Allowing Partisan Politics To Define America
| <----- Click Here to Digg This Post! |
Prickly City - 4.12.2007 - 4.13.2007
” It’s hard to embrace something when you don’t know where it stands.” I would say that is a true statement, but I don’t understand why it would be applicable in this context. Why would anyone want to embrace a specific political ideology (like ‘Republican’ or Democrat’) as opposed to having their own ideology based on careful study of facts and opinions.
It seems as though the character in the first strip has already made up her mind that she will stand for whatever it is the Republicans stand for, and she’s slightly dismayed that she can’t figure out exactly what that is. What’s crazy it that it seems that a huge portion of Americans think like this, both Democrat and Republican. They decide what political ideology to subscribe to, and then look to political leaders to tell them what to believe.
Are we that uninformed that we need people to tell us what we should and shouldn’t believe in? If we all truly made a concerted effort to look at various issues from all sides, and used logic and reason to determine the best point of view, I think we’d find that we all have a lot more in common than we think. Instead, we allow the media, political pundits, cable news windbags, and scheming politicians to define our beliefs.
Candidates from the same parties don’t always agree on various issues. Political pundits generally say this makes a party “weak”, and maybe they’re right, but as I said in January, there are far more than two “sides” to any given issue, and allowing politicians to define for use two nicely packaged positions, and given a choice between the two does no one any favors. The only ones that benefit from this watering down of complex issues are the politicians themselves, who now find it easy to rally the troops behind them under one banner.
Political parties (and party loyalty) will be the downfall of this country. The two parties take every issue, divide it into “sides”, and then choose one to defend. In many cases, the two sides aren’t really that different, but the politicians will have you believe that you’re looking at night and day when you compare the two. If the parties seem to agree on a hot topic, they are no longer well-defined, and therefore voters may lose their loyalty to one side. As such, they make a point to disagree about every single thing.
When two parties disagree about nearly every issue, just for the sake of disagreement, it polarizes the public, and allows no beneficial work to actually get done. Every vote, every speech, every single thing the politician does is for the sake of political posturing to help him get elected the next term, or help his party. It disgusts me, and I don’t understand why more people don’t share my sentiment.
So that’s my rant. I encourage you all to disassociate yourself from a specific political party, think logically and rationally about hot-button issues, and really look into every candidate in an election before deciding who to vote for. You may be surprised to find that a 3rd-party candidate holds views much more similar to yours than a Democrat or Republican. Above all, don’t allow partisan politics to continue to define who you are and what you stand for.
Thank you and goodnight.
[...] Political Parties are Destroying America! Political Parties are Destroying America! Rather than form our own opinions about important issues based on careful study of facts and opinions, we all too often allow politicians, political pundits, and cable news windbags to define what we stand for. We as Americans are far more alike than different, yet by polarizing us into two “sides”, political parties stand to benefit….[news] [political opinion] [world & business] [...]
Pingback by Political Parties are Destroying America! « Tons of Fresh News — April 15, 2007 @ 6:10 am
I think it’s because people don’t want to have to make a decision on each individual choice, and would rather then simplify it all down to agreeing with a party. I know I’ve never liked either party and although I usually vote for who I hate less, I’m more influenced by what the party stands for as opposed to what the candidate claims (e.g. we know republicans are going to pressure all candidates to hold certain values - eg: belief in religion, anti-abortion, etc).
Comment by live tv — April 15, 2007 @ 7:11 am
WORD UP DOG.
Comment by Mike — April 15, 2007 @ 7:44 am
You think having 2 parties disagee about somehting is bad? under the ‘no-party’ system you would have 100 senators disagreeing.
Comment by Alexander Hamilton — April 15, 2007 @ 7:48 am
E.J. Dionne wrote about this in “Why Americans Hate Politics,” a book well worth reading for anyone who wants to understand why politics is in such a mess in the US. ANother book I’d recommend is “Culture of Complaint” by Robert Hughes. It’s a series of essays on the fracturing of American society.
Comment by Roy — April 15, 2007 @ 7:50 am
Eff off Alexander Hamilton. I don’t vote for this very reason. I hate dislike Democrats and Republicans so much I don’t even care what they are saying.
