Two-party democracies

Word · Post by **Word** » Tue Jun 11, 2002 9:34 am

@fable This system will change when the minor parties and independents decide that the system needs reformation enough to get off their bums and vote for change. Votes make parties change not boycotting elections. The major parties dont care how they gain power as long as they do that requires votes. So that means the discontented must push another party up in order to change the system meaning they needs voters!!

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Jun 11, 2002 10:18 am

@Word:
The parties like for individuals to feel like their vote does not make a difference and special interest lobbies count on it. Disaffection was the reason why moderate Republicans bolted in fair numbers to the Ross Perot camp in 1992 and got Clinton elected. However, where are the Perot supporters now? Most have gone back to their parties or they think that even their discontentment didn't make a bit of difference, so now they believe that their vote truly doesn't matter.

The decline in activism is something that should truly shock free-thinking individuals. Without activism and involvement in the political process, the parties will continue to hold on to power through slick advertising and pandering to their constituents who do vote.

Word · Post by **Word** » Tue Jun 11, 2002 1:17 pm

@HDL thats what im saying they must understand that they(meaning the potential voters) have power over the politicians. It is they that put these politicians in power for ignoring of elections give indirect consent to the politician who won. Why would a politician care about their opinion if they dont exercise the only power they have over the politician the vote? That is one naieve concept that the succesful politicians would care about those who dont vote. It is in their best interests to ignore them(bribes from big business also help to ignore them but the vote is more important that the dollar) so why would they listen. You must force your ideas on them and the only way to do that is with the vote. If no one supports your ideas(which i highly doubt) you should start a party that is your ideology. There is no one to blame in this case but the absent voters and if the want to whine about their voice not being heard its their own fault. They have silenced themselves!!

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jun 11, 2002 3:55 pm

@Word, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but please watch your choice of words in referring to people whose disagree with you. Thanks.

Word · Post by **Word** » Tue Jun 11, 2002 4:04 pm

Sorry

sorry fable didnt mean to be so offensive but I just think its kind of foolish to not use the only power people have over politicians(besides violence and revolution)

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Tue Jun 11, 2002 4:13 pm

Originally posted by Word
I just think its kind of foolish to not use the only power people have over politicians(besides violence and revolution)

Once enough people have enough of something, there will be change. Both parties and politicians know this.

Word · Post by **Word** » Tue Jun 11, 2002 4:45 pm

@Weasel I agree but the marker for this is often a change in common voting patterns forcing the major parties to change if they wish to stay major parties(thus giving them power and money).

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jun 12, 2002 7:19 am

Originally posted by Word
@Weasel I agree but the marker for this is often a change in common voting patterns forcing the major parties to change if they wish to stay major parties(thus giving them power and money).

But do you have any examples from US history where third party platforms have seriously effected either of the two main parties? If there are no examples that stand up to the test of study (as I think there aren't) then I would submit that the process you suggest doesn't work. It seems IMO that if it were going to work, we would see some example of the process of infilitration of third party ideas over the last 150 years into the two mainstream parties--wouldn't you agree? I'm an amateur student of America history but an avid one, and I can't find any such instances, much less sufficient examples of evidence of a continuing, healthy reciprocal process of intellectual exchange between the rulers and the ruled.

What we haven't discussed yet in this forum is the basic reason Americans won't ever revolt against what I consider a manifestly broken system: B&C, the "Bread and Circuses" effect. It's based on sound knowledge drawn from the Roman Empire, that if you can supply all the necessities and offer enough seductive luxuries to your populace, anything else you do will be either supported or winked at. Tacitus, the great Roman historian, put it this way: "Through the sweetness of leisure, Augustus seduced one and all." It was Augustus Caesar who distributed cash, bread, and paid for "circuses" (actually the equivalent of modern television, with all sorts of events live, in multiple colloseums, year round) to keep people happy while he removed the last vestiges of free institutions and changed the nature of the state.

I am not suggesting that the two major US parties are part of a deep conspiracy to "de-democratize" the US.

