What would that accomplish? The parties evolved from a climate of divisive politics in the first place, and time whittled them down to two primary parties.
I'm not saying that a multi-party system with numerous alternatives isn't viable - but we had that at one point, and things dovetailed to where we are now. Is such a thing really truly sustainable?
The current parties are relics from the 20th century whose major platforms are largely skewed out of alignment with 21st century issues. The traditional conservative/liberal tags are no longer applicable to today's political climate. I kind of view the destruction of parties similar to market corrections. If the republican party does indeed implode, perhaps the party that will arise out of the ashes will more accurately reflect some aspects of today's atmosphere.
OK. I see that as a bit different than demonizing "party politics" as a category of function. I do agree that the current parties, as they stand, are hide-bound. A shakeup that forces them to reconcile their platform with today's realities is a good thing.
So rather than disregarding political parties in principle, it sounds like a call to revise and refresh the parties is in order.
The Bernie movement has the potential to do this to the Democrats even if Bernie doesn't win. The movement itself is sound even if the candidate isn't; the key will be to keep that energy going into mid-term elections, forcing the party to actually adapt to the tide.
I have to imagine that Trump will do that to the Republican base. If he doesn't, who the fuck knows what will emerge.
Well the problem with "party politics" is that is more often than not comes down to tribalism. Sorry ScoJo, but I view you as the perfect example of this. "If only Bernie played with our team, he'd be a great president."
If the Democrats could lead a violent insurrection against the Union and stick around as a major political party in it, I think the GOP can survive a schism like this.
Bernie needed to be movement building years before his run for president. He lucked out that he is doing as good as he is doing. But if he would have actually worked that aspect of his "movement" years prior he would have potentially got somewhere. Be that in the party or outside of it. But jumping into the Democratic Primary and expecting the party to just jump for him is ridiculous. He was running to raise an issue not win the presidency. He was pretty much taken off guard by his success.
If Bernie wasn't the man to organize it he should have found someone who could.
Well the problem with "party politics" is that is more often than not comes down to tribalism. Sorry ScoJo, but I view you as the perfect example of this. "If only Bernie played with our team, he'd be a great president."
I suppose, to some extent, all politics is some form of tribalism. I mean, we as various small groups elect people that we believe will represent our collective interests. We have a collective interest - that makes us a tribe. We send tribal leaders to council together, and they each vie for what's good for their tribe. It's sort of built into a representative democracy.
We are, after all, a minimum of 50 different tribes.
Bernie has a tribe - it's Vermont. He goes to Congress and votes on stuff that benefits his tribe. Also other tribes, but he's loyal to his first and foremost. This is as it should be, and the nature of "politics" is really the process of getting tribal leaders to agree to compromises. So maybe you don't do something that's 100% awesome for the Green Mountain Tribe alone, but you still get most of what you want in exchange for concessions to some other tribe.
Being an "outsider" is refusing to negotiate with other tribes.
In this case, I would take "playing with the Democrats" to be something like offering up compromises for the sake of laying groundwork for a later platform. Investing in the long term rather than focusing on his tribe.
Bernie could have built his own tribe by now, by offering up compromises and getting dirty. He didn't do that, though, and it's hard to drum up the support now.
Bernie is the candidate for people who don't like either party and want to replace one but know that Bullmoosing doesn't help anyone. A DINO President is exactly what we want. The party has fallen in line with the President across recent history.
We need young activists to usurp local Democratic party structure with a progressive equivalent of the Tea Party. The problem is that almost no young activists are actually willing to do the grunt boots on the ground work that actually builds winning coalitions.
Remember Lessig's May Day reports? What won elections? Money. What was that money used for? Mundane shit like calling old people on the phone and knocking on their doors.
It feels like the current primaries are like five parties competing for two spots anyway. Democratic socialist, centrist, business conservative right, social conservative right, and fascist right. Clinton can probably appeal to the first three, if she plays it well, but nobody else can cover so much ground.
It feels like the current primaries are like five parties competing for two spots anyway. Democratic socialist, centrist, business conservative right, social conservative right, and fascist right. Clinton can probably appeal to the first three, if she plays it well, but nobody else can cover so much ground.
The GOP is a coalition of: 1. Wealthy conservatives 2. Working-class racists 3. Christian religious extremists 4. Libertarians/anti-taxation groups
The Democrats are a coalition of: 1. Labor unions 2. Minorities 3. Centrists (e.g., anyone who isn't substantially conservative) 4. Progressives 5. Liberals
Sure. In Germany, where proportional representation allows for many parties, the same ground is often covered. Unfortunately there is the AfD, the Alternative for Deutschland, which is doing pretty well with the racist right.
