stand for any particular political party or sometimes feel their views don�t fit with either democrats nor republicans.
I find Democrats to be the lesser of the two evils. But if libertarians had any actual chance, I would certainly go with them. But for now, I'm somewhere between democrat and independent. The only problem with being independent is the lack of primary voting, which I believe is more important/play a larger role in the actual election, just because the choice of candidates can totally change the outcome. But for now, I tend to agree with Democrats much more so than Republicans, I find that in general, too many republican issues bring in religious beliefs that I don't believe are very efficient in governing.
Also, Kdawg, I went on a long tangent on state vs. national government on the liberal forum. It's too long to want to repost.
Well, I have been reading a lot of people's comments and before this I really had no idea what I was. I always told everyone and myself that I was a republican because my parents are, and my grandfather is really involved with the Republican Party and I think he would have or will kill me if I am anything but a republican. But after reading what everyone has said I think I am independent. I like how Jake said that he can choose a little from each side, if he disagrees with one thing he can say so. I also agree with Ashley that this party stuff is splitting our nation in two. I think we should be coming together not spliting apart because what we believe is right and what everyone else believes in wrong. I think everyone who has blogged has great points and I believe everyone in America should be thinking the same. But anyways, yes I think I am an Independent
I'm fairly clueless when it comes to politics and political terms but if I had to take a stab at it I'd be independent and in a matter of philosophy I'd be moderate, however it may change or not.
It's important to remember that political parties are not ends in themselves. They are a means for people to discuss values and issues to refine ideas and create compromise. America does not want either democrats or republicans to rule the nation. Each side has both strengths and weaknesses on every issue. THe best policy are the ones that attempt to combine the most positive parts of each argument over an issue. Unfortunately, polarized party politics have created an environment where people cling to to parties and issues as if deviating from them and having doubts about them is a condemnation to hell. In order for democracy to work people have to accept that they are more often than not wrong in some respect.
Amen Simon. Very well put.
I really don't have a clue on what party I'm on. I guess I can say that I am moderate, but I don't know fully what that means either. I look at both sides of any matter and agree with both. This is probably why I cannot choose a party. I agree with some issues that they present, yet disagree with some.
Have you ever noticed that every democrat has to talk about their point of view out of no where? They are Mac computer owners, always trying to convince themselves that they have made the right choice and that you should change your views or buy that type of computer so then their view is validated. Then Republicans are some carbon copy of another that all dress alike, suite and tie every day, and just seem to have this stench about them as if they have had just cover up another sex scandal. If you were to break it down not to the issues that each group has but to the morals of each, which group do you stand behind? Republican scandals or democratic prodding and validation?
I think that is a really cynical way to stereotype the parties, abok; and though many do fit those molds many shatter them. I wouldn't be so quick to judge.
I have to agree with Sam. That is a wide stereotype that doesn't even seem to be accurate. And yes, everyone everywhere shatters that stereotype. You cannot say that every republican is doing immoral things, it just isn't true. And not every democrat has crazy views on large corporations etc. Our blog has been about just that, how even though most of us identify with parts of each party, none of us fit a party stereotype, and you have to look at the good in both parties, instead of what you see wrong, or what the media hypes up.
I agree with sam and caitlan. Sure, everyone makes mistakes, but you can't peinalize (spelling?) both political parties because some of their individual members have done stupid things or have beliefs that we may not necessarily agree with. It is stereotypes like this that make it difficult to stand united as a nation, because each side is constantly criticizing the other and trying to find things wrong with each other.
As several have mentioned before, I find that to be an inaccurate blanket statement. Dems don't prostheletize their views anymore than republicans do. Nor is self validation a primary concern for the party. Similarly, Arapahoe County has historically been a very conservative area, ie mostly republican, and to say that every republican dresses alike and is covering up sex scanals is preposterous. And in response to your last sentence, this sole purpose of this blog is to discuss partisian ideology and our ideas as to what where we think we fall at this point-and certainly not to the so called "morals" that you feel each party exhibits. Such stereotypes can not only be viewed as offensive but also factually invalid.
Alex, to be completely honest, I think that you made a very offensive statement and this is not the place for you to make such a comment. That is very stereotypical yet is very inaccurate! I cannot tell whether you state this in a sarcastic tone, or a serious voice, but I can tell that this is not the place for such a comment. As Jeff said, this is a place for ideology, not a place to make offensive statements such as that.