I think the move towards a B&C culture has been gradual and accidental, based upon a host of circumstances over time. But over the last 100 years, IMO, it's become impossible to form an effective political dialog with elements of the government through a third party, thanks to the B&C cushion of "nothing's wrong, why change anything when I'm fed and given entertainment?" The only time a new idea has punched through the wall of the system was in the Black Rights Crusade of the 1960s--and that wasn't a third party involved in the political process, but an enormous movement of civil disobedience that ground business to a halt, raised passions, and caused violence in its foes. Notably, the people behind and within the movement were outside the B&C effect. If anything, they showed that to get something accomplished away from the "business as usual" of American politics, you have to avoid the rigged system itself.

And now that some blacks are within the system and have access to B&C, the movement lacks a firm base, and its members have been coopted into one of the two major parties. They are terribly disappointed, but their leaders know that a third party would give them nothing, while being part of one of the two major parties allows them a few dribbles of patronage. The moral I derive from this is that B&C destroys the democratic impulse towards third party growth, and Winner-takes-all prevents any mass movement that gets through the B&C screen from having any effect.

Word · Post by **Word** » Wed Jun 12, 2002 8:06 am

@fable I had already given you two examples in the populists and progressivsm(though the latter was more of a Middle Class movement) though you dismissed them due to the amount of time it took for these reforms to happen. But the important thing is that these reforms did happen it simply took that long for those reforms to reach a mainstream of support and gain the status of a bill then law or amendment. The Populists made there first drive for the Presidency in 1892 and in 1896 they were absorbed by a democratic party looking to expand its voting base past the south. Though it is true that took nearly twenty years for these reforms to happen that is partially due to the dominance of the Republicans in the next following 16 years as presidents. Wilson iniates the income tax and the direct election senators happened in 1913 (also under wilson) the republicans simply had too much power with both the ability to be more mainstream than the democrats in this period and the added tactic of "waving the bloody shirt".

Fable although I understand you're bread and circuses idea the Roman Empire and America run much differently. 1) The Roman Empire was openly a dictatorship, the people new this and had little way to dispose of a ruler other than revolt(hence rulers like Caligula, Nero, Commodus etc.). 2) The Romans had a rather sophisticated system that ran nearly entirely on bribes, fear, and manipulation (which you may claim is comparable to Big Business lobbyists and campaign contributions) but it became entirely to extravagant helping to cause the Empires eventual collaspe. The ruler had to satisfy his people quite bluntly with both circuses and bread for those were the two things that affected them in their immediate minds. America is much more subtle in its way of bribery as the intellectuals of the nation(such as yourself) will immediately point out the faults of it and by law you are not to be silenced.

Secondly the American people have little reason for revolution as the majority of these people still feel they have their rights and trust the system. I don't believe this simply is because they are as blinded by the glitz of the past few decades. It is true that the percentage of wealth owned by the middle and lower classes is decreasing but that has given them little reason to revolt. There is still the trust factor in America that is bred into generation after generation(tho it has been hampered by Vietnam and Nixon).

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 11:39 am

@fable: Let me start off by noting that my response which you have clipped to the top of this thread was prompted by a statement of yours in the Bush/Europe thread. Here it is:

Originally posted by fable
This isn't cynical; it's simply fact. Did Bush get elected because he was a great thinker, or had a remarkable character, or an extraordinary gift for consensus? No; he got elected because he had tons of money behind him, and employed it better in marketing strategies that offset the natural advantage of his opponent.

Now, to return to THAT as the basis of this discussion, I would like to expand on what I have said in light of some of the comments in this thread.