There will always be about 15% of the population that is over at the racist right end of things. Sometimes they have a party for themselves, sometimes they just go along with the right-most party they can. Where it gets bad is when the rest of the right has to go along with the racist right. It happened in 1930s Germany, and if Trump secures the Republican nomination, it looks like it might go that way in the US.
It's not fair to compare modern America to the Weimar Republic because we have a very different set of circumstances. The structure of the government and the nature of the fascist/racist movements are very different. Not that Trump isn't acting like Hitler -- I'll take Eva Schloss' word for it, she was there -- but the strategy developed to place a racist tyrant in charge of the US government has to be dramatically different from what the Nazis did.
That's not my point. There is a two party system in the US, but as I see it now, the five remaining candidates could easily be the leaders of five of the biggest parties here in Germany. If these five parties had to coalesce into two, you'd really hope the leader of the far right party wasn't the leader of whatever right party ended up existing.
Listen, I'm the king of reductio ad absurdum here - you best step off.
Yes you can conjure up an extreme example - but in the vast majority of reasonable cases, and for most practical purposes, it is the job of your representatives to represent your interests first and foremost. That is what they do. That's what politics is all about.
You can't reject a premise because of outliers. Well, I guess you can - but you shouldn't.
I ordered a Drumpf hat, I think it will b fun to wear when he loses on election night or as the country quickly burns to the ground the first year he's president.
Listen, I'm the king of reductio ad absurdum here - you best step off.
Yes you can conjure up an extreme example - but in the vast majority of reasonable cases, and for most practical purposes, it is the job of your representatives to represent your interests first and foremost. That is what they do. That's what politics is all about.
You can't reject a premise because of outliers. Well, I guess you can - but you shouldn't.
Comments
I'm not saying that a multi-party system with numerous alternatives isn't viable - but we had that at one point, and things dovetailed to where we are now. Is such a thing really truly sustainable?
So rather than disregarding political parties in principle, it sounds like a call to revise and refresh the parties is in order.
The Bernie movement has the potential to do this to the Democrats even if Bernie doesn't win. The movement itself is sound even if the candidate isn't; the key will be to keep that energy going into mid-term elections, forcing the party to actually adapt to the tide.
I have to imagine that Trump will do that to the Republican base. If he doesn't, who the fuck knows what will emerge.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/top-conservatives-gather-to-plot-third-party-run-against-trump-220786
Bernie needed to be movement building years before his run for president. He lucked out that he is doing as good as he is doing. But if he would have actually worked that aspect of his "movement" years prior he would have potentially got somewhere. Be that in the party or outside of it. But jumping into the Democratic Primary and expecting the party to just jump for him is ridiculous. He was running to raise an issue not win the presidency. He was pretty much taken off guard by his success.
If Bernie wasn't the man to organize it he should have found someone who could.
We are, after all, a minimum of 50 different tribes.
Bernie has a tribe - it's Vermont. He goes to Congress and votes on stuff that benefits his tribe. Also other tribes, but he's loyal to his first and foremost. This is as it should be, and the nature of "politics" is really the process of getting tribal leaders to agree to compromises. So maybe you don't do something that's 100% awesome for the Green Mountain Tribe alone, but you still get most of what you want in exchange for concessions to some other tribe.
Being an "outsider" is refusing to negotiate with other tribes.
In this case, I would take "playing with the Democrats" to be something like offering up compromises for the sake of laying groundwork for a later platform. Investing in the long term rather than focusing on his tribe.
Bernie could have built his own tribe by now, by offering up compromises and getting dirty. He didn't do that, though, and it's hard to drum up the support now. Oh please let this be real.
Imagine if Bernie lost the nomination and ran independently as the Republicans trot out someone against Trump. Four-way election.
That oughta burn the establishment down to everyone's liking.
"But our tribe wants to keep slaves!" Is the only answer.
Remember Lessig's May Day reports? What won elections? Money. What was that money used for? Mundane shit like calling old people on the phone and knocking on their doors.
1. Wealthy conservatives
2. Working-class racists
3. Christian religious extremists
4. Libertarians/anti-taxation groups
The Democrats are a coalition of:
1. Labor unions
2. Minorities
3. Centrists (e.g., anyone who isn't substantially conservative)
4. Progressives
5. Liberals
On Liberals:
There will always be about 15% of the population that is over at the racist right end of things. Sometimes they have a party for themselves, sometimes they just go along with the right-most party they can. Where it gets bad is when the rest of the right has to go along with the racist right. It happened in 1930s Germany, and if Trump secures the Republican nomination, it looks like it might go that way in the US.
Yes you can conjure up an extreme example - but in the vast majority of reasonable cases, and for most practical purposes, it is the job of your representatives to represent your interests first and foremost. That is what they do. That's what politics is all about.
You can't reject a premise because of outliers. Well, I guess you can - but you shouldn't.
Only Kasich (can't win the primary) and the Zodiac Killer remain.