While I've written a lot
about politics, I think I should make it clearer where I stand on the
political spectrum so that those who want to hate me know where the
shots across their bow (or at their bridge) I tend to verbally make
are coming from.
I am a left-center moderate.
I have definite views of the left and the right - neither worth my time or consideration. The left is incompetent and naive. The right is genuinely evil (I define evil as pure and utter self-gratification only at the detriment of others). If given only those choices, I don't vote.
That's really the only thing a moderate can do these days. No matter what the election is about, there's always the choice between the devil on the right and the deep blue sea on the left. Is the difference between standing up to your nose in dog shit on the left and standing up to your nose in burning dog shit while being beaten by a religious fanatic who wants to drive the devil from you on the right.
Neither side is appealing. What amazes me is that people will choose EITHER side at all.
America isn't filled with political geniuses. Far from it. If we had an electorate who could actually see where the power comes from (the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee), then we'd all rise up and destroy both of these non-elected star-chambers before their rivalry destroys the country. The American people have as much choice in their candidates as Iraq, where the all-powerful central religious committee chooses the candidates based on a religious litmus test. The RNC has already said they won't back anyone who doesn't pass their ideological litmus test. The DNC hasn't QUITE gotten to that point yet - mostly just saying all you need to do is oppose the RNC's litmus test.
This means in order to be chosen to be elected by the "central committees" in the US, you must either be in favor of or oppose a set of political ideologies promoted by one side's extremist political views. And this is how we've been doing politics pretty much throughout the 20th century and all of the 21st.
Like I said, American's aren't terribly bright when it comes to politics.
What's worse, Americans seem to accept it as normal and even healthy (those few idealists who still cleave to the quaint, but obsolete, notion that we as a country can have more than two choices.)
A two party political system is bad for America. It doesn't promote an atmosphere of cooperation or peace. It doesn't promote agendas that are good for America - only special interests (who, for the most part, fund the DNC and RNC and are thus the powers behind the government in the US). It creates a political environment where extremists can behave in such a way that people think it's only political expression when in fact it's sedition and treason for which these extremists in more moderate circles would be rounded up, tried and convicted. It is not "healthy political debate" when people are promoting armed insurrection, rebellion or acts of terrorism all in the name of patriotism or even because they have to "take back America".
(I always ask from whom they're taking back America? From the people who democratically elected the current government? And once you've got it, who are you going to give it to? The idiots who fucked it up in the first place?)
I say we take CONTROL of America. Like a top whose spinning in winding down, we're teetering on the verge of another civil war all because the right-wing can't accept the fact it fell from power and wants to get back in. All because the powers that be (DNC and RNC) are diametrically opposed to everything the other believes in and neither will support the other in ANY point regardless of its merits. We are a country torn apart by political extremism at the top and political moderation in the electorate - forced to hold its nose and decide which pile of dog shit they'll have to stand in for the next two to six years.
But how to do this? We moderates have no political voice. We have no national committees funneling millions of dollars to fund moderate candidates. We have no "fair and balanced" news channel spouting moderate propaganda (is there even such of a thing as moderate propaganda?). We have no media access at all in the days of "infortainment" where a news channel's ratings depend more on keeping viewers than informing them of the day's events. The RNC and DNC have hijacked the democratic process in the US and there's little we can do about it except stand impotently on the side.
I would LOVE to see a constitutional amendment mandating a three party system. Get rid of the house entirely. Split it into three chambers - left, right and center. They don't represent their states so much as political ideologies. Limit them to 150 per chamber (I'm sure someone can come up with a way to make the representation proportionate to state populations and political demographics)
Initiate bills in the Senate. That's still the same old senate, but these bills will be given debate in the lower chambers where changes can be made by committees composed of an equal number of representatives from each chamber. No earmarks can be added to the bill. Those have to come from the Senate (if they come from anywhere). Provisions of the bill can't be changed, but they can be removed (Basically saying we keep this, we don't keep that, etc. Kind of a line-item veto). Once out of committee, mandate voting on the bill - no filibusters. Silence is taken as a YES. (Silence always implies consent). Two out of three chamber votes yes wins. Constitutional changes requires three out of three yes votes. A no vote sends the bill back to the senate for changes or to die - senate's choice. If the lower chamber wants a bill started, they have to work with the Senate.
This kind of structure, regardless of who's president, would keep the pendulum from swinging too far left or right since it requires the moderates to have a voice. And if you consider the fact that the silent minority is at least 30% of the population, that's a lot of people who, thus far, have had no real voice in our political destiny.