As of right now I believe that I am an Independent. Before this class I never really watched politics, sorry Meyer. Even without following politics however I have been watching the news and seeing many of the issues that we, as a nation are facing today. On some issues I tend to favor the Republican stance and on others, the Democratic view. Right now however I am too naive to pick a party so I am going to stick with Independent and hopefully as this class progresses I will make up my mind as to which side I favor
First of all, abok, I think I'm one of the few (or only) that understood your humor. Secondly, I find it hard to pick a political side. I'd hate to say that I'm "Independent" because to me that just says I can't take a stand. But when I see people that take extremists sides (coughs anne coulter) I always seem to find those people ignorant. I don't think you can be 100% for one side because there are always two sides to an issue. I don’t know if anyone else feels this way, but I hate to say I’m associated with a political party because I feel I will become almost blind, and view issues only from side. When I was little, I asked my dad (an obvious republican) what a democrat was, and he said “A bunch of idiots.” That’s why I am afraid to associate myself with a party. Does anyone else feel this way? Or am I just what I think I might be, unable to make a stand?
Andy,
Everyone gets pressure from their parents to act a certain way and to share similiar values with their particular political beliefs. During the 2000 election I remember specifically taping a Bush poster to my bedroom door because my dad said he was a good man and my dad is very republican. It was only until I started getting caught up on current events and looking at politics from a neutral standpoint that I developed my own political views. I know my dad still has a hard time today knowing I am a democrat, but they are your parents so obviously they are going to love you no matter what.
Maybe you are solely an independent. If you truly cannot associate yourself with a political party, then it might be because you change views depending on the issue.
Brooks- which alex are you talking to because I don't really think my previous post was even remotely offensive... sorry if it was.
Hey why is Bush not doing anything about the Global Warming?
So he can get rid of all the Blue states!
Sorry just a little bit of humor there to start us off, but I do completely agree with Brooks and especially caitlin. You can't stereotype entire parties like that, but most importantly you can't can't can't believe what the communist news network (CNN) and the F Word News (Fox News) is always feeding us. You have to go deeper, and find the facts not believing what you hear. That would be have to be somewaht of a dictatorship almost if we all just watched TV and we all had to nod our heads in agreement of everything the leader was saying. Does that make sense? So really you can't stereotype parties by what you hear on the news dealing with scandals and clothings types, etc.
Hey Anley, sorry for the confusion, I was responding to abok.
I agree with Sam. The news tells stories that will catch the viewers eyes. However, news can give us raw facts of something but put a twist on it to either make it better or worse. This is where we have to make our own interpretation of the story. The news shows us alot of the time bad things about both republicans and democrats because it somehow interests the public. Even if something that the news said has happened, you have to realize that they are either dramatizing it or sugar coating it. This is where you have to realize that just because the news is showing something about a political party, it doesn't mean that EVERY person in the party is like that. This is why you can't believe everything the news tells you. Like Sam said, we can't base political parties on the news because they show us the scandals and "bad" side of the parties. How many of you (and I am guilty of this too) watch the news and take it that it is true? Do some of our views that we are talking about now, come from what we hear on the news?
Anley,
Thanks for the reply. I hope my response wasn't misleading. I don't feel pressured by my parents at all, and haven't formed any opinions because of or inspite of them, but just wanted to use my dad as an example. And does anyone know of an unbiased (or at least somewhat) news source?
Andy- Most news sources really lean one way or another, and it is pretty obvious what their views are. I know my dad really likes PBS, like Bill Moyers, however I dont watch much of those shows. I think he may be a liberal, but from what I have heard there is less hype and the facts of an issue are stated and discussed in a more unbiased way. I also know that there are fewer news stories on a program like that, and the stories they feature go into much more depth than any other major broadcast.
Hey, I was just wondering if anyone knew when primaries were in CO???
So this is a little random...But I was reading chapter two and came across the description of state representation in government. If every state gets the same amount of reps in the senate and then population determines the number of house reps, it seems pretty fair to me. Each state should have a fair say according to their percent of the population. However, I found it interesting that this system gives the citizens of Wyoming 50 times the influence of the citizens in California. That sounds incredibly unfair. I was just wondering what others thought about this....Is is fair? Is fair even a possibility?
