Political parties - dysfunctional relics from an age of reason
- 5
- Add a Comment
As someone who grew up in a time where there was such a thing as political dialogue, I find it so odd that the current political parties have not tried to re-invent themselves, much as the fast food franchise Jack-In-The-Box did.
There was a time when Jack-In-The-Box was a place one went to eat only when there was nothing in the cupboard at home, and it was too late to get anything anywhere else. Using the word food, to describe what was being sold at these places of business was truly an act of kindness. Then someone with foresight, or perhaps just a hatred for red ink on the balance sheet, decided it was time to seriously revamp the business. Along came a series of commercials, showing the trademark talking jack-in-the-box order mechanism being exploded, and new, fresh looking, good tasting food being offered by the franchise. As anyone who lived through that time will attest, it turned the business completely around, so that today there are many who find this place one of there favorites to eat while away from home.
Is it not time for this sort of re-invention of the political parties in these United States? When was the last time you explicitly knew what the core tenets of the party you belong to are? As I talk to those I come in contact with from time to time [most people I talk to take quite some time to feel comfortable about talking politics with anyone] I find that more often than not, people are for or against individuals, and not their party affiliation. It was not always this way.
It used to be that the basic tenets of the Democratic Party were that there were many things that were simply too big a job for individuals to take care of on their own, and that the government, through taxation, would take on these projects, ostensibly making life for everyone better. The party looked upon itself as a great equalizer, making sure the rich and poor were both treated with dignity and care.
On the other side of the table, the Republican Party was the defender of the thought that government was a necessary evil, and only should take on those absolutely huge projects, which no one, or small group, could ever possibly accomplish. The establishment and maintenance of the army, and navy, was among those things. The party also believed that individual freedom should be valued above all else, with only small areas in which personal freedom should be abridged.
What happened?
Today, to paraphrase a comedy routine of Louis Black, the Republican Party is the party of bad ideas, and the Democratic Party is the party of no ideas. There are other parties, but they comprise such a small portion of the population that they are, by and large, irrelevant.
When I grew up, anyone of faith was a Democrat. This was evidenced by the phrase, the Solid South, meaning the religious [usually Christian] Democrats in the southern states. Suddenly during the time of Jerry Falwell, the line put forth was that if one was Christian, one had to be Republican. Where in left field did this come from? This seemed to me, as a teenager, incredibly inane. It still does.
During this same time, the Republican ideal was someone who wanted to cut taxes. This idea appeals to everyone at first, so there are a lot of ’single-premise’ Republicans today. What seems so apocryphal to these same people, is that the rest of the party line, such as strong national defense, depends upon taxation, and also the spending judiciously of the tax base, so that these core ideals can be provided.
To look at the number one Republican today, our president, it appears he has never had to, in his entire life, balance a checkbook. It also appears he was never in those economics classes he was enrolled in at Yale, much like the National Guard service he seemed to miss. He, along with his cabinet, need to learn that ‘dad’ will not be there to bail out America when China comes-a-callin’ for the money we owe them. [It's called trade imbalance.] It also will not occur under his watch, so, exactly like in his college days, it just doesn’t concern him.
Over on the Democratic side of things, it looked like we had someone with ‘cajones’, although she was a woman, when Nancy Pelosi took over as Speaker. I thought this was terrific when it happened. Now I see it as just posturing for the press. When it comes down to crunch time, nothing changes…they caved. How can anyone proudly claim to be a Democrat anymore?
To simplify upon Louis Black’s routine, the Democrats are a party of need, and the Republicans are the party of greed.
With such divergence from the ‘ideals’ of these parties, how can I recommend my young son become a member of either? On the other hand, when was the last time a Libertarian won a presidential race? Or a senate seat for that matter.
Perhaps a new party, with the requirements of triple-digit intelligence for membership, should be formed.
[tags] Republican party, Democratic party, Libertarian party, political parties, blow up the box [/tags]

5 Comments
University Update
May 27th, 2007
at 12:19am
Political Parties - Dysfunctional Relics From An Age Of Reason…
…
Verne Middleton
May 27th, 2007
at 3:00pm
When was the last time(if ever) your(they are not mine) people in congress ever read and understood the last sentence of the Declaration, “we pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” and they signed it under the penalty of being drawn and quartered. The only thing they understand is their lives and their fortunes, and not in the context of the Declaration. Pennsylvania Ave should be turned into a 50 calibre training range with no quarter for either Democrats or Rebubloicans.
theoracle
May 27th, 2007
at 3:05pm
I don’t think we’re to that point just yet! Besides we know the pen [and vote] is mightier than the sword, right?
Adam
July 9th, 2007
at 11:56am
It sure doesn’t seem that way sometimes.
If I recall correctly, George Washington himself made sure that there were no party politics enforced in the Constitution. Everybody else wanted them, though, so they set up a de facto party system. Washington’s reasoning was that people would start taking the party line and not thinking for themselves, which seems to be what’s happening lately.
Poor George must be turning in his grave.
the oracle
July 9th, 2007
at 12:51pm
Adam, thanks for the comment. I think George Washington would be having a hard time with the liberties [pun intended] that the prez is taking these days. Even today, citing privilege when denying the Congress the ability to question his aids and other appointees, pushes the envelope of power that a president is able to muster.