Johnny Coli Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 You just contradicted yourself. First, you talk about changing the party. Then you talk about people not having party loyalty. Do you want party loyalty or do you want change? They are mutually exclusive, IMO. 701483[/snapback] I don't see it as a contradiction. By "party" I mean "party platform" or ideology. There is a reason I'm a liberal Dem and not a Rep. I don't see a problem with a consensus party ideology. If Joe Lieberman doesn't want to be part of that ideology, then Joe Lieberman should leave it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 The difference between your inside-out approach and what Ken and I suggest is that you still think there's hope for your party. We think it's a bloated mess. Time has corrupted both parties to the point where even the honest people can't get anything done. The Republicans get bullied by jagoffs like Delay. The Dems get dragged down by Union stooges and special interest payoffs. Neither party can offer candidates that govern on principle: they all govern based on who is pushing their buttons best on a given day. 701507[/snapback] We're going to have to agree to disagree, then. I see several candidates on the liberal Dem side that are running clean, special interest-free campaigns that have people gravitating towards them because of their party reform approach. We will see how successful this strategy is in the long run (several election cycles from now, not this election cycle...change will take time). The fact that the party "insiders" and elite are pushing back so hard makes me believe that this approach is on the right path. I am a life-long liberal Dem. I want to see my party return to the ideals and beliefs I, and it appears many others, have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I don't see it as a contradiction. By "party" I mean "party platform" or ideology. There is a reason I'm a liberal Dem and not a Rep. I don't see a problem with a consensus party ideology. If Joe Lieberman doesn't want to be part of that ideology, then Joe Lieberman should leave it. 702037[/snapback] How do you change party ideology (which you are advocating with this grassroots movement) while still remaining loyal to the current party ideology (which you are also advocating)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 How do you change party ideology (which you are advocating with this grassroots movement) while still remaining loyal to the current party ideology (which you are also advocating)? 702042[/snapback] Do you not agree that there is a core ideology behind both parties? I'm not suggesting "change". I'm suggesting reform within the party, not changing the core ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Do you not agree that there is a core ideology behind both parties? I'm not suggesting "change". I'm suggesting reform within the party, not changing the core ideology. 702043[/snapback] The ideology is what you present to the public. That is what people vote for in elections. That is what your party believes and it morphs over time (remember, the Republicans used to advocate reduction in the size of government and government spending?). The Democratic party is being controlled by the lunatic fringe, just like the Republican party is now being run by the lunatic fringe. That is the ideology that is presented to the public. You are advocating change to that ideology, in essence, getting back to what the party used to be about. You need to be disloyal to the current ideology in order to accomplish this task. This is a contradiction to your comments about Lieberman, who you want to toss aside because he is not loyal to the ideology. You cannot advocate a change in ideology, while at the same time toss out people who are not loyal to said ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Unity Party Not posting this as an advocate, just as an informant. Interesting, in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 The ideology is what you present to the public. That is what people vote for in elections. That is what your party believes and it morphs over time (remember, the Republicans used to advocate reduction in the size of government and government spending?). The Democratic party is being controlled by the lunatic fringe, just like the Republican party is now being run by the lunatic fringe. That is the ideology that is presented to the public. You are advocating change to that ideology, in essence, getting back to what the party used to be about. You need to be disloyal to the current ideology in order to accomplish this task. This is a contradiction to your comments about Lieberman, who you want to toss aside because he is not loyal to the ideology. You cannot advocate a change in ideology, while at the same time toss out people who are not loyal to said ideology. 702044[/snapback] I don't think the Republicans or Dems are controlled by their lunatic fringes. They are controlled by their wishy washy centers, which is why the parties so resemble each other. The Dems are not controlled by enviromentalist extremists or purebred socialists, just like the Republicans aren't controlled by religious zealots. The extremes have influence, but in the end, both parties are slave to a sold-out center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I don't think the Republicans or Dems are controlled by their lunatic fringes. They are controlled by their wishy washy centers, which is why the parties so resemble each other. The Dems are not controlled by enviromentalist extremists or purebred socialists, just like the Republicans aren't controlled by religious zealots. The extremes have influence, but in the end, both parties are slave to a sold-out center. 702051[/snapback] I disagree. People are getting ticked off because the parties are moving away from their core beliefs and moving more towards the extremes. They want their party to return to their core beliefs (see Coli). The center has become more apathetic to the whole mess, but still vote party line (thereby giving tacit approval of the moves to the extremes) because they do not want the other party in control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 The Democratic party is being controlled by the lunatic fringe, just like the Republican party is now being run by the lunatic fringe. That is the ideology that is presented to the public. You are advocating change to that ideology, in essence, getting back to what the party used to be about. You need to be disloyal to the current ideology in order to accomplish this task. This is a contradiction to your comments about Lieberman, who you want to toss aside because he is not loyal to the ideology. You cannot advocate a change in ideology, while at the same time toss out people who are not loyal to said ideology. 