Malcolm X's quote on Democrats and Republicans (1 Viewer)

[blackadder]

I know I'm not breaking any news to you here, but a parliamentary system would have plenty of negative consequences. The Framers didn't want a system that would be responsive to the passions and whims of the populace. They wanted a system that was stable and one in which change would be somewhat difficult. In fact, if factionalism was the greatest concern to the Framers then the two-party system has worked pretty damn well. It's hard to have extreme factions when everything is lumped into two categories.

If you ask me, the problem lies with the citizenry. The Framers expounded upon the need for citizens to be educated, moral, and frugal. Continence has given way to debt-fueled consumption. Age-old ideas about morality have given way to relativism. Education? It's now a means to an end, not an end in itself as the Framers believed. This is not to say that the Framers were correct philosophically, just that they designed a lumbering form of government with that type of citizen in mind.

You can't rely on the people to be educated, particularly in the modern world of mind numbing mass media.

The trade off then was a little messier system that more closely reflects the diversity of opinion, in which more parties compete with ideas.

Comeptition is good, right?

In retrospect, the idea was that they were shaping a system in which the voters thought and acted as they did. Sufferage was not universal when they were building the system. They expected the average voter look like them -- white maile property owners. By those distinctions you were assured a certain level of education and homogeneity of views.

The system was built for its own type of oligarchy.

As we are today, in hindsight, IMO, a Parliament is least worst choice and allows more intellectual competition. It's harder work for the oligarchy to buy up all the parties.

 

[dtc]

fify

Explain, please?

 

[purvis_guy]

Explain, please?

That's about the funniest post ever!

 

[SaintsFan11]

In retrospect, the idea was that they were shaping a system in which the voters thought and acted as they did. Sufferage was not universal when they were building the system. They expected the average voter look like them -- white maile property owners. By those distinctions you were assured a certain level of education and homogeneity of views.

The system was built for its own type of oligarchy.

I was going to post something similar. You're right, the system was essentially an oligarchy and there is no way to expect all (or even most) citizens of voting age to possess those traits, especially given human nature, the depravity of which was recognized by the Framers.

That being said, I still think we probably have the best system we could hope for. Look at the hysteria surrounding Obama's election and then imagine what it would have looked like if Obama had been elected Prime Minister in a system similar to that of the United Kingdom, where the meat of Obama's agenda had been passed long ago.

A parliamentary system is much more responsive to the whims, passions, and prejudices of the people, and that is not necessarily a good thing. Imagine what Prime Minister Bush and Lord Cheney could have passed through following 9/11 had we been in a parliamentary system.

 

[blackadder]

I was going to post something similar. You're right, the system was essentially an oligarchy and there is no way to expect all (or even most) citizens of voting age to possess those traits, especially given human nature, the depravity of which was recognized by the Framers.

That being said, I still think we probably have the best system we could hope for. Look at the hysteria surrounding Obama's election and then imagine what it would have looked like if Obama had been elected Prime Minister in a system similar to that of the United Kingdom, where the meat of Obama's agenda had been passed long ago.

A parliamentary system is much more responsive to the whims, passions, and prejudices of the people, and that is not necessarily a good thing. Imagine what Prime Minister Bush and Lord Cheney could have passed through following 9/11 had we been in a parliamentary system.

I can't really see it being much worse.

We're already getting close to some of the more "unamerican" limits associated with a Parliamtary system, without any of the benefits.

As is now, we are subject to the whims of the oligarchy. In 2001, one of those whims was to use 9-11 as an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 and launch a crusade in the Middle East, while remaining allied to the country that actually produced the attackers.

Can it get much worse?

I'd rather the whims of the people. Democracy is messy. Educate people and teach them to think logically and critically and to maintain a questioning posture and just let it roll.

 

[Ti Rider]

As i've gotten older I've become cynical about politics. I've come to realize that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. They are run by the same corporate masters so electing one over the other is an exercise in futility. Politicians aren't about doing what's best for the country they are all about what's best for them and what will help them keep their power. Washington is a pit that will eventually corrupt even the most idealistic person. They may go in thinking they'll do good for the country but eventually end up a clone. Once in Wasington they become part of the "ruling elite" that lord over what they see as the stupid rabble that populate this country.

Right now the thing that depresses me the most is there is no way to change the system. It is what is.......a group of dimwitted people who believe they are smarter than everyone else writing check after check with no money in the bank.........

 

[champ76]

Explain, please?

The point is both parties try to convince particular constituencies that their policies benefit them, but do we actually see that happening? While there may be marginal improvement from time to time in some matrices when measuring the progress of the middle class and poor, often the end result is essentially little change, at a very high price.