Comment by Ben Franklin — April 15, 2007 @ 7:59 am
Right on bro, i appreciate your rant. I’m getting so tired of party politics when the middle of the 2 opinions always seems a better path to take. I’m still mad i voted for John Kerry just because i didn’t like Bush in the last election. I should have voted for a 3rd independent party instead of voting for another rich elitist asshole on a different side of the political coin. If Al Gore runs independent or with some sort a “green party” I will not make the same mistake twice. You know what Bush says about fool me twice. Shame on….
Comment by sublime sally — April 15, 2007 @ 8:01 am
The two party system is a symptom, not a cause, of the problem. The problem is that our election methods of plurality voting naturally leads to a two party system. What we need are new election methods that allow votes for multiple acceptable candidates.
http://www.approvalvoting.org/results.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
Comment by Tom Albrecht — April 15, 2007 @ 8:05 am
Poly = Many
Tics = Blood Sucking Insects
This is what is “leading” our country. I don’t think it’s the political parties, they are simply alliances created by the politicians, and with our political system parties are inevitable. You may have noticed that the “2″ main parties are united on one thing, and that is keeping out 3rd and 4th and 5th, etc. parties. Countries who have a few, or several parties have bedlam and chaos, and get very little done. You can make the point that this situation may be better for our country, and I’m not sure if I would disagree or not.
The main destructive force in politics is that we continue to elect leaders who can best run down there opponent, rather than run on there own agenda. We continue to reward this behavior, and as long as we do, politics will be destructive, and attract destructive people. Anyone who tries to run an honest campaign on his or her agenda alone gets destroyed, because we, the people reward destructive politics.
Ultimately, the responsibility comes back to us. It’s not the parties, it’s not even politicians, it’s the people who have the power, and we continue to elect the people who can spew the most negativity, can lie to us and deceive us the best, even after they are caught red handed, and who can utterly destroy the their opponent by completely and totally warping there character and there stand on issues.
If, by some miracle, we change as a society into a positive majority, our leaders will reflect that.
PS Rush had it wrong with this piece:
And the men who hold high places
Must be the ones to start
To mould a new reality
Closer to the Heart
It’s the men and women who elect them who must be the ones to start.
Comment by Joseph Jett — April 15, 2007 @ 8:29 am
I may not agree that the party system is going to destroy America, but I registered Independent for some of the reasons you just mentioned.
Washington advised to stay away from political parties. “A house divided…”
Many people want more checks on the President now. Well the original way it worked had the runner up in the Presidential election become his Vice President. It was a position where he could check the Presidents power.
To Tom Albrecht: Although approval voting would be nice, it takes a lot longer to vote. Sadly, many people that do vote would choose not to, because it would conflict with their schedule. Maybe a run-off ballot would be better?
Comment by JeddHampton — April 15, 2007 @ 9:10 am
[...] Political Parties are Destroying America! Filed under: Uncategorized — recar @ 3:06 pm Political Parties are Destroying America! Rather than form our own opinions about important issues based on careful study of facts and opinions, we all too often allow politicians, political pundits, and cable news windbags to define what we stand for. We as Americans are far more alike than different, yet by polarizing us into two “sides”, political parties stand to benefit….[news] [world & business] [political opinion] [...]
Pingback by Political Parties are Destroying America! « News Coctail — April 15, 2007 @ 10:12 am
Great article if it opens any eyes to their naivete, but I don’t agree with its conclusions. The two party system works. We’re the strongest country in the world.
Two solution fix 95% of the problems of our political system. Term limits for Congress means the death of K Street and decision making to get re-elected. Repeal the 17th Amendment and return the election of Senators to the State Legislatures - give States back their rights.
Comment by tom pain — April 15, 2007 @ 10:16 am
I think the trend is going away from fierce loyalty to one particular party. In my county (Onondaga) there was a story that registered Democrats edged out Republicans for the first time in a long time. The briefly mentioned portion of the story was that more people chose not to register with a particular political party and remain independent. I think the next election will see less polarization especially since the leading Republican Candidates do not mesh neatly with Bush-style positions. Giuliani and Romney have been Pro-Choice on abortion. McCain is a shell of his former self as he is whoring himself out to the extreme right just for the votes. The extreme right senses this and is not falling for it.