702044[/snapback] I don't think the Republicans or Dems are controlled by their lunatic fringes. They are controlled by their wishy washy centers, which is why the parties so resemble each other. The Dems are not controlled by enviromentalist extremists or purebred socialists, just like the Republicans aren't controlled by religious zealots. The extremes have influence, but in the end, both parties are slave to a sold-out center. The problem with the current leadership in the Dem party is the fact that they run towards the center. In my opinion that is running out of fear. This is the party of pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-environment, pro-civil rights, positive social programs, and on and on. That is the core ideology that makes this the Democratic Party and sets it apart from the Reps. The fact that the party has been taken over by cowardly milquetoasts like Joe Lieberman doesn't mean the ideology has changed. It just means that it has been hijacked by said cowards who are afraid to take a stand on any issue. Sticking to a set of convictions and an ideological core should not be "fringe." It's only considered fringe because the people who run towards the center out of fear tell us so. I have more respect for a total nut like Wacka (no offense ) than I do for political whores like Joe Lieberman or John McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I disagree. People are getting ticked off because the parties are moving away from their core beliefs and moving more towards the extremes. They want their party to return to their core beliefs (see Coli). The center has become more apathetic to the whole mess, but still vote party line (thereby giving tacit approval of the moves to the extremes) because they do not want the other party in control. 702081[/snapback] Didn't see this post before hitting submit on my other post. The "core" has been labled extreme by the moderates who pander for votes. Since when has a liberal ideology been considered "lunatic fringe"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I believe the dems are run by the fringe, but the repbslicans are so middle of the road it is sickening. They are almost RINOs now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I believe the dems are run by the fringe, but the repbslicans are so middle of the road it is sickening. They are almost RINOs now. 702133[/snapback] And Dems believe Repubs are ruled by the lunatic fringe and that the Dems are middle of the road. See a trend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Didn't see this post before hitting submit on my other post. The "core" has been labled extreme by the moderates who pander for votes. Since when has a liberal ideology been considered "lunatic fringe"? 702086[/snapback] Probably since liberalism has never worked and flies in the face of human nature yet people think it will work if we just give it one more try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Since when has a liberal ideology been considered "lunatic fringe"? 702086[/snapback] Since the Democratic Party stopped embracing it and started embracing lunatic fringe groups. The Democrats haven't been truly liberal in a good while. In my lifetime, their platform hasn't been liberal, it's been a laundry list of grievances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Probably since liberalism has never worked and flies in the face of human nature yet people think it will work if we just give it one more try. 702171[/snapback] How can something that hasn't been tried in years be proven to not work? And, what's your definition of "working?" To my mind, an unfettered belief in the private sector as is "works" on an economic level. Some people get rich. I don't begrudge them that. I do, however, think that it forces people who want to stay rich to continue the support of a system that is unsustainable. It doesn't account for the changes that will need to be made for a future far after our time because it is so focused on being as successful as possible in the here and now. We need a re-definition of what "successful" means that includes sustainability and accounts for humans as part of the earth, rather than earth as a part of our lives. Flies in the face of human nature? Look at the platforms and tell me which side addresses the fact that humans are forever going to make mistakes. I think the real argument is that conservatives think you can coach out those mistakes, and, in my opinion, at their best, liberals think we need to address those mistakes while working toward something better. The problem is when one side wants to legislate morality and the other wants to legislate all sorts of excuses for people who refuse to try and better themselves. The difficult task to negotiate is how not to penalize those who ARE trying to better themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 1. How can something that hasn't been tried in years be proven to not work? I do, however, think that it forces people who want to stay rich to continue the support of a system that is unsustainable. 2. Flies in the face of human nature? Look at the platforms and tell me which side addresses the fact that humans are forever going to make mistakes. 3. I think the real argument is that conservatives think you can coach out those mistakes, and, in my opinion, at their best, liberals think we need to address those mistakes while working toward something better. 4. The problem is when one side wants to legislate morality and the other wants to legislate all sorts of excuses for people who refuse to try and better themselves. The difficult task to negotiate is how not to penalize those who ARE trying to better themselves. 