Hostile to democracy...Nader in 2004.

[Syntax_Divinity]

I'm a 19 year old college student. I am currently a volunteer for Ralph Nader's 2004 presidential campaign. I've noticed, on this forum as well as a number of others, a powerful hostility to third parties in general, and towards Nader specifically. What I find interesting though, is that this hostility seems to transcend political affiliations; those on the left fear the siphoning of liberal votes from Kerry, while many of those on the right attack the man personally, simply ignoring his ideology, or supporting him for obvious political reasons. I find both of these sentiments disturbing; the notion that the current two party system is essential to our freedom or to democracy is ludicrous. It's even more amazing that these kinds of things are coming from relatively educated, intelligent people. Both of the currently reigning political parties have largely failed this country in nearly every salient social and environmental issue of the last three decades. This is not silly hyperbole; this is easily arguable fact. Many of you believe that all of American politics is painful partisan compromise. I have found that many of those that do not feel as if they are compromising a number of ideals to cast their vote for someone that can conceivably win, are largely intellectually dishonest and shamelessly partisan to the exclusion of facts and logic. Wake up people; private money, powerful lobbying groups and the aggregation of the most influential media in fewer and fewer corporate hands is a direct threat to our democracy. Democrats, stop letting your fears and your socially conditioned attitudes about the two party system marginalize a legitimate political candidate who truly strives for a more effective and peaceful society. Republicans, stop listening to hacks like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Progressive moderates and liberals, I encourage you to go to www.votenader.org. and become part of a movement to legitimize third party candidates, and to fuel the democratic ideals that have been consumed by cynicism and apathy.

 

[5stringJeff]

Welcome, Syntax Divinity - I like the name!

About third parties: you would think by my screen name that I would be opposed to them, but I am actually in favor of them. While the two-party system has been the norm for most of American political history, I think that third parties are great. They pull the political debate in the direction of their ideology, which I think gives the American publica a chance to debate, and then accept or reject, that thrid party's platform. Sometimes a third party is successful in establishing itself in the long term (like the Republicans in 1856-1860), sometimes not (the Know-Nothings, the Reform Party, etc.).

Anyway, welcome to the board.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Thanks Jeff. It's nice to be welcomed. Hmmmm....I bet I can think of a reason that you're not opposed to third parties this year Mr. GOP . Joking aside, this is my first foray into the dynamic world of political forums, and it looks to be wicked cool.

 

[5stringJeff]

Well Syntax, you will find a majority of conservatives on the board, but there are several liberals as well, a few moderates, even a couple of KKK members! But overall the discussion is intellegent and fun. Check out the other forums on the board as well - there's lots to talk about when we aren't talking politics!

 

[MtnBiker]

Welcome Syntax, even though I would never vote for Nader I do appreciate that a 19 year old is interested in politics. That's great.

 

[nbdysfu]

My concern is that the two party system prevents an issue from being elected. Instead a set of ideas is elected that compromises to the satisfaction of most people. With more than two parties, it makes it harder to get major concensus behind anything.

However the current stalemate between two bloated parties is looking more and more like it threatens to support all of the issues for political prestige. So I think some fresh blood to shake up the issues a little bit would be nice. And now that I think of it, the two party system is more likely to become a one party system very soon which would be bad again.

 

[Avatar4321]

I dont particularly care for the third parties that much. I think the problem with those who favor three or more parties is they dont completely understand why we have the two party system to begin with.

We have a strong two party system for a few reasons.

1)Two strong parties act as a check to the Special interest groups. With interests donating to the parties the parties can dilute their influence and put that money where they think its most needed. (This is one of the Ironies of The McCain Feingold Bill which attempts to limit the special interests by limiting the amount they can donate to the party in soft money, the parties are weakened and the special interests have more control because they are going straight to candidates rather than through the party)

2)In a strong two party system the fringe groups have less power. in a Plurality system a party runs a government by creating a coalition of diferent. If the party needs a small group to push them into power and this small group happens to be say nazis or communists, then that small group has enormous power in the government.

This is one of the main problem with the Democrat party at the moment. The party has been serverely weakened by the Clinton administration and then the soft money limits. Meaning the fringe elements of the party have more power. Hence the implotion of the party.

Its also another reason why i think that Black Americans are totally running their special interest group the wrong way. If they were running it wise they wouldnt keep voting consistantly Democrat. If they play each side against each other for the promises of more benefits they would be alot more powerful then they are now.

Anyway thats enough of me for now. later.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Avatar4321

2)In a strong two party system the fringe groups have less power. in a Plurality system a party runs a government by creating a coalition of diferent. If the party needs a small group to push them into power and this small group happens to be say nazis or communists, then that small group has enormous power in the government.

Good point Avatar.

With the very small chance that Nader would be elected to office he would have an enormously hard time getting anything done. With Nader the only real 3rd party representation is himself, but then he would still have to work with a 2 party house and senate.