So, hopefully this trend continues.
Comment by Marcello — April 15, 2007 @ 10:17 am
[...] 15th, 2007 · No Comments Great essay on the state of politics today. Check it out:http://www.comicstrippolitics.com/?p=17 [...]
Pingback by Partisan politics « Who knows what you’ll find… — April 15, 2007 @ 10:19 am
[...] Read on… [...]
Pingback by Allowing Partisan Politics To Define America « The BauerBlog — April 15, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Excellent article!! You have succinctly described my exact base political outlook on this country.
Comment by Ro — April 15, 2007 @ 11:54 am
Excellent essay. I wholeheartedly agree.
Odyssey and Oracle: Fire Tweedledum and Tweedledee - America IS ready for a new political party.(-)
Comment by Jason — April 15, 2007 @ 11:58 am
While I appreciate the argument being made, I’m a little annoyed with the message overall. Its kind of the same old thing again and again. “I don’t like parties, parties suck, collective beliefs are stupid, blah, blah, blah…” I feel like this applies to people who aren’t informed on the issues and haven’t made up their minds, but what about the rest of us? There’s a large portion, believe or not, who know where we stand on the issues and pick parties accordingly, not because we don’t have minds of our own, but because we choose to. We agree with others and would like to show some solidarity in principles. I think a plurality of parties is better, however, hating parties is just about the same as saying I hate people who agree with other people. Some level of organization and agreement is necessary for anything to get done or else you have anarchy. Instead of talking about individualism, something we all have been breastfed on since we were one, perhaps we should talk about collective modes of thought. You won’t lose yourself in a party. Not everyone who declares himself a Democrat is a bleeding heart liberal, just as not everyone who’s a Republican is a diehard conservative. There is a spectrum within parties themselves which allows for individualism while recognizing a common bond (as mentioned above).
Comment by Chris — April 15, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Chris,
I don’t hate political parties inherently. Nor do I have a problem with collective beliefs. I simply think that the way the two major US parties do things currently is hurting things far more than it is helping them. The worst offense is the polarization that they create simply to build a position different than the other party’s position.
While an educated citizen may not lose themselves in a party they associate with, the politicians surely seem to. Congressional votes routinely run very close to party lines, regardless of where the public stands on the issue.
As I mentioned in another post, in my home state of Maryland, the Democrats (who hold a 2 to 1 margin in the state legislature) refuse to legalize slot machines despite large public support simply because an original proponent of the current plan was a Republican (a governor who isn’t even in office anymore).
Clearly, politicians loyalty is no longer with their constituents. Instead it lies solely with their party, and that is where my disgust is directed.
Comment by robert — April 15, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
For all those who are sick of party politics (like I am) Check out http://www.independentvoting.org.
We’re not a party, but a movement of Americans who are organizing independent voters into a third force that can change the partisan culture of politics.
Comment by Gwen — April 15, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
DOES ONLY HAVING COKE OR PEPSI AS BEVERAGE CHOICES SEEM GOOD AND DEMOCRATIC?
DOES ANYBODY BELIEVE WE HAVE A SYSTEM WHICH IS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE VOTER?
iF CITIZENS ACTUALLY RAN THEIR DEMOCRACY WOULD POLITICIANS BE PAID OR VOLUNTEERS?
IF YOU COULD DESIGN A DEMOCRACY WHERE PEOPLE DECIDED POLICIES WOULD IT WORK LIKE THIS??
Comment by todd — April 15, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
But how would you fix it?
There is no place to turn to. I am completely lost as far as politics go. So much nonsense everywhere.
Comment by Joel — April 15, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Why would anyone want to embrace a specific political ideology as opposed to having their own ideology based on careful study of facts and opinions?
This is sophomoric BS. It is entirely possible to embrace a particular party after a careful study of facts. Does the name Abraham Lincoln mean anything to you? I’m betting he actually studied the facts before becoming a Republican. If you’ve never heard of him, you may have heard of Franklin Roosevelt. I’m betting he actually studied the facts before becoming a Democrat.