I am a left-center moderate.
I have definite views of the left and the right - neither worth my time or consideration. The left is incompetent and naive. The right is genuinely evil (I define evil as pure and utter self-gratification only at the detriment of others). If given only those choices, I don't vote.
That's really the only thing a moderate can do these days. No matter what the election is about, there's always the choice between the devil on the right and the deep blue sea on the left. Is the difference between standing up to your nose in dog shit on the left and standing up to your nose in burning dog shit while being beaten by a religious fanatic who wants to drive the devil from you on the right.
Neither side is appealing. What amazes me is that people will choose EITHER side at all.
America isn't filled with political geniuses. Far from it. If we had an electorate who could actually see where the power comes from (the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee), then we'd all rise up and destroy both of these non-elected star-chambers before their rivalry destroys the country. The American people have as much choice in their candidates as Iraq, where the all-powerful central religious committee chooses the candidates based on a religious litmus test. The RNC has already said they won't back anyone who doesn't pass their ideological litmus test. The DNC hasn't QUITE gotten to that point yet - mostly just saying all you need to do is oppose the RNC's litmus test.
This means in order to be chosen to be elected by the "central committees" in the US, you must either be in favor of or oppose a set of political ideologies promoted by one side's extremist political views. And this is how we've been doing politics pretty much throughout the 20th century and all of the 21st.
Like I said, American's aren't terribly bright when it comes to politics.
What's worse, Americans seem to accept it as normal and even healthy (those few idealists who still cleave to the quaint, but obsolete, notion that we as a country can have more than two choices.)
A two party political system is bad for America. It doesn't promote an atmosphere of cooperation or peace. It doesn't promote agendas that are good for America - only special interests (who, for the most part, fund the DNC and RNC and are thus the powers behind the government in the US). It creates a political environment where extremists can behave in such a way that people think it's only political expression when in fact it's sedition and treason for which these extremists in more moderate circles would be rounded up, tried and convicted. It is not "healthy political debate" when people are promoting armed insurrection, rebellion or acts of terrorism all in the name of patriotism or even because they have to "take back America".
(I always ask from whom they're taking back America? From the people who democratically elected the current government? And once you've got it, who are you going to give it to? The idiots who fucked it up in the first place?)
I say we take CONTROL of America. Like a top whose spinning in winding down, we're teetering on the verge of another civil war all because the right-wing can't accept the fact it fell from power and wants to get back in. All because the powers that be (DNC and RNC) are diametrically opposed to everything the other believes in and neither will support the other in ANY point regardless of its merits. We are a country torn apart by political extremism at the top and political moderation in the electorate - forced to hold its nose and decide which pile of dog shit they'll have to stand in for the next two to six years.
But how to do this? We moderates have no political voice. We have no national committees funneling millions of dollars to fund moderate candidates. We have no "fair and balanced" news channel spouting moderate propaganda (is there even such of a thing as moderate propaganda?). We have no media access at all in the days of "infortainment" where a news channel's ratings depend more on keeping viewers than informing them of the day's events. The RNC and DNC have hijacked the democratic process in the US and there's little we can do about it except stand impotently on the side.
I would LOVE to see a constitutional amendment mandating a three party system. Get rid of the house entirely. Split it into three chambers - left, right and center. They don't represent their states so much as political ideologies. Limit them to 150 per chamber (I'm sure someone can come up with a way to make the representation proportionate to state populations and political demographics)
Initiate bills in the Senate. That's still the same old senate, but these bills will be given debate in the lower chambers where changes can be made by committees composed of an equal number of representatives from each chamber. No earmarks can be added to the bill. Those have to come from the Senate (if they come from anywhere). Provisions of the bill can't be changed, but they can be removed (Basically saying we keep this, we don't keep that, etc. Kind of a line-item veto). Once out of committee, mandate voting on the bill - no filibusters. Silence is taken as a YES. (Silence always implies consent). Two out of three chamber votes yes wins. Constitutional changes requires three out of three yes votes. A no vote sends the bill back to the senate for changes or to die - senate's choice. If the lower chamber wants a bill started, they have to work with the Senate.
This kind of structure, regardless of who's president, would keep the pendulum from swinging too far left or right since it requires the moderates to have a voice. And if you consider the fact that the silent minority is at least 30% of the population, that's a lot of people who, thus far, have had no real voice in our political destiny.
