Hello John,
Here is where we do disagree. I see a lot of flaws with our current political party system, but I also see a lot of positive, productive aspects of our system.
In a nutshell, we, as a Nation, have always been divided between the "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists". There has continuously been this ongoing battle in our Nation for over two centuries....."Jeffersonians", as opposed to a "Hamiltonians". "Federalists" as opposed to the "Anti-Federalists". "Strict Constructionists" versus the "Implied Powers" advocators of the Constitution; those who believe in "State's Rights" over a large federal bureaucracy. The "Federalist" belief of a National Bank, versus the Anti-Federalist opposition to a National Bank, and its trappings. It boils down to how much federal government do we want in our lives.
Today, these distinctions are very much embraced in the Democrat Party, which I believe has been broken beyond repair by the infiltration of socialists/communists; but still cling to a Hamiltonian "Large Central Government" proposition; as opposed to the Republicans which still embrace a "Jeffersonian/Anti-Federalist/States Rights" agenda.
Although there were many of our Founding Fathers who were opposed to the political party system, these opponents, (Jefferson and Franklin being two of them) were nevertheless members of political parties, and they considered them necessary evils of their day.
Today, in the New Millennium the political party system still remains the only viable mechanism to unite various voters who hold specific issues as their most important, together. There are at least four or five broad classifications of voter types that usually vote Republican; a coalition if you will; and some of these group's beliefs obviously overlap. I am stereotyping here but briefly, by example:
The "Social Conservatives", or "traditionalists"; sometimes unflatteringly referred to as the "fundamentalist religious zealots"; of which family, church and community are their most important issues;
The "Economic Conservatives"; who view nature as actually benign, encouraging individualism, experimentation, and entrepreneurship;
The "Libertarians"; or "Constitutionalists; who in general look for a strict adherence to the Constitution, and a very limited, restricted government;
The "Fatalists"; or, (again for lack of a better term) the "NeoCons"; (and I deterst that term, because by definition, all "NeoCons" are former Democrats) who generally believe in a strong central government, with a "Federalist" perspective. They are still motivated to vote Republican, because of the Republican platform of a strong national defense.
The "Social Conservatives", or "traditionalists"; sometimes unflatteringly referred to as the "fundamentalist religious zealots"; of which family, church and community are their most important issues;
The "Economic Conservatives"; who view nature as actually benign, encouraging individualism, experimentation, and entrepreneurship;
The "Libertarians"; or "Constitutionalists; who in general look for a strict adherence to the Constitution, and a very limited, restricted government;
The "Fatalists"; or, (again for lack of a better term) the "NeoCons"; (and I deterst that term, because by definition, all "NeoCons" are former Democrats) who generally believe in a strong central government, with a "Federalist" perspective. They are still motivated to vote Republican, because of the Republican platform of a strong national defense.
Again, I don't understand where or how you believe that political parties in our Nation are now, somehow unconstitutional. When you get a moment, I would like to understand this train of thought.
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 3:23 PM, NoEinstein <noeinstein@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Dear Keith: Political parties began with the objective of "beating-the-
bushes" to be sure there would be candidates running who would be
acceptable to a particular faction if such candidate(s) got elected.
Soon it was realized that the best benefit to the faction would be to
use its growing influence to try to assure that the candidate favored
by the faction would get elected. At that point, political parties
became UNCONSTITUTIONAL! A process too many of us now accept as the
norm is to have political primaries decide which of the 'acceptable'
candidates gets to vie for office on the first Tuesday in November.
At the time, those things must have seemed logical, because of the
great difficulty of having runoff elections in the horse-and-buggy
era. But there is little such difficulty, today! In fact, my "NC"
defines an election process that in just three steps will FAIRLY
narrow down from any number of candidates wishing to get elected, and
without there being any more UNCONSTITUTIONAL political parties. To
wit:
Section 1: Executive power shall be vested in a President of the
United States of America. Candidates for President shall be Citizens
born in the USA who are at least 35 years of age. With the exception
of the incumbent President and/or VP—if eligible and seeking re
election—other candidates shall, within ninety days of the date of
filing as a candidate for President, have obtained the endorsement of
a min. of 25,000 confirmed registered voters knowledgeable of such
candidate's qualifications. The 3rd Tuesday in July, voters of all
the states and territories shall reduce the field of presidential
candidates to 8, with the incumbent Pres. & VP to be included in such
number, if applicable. The 3rd Tuesday in October, voters shall
reduce the field to four, with the incumbent Pres. and VP not
automatically included. The 1st Tuesday in November, each voter
selects their 1st & 2nd choices—points 4 and 3 respectively. The
President and Vice President Elect receive the highest and the 2nd
highest total points.
Results of the election in November will not be like announcing the
winner of a four-year-long "game" being played out on the media. The
voters get to fairly decide who they want to elect without all of the
group-against-group fisticuffs. The Founding Fathers never intended
to allow groups to have any influence above one-person-one-vote of the
members. There shall be no "powerful" leaders speaking for any group
and no lobbyists for any groups allowed, because lobbying shall be a
crime. The result will be that CAPITALISM will be the only game in
town, and based on the sports-mentality of the masses, that game
should become a hot one, indeed! — John A. Armistead —
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:56 AM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:26 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apart from your thesis on political parties, I agree with most of what you
> wrote John.
>
> No question the "two party" political system that we have currently has
> been corrupted. Nevertheless, it is clear that the victor of the
> presidential nomination process has a great deal of influence in writing
> the party platform. The National Party Platform differs from the
> State(s)' Party Platform, as I can personally attest to. I have been
> involved in both North Carolina's and more recently Florida's platform
> writing process. This again takes away from your "Weak govern the Strong"
> theory, but another conversation for another time.
>
> The "Mob Mentality" is a tool currently being used by the Democrats. I
> would disagree that Christians in general utilize this mentality or
> process; but again, if you can point to examples, I am all ears.
>
> Good to hear from you!
>
> Keith
>
>> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
>
> > MJ: Please read my reply to Keith on this same question. — J. A. A.
> > —
>
> > On Sep 10, 12:10 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > At 07:46 AM 9/10/2012, you wrote:Yes, Studio, but "the two major
> > political parties" are 100%
> > > UNCONSTITUTIONAL under our present Constitution! Much of what the
> > parties *do* is certainly unconstitutional, but the parties, themselves,
> > are certainly not.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
> > > As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of demand.
> > -- Josh Billings
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment