The Unsavory Psychology of Two-Party Politics

a reply to: luthier

Not really, no. The society was very different and rhetoric was different. The Republicans and Democrats swapped parties after civil rights.

Someone clearly missed the 60s.

And NO They did not 'switch' sides.

MY god.

a reply to: neo96

Uh,...

The Dixiecrats joined the Republican party. People like Strom and many southern democrats, mayors, etc switched to the Republican party after Johnson was signing the papers.

And yeah it was polarized the whole Christian right was created to stop catholic jfk and there was probably voter fraud in Chicago as usual.

But we lost conservatism and liberty after the 60's. The Republican party turned into neoconservativism and we ceased to have a classical liberty option.

We had Ron, Dennis, and Rand. Probably the closest towards the original philosophy from which the country was created but those guys had about a 0 percent chance of getting by the powers that be.

GHWB in my opinion is maybe the closest president who had a true sense of duty, but it shames me to say that.

And I don't think Carter had bad intentions. He just was not capable of handling the mess he had on his hands and he was part of the hand out system.

a reply to: luthier

Uh,...

Uh next time actually WATCH videos posted before commenting.

The Dixiecrats joined the Republican party

Uh.

NO THEY DIDN'T.



Just stop already.

The LEFT is what they always been.

The RIGHT is what they always been.

And the middle is always what they been.

Hoodwinked.

Bamboozled.

We didn't land on American Politics.

American politics landed on US.

a reply to: CriticalStinker
I have read a lot of history, and I can promise you that the tendency for politics to evolve into an opposition between two "sides" is universal, whether or not there are any "principles" to separate them.
At the very basic level, there will always be a conflict between "Ins" and "Outs".
What happens if one of those parties is so succesfull that the other party disappears from the scene? The answer is that the victorious party almost immediately splits into two factions which start competing with each other.
What happens if conflicting interests and personalities have the effect of producing more than a dozen interest groups? The answer is that they will tend to co-operate and coalesce with some of their rivals at the expense of others, to the point of developing into two competing coalitions. In exactly the same way that international politics tends to develop into an opposition between two alliance systems.
If the coalitions are very loose, they may be very temporary, and subject to frequent re-arrangements, like the Whig regime of eighteenth century England.
Alternatively, they may formalise themselves into organised parties. Most parties are coalitions with internal faction-fighting of some kind (the Communist party of the Soviet Union was no exception).
The Liberal Party in Victorian Britain was a coalition of "progressive" aristocrats, big business, radical intellectuals, and working-class activists. It fell apart in the long-term, because the last two groups defected to the new Labour Party, and everybody else took refuge in the Conservative Party.
And was it not a major shift in twentieth century American politics when the South in general abandoned the historic coalition which had formed the Democrat Party? Thanks to Governor Wallace, I believe.

My point is that you should not blame the state of current American politics on the two-party system as such, because some version of that is the norm. The startling virulence of the conflict between the two sides must have its causes, but the mere fact that they are organised as two formal parties is not one of them.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: luthier

Uh,...

Uh next time actually WATCH videos posted before commenting.

The Dixiecrats joined the Republican party

Uh.

NO THEY DIDN'T.

Just stop already.

The LEFT is what they always been.

The RIGHT is what they always been.

And the middle is always what they been.

Hoodwinked.

Bamboozled.

We didn't land on American Politics.

American politics landed on US.

Uh,...yes the parties changed quite a bit. It's true in Congress only about 20 percent changed parties. The local government is a different story, and by the time Reagan came in was ripe to absorb the electorate of the south. Republicans were very different in the past. The right and left were different. Your videos are nifty and all but surely they have a point of view and a cause of their own.

The progressive democrats moved their racism on to class wars, though that too is an old story.

Sure basic things like throwing out money like old city bosses to get votes is similar.

If anything the old classical liberty republicans would be libertarians. Which barely exist in Congress today, hardly the same party leading civil rights as they were in the early 20th century.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I agree with you, that was part of the psychology today article.

But we're in a new time with more accessible information.

Just because something has been a certain way doesn't constitute it should continue to be that way.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The fallacy here is that there is a difference between the parties. The Dems talk about left priorities, like peace and freedom and minorities rights. Yet under Obama we bombed the poop out of the world with robots, never closed Guatanamo, and the police seemingly had an edict from on high to shoot unarmed black men. The GOP always talks about smaller Gov't and smaller taxes and regulation and yet Bush spent like a drunken sailor, instituted Homeland Security Dept., TSA, etc. etc..

