Americans, What Would You Like to Change About Your Parties?

[IchabodPlain]

Americans, What Would You Like to Change About Your (Political) Parties?

Alright, I've been an Independent most of my life (before recently changing to Republican), mostly because I'm split on the issues between them (I tend to be socially and economically liberal).

Example:
Democrats are protectionist on trade
Republicans are fence builders

Now that I am affiliated to the Republican Party, I feel it is totally my place to lay out what I would change about the party.

1. I am completely disgusted with the compassionate conservative/evangelical wing of the party. I understand the logic behind playing to them to get "value" votes, but most evangelicals are big government when it comes to economic issues, which divides the Party -- especially now that it's transparent that they aren't going to overturn Roe v. Wade. Is a constitutional amendement banning gay marriage and vacuous rhetoric about abortion enough to keep these voters from changing Parties?

2. I wish to high hell that the Republican Party of today would remember the lasting lesson of the bearer of my sig and reclaim the conservative = conservation on environmental and energy issues. McCain has done a better job of this than most, but the environmental movement of today is much different from the movement in the 70's, in that it has found the way to make conservation economical as well. Environmentally friendly, and energy-efficient products are making their way into consumer purchases at a growing rate and it is the perfect opportunity to seize upon this with a government policy that sees us importing more fuel-efficient cars (in the US we have two 40mpg cars on the market as of 2007, compared with over 100 in Europe), and offering tax deductions for energy-star rated purchases.

But this leads me to wonder; what would you change about the Major Political Parties in the US?

For background:
http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php
http://www.gop.com/images/2004platform.pdf

 

[quixotecoyote]

Alright, I've been an Independent most of my life (before recently changing to Republican), mostly because I'm split on the issues between them (I tend to be socially and economically liberal).

Not to derail, but if you're economically and socially liberal, why are you a republican? I think the dems are fairly obviously more socially liberal and it's arguable big-government-wise but I think they're the more liberal economically of the two.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Not to derail, but if you're economically and socially liberal, why are you a republican? I think the dems are fairly obviously more socially liberal and it's arguable big-government-wise but I think they're the more liberal economically of the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

ETA: I suppose I am using an arcane version of liberalism to describe myself.

 

[shadron]

Call me a stary-eyed idealist, but what I would most like to change about both is their god-awful (good term!) must-win attitude. There are times when the pendulum swings, and to insist on winning above all else when the pendulum is not in your yard is not only a classic fail but a guaranteed lose of integrity in the effort. There is much to be said about a loyal opposition and grace in loosing that the parties need to take to heart. Yes, that means that some political careers have to go into eclipse at times, and perhaps there will be more turnover of experienced politicians as against those who are not so experienced in beltway politics, but I don't think that is an evil thing.

Every novelist who mentions about Washington in the periphery of his writing does so, as far as I can determine, citing the absolute corruption , the cynicism and basically hateful way of the area. No one sees elected government service as a healthy environment, and I don't think that's right.

As I said, an idealist, but you asked. I'd sure like to see the high road once in a while. Neither party appears capable of it.

 

[shadron]

2. I wish to high hell that the Republican Party of today would remember the lasting lesson of the bearer of my sig and reclaim the conservative = conservation on environmental and energy issues. McCain has done a better job of this than most, but the environmental movement of today is much different from the movement in the 70's, in that it has found the way to make conservation economical as well.

There was a time, in the administrations of Eisenhower and Nixon (heaven help me) that environmentalism wasn't a nastified word like "liberal" was made to be. Both of those worthies supported conservation efforts - they extended funding of National Parks, they invested in scientific research on alternatives, even though the requirement that they do so (mainly OPEC and oil-countries' economic solidarity) was not yet a glimmer. The Kennedy, Johnson and Carter administrations further promoted conservation and research. Only when Reagan was elected was that research and environmental support deemed to be anti-business, and unworthy of government support. As much as I like a lot of what Reagan did, his turn-around of emphasis on this one point set the country's efforts to become energy independent back almost 30 years now, and set the gold standard for the Republican party. Conservation and research was equated with wasteful Liberals, and the rest is history.

In a person anecdote, I was working in solar energy at the time (Carter administration) for a major aerospace firm. They (the industrial side of the M-I complex) were competing to create pilot solar power plants and doing practical engineering research. They had four major contracts - one with Spain, the rest in the US - and a plethora of IRADs (Independent Research and Development projects) in work. In the months after Reagan won election the word was being passed that there would not be any follow-on work after them. All the IRADs dried up as the company read the writing on he wall. The projects were delivered, and the company division closed down. The largest project, placed in Dagget, CA was run for 5 years, and then decommissioned as economically non-feasible by the customer. And they were right, it was, but then it was a pilot project - and it went to no avail. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=34.871496,-116.8343&spn=0.010932,0.014269&t=k&z=16

So I agree with you, Ichabod, on that count (actually on the other as well, but I'm still an independent, so I'll not lean on that). Great thread.

 

[Oliver]

But this leads me to wonder; what would you change about the Major Political Parties in the US?