 

[Zhukov]

I agree largely with Avatar's view on 3rd parties as they work in this country. In most (perhaps every?) European country there exists a parliamentary government. This form of governance lends itself well to a multiple party system, however our separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches does not. The "duocracy" of our country derives particularly from the checks and balances inherent in our government.

Moreover, voting for a 3rd party helps to elect the candidate with whom you agree least. Working to advance the cause of your opponents does not serve your own cause well.

I voted for Nader in 2000, and I doubt I will ever vote for a third party candidate again. Should the Democratic Party implode, any prominent liberal party extant at that time is in a position to reap the benefits, and become the new second party, but I don't believe there will ever be a truly viable third party.

Considering Nader personally, his foreign policy would amount to apologetic genuflection, and I find that stance deplorable. Before you throw your hat in with Nader, I would suggest you decide which of the two real (sorry) parties you prefer and try to enact change within their framework. Nader has given up, but you don't have to.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Commenting on the two points of Avatar’s reply: First off, your first point is correct, and I totally agree with you. This is one of the inherent dangers and problems with private money in political campaigns. The gross and blatant political influence exerted by special interest groups is deeply troubling. With the providing of funds to political campaigns, and the lack of any real effort at campaign finance reform on the part of the congress, I’m surprised even the pretense of the legislative purview of congress still exists. I mean seriously, when are the lobbying groups going to start actually writing the legislation? Aside from the obvious danger this wave of money presents to democracy, it additionally makes any serious effort of third party candidates to seek public office problematic. Secondly, with regards to the ability of fringe groups to exert greater influence in third parties, this again is simply an inevitable part of smaller scale politics. This problem is largely exacerbated by the marginalizing of third parties by the traditional political establishment. This is not the fault or an inherent characteristic of third parties; it is a product of the stifling political atmosphere that the two party system perpetuates.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Commenting on the two points of Avatar’s reply: First off, your first point is correct, and I totally agree with you. This is one of the inherent dangers and problems with private money in political campaigns.

Do you believe that I should not be able to contribute to a political campaign?

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Yes. While this would seem to be a gross violation of your political freedom, it would be an advantageous compromise. A complete public financing of political campaigns, based upon, say, a requisite number of signatures on a petition, would eliminate nearly all of the inherent dangers posed by lobbying groups that wield immense de facto legislative power. Don’t be fooled, your political freedom is being bought off by a wave of money that is insidious and extraordinarily difficult to keep track of.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

By the way, I don't personally believe that this would be a gross violation of one's political freedom; I simpy meant that it could be initially percieved that way.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Kick ass. I love stories like that. I do think that the NRA sometimes exaggerates somewhat in their statistics involving the number of crimes averted by legally armed citizens, but it's inspiring when we hear about it.


Yes. I'm a big second amendment kind of guy. I own two pistols, a 16 gauge Remmington, and a .22 rifle. I live in the state of Indiana, where it's fairly easy to get a concealed carry permit, and I applied for mine about a month ago. I should have in within a week or two.

link

O.k. Syntax let's assume there are 2 canidates running for a state wide office, canidate X and canidate Y.

As part of his plateform canidate X has gone on record proposing limited gun ownership to law enforcement agents and other such type of government employees. And repeal of concealed weapons laws.

Canidate Y has gone on record has supporting personal gun ownership, enforcing current gun control laws as opposed to new legislation. And supports gun conceal laws.

Now as a citizen and voter I wish to support one canidate over the other not only with my vote but with the canidate's campaign. Gun issues are very important and distinctive when a canidate is to be considered, therefore canidate Y would recieve my support.
However I work quite a bit and my personal time is limited. So as much as I would like to go door to door promoting my canidate it is just not possible. So as another form of support I willingly and freely choose to donate money to my canidate of choice. In turn that campaign can take my contribution and put it to work in areas of advertising, thus putting into action my 1st amendment right of free speach.

Without the ability to do this I believe it would be an enormously gross violation of my political freedom.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

I appreciate and understand your concerns about the ability to contribute a political campaign on multiple fronts, or a monetary contribution in lieu of volunteering your labor, but again, it is a compromise between two evils, one far more insidious and dangerous than the other. When I say that our political freedom is being bought off in a wave of money from unknown sources, this isn't hyperbole, this is the true state of American democracy. The lobbying groups petitioning and influencing congressmen everyday constitute a tangible and serious threat to our political integrity. I mean seriously, how long before congress does away with even the pretense of its legislative purview and simply lets the lobbying groups draft the bills? This itself is an exaggeration, but the true danger is not. I understand your points, and even agree somewhat with your conclusion, but I disagree in principle to your objections, as I believe they do not define the greater threat to our political freedom.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
Yes. While this would seem to be a gross violation of your political freedom, it would be an advantageous compromise. A complete public financing of political campaigns, based upon, say, a requisite number of signatures on a petition, would eliminate nearly all of the inherent dangers posed by lobbying groups that wield immense de facto legislative power.