NEITHER PARTY CARES. NEITHER PARTY DOES WHAT THEY SAY. THEY ARE ALL BEHOLDEN TO BIG DONORS AND DON'T GIVE A FLYING F*@K ABOUT YOU OR I.

We just keep voting the same whores into office in the House and Senate year after year based on the letter after their name and they do nothing for us. Bipartisanism is a trap for the masses. We argue and call each other names and root for our team while they all dine together on our tab.

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: CriticalStinker

We could break out of this two party system easily enough if people would just vote 3rd party. Take this last election for instance: so many people did not really want EITHER of the two main party candidates but were convinced that voting 3rd party was just throwing away their vote, so rather than vote 3rd party or voting FOR a candidate they chose to vote AGAINST whichever main candidate they despised most by voting for the opposite main party candidate. If all of THOSE people had instead voted Libertarian, Green Party... ANTHING but Republican or Democrat.... one of those parties might have won or at the very least garnered enough votes that come next election cycle their party would have gotten equal funding, air time, press attention and most importantly would be included in all of the major debates- giving us a chance to break the two party system!

I voted 3rd party it was liberating. The two main choices both stunk to me so much I finally broke free from the lesser of two evil voting impulse. And left it to the rest of nation to decide which bozo would occupy the white house. I know who I voted for would not win but I did hope their party would get the percentage needed to have more footing in future elections. If pressured to vote in the future I will probably vote 3rd party again because I'm sure the Democrats will just prop up some bozo to go against the current bozo in the whitehouse.

Also If we changed the voting system to instant run off voting the two mainstream parties would have to fight a lot harder to stay relevant and you wouldn't be throwing away your vote by voting third party.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

I agree, I call it two branches of the same party.

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: CriticalStinker

We could break out of this two party system easily enough if people would just vote 3rd party. Take this last election for instance: so many people did not really want EITHER of the two main party candidates but were convinced that voting 3rd party was just throwing away their vote, so rather than vote 3rd party or voting FOR a candidate they chose to vote AGAINST whichever main candidate they despised most by voting for the opposite main party candidate. If all of THOSE people had instead voted Libertarian, Green Party... ANTHING but Republican or Democrat.... one of those parties might have won or at the very least garnered enough votes that come next election cycle their party would have gotten equal funding, air time, press attention and most importantly would be included in all of the major debates- giving us a chance to break the two party system!

Well, heck, ya beat me to it! If you tell anybody during an election that you are not part of the two-party system, you will get some scathing lecture about "helping so-and-so to win" by "throwing your vote away on a person who will never win anyway", blah blah blah.

I have always maintained that ALL political contributions should go into one big account, and split up evenly amongst all candidates. They should all get equal air time.

What I have to say is probably going to get me flamed, but I don't believe the average American has neither the inclination, the intellect, or the interest in learning about more than one candidate. Simple sound bytes and feel-good platitudes are good enough to get their vote.

We all apparently have severe Alzheimer's and cannot remember that EVERY single person we've put in the White House has been a total let down. Every person we elect is there for power and profit. If they aren't, they will not last long, they will see the ugly truth and cannot take it.

We are a two-party country because we DO think in binary. It's a contest, a sport, and a sad joke that blows up in our faces. They're laughing all the way to the bank while we cry in front of the ATM that says "INSUFFICIENT FUNDS".

a reply to: FissionSurplus

You're absolutely correct! I can't think of a single president that hasn't come out of office much richer than when they went in, and the salary

Since 2001, the president has earned a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 for entertainment. The most recent raise in salary was approved by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1999 and went into effect in 2001.

does NOT explain the millions upon millions that each former POTUS leaves the position with! Yes, a couple of million could be saved up during their tenures but tens of millions and more? C'mon Cleetus! I ain't no rocket scientist but I wasn't born last night either!

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I disagree with the notion that people are blind cult worshipers. I think people choose one side or the other for certain reasons. People who live around DC think the government is the biggest evil. People who live around Wall Street think corporations are the problem. Since I live in a blue state I think corporations are bigger problem than government.

I think the two party system is fine. It's just that the Democrat party has been hijacked by Republicans. Hillary Clinton is a Nixon Republican. She is more moderate than a George Bush Republican. She may even be a Reagan type Republican. If you are Republican, just imagine for a second your party's candidate worked on McGovern's presidential campaign. What conclusion would you draw? Why would you vote for such a candidate???? Hillary Clinton in her book admits to working on Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign. For a Democrat, this is insanity!

Bernie Sanders was the real Democrat. But Hillary stole the primary elections. It is well documented in many articles:

observer.com...