I would introduce a regulation into the "Communications Act of 2008" that instructs the obligation to air a balanced share of political ads during elections from all parties in the United States, prohibiting commercialization of election-ads that does nothing but limiting the democratic process and swepts third parties under the commercial carpet.

After all, there is a reason why so many feel they have to choose between the lesser of two evils - and this reason is that the big 2 parties, as you pointed out, are devided based on their inner wings - and the third parties are pretty much ridiculed. So many people end up like you: "I have no real choice".

Also the Delegate-system and nomination-process is completely out of date. Presidential candidates should register ONCE at federal level if they choose to run - and after that they should be on all states ballots automatically without having trouble with stupid individual state-election laws, which is nothing but chicanery anyway.

And voters shouldn't have to register to a party to vote. They should be registered automatically to vote for whatever party they like, for example via their social security card/-number.

 

[WildCat]

I would introduce a regulation into the "Communications Act of 2008" that instructs the obligation to air a balanced share of political ads during elections from all parties in the United States, prohibiting commercialization of election-ads that does nothing but limiting the democratic process and swepts third parties under the commercial carpet.

After all, there is a reason why so many feel they have to choose between the lesser of two evils - and this reason is that the big 2 parties, as you pointed out, are devided based on their inner wings - and the third parties are pretty much ridiculed. So many people end up like you: "I have no real choice".

Also the Delegate-system and nomination-process is completely out of date. Presidential candidates should register ONCE at federal level if they choose to run - and after that they should be on all states ballots automatically without having trouble with stupid individual state-election laws, which is nothing but chicanery anyway.

And voters shouldn't have to register to a party to vote. They should be registered automatically to vote for whatever party they like, for example via their social security card/-number.

Sorry Oliver, please try to stay on the topic. this is about what you would change about the political parties, not how you would rewrite the Constitution to make Ron Paul leader for life.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I would introduce a regulation into the "Communications Act of 2008" that instructs the obligation to air a balanced share of political ads during elections from all parties in the United States, prohibiting commercialization of election-ads that does nothing but limiting the democratic process and swepts third parties under the commercial carpet.

You mean, you'd amend the constitution to remove Freedom of the Press?

After all, there is a reason why so many feel they have to choose between the lesser of two evils - and this reason is that the big 2 parties, as you pointed out, are devided based on their inner wings - and the third parties are pretty much ridiculed. So many people end up like you: "I have no real choice".

Well, when they present an attractive neough pattern to enough people, they have a choice. Until then, I will just note that Americans unlike Europeans tend to vote by the one element in the party they like. Also, for third parties to really work, we'd need a Parlimentary System.

Also the Delegate-system and nomination-process is completely out of date. Presidential candidates should register ONCE at federal level if they choose to run - and after that they should be on all states ballots automatically without having trouble with stupid individual state-election laws, which is nothing but chicanery anyway.

Sorry, there's this principle called federalism. In addition, it would require rewritting the Constitution

(As for delegateS? That's up to the individual party. Fail.)

And voters shouldn't have to register to a party to vote. They should be registered automatically to vote for whatever party they like, for example via their social security card/-number.

They don't have to in national elections.


Now, for what I'd change about the Democratic Party

1. I'd not have them so paranoid of big buisness. Sometimes, it's entirely right to suspect multinationals, but they take it to an absurd edge. (Or, yes, companies like Enron exist, but we shouldn't suspect say, General Motors of doing the same thing without evidence.)

2. GROW A SPINE.

3. Stop being so paranoid of nuclear power. Both times something went wrong were minor, and Chernobyl was when they disarmed every safeguard system ever. If you modernize our reactors, and add more, we wouldn't be so dependent on coal and oil.

4. Look, I realize things can go badly wrong with offshore oil. But can you at least give a reason besides 'it hurts the environment'? Most oil companies now have a vested interest in not doing that - the fines are large.

5. Re 2: If you want to get rid of the Patriot Act.. stop the war.. other things.. take the appeal to the people in more than just empty rhetoric by TRYING. Sure, Bush and the Republicans may vote it down. But if you try, you might just get a bit more approval, and you at least tried.

 

[Policenaut]

How about both parties stop wasting time in Congress? They screw around with ******** instead of legislation, take vacations way too often, and ignore important issues all the while taking pot shots at one another like it is the end goal of a congressman to belittle the other side.

 

[Madalch]

I saw this as, "What would you change about your panties?"

 

[geni]

1. I'd not have them so paranoid of big buisness. Sometimes, it's entirely right to suspect multinationals, but they take it to an absurd edge. (Or, yes, companies like Enron exist, but we shouldn't suspect say, General Motors of doing the same thing without evidence.)

The market reduced thier debts to junk bond status at one point. I'm not sure that is a good sign.

 

[geni]

How about both parties stop wasting time in Congress? They screw around with ******** instead of legislation, take vacations way too often, and ignore important issues all the while taking pot shots at one another like it is the end goal of a congressman to belittle the other side.