Also, in response to abok, though it could be seen as offensive, I understand, (or at least I think I do) what you were saying and I find it very funny! Obviously both sides have their issues and you can't criticize the other without being a total hypocrite. It was an exaggurated satirical comment,(at least I hope) but it made a very valid point. I think in order to truly understand politics and effectivly "play the game" you can't become part of the stereotype. If you're a republican, great. But you probably don't walk around with a suit and tie all the time and you also probably don't agree one hundred percent on every issue.
Lily- Colorado's primary is February 5, along with 22(ish) other states. The only states previous to the 5th are South Carolina, New Hampshire,Iowa and Nevada.
Thanks Caitlin! So I suppose that a bunch of us can't vote in the primaries...myself included. But those of you who would be able to, do you think you will?
ofcourse i will vote in the primaries! even if its not as important as the presidential election seems to be, i think its important to vote(as our gov book keeps telling us) and that young voters need to realize that they shouldnt be able to complain about what is going on in the country until they used their chance to actually make a difference in any law that they don't agree with.
im still confused though... can you actually vote in the primaries if you are an independent? i thought you could. caitlin disagrees, so i might be wrong. does anyone have any idea?
and shelby- i am totally with you on your question. how should power be determined? its difficult to think that wyoming has way more power than california. but how is that fixed? each state should technically be equal... or should it be equal on population? or should states just be ignored and things should be decided through the people's votes... not electoral votes?
how confusing!
jordan
i agree that the news... almost like propaganda... is hard to create your opinions about. its difficult to watch the news and not believe what they are saying- i guess no one truly knows about everything going on in iraq... the news probably has to get permission before releasing certain information to the public. but is that fair? is it for our own good if some crazy person sees something important on the news and uses it against the good of our country?
freedom of the press isnt necessarily free then, is it?
Wow, I’m a little overwhelmed. This is the first time I’ve found this blog and it seems that I’ve missed A LOT. It has been fun though reading through some of the comments made. I honestly have not been a political junkie (as some of my family members) my whole life and honestly don’t know exactly which party I would consider myself to be apart of. I have liberal and conservative views on different topics, so I guess that puts me as an independent. Hopefully by the end of this class I will have more knowledge on this subject and be able to declare which side to take.
Kerry.. I was told once again at the Obama event... by a local politician no less,that you MUST be registered with a party to vote in the caucus primary. I have voter registration forms if anyone wants one (and if you will be 18 by February 5). I recommend picking the party you lean toward and make sure you show up to vote in your precinct. I will make sure to let people more as I am informed about precinct locations etc. But it is imperative that anyone who will be 18 by February 5, fill out and send in a voter registration determining a party by December 5 which is the cutoff. I was never told however, if Republicans vote on the same day? So basically.. I could be off on the date for republican caucus but I am not sure. Something to look up...
I think an important thing people have overlooked is that parties aren't just cohesive units of clones. Everyone has a slightly different look on things, and as a result neither of the parties are as ridiculous as many people think. I think a lot of the reason parties are viewed that way is the party leadership's fault. My parents are moderate registered Republicans, and as a result they get a letter from the party every couple of months. They are so over the top that either the Republican National Committee really believes that the Democrats are the root of all evil or they are fanning the flames of their extremists to increase their funding. My parents didn't keep any of the notes, but they resembled these(I found them with google):
"Jesus Was, And Is, A Conservative Republican Fundamentalist. Liberals twist the Bible to try to force it to support Liberal causes like Gay Marriage. The Republican ideal is the same as the Christian ideal, which is the same as the Conservative religious ideal which is present in every single human culture that ever existed in any way. The Democrat ideal is the same as the atheist ideal, which is the same as the Liberal secularist ideal, which is the same as the dictatorship of the proletariat throughout all cultures in all times in all places in the history of the world. Take any primitive tribe on earth, past or present and they can be neatly divided between the Conservatives and the Liberals, the religious and the irreligious. They go under different names throughout history but their agendas are always virtually the same. A Democrat is a Democrat is a Democrat. Once you have seen or heard one you have seen and heard them all for all time. Clearly God is a Republican, and Lucifer is a Democrat. Clearly Jesus was a Conservative Republican. BTW: There is nothing democratic about the Democrat Party or any Democrat." "If Jesus had been around when the New Testament was published, I bet he would be really pissed at how the 3,000 verses about helping the poor got in there." http://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=152801&forum_id=5
I really hope that post was a troll, because the existance of such people frightens me.