"Election Justice USA Study Finds that Without Election Fraud Sanders Would Have Won by Landslide"

www.dailykos.com...

At this point, both parties are the same and here's why. Both parties do whatever the lobbyists want for domestic policy. Both parties do whatever the CFR wants for foreign policy. Obama just went along bombing and droning the Arabs without skipping a beat.

All this marginal stuff like signing statements and executive actions are irrelevant. All this social conservatism stuff is irrelevant. What matters is money. Everything else is BS. MONEY IS EVERYTHING. And here's my point. The lobbyists force the politicians to pass legislation creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. MONEY TALKS.

The point is what does it mean to be a Democrat? Bernie talked about breaking up the big banks. If you are a Democrat then breaking up monopolies and cartels is very important because it destroys the purchasing power of worker's wages. You see, it really doesn't matter what you pay in taxes. What DOES matter is the purchasing power of your take home pay. If the cartels and monopolies are fleecing you for everything you got what difference does it make if you pay nothing in federal income tax. The monopolies and cartels will continue to rape you and suck up everything until we are all living with poverty wages which is what we have now.

I have to be honest with you I am sick and tired of Republicans telling me what it means to be a Democrat. Here is what a Democrat is as defined by FDR in his 1936 Democrat convention acceptance speech. If this message doesn't resonate with you as powerful and true then you are NOT a Democrat:

An old English judge once said: 'Necessitous men are not free men.' Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government.

Besides being a bunch of bully a holes who have to always be "right" on every issue, I will let the Republicans define what it means to be a Republican . But as far as I can tell, a Republican wants to preserve the status quo of the cartels and monopolies. Or even further, they want to give the cartels and monopolies even MORE power like the ACA bill. What a joke! Democrats wanted a single payer healthcare system. The compromise was legislation to strengthen the healthcare cartels grip on the American people. Don't blame Democrats because the Democrats are Republican Lite. We have NO Democrats in this country anymore.

And another thing, I'm really sick and tired of hearing people saying we have too much communism in this country. We are about as far away from communism as you can get. Almost every part of every level of government has been privatized to a privately owned for-profit corporation. Let repeat this for emphasis and with caps:

ALMOST EVERY PART OF EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN PRIVATIZED TO A PRIVATELY OWNED FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION.

Corporations ARE the government.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini

a reply to: dfnj2015

While most of what you said is correct, Democrats are the ones that make the long standing issues America faces.

So Bernie thinks the banks should be broken up?
Who consolidated them? FDR. Jefferson rolled his grave with "The 'new' Deal".

Either way you look at it, one of them is retarded long-run. I'm gonna say eat the spikes of inevitable globalized currency and ride out consolidation. The other direction leads to war. I think FDR's choice on the other hand doomed us to fascism for the sake of peace.

It seems the topic of "psychology" went completely over the heads of the thread...

a reply to: Mordekaiser

I think the entire world is paying for Reagan's mistakes with saddam. Sure Charlie Wilson helped but he was supported by republicans.

Jefferson would be disgusted with the Republican party ties to religion and their foreign policy.

a reply to: luthier

Yes, but he, and America alike fought a 'revolutionary war' over taxes. The independence was because of money and taxes, and central banks. Not disdain of England or it's culture.

I agree with Reagan and Religious comments, but Jefferson would have shot FDR, as that's the only thing that made us 'us'. Washington himself had better religious understanding than our Citizens today, it's hard to hold him to standard though, even in his time this was recognized enough to allow him President.

a reply to: Mordekaiser

We had insane tax rates during republicans as well. It wasn't until fairly recently they have been lower than 50 percent once the system got going.

The classical liberal ideas are nearly dead. Say John Locke and you get a who? Jesus wrote the constitution.

I would think a person calling themselves a conservative who is actually say getting involved in entagling alliances would be even worse in his eyes.

a reply to: luthier

I consider myself a liberal republican.

The actual party affiliation is your business.

The ideological denomination is actually politics. You know, the worthless part we don't consider when voting? "Liberal/Conservative".

Trump is extremely Liberal, not as much as myself, but he's not the run of the mill Republican, and that's appealing, no matter how stupid he actually is at political affairs. It's my small flickering candle it's not a totally effed system, as opposed to example him getting Impeached and Pence running the show.

a reply to: Mordekaiser

I can't support a man like trump. He doesn't even have substance for me to look over his ignorance. I would not vote for Cruella Deville but it doesn't make the situation any less embarrassing. That Jackson comment was rediculous.