It is. Those short 2 year terms mean that the spend the vast majority of the time in campain mode and the system of checks and blances means that taking pot shots and passing feelgood motions has a better risk reward ratio than trying to pass serious legislation.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Call me a stary-eyed idealist, but what I would most like to change about both is their god-awful (good term!) must-win attitude. There are times when the pendulum swings, and to insist on winning above all else when the pendulum is not in your yard is not only a classic fail but a guaranteed lose of integrity in the effort. There is much to be said about a loyal opposition and grace in loosing that the parties need to take to heart. Yes, that means that some political careers have to go into eclipse at times, and perhaps there will be more turnover of experienced politicians as against those who are not so experienced in beltway politics, but I don't think that is an evil thing.

Every novelist who mentions about Washington in the periphery of his writing does so, as far as I can determine, citing the absolute corruption , the cynicism and basically hateful way of the area. No one sees elected government service as a healthy environment, and I don't think that's right.

As I said, an idealist, but you asked. I'd sure like to see the high road once in a while. Neither party appears capable of it.

[idealist]

It isn't so much that I want the parties not to adopt a must-win attitude, so much as I want them to recognize and admit failures, and say "Hey, I screwed up.". I am fine with the competition, I just want integrity.

[idealist/]

In a person anecdote, I was working in solar energy at the time (Carter administration) for a major aerospace firm. They (the industrial side of the M-I complex) were competing to create pilot solar power plants and doing practical engineering research. They had four major contracts - one with Spain, the rest in the US - and a plethora of IRADs (Independent Research and Development projects) in work. In the months after Reagan won election the word was being passed that there would not be any follow-on work after them. All the IRADs dried up as the company read the writing on he wall. The projects were delivered, and the company division closed down. The largest project, placed in Dagget, CA was run for 5 years, and then decommissioned as economically non-feasible by the customer. And they were right, it was, but then it was a pilot project - and it went to no avail. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=3...14269&t=k&z=16

Cool. I completely agree with your assessment of Reagan. I liked much of his economic policy but his stance on the environment (and the WoD) was appalling.

I am half-tempted to start a solar power thread now, but I'll save it for another time.

 

[Newtons Bit]

How about both parties stop wasting time in Congress? They screw around with ******** instead of legislation, take vacations way too often, and ignore important issues all the while taking pot shots at one another like it is the end goal of a congressman to belittle the other side.

What you want to do is change how VOTERS think, not how the parties work.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Well, when they present an attractive neough pattern to enough people, they have a choice. Until then, I will just note that Americans unlike Europeans tend to vote by the one element in the party they like. Also, for third parties to really work, we'd need a Parlimentary System.

I know you were responding to someone else, but I wanted to avoid Parliamentary discussion. Primarily, my reasoning is it is a lot easier to change the party than it is to change the system.

1. I'd not have them so paranoid of big buisness. Sometimes, it's entirely right to suspect multinationals, but they take it to an absurd edge. (Or, yes, companies like Enron exist, but we shouldn't suspect say, General Motors of doing the same thing without evidence.)

That is probably the #1 thing I would like to see change in the Democratic Party. It's an easy vote-getter to blame big, bad corporations for all of our woes, but I think it is vitally destructive. For one, they usually aren't usually the evil culprit they are made out to be, but I also think it gives people an excuse to feel powerless. "Oh, there's nothing I can do about the price of gas, exxon and GM made it so. They fixed the price so they could make profits".

2. GROW A SPINE.

Heh.

3. Stop being so paranoid of nuclear power. Both times something went wrong were minor, and Chernobyl was when they disarmed every safeguard system ever. If you modernize our reactors, and add more, we wouldn't be so dependent on coal and oil.


4. Look, I realize things can go badly wrong with offshore oil. But can you at least give a reason besides 'it hurts the environment'? Most oil companies now have a vested interest in not doing that - the fines are large.

Yes, definitely.

5. Re 2: If you want to get rid of the Patriot Act.. stop the war.. other things.. take the appeal to the people in more than just empty rhetoric by TRYING. Sure, Bush and the Republicans may vote it down. But if you try, you might just get a bit more approval, and you at least tried.

Wow, Tokorona, we are 5 for 5 here . The only thing I would add is that I dislike the protectionist stance on trade by many Democrats. Trade strengthens ties between allies (or would-be allies) and improves the standard of living for the countries involved, even if it causes some short-term harm at home.

 

[Kerberos]

Well, when they present an attractive neough pattern to enough people, they have a choice. Until then, I will just note that Americans unlike Europeans tend to vote by the one element in the party they like. Also, for third parties to really work, we'd need a Parlimentary System.

No you'd need proportional representation, that's a completely different thing.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

The way Congress works, I'm not sure that'd work without a change or reason to work together.

IchabodPlain: After seeing the wreck NAFTA and other freetrade deals have made of several fields? I feel a limited protectionism policy is worth it. But yes, the edge they talk that.. *sighs*

In any case, yeah. I don't get the congressional dems at all at times. If they ran on this platform, why don't they just do it?

 

[Rob Lister]

The parties.

 

[Ziggurat]

Less cake, more pastries.

 

[Ysidro]

More women, less clothing.