Comment by Catron — April 15, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
Catron,
Are you suggesting that Franklin Roosevelt agreed with every position held by the Democratic Party at the time? It seems to me that despite being a member of the Democratic Party, he didn’t toe the party line on every issue of the day. Perhaps you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m not claiming that no one should join political parties, just that everyone should look at the issues for themselves and determine their position on individual issues rather than let party leaders tell them where they should stand. I would argue that both Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln did just that.
Comment by robert — April 15, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Robert,
You have made my point for me. Thanks. Both of the people mentioned understood that in order to make meaningful change, one has to accept some imperfection (in some cases, a lot) in one’s party. Like it or not, the parties are the reality that we must deal with. So, it just doesn’t make sense to say that the parties are ruining the country. In fact, the wild and wooly debates that we see going on are probably healthy. I would hate to see too much agreement between the two parties. That WOULD make me nervous.
Comment by Catron — April 15, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
I got interested in the Green Party as part of an anti 2 party system and all we did was to divide the Dems further and help elect Bush (this happened again in 2004). While leaving a Nader rally in Long Beach CA in 2000 we were flanked by Repub workera with signs congradulating us on our support of Nader. Lets face it this world works, acts, and is ruled by and for corporations. Peolpe and democracy be damned, a quaint memeory, the great leader dictator Bush etc rules all. JFK was asassined because he was not going to support invasion of Vietnam, the corp boys wanted thier weapon profits war. Today we are in Iraq for oil weapon sales and Haiburton profits. And nothing changes. The civil war was the same, the profit motive there was labor. War = politics = money and visa verssa
Comment by Steven McCarty — April 16, 2007 @ 9:42 am
What is interesting to me in this particular blog entry is not so much the article but the responses. I don’t understand how anyone could get the impression from Robert’s original writing that he “hates” political parties. The opinion that I see expressed here is that individual citizens should make up their minds on a topic/issue FIRST- then look to see what particular party platform or candidate agrees. When this is not the case, then it means that citizens are looking to the parties and their candidates to do the thinking for them. Obviously, that’s not a good thing for a democratic republic like ours which is heavily (if not entirely) dependant on informed citizenship.
I thought this article made a lot of sense. I don’t see where it’s espousing that people abandon political parties per se. It’s just asking people to distance themselves from their party’s perspective until they have their own. Once that’s done, it makes sense to look for the party or candidate that goes along with YOU and not a candidate/party that you can go along with. That’s not just a play on words, it’s a crucial distinction that speaks to the priority of one’s opinion over party loyalty. Think first, don’t let the choice think for you!
Comment by Eric — April 16, 2007 @ 10:56 am
[...] Article Source: Comicstrippolitics [...]
Pingback by Allowing Partisan Politics To Define America | .: Bomzhan.com - Fresh Interesting News and Facts :. — April 16, 2007 @ 11:40 am
All that’s needed to break the “two-party system” is a third party. Unfortunately, the establishment parties, their political machines and the election laws they’ve passed make it VERY difficult for any third party to stand up nationally. Meanwhile, I will be thinking independently.
My own thoughts on the subject:
Cartoon: Our Terrific Two-Party System
Comment by Briscoe — April 16, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
[...] Allowing Partisan Politics To Define America This is really just meant for Amelia, she will know why.. [...]
Pingback by Exams Are Over Randomness « Murphy’s Law — April 19, 2007 @ 10:08 am
[...] Rather than form our own opinions about important issues based on careful study of facts and opinions, we all too often allow politicians, political pundits, and cable news windbags to define what we stand for. We as Americans are far more alike than different, yet by polarizing us into two “sides”, political parties stand to benefit….read more | digg story Digg this [...]
Pingback by Political Opinion » Political Parties are Destroying America! — April 25, 2007 @ 1:38 am
Most people won’t vote for a 3rd party since they’ll see it as a waste of a vote. Also people like stability in general, and a 3rd party might bring just the opposite.
Comment by Motorcycle Guy — April 27, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
hey:
I’m no political coinsure, and as I get old, it seems the process of engaging in democracy is more important than any particular political player, party or issue.
Democracy, IMHO, is reinforcing your countries freedom, nothing more and nothing less. What significant difference could arise if democrats & Gore had been in power for 9/11? (As an outsider (Canadian) I see Gore as hawkish in war as Bush and the Afghanistan war spilling over it’s borders)
Comment by jessej — April 30, 2007 @ 5:12 am