Anyway, the point of all that was that I doubt most republicans would agree with that statement. The parties are not at all homogeneous, and those differences help to our country from becoming excessively polarized. I'd like to see a state where independents could vote in one and only one primary, but until that happens registering in a party seems to be the best way to participate to me. Sorry for the long post.
I'm getting so many different arguments about what I should be from my parents. If someone would please explain the party views for me that would help a lot. I don't feel that im informed enough to make an accurate decision. my email is Commanderkyle@comcast.net
I am torn political parties that i like. i like the economic side of democrats but not for all policies that they are for. i am just the opposite with the republicans so i am not sure in all
Ok well since I wrote the most beautiful response last night and it disappeared, I will try to come up with my response yet again. It took me along time to just skim the blog and I appologize for reposting something that has already been said by someone else. I believe that a two party system is a good thing in general because it allows the average person to be able to follow politics a little bit easier. Think of it this way, if there was a thousand seperate parties running for office how confusing would that get trying to follow which groups believe what and whom is running for them. I think most people would get turn away from politics right away if they say that. If you do disagree with the Democrats on a certain issue you must learn to get the bad with the good and if a certain bill comes up for a vote you are not required to vote along your parties line, you are allowed to vote on you personal beliefs.
A little off topic, but I want to know what people think about the future of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart once Bush is gone. The show started under Clinton's administration but didn't really gain a whole lot of popularity until bush. I am wondering if a competent president is elected and Jon no longer has good material to make fun of, if his show is going to suffer.
Also Nathank I thought your quote about illegal immigrants was hilarious, I laughed lots.
There will always be something in politics Jon will be able to find. Our government is corrupt enought that it is not that hard and there is always the never ending mess with foreign policy. I believe we do not have to worry about Mr. Stewart anytime soon.
Yes, as long as there has been government there has been scandal and corruption, so I think as long as the Patriot Act or similar "security laws" don't restrict free speech, or the show gets a boring host, The Daily Show will prosper.
Wow! I just read so much. I think my brain is going to explode. But I'm going to write some more anyways.
Thank you all who shut down abok. That was a inappropriate comment in this forum.
And there has been a lot of talk about being Independent. And the more I read the more I realize something. Even though, I call myself a Democrat and will probably register as a Democrat. I like what Independents stand for. Yes, I do have quite a few liberal views. But what I found when reading all of this, is that the Independent party seems to have a very open-minded view on parties and policies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they seem to be very understanding of everyone's beliefs. And it creates an environment where you can pick and choose issues that best reflect yourself and your views. Like a big stew! (jack). Which I love. But unfortunately, I will probably never register as an Independent. Solely, because I would like to have a say in the primaries. And in the election. For me at least, not being able to vote in this upcoming election (just about 10 days late, so sad). I want my vote to count as much as possible. And that includes, being able to determine who is going to represent us and who is going to become mister president.
Nathan that's a pretty outrageous thing to say if you think that the daily show can only make fun of great people such as George W. Bush. We will always be able to poke fun at politicians, and if the Daily show decides to stop being funny because the producers might agree with what the future president is doing then that is a poorly run show. Their ethics would be completely off if that was the case. So I think the daily show will be fun because in everything there can always be humor which will always be forevermore.
demandtruth.
Janessa the only reason why independants are so accepting for anybodies beliefs is because the independent party does not have any actual structured beliefs. This is not a bad thing but to think that the independents are awesome just because they accept everything, is missing the point of what the independents are. The independents in my mind are one of two things, one they dislike both parties and do not want to side with either side filled with corruption, or two they have beliefs on both sides and can not choose a favorite.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"The only reason why independants are so accepting for anybodies beliefs is because the independent party does not have any actual structured beliefs." -Tyler Maybee.
I had to repeat this comment, just to re-affirm my sorrowful suspicions that it was truly stated. It would appear that Mr. Maybee has delicately insinuated the notion of the independent party having no structured policies. Tyler, is this to say that Independents are political push-overs, or they simply lack the notoriety and political disctinction that our two enlightened, and utterly Patriotic parties possess? Perhaps as Americans we only see politics, cultural issues, religion, and thus everyday life, on one coordinate plane: left to right. Why don't we see these affairs as front to back, and up to down? Side to side... ideas bouncing, if you will, across the walls of what we call reality. Why, as humans, do we insist on convenience over intellectualism, to bludgeon our creativity and only syphon our momentary and fleeting thoughts from what has become the forfeited beauty that is the human mind?
