In terms of Radicals, I've always thought of it more like "this thing/system is broken on a fundamental level, rather than trying to fix the system we have, we need to think outside the box and effect change from the ground up." The liberal would say "We need to renovate our train station" A radical would be more like the liberal example, but would say "we need a new shinkansen station, not a regular train."
There are plenty of different kinds of radicals. There are violent and non-violent, those who should "burn it down!" and those who try to institute their changes with minimal harm to those around them. One thing about radicalism, though it that since it is all about change, there is always discomfort due to the shaking up of the status quo. I consider myself a radical, but I'm also a pragmatist. I'm not sure I ever want a violent revolution. In fact I'm pretty sure I don't want that. I'd much rather blow up old thought processes and ideas, which will lead to the desired change later on down the road as people, inspired by those memes, work together to make it so.
Dude, are you a survivor of one of the Balkan revolutions? You seem to be really afraid and angry.
Of course I don't want a power struggle. I want a Constitutional Amendment. The trouble is I'm not sure we can get one.
The term "any means necessary" implies that you find violence an acceptable option. I was under the impression you were arguing for violent revolution. I hear people talking like we are on the verge of bloodletting and succession all the time. It worries me. My apologies if I came off as a bit over zealous.
We are, and it SHOULD worry you. We are one more Supreme Court decided election away from widespread rioting at a minimum, in my opinion.
This is exactly why the two parties will continue to dominate the system. If everyone voted for 3rd parties or Independents we'd be have a completely different conversation. I shouldn't have to compromise my beliefs to convince myself that I'm being represented.
There's the rub. Everyone needs to vote for 3rd parties or independents (or at least a large enough percentage of everyone, anyway). Unfortunately, general voter apathy combined with how the two currently dominant parties have rigged the system means that unfortunately that will never happen anytime soon. Even when it has happened in the past, usually the end result is one of the 3rd parties ends up usurping one of the older dominant parties instead of adding to the overall milieu of political discourse. Case and point: when the Lincoln-era Republicans took the place of the Whigs at the national level.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised that if you took a poll of the general population, the majority would claim that the Democrats and Republicans are the only two parties we're allowed to have by law or even in the Constitution!
//McCain really took a dive in my opinion, lately he's been sounding like an old man yelling at clouds.
What do you expect when people are so easily compromised with their beliefs such that they are soothed with the nectar of their man winning as opposed to what's good for the country? He's only a reflection of the electorate today.
There's the rub. Everyone needs to vote for 3rd parties or independents (or at least a large enough percentage of everyone, anyway). Unfortunately, general voter apathy combined with how the two currently dominant parties have rigged the system means that unfortunately that will never happen anytime soon. Even when it has happened in the past, usually the end result is one of the 3rd parties ends up usurping one of the older dominant parties instead of adding to the overall milieu of political discourse. Case and point: when the Lincoln-era Republicans took the place of the Whigs at the national level.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised that if you took a poll of the general population, the majority would claim that the Democrats and Republicans are the only two parties we're allowed to have by law or even in the Constitution!
Right, and how do we fix this problem? I know keep voting for the lesser of two evils. Or you know, hope that someone bad enough wins to make the people actually vocal about their government. The electorate has been kept just happy enough to prevent them from speaking out about collusion the between the Republicans and the Democrats.
Dude, are you a survivor of one of the Balkan revolutions? You seem to be really afraid and angry.
Of course I don't want a power struggle. I want a Constitutional Amendment. The trouble is I'm not sure we can get one.
The term "any means necessary" implies that you find violence an acceptable option. I was under the impression you were arguing for violent revolution. I hear people talking like we are on the verge of bloodletting and succession all the time. It worries me. My apologies if I came off as a bit over zealous.
We are, and it SHOULD worry you. We are one more Supreme Court decided election away from widespread rioting at a minimum, in my opinion.
Yeahno. I'd like it if we were that close to violence. The fact is, the American public is complacent and submissive.
In terms of Radicals, I've always thought of it more like "this thing/system is broken on a fundamental level, rather than trying to fix the system we have, we need to think outside the box and effect change from the ground up." A radical would be more like the liberal example, but would say "we need a shinkansen, not a regular train."
There are plenty of different kinds of radicals. There are violent and non-violent, those who should "burn it down!" and those who try to institute their changes with minimal harm to those around them.
Well, admittedly (and even by my teacher at the time), that cartoon was an over-exaggeration of the various points along the political spectrum -- to the point of being extreme caricatures of them (although I do think that the current-era GOP fits the "Reactionary" caricature very well). There certainly is a wide range among all the stances depicted in that cartoon. For example, you may have a "softer" Radical that advocates tearing down the station to service a shinkansen instead of a regular train, like you said. You may have a "softer" Conservative who doesn't want to build a whole new station, but thinks that adding a new wing to it may be sufficient (this may be where the modern day Democratic party would be). Hell, even though I consider myself a centrist, I do find myself agreeing with many of your political viewpoints, so there certainly are no absolutes along the political spectrum except at the extreme ends.
