"Party Discipline" - is it good?
- Thread starter jj
- Start date
-
- Tags
- discipline party
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2001
- Messages
- 3,504
That probably means a crackdown on Religious Right agendas. They are probably trying to drive out the moderates. Sad.
I like the idea of a small government, and fiscal responsibility, which the Republicans lay claim to, but bush hasn't practiced. But I prefer the approach to moral government that the Demograts practice.
I'd like the republican party stripped of Jesus(and practicing what they preach, so to speak), or the Democrats stripped of socialism.
I'll join the party whose motto is, "Loose on morals, tight with a buck."
I like the idea of a small government, and fiscal responsibility, which the Republicans lay claim to, but bush hasn't practiced. But I prefer the approach to moral government that the Demograts practice.
I'd like the republican party stripped of Jesus(and practicing what they preach, so to speak), or the Democrats stripped of socialism.
I'll join the party whose motto is, "Loose on morals, tight with a buck."
I think that the best thing that could ever happen in politics in general is to ban ALL party, special interest and union affiliations.
Every one should be forced on the power and strength of their ideas and each vote should be limited to a single clearly defined yes or no vote.
Every one should be forced on the power and strength of their ideas and each vote should be limited to a single clearly defined yes or no vote.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Magyar said:
Amen to that. My newly-elected Congresswoman's campaign platform was that she'd "support Bush" by voting however the Republican Party wants on every bill. I am still shocked she won. Even her own party must see a problem with a member of Congress throwing away her portion of the separation of powers, right? Apparently not. Government is no longer about the principles, or about what's right; it's about winning, and getting your way no matter what. Sigh.
I may have a different view on the matter being from the UK but I think the "party line" is a good thing, in some circumstances.
In the UK a MP is meant to be elected on what she says her policies are and what their overall platform is. However we have a party system on top of that so I think it is reasonable for me to expect the MP I vote for to support the Manifesto of the party she has declared allegiance with, unless during their campaign they made it clear that they wouldn’t support a particular party manifesto promise. Otherwise I feel she would be betraying what she told me she stood for at the time I elected her.
The grey area is legislation that either wasn’t in a party manifesto, or legislation that is significantly different to what the party manifesto pledged or is totally the opposite to what was promised, then I think no matter what pressures party officials apply she should vote as was consistent with her election promises.
In the UK a MP is meant to be elected on what she says her policies are and what their overall platform is. However we have a party system on top of that so I think it is reasonable for me to expect the MP I vote for to support the Manifesto of the party she has declared allegiance with, unless during their campaign they made it clear that they wouldn’t support a particular party manifesto promise. Otherwise I feel she would be betraying what she told me she stood for at the time I elected her.
The grey area is legislation that either wasn’t in a party manifesto, or legislation that is significantly different to what the party manifesto pledged or is totally the opposite to what was promised, then I think no matter what pressures party officials apply she should vote as was consistent with her election promises.
I voted Planet X, since the options were so extreme.
For those who say we should be more like our friends the British, unless I'm very much mistaken, party discipline is very strongly enforced in Commons.
The representative's first duty is to his conscience. Or, as John Quincy Adams said, "The magistrate is the servant not of his own desires, not even of the people, but of his God."
Outlaw parties? How, pray tell? How do you prohibit people with like ideas from associating with each other and helping each other? How do you take away their right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances", without repealing the first amendment to the Constitution?
For those who say we should be more like our friends the British, unless I'm very much mistaken, party discipline is very strongly enforced in Commons.
The representative's first duty is to his conscience. Or, as John Quincy Adams said, "The magistrate is the servant not of his own desires, not even of the people, but of his God."
Outlaw parties? How, pray tell? How do you prohibit people with like ideas from associating with each other and helping each other? How do you take away their right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances", without repealing the first amendment to the Constitution?
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
BPSCG said:
Lol. Simple. Designate them "enemy combatants".
Seriously, though. The amount of time, money, and energy both parties spend fighting each other would be much better spent actually governing. If Republicans and Democrats did their jobs instead of plotting each others' downfall, we'd have pots of money in the treasury, workable national health care, fixed Social Security, and probably robot monkeys on Mars busy terraforming the place for future colonists.
But no, they'd rather score cheap points by frustrating the opposition's bills. It's all getting more and more like the "machine" politics of the 1800's.