 

[dtc]

That's about the funniest post ever!

Why because you can't answer it without some trite and illogical spew about how welfare, health reform, SS and public education are really making the plight of the poor worse.

 

[dtc]

You can't rely on the people to be educated, particularly in the modern world of mind numbing mass media.

The trade off then was a little messier system that more closely reflects the diversity of opinion, in which more parties compete with ideas.

Among an uneducated population throttled with greed and self interest you are likely to find people who believe in Trickle Down Economics and people who vote not in their own self interest, but in the interest of those they aspire to become.

It's ruining our country.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

That said, I will never be a Democrat. I have felt for a long time that Democrats are very good and stirring up three faithful blocs: women, gays and blacks. They do it with broad promises, but accomplish very little. It's lip service and window dressing. And while Republicans do even less to ensure the rights and success of anyone considered a minority, at least they don't ever claim they are trying to.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I use to but lately I've been looking at it from a different perspective. I think the astronomic upward mobility of blacks and women in the last 30 - 40 years has a lot to do with Democrats. Maybe not at the national level (though they have helped) but at the local and state level with education programs, scholarship programs and primarily by spending money on community outreach of previously disenfranchised groups. Progressive legislation in social programs, education and labor laws have gone a long way to help minorities. Targeted tax cuts, EIC and the Family Leave Act have all been very beneficial to single mothers in the workplace. In terms of gays I think Democrats have done a good job at laying the foundation for change and opposing the effort of social conservatives to legislate morality. Much like the civil rights era that fight is a marathon not a sprint.

Now, you can argue if all this stuff is good for America. I'm not really interested in that debate here as the view points tend to be very narrow. However, I think it's erroneous to say Democrats only pay lip service to minorities, gays and women. There's only so much you can change at once but institutionally we are much better off today than in 1960, 1970, 1980 and even 1990. Progress has certainly slowed but that's because I think the current elixir is time and holding back Republican efforts to turn back the clock with the exception of gays who still have a lot left to fight for.

 

[1yearOlder]

Without really commenting on any of the previous posts ...

Looking a bit deeper into the false left/right paradigm ...
In a broader sense, what is a *Nation State without an economy?
(*federalist republic/democracy, monachical/democracy, neo-feudalism)

Alan Greenspan, Bob Rubin, Larry Summers, Lloyd Blankfein, James Dimon,
Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner ...

Whether or not they are simply the most visable representitives of the
underlying institutions that drive this country's - ( a global degree further
when the anglo-instrumented IMF/WB are included ) - policies, their
institution's affiliations with the political parties can be described as - both.

History shows that the Fed., the Treasury, and Wall St. are intimately
involved no matter what party is in or out.

A partial list of their attributes :

1. Gross denial of any moral damage caused by their rampant greed.

2. Narcissistic egomaniacs with secret "God complexes".
Although Blankfein's is rather public now that he stated he's doing God's work.

3. Paranoid obsessives about secrecy, guilt and non-disclosure.
Notice the $100's of millions recently spent lobbying for no added regulations
or continued non-transparency of credit derivatives. "Dark opaque pools
create better pricing."

4. Power hungry need to control government through Trojan horses.
Like we now see in Dubai ... those bonds are likely non-compliant with
Sharia law, but that's another story... or more relavent to us, the too big
to fail bailout ... of which Kashkari now admits he pulled $700B. out of a hat.

I remember when W. went on primetime to threaten us that if we didn't
allow D.C. to stick another of it's hands into our pockets - the financial
world would collapse.
How we have de-evolved over the last one hundred years, I thought.
They did this with the crash of 1907 to gain power with a public/private
colluded financial entity - now they just want our cash.

5. Borderline personalities who regularly ignore conflicts of interest.
The examples are many but this would be one of my favorites :
<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-hhPvas-Q8Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-hhPvas-Q8Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

The main point that I always keep in mind is that the operational instrument
that's "hardwired" into the current economic system, and therefore
the Nation State -that is- the leadership of both parties, is FRAUD.
Think Brooksley Born.

The N.Y. stock exchange has fraud "hardwired" into it.
The accounting methodoligies of the banks have fraud "hardwired" into them.
The globalist investment/business (which includes the military in some cases)
model has fraud "hardwired into it and as evidenced, the federal government
is intimately involved.

So when you bend down - or over, depending on your perspective - in
submission to the self-proclaimed experts in order to solve the crisis that
they created ...
(Crony capitalism on the way up, crony socialism on the way down)
... rather than authority, although they are that too, you are
submitting to criminality.