Step 1: Convince your liberal leaning friends to split their votes between a moderate liberal and a extreme liberal. Step 2: lose election to hard right politician or at least one who will not stand up to own party. Step 3: ?????? Step 4: Revolution?
Fundamentally this is why the system gravitates to a two party system. As soon as a third party gains any sort of steam the other two parties will co-opt any "easy" issues and dilute the power of the third party.
Like I said, everyone, conservative and liberal, has to do vote 3rd party at once for there to be any effect. Actually, look at how much the Democrats are enjoying how the Tea Party is fracturing the Republican Party. If a bunch of liberal democrats started to defect, the Republicans would swoop in an take power, and then where would we be?
Well Andrew, the only thing that can be done is figure out how to make 3rd parties an actual thing.
Last time we had 3rd party stuff, Nader ran away with a chunk of the liberal vote and we all got screwed.
Yeah, because THAT was why Gore lost.
A better example would be 1912. Roosevelt was back from his sabbatical and wanted to run for the Republicans. They didn't feel so kind to him and nominated Taft instead. Teddy got pissy, founded the Bull Moose party (which sadly no longer exists) and split the vote. Wilson won with less than %45 of the vote, because the other two had ~%25,and that's how America entered WWI. I don't think I have to explain how that fucked us up.
Right, and how do we fix this problem? I know keep voting for the lesser of two evils. Or you know, hope that someone bad enough wins to make the people actually vocal about their government. The electorate has been kept just happy enough to prevent them from speaking out about collusion the between the Republicans and the Democrats.
The problem isn't in the voting. The problem is in getting the word out. Heck, every time I walk into the voting booth for a Presidential election, I find 2 or 3 candidates from 3rd parties I've never even heard of on the ballot. I rarely even bother looking up the info because I know that even though I have the skills and knowledge to dig up everything about their platforms on the internet, the average voter doesn't. What needs to be done is for these 3rd party candidates to somehow come up with enough cash to actually get their word out on TV, radio, newspapers, etc., to the public at large. Until then, they'll always be also-rans that will never get any respect.
Perot had enough money to almost pull it off -- he at least made things interesting. The Lincoln-era Republicans were able to get a lot of support via the Abolitionist movement in order to make their move. However, I'm pretty sure a lot of those early Republicans voted either Whig or Democrat until the Republican party had enough clout to actually matter.
The pragmatic approach is to vote with the lesser of two evils in order to minimize the damage that can take place until your 3rd party movement has the clout and infrastructure to really have an effect on the general election. If you really want a 3rd party to take off, then you shouldn't be on an internet forum bitching about how none of the major parties match up with your own beliefs. You should be out there working for the 3rd party of choice, trying to get the word out, trying to help them earn money, perhaps even donating some of your own money if you can afford it, etc.
There is no opposition to the right. Most people are center-right to begin with, and the only truly liberal politics out there are considered radical fringe by the vast majority.
The current Democrats are literally the most viable and furthest left American can go at least for the next couple of generations.
Well Andrew, the only thing that can be done is figure out how to make 3rd parties an actual thing.
Last time we had 3rd party stuff, Nader ran away with a chunk of the liberal vote and we all got screwed.
Yeah, because THAT was why Gore lost.
Well, it certainly didn't help... Please correct me if I'm remembering wrong, but I'm pretty sure that if the Nader vote all went to Gore, then the vote tally in Florida would've been in his favor by a large enough margin that we wouldn't have had to worry about all the recount bullshit that went down.
There is no opposition to the right. Most people are center-right to begin with, and the only truly liberal politics out there are considered radical fringe by the vast majority.
The current Democrats are literally the most viable and furthest left American can go at least for the next couple of generations.
Which is why I've given up fighting over policy and now only want the ability for 3d parties to gain support without people throwing away their votes.
EDIT: Florida wouldn't have been affected, but there was another swing state that would have. I still think 1912 is a better example, though.
There is no opposition to the right. Most people are center-right to begin with, and the only truly liberal politics out there are considered radical fringe by the vast majority.
The current Democrats are literally the most viable and furthest left American can go at least for the next couple of generations.
The electorate will only continue to shift further right if people keep voting they way they do. It's a trap set up by the people in power to keep you just happy enough through concessions and to "prevent the other guy from winning" while enhancing the power of the government.
When far-right fascism comes to America, it won't look like German fascism or Italian fascism. It will be as American as apple pie.
Also, realize that a politician that is trying for your vote will try to pander to your views. If enough people in a politician's constituency are for something and the politician worries they will lose if they don't try to support those demands better than the opposition, they'll tow that line for all they are worth. We need to get more people in general to agree with our thoughts and popularize our opinions in order for them to be reflected in the political arena.