How would public financing of political campaigns stop lobbying groups? Sure they may contribute to campaigns, however they do most of their work in Washington working with the congress during their session. Are you suggesting we outlaw lobbying groups?
Now onto campaigning, you are advocating the use of tax dollars to fund polictical campaigns based on signatures. Forcing the tax payer to fund campaigns they may not agree with. Collecting signatures costs money as well, should the tax payer fund that process as also? An example would be the recent recall election in California which was privately funded.

Now, with your system, we are entering into a new beuaracracy that requires large amounts of tax payer funding. With an already bloated government the addition of another inefficent government agency would certainly not be manidated by the voter. So not only does it remain a gross violation of political freedom it is also very realalistic to every happen.

I appreciate and understand your concerns about the ability to contribute a political campaign on multiple fronts.

Thank you, more importantly the Supreme Court understands my ability to contribute to a political campaign and has garuanteed that right. You see Syntax, your asperations are quite noble, however unlikely to ever happen.

 

[OCA]

Syntax most of the stuff I wanted to argue with from your original post has already been debated so i'll just leave it, but I did want to say one thing though: does it bother you that Nader has zero chance to win based upon his policies? His supporters like to claim that he can't win because of antipathy towards 3rd parties so if his policies are so great why not run as a Democrat and change the system from within? Answer: because of his policies, they are way too extreme.

Nader in '04 guarantees a Bush win. Gotta love it!

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by OCA
why not run as a Democrat and change the system from within? Answer: because of his policies, they are way too extreme.

Yup, I believe you are correct OCA, that is why they want to change the system of political funding. Funding would be more available to extreme groups, it would not matter if majority of people did not agree with such extreme ideals.

 

[sitarro]

Hey Syntax ,
Welcome , I think you will enjoy this group .
You are young and I remember feeling the same way as you do when I was your age . I heard something a few years ago , It has been attributed to numerous people and over the years I have found it to be very true . I will paraphrase it . . . at 18 if you aren't a liberal , you have no heart but once you reach 40 if you aren't conservative , you have no brain . I have been through both ages and was very liberal when I was younger . Once I had to take total responsibility for my life (enter work force and pay bills ) I definitely gravitated towards the right . I am certainly not right wing but I am not naive to the way the world really works .
About Ralph , I am old enough to not only remember his book ," Unsafe at Any Speed" , but to have actually owned the car his book destroyed . The big story about him back then was that he was a corporate lacky for Ford . I had a Corvair , the car that was taken off of the market because of his book . It was a great car . It handled very well and never displayed the behavior that Nader claimed in his book . For this reason and his anticorporation hypocrisy (my little company is incorporated) I have never taken him or his supporters seriously . He has made a tremendous amount of money running for President without a snowball's chance in Hell of winning . He has parlayed these runs into speaking tours that makes him over a million a year .
If I were you and would know what I know now , I would set myself on the winning track by getting involved with the Republican Party . Try actually listening to Limbaugh and Hannity rather than taking your peer groups word for it . They are not the stars , their listeners are . You get a diverse group of people from all over the country that calls each of these guys , it would be a bit reckless to claim that their fans are stupid . My 3 brothers who are all airline Captains , myself , and a great many business people I know are big fans of both shows. The left tends to think that the hosts are leaders of a bunch of brainless sheep . On the contrary, the typical listener I know like these guys because they bring a National voice to our own opinions . It is not easy to be conservative at your age , you will tend to be apart from both your teachers and friends , but that is what leaders are made from . Just a suggestion .
I think you will find that the best avatars belong to the more conservative people on this board . The same is true about the ones with the better sense of humor . I also think you will find that the most condesending and obnoxious posters will be on the left . Just a preview . . . . . have fun.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Mtnbiker, Your post is well thought out and articulate, but I disagree with you on most of your points. First of all, the reason that the lobbying groups are able to so effectively work with congress is the carrot and/or stick of campaign financing. This is the true source of the interest groups, not the research and the changing of public opinion. Cutting off the ability of the interest groups to influence the legislative process by denying them the ability to fund races for public office is absolutely an effective tactic. Secondly, with regards of using federal and/or state tax dollars to collect petition signatures not being fair to those whose campaigns they do not agree, I think that that is kind of silly. Everyday our tax dollars are spent on things that not everyone agrees with. That’s part of democracy, developing a majority or plurality of people whom agree with a particular program, and paying for it. A number of gun control laws have been passed with which I strongly disagree, and the enforcement takes away from my tax dollars, but this is normal. The laws were passed in a legitimate democratic process, and I must abide by the laws and accept the money spent enforcing them. As for the expense of the collection and public information process, yes, that would cost money, but, again, mitigating the influential power of the lobbying groups is money well spent. And as for OCA, yes it does rather bother me, the chance that Nader has at winning, but if I could only pick between Bush and Kerry, I wouldn’t vote. Sitarro, thanks for the welcome, and your perspective. I don’t really agree with you, but like you say, I’m young. If you were suggesting that I was being obnoxious and condescending, I’m sorry. I don’t mean to be if I was. I’m not really and arrogant person, at least I don’t think so. Also, thanks to everyone that has welcomed me to this board.