Let me start by saying that I absolutely, positively disagree with your above statement. Not so much for what is says, but for what it (and almost all your subsequent discussion) implies. You seem to believe that the 2-parties are some unchallengable monolith. (I think the term monolith appropriate here, considering you view the two parties have having essentially the same ideas.) Your above quote implies that people do not have the ability (or the inclination) to think independently, but instead are moved to vote by the forces of money and marketing. Further, you indicate that people’s conception of participating in the system is formed along the following lines:

Originally posted by fable
…when I was in elementary school we were taught from first grade onwards that democracy meant going to the voting booth every few years and choosing the person we liked best. This was dinned into our collective consciousness every year, and I haven't encountered many Americans who question whether simply pulling a lever in fact makes for good government--or whether the art of selecting good rulers derives from a constant involvement in an ongoing process between the governing and the governed, and the regular discussion in depth of a variety of important issues...

(Again, please note that the US is a Republic, NOT a democracy.)

But everything that you (and HighLordDave) have stated only shows your own fixed viewpoint (i.e. that the system is run by the two major parties, and that no third party could ever challenge them). Word has argued far more eloquently than I ever could almost everything I would say on this issue, so I will simply say: I believe that people have the ability to understand the issues presented in any given campaign; they have the freedom to vote for anyone they may deign to support; this IS the basis of an “ongoing process between the governing and the governed;” and it IS as simple as going and pulling a lever every couple of years.

Obviously, one can become MORE involved in politics - through grassroots organizations, or through support of political entities, or through participation at local government activities, or through any of a score of other means. The system works exactly as well as the people make it work – and that is exactly how it should be.

I believe that the US created the most free nation on the face of the earth (though, as I have said before, I believe this is changing for the worse). I believe that the system does in fact work, if the people are willing to put forth the effort to make it work. If they are not willing, then it is no one’s fault but their own. Changing the system (as you seem to think desirable) would make no difference if the people are not willing to participate. You cannot FORCE freedom and representational government on the people. They must desire it, and take advantage of it when it is available.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 12:00 pm

Originally posted by Lazarus
I believe that people have the ability to understand the issues presented in any given campaign; they have the freedom to vote for anyone they may deign to support; this IS the basis of an “ongoing process between the governing and the governed;” and it IS as simple as going and pulling a lever every couple of years.

Individuals are capable of thinking critically and supporting causes they deem worthy and value the power of their vote. However people do not behave that way. People are easily led and manipulated by the media, by politicians, by their religious leaders, and by charismatic figures. Why else is there a direct correllation between campaign spending and election?

All things being equal, incumbents win 90% of the time. Why is this? Is it because they represent the majority opinion? Not necessarily. Is it because they are somehow more in tune with the populace? Maybe, maybe not. It's because they have the name recognition of holding the office and the support of a fund-raising mechanism to keep them in office.

Democracy, both in its true and republican forms, requires participation, something which is sorely lacking in the United States. The Democrats and Republicans have devoted many years and lots of energy into ensuring that a third (or fourth or fifth) party has a hard time establishing a foothold in American politics. If the two-party system is not a de facto institution, why then have there been so few (and unsuccessful at that) attempts to establish a viable third party?

Word · Post by **Word** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 12:18 pm

@HLD the reason that there has been a lack of established third parties is for two reasons in my mind.

1) As soon as these parties form and a substantial number of votes the two major parties will try to absorb those rising parties and there platforms and because of the money they command they often succeed in doing this.
2) Third parties often arise in cases of dire need of a select group of interests who manage to attract others with their platform. Witness the Populists of the 1890s, that party was formed as a response to the economic troubles that western farmers were experiencing due to the over-production/under-consumption cycle. The party was supported by the Silver interests(supplying them with the needed cash to compete) as they were pushing for inflation at large levels by introducing a dual standard of Silver/gold in order to remove themselves from the debt gained by farm costs. Farmers also protested the ridiculous prices(in their minds) of the train system and also pushed for government control of the railroads. Their platform soon spread due to the vast amount of people it would affect but after a fickle American populous who soon forgot about these problems with the incoming Spanish/American war.

(Oh by the way thanks for the Compliment Lazarus)

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 12:31 pm

@HighLordDave: I have no understanding of the distinction you draw between "individuals" and "people" - ? People ARE individuals.