Things like the TSA money waste are not hated enough. If people really hated on them in droves, maybe the politicians would do something.
The exception is campaign finance/voting reform. Politicians are very threatened by anything that reflects on their job security directly, so these are harder to push.
EDIT: Florida wouldn't have been affected, but there was another swing state that would have. I still think 1912 is a better example, though.
I'm not so sure. Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Nader had 97,421 votes. If all those Nader votes went to Gore, it probably would've been a large enough margin to avoid the recounts that led to all the related BS.
It depends on your priorities. I'm not convinced that we are making slow progress in the areas I think are most important (government corruption, overreach of the government, and degradation of many civil liberties).
Why? What evidence has led you to that conclusion? Because the way I see it:
1. Government is more transparent than it's ever been. "Corruption" is such an overused word that I don't even see it having value. What do you mean? Bribes? Lobbyists? Conspiracies? Define your terms.
2. Overreach of the government? How so? I see attempts to legislate many things, but they already within the provenance of the government. Or are you talking about things like SOPA and the NDAA? Again, what are some specific gripes?
3. And you think civil liberties are being eroded? Really? Which ones - because I'm quite sure that more people have more freedom than ever. Whose speech is being oppressed moreso than it has before?
If all other rights stay at about the same level, and ANYONE ANYWHERE has rights added, we are making slow progress.
Y'know, I'm a storyteller. It's a Thing for me. I understand the need we have to create heroes and monsters, myth and magic. The "third party revolution" idea is magic. "The problem" is a bogeyman. Upward mobility is a myth. We simplify things because the reality is far more complex than we can understand on our own.
When I read your points, what I see is a strong desire for magic to exist. That if we could just do That One Thing, we could affect some real change. It's a desire we all feel, honestly. It's because changes are slow to happen - so slow that we often fail to take notice when they're actually happening. And so we decide that there has to be a Better Way, because I didn't see this happen and we can't have that!
One problem I've found is that we allow ourselves to buy into certain kinds of magic, and we're terribly let down when we find out it's not real. We say up and down to each other, "Why don't you believe in MY magic?" And we respond to each other in kind.
There's no magic, and there are no dragons. What would a third party ACTUALLY fix? Look at how hard it is for a major party to affect minor change. Do you honestly believe that any office wields enough power to be more effective than what we've already seen? If it did, that would be a true sign of the failure of checks and balances.
I'm sorry that change isn't fast enough for you. I'm sorry that you and I will be long dead before we colonize space. I'm sorry that we still have problems getting people to agree that gay people are people and deserve rights - but our life today is better than it has ever been. For everyone.
EDIT: Florida wouldn't have been affected, but there was another swing state that would have. I still think 1912 is a better example, though.
I'm not so sure. Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Nader had 97,421 votes. If all those Nader votes went to Gore, it probably would've been a large enough margin to avoid the recounts that led to all the related BS.
In Florida alone? I had read that it was large enough to turn it Gore, but not large enough to avoid recounts.
...our life today is better than it has ever been. For everyone.
Unless you live in Iraq. Or got your house foreclosed upon. Or lost your job. In all seriousness, though, I think humanity has been making slow progress for hundreds of years now. I mean, I can vote, there is no smallpox, and it is illegal to burn baskets full of cats, unlike in medieval France.
...our life today is better than it has ever been. For everyone.
Unless you live in Iraq. Or got your house foreclosed upon. Or lost your job. In all seriousness, though, I think humanity has been making slow progress for hundreds of years now. I mean, I can vote, there is no smallpox, and it is illegal to burn baskets full of cats, unlike in medieval France.
"Our" indicates "on the whole." Things suck for someone somewhere, but buying into the notion that things are on a decline overall? Nope, not the case.
You need a long view. Unemployment sucks - but it was worse in the 80's, and before that was the Great Depression. Foreclosure sucks, but more people own houses than ever have.
It wasn't THAT long ago that we had widespread "separate but equal" facilities.
No, the cats thing was just general medieval shittyness, like how public executions were entertainment. (There was also the witchcraft tie-in as well.) When I found out that that was something peasants used to do for fun, I was depressed about humanity for days.
No, this was just general medieval shittyness, like how public executions were entertainment. (There was also the witchcraft tie in as well.) When I found out that that was something peasants used to do for fun, I was depressed about humanity for days.
We played the execution of Sadam Hussein on live television.
Comments
The liberal would say "We need to renovate our train station" A radical would be more like the liberal example, but would say "we need a new shinkansen station, not a regular train."
There are plenty of different kinds of radicals. There are violent and non-violent, those who should "burn it down!" and those who try to institute their changes with minimal harm to those around them.