Yes it seems as if people becoming so predisposed to dislike the other side not because we actually know anything about the other side, but because we're so bloody prejudiced. I agree with you Todd, we should see it from front to back, up and down, on top of the issue, behind the issue, etc. But perhaps the independent party do not have "any actual structured beliefs" because there is so much variation then within the democratic or republican parties. What is the unifying element of hte Independent Party besides we don't like Deomcrats or Republicans? (or agree with all of their beliefs)
I definitely think that it would be wrong to say that by defining yourself as an independent you lack the structure evident by the other dominant political parties... I think that the independent "structure" is simply that your not entirely republican or entirely democrat- which none of us really are. Therefore I think it is wrong to say that, in politics, the line can only be drawn to divide between, as todd says, left or right, democrat or republican.
“Underground Communication. True clear channel with rhythm and information... greedy illegitimate Democrat or Republican, sell guns for funds, indigenous exterminance. Listen. Law. One world nation. True clear channel with rhythm and information. Internet connect network pirate stations. Media free, underground communication.”
Above are lyrics from a song titled "Underground Communication." I just thought they were intriguing...
I think it is important to make the distinction between what being an independent is and being affiliated with a party (be it Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, the Green party, or someone else). To be independent by definition means that one is not affiliated with a political party. There is no Independent party, and being an independent means nothing more in and of itself than the fact that one is not affiliated with a party. It does not mean they lack opinions or even that they disagree with a party on an issue, simply that they don't want to label themselves as a member of a party. Other generalizations can be made, including the fact that they tend to be more openminded and less prone to blind opposition, but these are not part of being independent. You can refer to independents as having general characteristics, but there is no independent party and therefore it is only a generalization of the individuals who carry that label.
Independents don't stand for anything. It's the easy way out... who says you can pick and chose what you believe?
Who says you can't pick and choose what you believe?
I thought this was amusing. http://www.slate.com/id/2173965/?GT1=10436
investigate.
I'm impressed. As we continue through the semester, don't forget to revisit where you are.
Ok, I am going to go out on a limb and try to somehow keep my point connected with government to stay relevant to this blog...
"Why, as humans, do we insist on convenience over intellectualism, to bludgeon our creativity and only syphon our momentary and fleeting thoughts from what has become the forfeited beauty that is the human mind?"-TShaw.
Society has let itself become so time-oriented! Everything in today's society is "absolute", "structured", "allotted", or even "Planned". No longer do we (and by we I mean society as a whole) challenge our thinking and live in a relative manner. We have taken time and we have molded it into our own cell, prisoning ourselves in a structural lifestyle which feeds off of planning and trained thought... But why? Is there some sort of higher-existing organization which lives by these standards already? Does this "group" have somewhat of a significant say in how we learn, act, and by legal means live? Is it possible in anyway? Todd, please enlighten us...
Brooks, you are totally correct when you say that society today completely feeds off structured and intricately planned itineraries constantly. Look at school for example, does anyone find it interesting that we are ruled by bells and sit in rows of desks? These kinds of things were first seen around the industrialism era, and these tactics have become significant parts in our daily lives. The idea of things letting them unfold for themselves is lost and replaced with a schedule for every day of the week. How tragic.
Brooks, I dont quite understand what the term "higher-existing organization" means. In terms of a political one, spiritual...?And what do you mean by "enlighten us." To explicate my previous statement? thanks for the clarification.
My apologies, by "higher-existing" I simply meant a higher organization in our hierarchical structure and the rhetorical questions I posed were deliberately meant to forepoint towards the government...and by asking you to "enlighten us" I was just sarcastically asking you to respond.
Do you think questions like these are unimportant?
Not at all, I was posing this question simply to provide lead for a discussion on the opinion of to what degree the government has authority over our structure of life and to what degree the government has authority over our societal decisions.
And no I did not think your question was pointless at all, and I should modify my word choice from sarcastically to amusingly or educate me (I enjoy hearing your discussive opinions and I said that more of in a jokingly way). You posed an excellent question and the same form of question I have loved to analyze ever since taking your mother's class last year.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home