You say "Individuals are capable of thinking critically and supporting causes they deem worthy and value the power of their vote." Excellent. We agree. There is really nothing more to be said on this issue. You either believe that we are free individuals, capable of rational thought ... or you believe we are nothing but mindless animals chasing after election-season commercials. I've made my choice.

(No problem, Word. Thanks for your insightful posts!)

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 12:58 pm

@Lazarus:
If you take a reasonable, free-thinking individual and put him or her in a group, it is very easy to make those people behave in a way that is neither resonable or free-thinking. It's the mob mentality. It's not that you or I or your neighbour up the street are simple automatons moving about at the whim of some indisious master plan, but that as a group, people are swayed by marketing and charisma.

The field of demography arose out of the study of group tendencies and political parties (and advertising agencies) devote a lot of time and energy into getting masses of people to vote a certain way, support a certain cause or buy a certain product.

You believe that you are an individual unswayed by advertising on TV, soundbytes on the news and capable of becoming informed of issues in the next election and getting to know the candidates. Can you say the same about your neighbours?

Let me ask you this: do you live in a state that allows voters to vote a straight-party ticket by pressing a single lever or marking a single column on the ballot? Do you know people who vote straight-party tickets? If you don't, you are a very fortunate person.

My argument is not that third parties cannot be effective. Nor is it that individuals cannot make a difference. My argument is that the Democrats and Republicans have installed themselves in power and have made it very hard for anyone else to have a say or a share in the power. I also believe that people vote in blocs regardless of their individual beliefs and that the public is easily swayed by advertising and flashy personalities.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 1:18 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I also believe that people vote in blocs regardless of their individual beliefs and that the public is easily swayed by advertising and flashy personalities.

...And if that weren't the case, we could hardly expect state and national election committees to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars a piece, each year, on the marketing of candidates. Not handouts, not billboards--but to topflight marketing firms that know how to "massage" the opinions of the electorate. The candidates and their political backers put that money where it works. If marketing didn't control elections, the money wouldn't end up there.

@Lazarus, ever read The Marketing of the President: Political Marketing as Campaign Strategy, by Bruce Newman, Professor at DePaul University? Last I saw, it was still available from Sage Publications. I strongly recommend it. There are many other such titles, some of them with considerably more in-depth research, but that's one of the most readable.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 1:40 pm

OK, since I think I have made my opinions quite clear on this subject, and any further posts would simply repeat what I have said, I would ask this: If you believe that the US system is somehow corrupted beyond salvation, and you believe that somehow the people are NOT being heard, or you believe that the people are simply doing what they are told - now what?

What do you think should be done in the US to elevate the thinking of the masses? What would bring the government back to the people? What sort of institutional changes would you have enacted?

(As I have stated: I do not believe that the system has failed. If any fault exists, IMO, it is in the people who refuse to think or to vote - and then they have no one to blame but themselves.)

Just curious.

Word · Post by **Word** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 8:56 pm

@Lazarus the people always wield power they simply refuse to exercise that power. This blame of excessive money in the campaign system seems to be a scapegoat for avoiding the responsiblity of the vote. Their voice is always heard when it is spoken they simply refuse to speak.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 9:52 pm

Originally posted by Word
@Lazarus the people always wield power they simply refuse to exercise that power. This blame of excessive money in the campaign system seems to be a scapegoat for avoiding the responsiblity of the vote. Their voice is always heard when it is spoken they simply refuse to speak.

Now you have hit on the reason I posted..

Originally posted by Weasel
Once enough people have enough of something, there will be change.

Most refuse to speak because the situation is not bad enough for them to speak.

Word · Post by **Word** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 9:55 pm

@ Weasel thats what ive been saying the whole time too except more complicated and stuff.

LOL

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jun 14, 2002 10:03 pm

Originally posted by Weasel
Most refuse to speak because the situation is not bad enough for them to speak.

Precisely. Bread and circuses, @Weasel. Keep 'em happy, suck as much energy into the country as possible, and convince 'em that the only political thinking they need to do is which lever to pull ever few years.