One thing about radicalism, though it that since it is all about change, there is always discomfort due to the shaking up of the status quo. I consider myself a radical, but I'm also a pragmatist. I'm not sure I ever want a violent revolution. In fact I'm pretty sure I don't want that. I'd much rather blow up old thought processes and ideas, which will lead to the desired change later on down the road as people, inspired by those memes, work together to make it so.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised that if you took a poll of the general population, the majority would claim that the Democrats and Republicans are the only two parties we're allowed to have by law or even in the Constitution!
Last time we had 3rd party stuff, Nader ran away with a chunk of the liberal vote and we all got screwed.
Step 2: Tell others to stop buying into as well.
Step 2: lose election to hard right politician or at least one who will not stand up to own party.
Step 3: ??????
Step 4: Revolution?
Fundamentally this is why the system gravitates to a two party system. As soon as a third party gains any sort of steam the other two parties will co-opt any "easy" issues and dilute the power of the third party.
Legitimate Rape Time.
A better example would be 1912. Roosevelt was back from his sabbatical and wanted to run for the Republicans. They didn't feel so kind to him and nominated Taft instead. Teddy got pissy, founded the Bull Moose party (which sadly no longer exists) and split the vote. Wilson won with less than %45 of the vote, because the other two had ~%25,and that's how America entered WWI. I don't think I have to explain how that fucked us up.
Perot had enough money to almost pull it off -- he at least made things interesting. The Lincoln-era Republicans were able to get a lot of support via the Abolitionist movement in order to make their move. However, I'm pretty sure a lot of those early Republicans voted either Whig or Democrat until the Republican party had enough clout to actually matter.
The pragmatic approach is to vote with the lesser of two evils in order to minimize the damage that can take place until your 3rd party movement has the clout and infrastructure to really have an effect on the general election. If you really want a 3rd party to take off, then you shouldn't be on an internet forum bitching about how none of the major parties match up with your own beliefs. You should be out there working for the 3rd party of choice, trying to get the word out, trying to help them earn money, perhaps even donating some of your own money if you can afford it, etc.
The current Democrats are literally the most viable and furthest left American can go at least for the next couple of generations.
EDIT: Florida wouldn't have been affected, but there was another swing state that would have. I still think 1912 is a better example, though.
When far-right fascism comes to America, it won't look like German fascism or Italian fascism. It will be as American as apple pie.
Things like the TSA money waste are not hated enough. If people really hated on them in droves, maybe the politicians would do something.
The exception is campaign finance/voting reform. Politicians are very threatened by anything that reflects on their job security directly, so these are harder to push.
1. Government is more transparent than it's ever been. "Corruption" is such an overused word that I don't even see it having value. What do you mean? Bribes? Lobbyists? Conspiracies? Define your terms.
2. Overreach of the government? How so? I see attempts to legislate many things, but they already within the provenance of the government. Or are you talking about things like SOPA and the NDAA? Again, what are some specific gripes?
3. And you think civil liberties are being eroded? Really? Which ones - because I'm quite sure that more people have more freedom than ever. Whose speech is being oppressed moreso than it has before?
If all other rights stay at about the same level, and ANYONE ANYWHERE has rights added, we are making slow progress.
Y'know, I'm a storyteller. It's a Thing for me. I understand the need we have to create heroes and monsters, myth and magic. The "third party revolution" idea is magic. "The problem" is a bogeyman. Upward mobility is a myth. We simplify things because the reality is far more complex than we can understand on our own.
When I read your points, what I see is a strong desire for magic to exist. That if we could just do That One Thing, we could affect some real change. It's a desire we all feel, honestly. It's because changes are slow to happen - so slow that we often fail to take notice when they're actually happening. And so we decide that there has to be a Better Way, because I didn't see this happen and we can't have that!
One problem I've found is that we allow ourselves to buy into certain kinds of magic, and we're terribly let down when we find out it's not real. We say up and down to each other, "Why don't you believe in MY magic?" And we respond to each other in kind.
There's no magic, and there are no dragons. What would a third party ACTUALLY fix? Look at how hard it is for a major party to affect minor change. Do you honestly believe that any office wields enough power to be more effective than what we've already seen? If it did, that would be a true sign of the failure of checks and balances.
I'm sorry that change isn't fast enough for you. I'm sorry that you and I will be long dead before we colonize space. I'm sorry that we still have problems getting people to agree that gay people are people and deserve rights - but our life today is better than it has ever been. For everyone.
In all seriousness, though, I think humanity has been making slow progress for hundreds of years now.
I mean, I can vote, there is no smallpox, and it is illegal to burn baskets full of cats, unlike in medieval France.
You need a long view. Unemployment sucks - but it was worse in the 80's, and before that was the Great Depression. Foreclosure sucks, but more people own houses than ever have.
It wasn't THAT long ago that we had widespread "separate but equal" facilities.
We have come far. We have far to go.