702194[/snapback] 1. Liberalism and liberal programs haven't been tried? In the US and throughout the world? To your point which I put in bold, I don't think that there are people in either party or within most special interests that are trying to sustain the current system because it is working for them. Both sides are constantly trying to tweak the system in their own favor. After that, they try to show how their approach is "Better for America". The old time robber barons (and current day robber barons and socialists) are not good for the system. Conservatives and liberals as individauls may have substantive, valuable disagreements. There is nothing wrong with their debates but that is not remotely close to what is happening in our government. In my overgenralized view, the Democratic party and those feeding them are trying to make the country's economic system a socialist one. The Republican party (disappointingly to me) is trying to DIRECTLY help business. IMO, governemnt should help business and individuals through osmosis, not in a direct way. That is capitalism. 2.- 3. Humans will always make mistakes. No system will ever change that and no system should try to address it. It is folly. Individuals learn from their mistakes. Small businesses sometimes do. Large corporations rarely learn from theirs. Government seeminly never does. If we are looking for government to help us correct our mistakes we are looking in the wrong place. 4. I basically agree but I'll bet our interpretations of your last sentence would differ wildly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 In my overgenralized view, the Democratic party and those feeding them are trying to make the country's economic system a socialist one. The Republican party (disappointingly to me) is trying to DIRECTLY help business. IMO, governemnt should help business and individuals through osmosis, not in a direct way. That is capitalism. 702216[/snapback] I'll add the caveat that I think if you are going to directly help business, it has to be done on an incentive basis. Example: build green cars, we'll help you figure out the health care mess. Promise cheap gas to people who will buy your H2s? Eff off. My mention of 'system' meant economic and not political. I think the economic system is meant to sustain a certain understanding of growth, success, and work, rather than to be sustainable across the board, including ecologically -- and if all systems are not ecologically sustainable, ultimately no systems will exist. Those in power right now merely hedge their bets that 'ultimately' is a long time from now. 2.- 3. Humans will always make mistakes. No system will ever change that and no system should try to address it. It is folly. Individuals learn from their mistakes. Small businesses sometimes do. Large corporations rarely learn from theirs. Government seeminly never does. If we are looking for government to help us correct our mistakes we are looking in the wrong place. 702216[/snapback] Right, but for example, if you don't equip people to deal with mistakes (i.e. you teach them that contraception is evil even though a portion will inevitably have sex), you end up with an exponential number of mistakes. Some mistakes can be addressed, avoided, and tempered, without making it a moral issue. 4. I basically agree but I'll bet our interpretations of your last sentence would differ wildly. 702216[/snapback] Sure, that's the great argument, isn't it? It's actually quite enjoyable to discuss when we remain civil. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I don't think the Republicans or Dems are controlled by their lunatic fringes. They are controlled by their wishy washy centers, which is why the parties so resemble each other. The Dems are not controlled by enviromentalist extremists or purebred socialists, just like the Republicans aren't controlled by religious zealots. The extremes have influence, but in the end, both parties are slave to a sold-out center. 702051[/snapback] I'll buy that...but only in as much as the pansy-ass centers, not having the guts to put together a platform that represents the majority of party members, feel they have to court the extremes so they can represent everyone. Can't piss off the Pat Robertson crowd by strongly representing the 90% of conservatives who recognize he's a crock of sh--. Let's face it, politics is run by special interests. Which means it's going to be dictated by the fringes, since they're the most special of special interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 One other thing KRC touches upon, is that career politicians are going to do everything they can to remain in power. What needs to happen is 1) candidates stepping up who want to represent their country but do not want a protracted career in national politics. This means waves of candidates and it sort of flies in the face of our nature to look to certain faces and names to represent us on a regular basis. 2) Voters need to accept those conditions as fundamentally better and in their best interests. 3) I'd add that, in everything, a shift to the local level can be really meaningful. It's a bit of a cliche but every little bit matters. If one isn't working to make a difference in the limited actions one takes, there can be no expectation of any wider progress or big impact with regard to those things one believes in. 4) Part of the problem (and this sort of stems off of #3) is that we think that changes can't be made unless our big institutions (Fortune 500 corps, big wings of the gov't) make them for us. Perhaps that's half true, and perhaps the media has beaten down any hunger we might have to participate and act locally, but all the same I think our tendency to think monolithically yields unsatisfactory results. The real breakthrough won't come from a large institution currently in power. I just don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I'll buy that...but only in as much as the pansy-ass centers, not having the guts to put together a platform that represents the majority of party members, feel they have to court the extremes so they can represent everyone. Can't piss off the Pat Robertson crowd by strongly representing the 90% of conservatives who recognize he's a crock of sh--. Let's face it, politics is run by special interests. Which means it's going to be dictated by the fringes, since they're the most special of special interests. 702230[/snapback] Maybe we should give those very special interests helmets to wear and people will see them for what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts