Why Are You a Republican or Democrat?

reply to post by ninecrimes


Personally I like labels. I like people who draw a line in the sand and say this is who I am, deal with it. So that is why I say I am half Libertarian and Half Republican. I also happen to be an American. So if some terrorist, convervative, or liberal from another country wants to screw with one of my fellow Americans I will stand up and fight along with my American brother or sister, until then I will try to convince them to think like me.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]

First and foremost I would say that I am an American. I do not vote for either Republicans, Democrats, Independents, or anyone else just because they are one or the other. I vote for the person whom I think can do the best job. Unfortunately those options are limited, as I truly believe that the best man or woman for any elected government position will never run because of the bull.

It really makes my skin crawl to hear someone say that we must do whatever is best for the party. Why not do what is best for the country? State? County? I do hope there will come a time that lobbyists and special interests will be kicked out of politics due to the will of the American people. But until that day comes I think we are in for a bumpy ride since the major political parties are on the take.

S&F for the thread btw.

reply to post by v01i0

The question at hand is division. Why do we divide? Why can't we accept reality as a whole, but instead divide it to smaller pieces? We can't swallow it as a whole? Does it make it more comfortable in smaller pieces?

Ideally, there should be as many different political parties as there are individuals who vote. 300+ million. That we disagree and debate in division isn't a problem. Civil Discourse and Reasoned Debate among an educated populace are the foundations this nation was started on. The idea that we can decide for ourselves whom we choose to lead us, rather than have it dictated by divinity such as with the Kings and Pharaohs of old.

The idea of unity or conformity is toxic to the spirit of independence and individual liberty this nation endorses in spirit. You should not be obliged to silence your voice, so that a censored rhetoric can be tossed in among those who have the momentum or are assumed for a greater good. That is one of the problems with our current super-parties who have grown too large to truly represent anyone except in broad generalities. It stifles innovation and new ways of thinking.

You speak of reality, but yet cannot understand that it is through diversity that systems gain strength. Whether they be computers on a network, or species in an ecosystem. Conformity breeds weakness by infecting every node in a system with the same vulnerabilities... and a single catastrophic event can destroy entire series of systems. Our reality is formed from the bottom up... not the top down.

This is why the Press was the only industry singled out by the Constitution for special rights and privileges. This is why our right to peaceful assembly are preserved. Not so we can tell the government what we think is wrong... but so that we can inform each OTHER of our grievances and encourage debate in the public forum. Debate that will, come election day, influence votes.

reply to post by Lasheic


Hey Lasheic,

I see what you mean, I do. I didn't mean that we all should be puppets of some emotion of 'cosmic uniteness'. And I totally agree about your 300+ million individuals as parties

Problem is that about 90 % or more of those individuals are not individuals but persons. And you probably know the distinction between the concepts of 'individual' and 'persona'?

Well, for other people out there as well, 'individual' stands for 'un divideable', while 'persona' stands for 'mask'.

I wasn't really talking about physical division, but psychological one; this means that we should be psychologically individuals and stop dividing ourselves by distinguishing in parties or nationalities.

I know it's a troublesome issue when regarding functionality of democracy, but as long as there isn't a fundamental psychological change in the masses, I can hardly see change in societies to happen.

Sincerely,

-v

Edit:

Also, as someone mentioned in previous posts, this division to reps and dems is due the legistlation they want to push as a group. But identifying oneself as either is psychological division. What happens if you are republican, yet you support abortion? It's an conflict. And more seriously you identify yourself, more deeper in the swamp you'll sunk.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by v01i0]

I am neither. I consider myself an american who happens to have conservative ideas. Now that being said. I find it funny that it's usually the "opposition" that labels me republican even though I've never stated that I am one. So if I had to blame someone, it would have to be all the narrow minded democrats who ASSUME I'm republican when I'm not.

reply to post by v01i0

I know it's a troublesome issue when regarding functionality of democracy

Indeed it is. That's why this nation was founded as a Constitutional Republic, because historically, Democracies are untenable and swing between suicidal rates of aimless change or stagnant repression of all who are in the 49%. They are hotbeds of tyrants and injustice. Yet, for any system of government in which justice is (at least attempted to be) guaranteed to the public - the individual must have a voice. This is why we elect our leaders democratically. This keeps (ideally) the matter of civil discourse between the public the first option, rather than violence or brute force which tends to manifest in mob rule.. because our elected leaders propose the legislature, pass it into law, and take responsibility for it's consequences... rather than the people who (as Jefferson put it) cannot always and at all times be well informed.

but as long as there isn't a fundamental psychological change in the masses, I can hardly see change in societies to happen.

Our species has been on this Earth for about 150,000 years, and came from an ancestry dating back several million. For all that time we have been tribal/clan oriented creatures, evolved to cooperate and work within small group of about 20 to 150 individuals. I don't think we've had enough time, truly, to change the fundamental underpinnings of our tribal psychology. For instance, since we evolved to exist in societies of around 20-150 individuals, we can only really conceptualize about 150~200 unique personalities. Much beyond that, we start thinking in stereotypes. We boil groups of individuals down to their most common shared traits among a large group and tend to use those models as a means to gauge risk/gain implications of social interaction. These stereotypes can further be distorted by cultural perceptions, exaggerations, and projections. These are roots of racism... sexism... discrimination.

I don't believe we are blank slates. I don't think a more perfect humanity can, or should be attempted to be brought about, by social engineering and cultural modification. I think our best chance for meaningful dialog and repudiation or mitigation of these very human flaws can only come from a better understanding of the human mind and our psychology. Though it may mean facing some ugly truths about ourselves.

One being that powerful political movements are influential tribal markers we adopt and use to identify with each other, or use to spot potential conflict. You call it persona or "mask", I call it a Tribal Marker. They are one in the same, really. The allure of these large and powerful tribal groups draws a lot of support... and it's going to be hard to try to reason with people entrenched in these movements. To get them to step back, see the issue from the other side objectively, and then formulate their own individual opinions concerning them. Opinions strong enough to stand on their own without the safety net of the party to blend into. This isn't to foster bi-partisan feel-good cooperation or other such bullock... but so that we can further our debates in a meaningful and purposeful manner, rather than just go to war by mudslinging dehumanizing and slanderous accusations while wrapped in the comfortable delusion of being right.

Originally posted by ninecrimes
reply to post by lpowell0627

 

Good input- I've never thought about how campaign budgets & fund raising could feed the partisan system.

How would a system like that work, though (campaign budget caps)? Seems necessary and illogical at the same time...

Food for thought, at least.

It would be a very simple system. Every publicly elected office in the country would be tiered. The tier would determine how much money a candidate received towards campaigning.

For example, an assemblyman would receive less than a governor. A governor would receive less than a President. And so on...

It would only require one vote to determine the tiers and of course a percentage increase would be provided yearly to cover inflation.

So, if it was stipulated that each presedential candidate received say $5 million to campaign, no other monies would be or could be used towards campaigning. It would end corporate contributions, private campaign donations, etc.

It would be one set amount from start to finish. And yes, it would require each candidate to budget properly in order to maximize his/her allotted money.

It would absolutely prevent any politician from buying an election. Which happens quite often and in my opinion is not at all indicative of whether or not that person is more qualified.

reply to post by Lasheic


Well, you type out loads of information. I appreciate it

I hold on my previous claims, maintaining that it is troublesome when 90% or more of the electorate are 'persons', meaning kind of a puppets that are easily steered towards suitable ends.. Only if we all would be as educated indivduals as the best of us, as determined and well informed, could this system really work.

And also, we seem to have far less options than would be preferable, or why would it be so, that in the end we usually get to choose from two candidates?

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by v01i0

 

I don't think a more perfect humanity can, or should be attempted to be brought about, by social engineering and cultural modification.

I don't either. I don't see that willful action towards some end leads to anything but conflicts. There will always be objection, no matter how trascedentially it is approached. I think that everything's fine. It is as it should be, and as it supposed to be.

I said:

Originally posted by v01i0

I know it's a troublesome issue when regarding functionality of democracy, but as long as there isn't a fundamental psychological change in the masses, I can hardly see change in societies to happen.

By which I didn't mean that there should be some kind of shift towards anything. It is merely a statement.

By the way, as it is with most computer systems, the functionality is based on the user; meaning that unskilled user can crash every system. That is so with political ideologies as well.

And.. Aren't modern states merely forms of glorified tribalism?

-v

[edit on 13-10-2009 by v01i0]

reply to post by v01i0

By which I didn't mean that there should be some kind of shift towards anything. It is merely a statement.

I know, and I'm sorry if I was unclear or muddied in my response to this. My basic point is that we likely won't undergo some fundamental shift in basic human psychology. Change of that magnitude takes a very very long time, as the biological basis for our psyche (our brains) must undergo the same slow evolutionary process the rest of our bodies do. While it can be shaped and expressed in unique and varying ways via cultural expression, the basics are similar across race and geography.

Basically, it's a reassurance that our psychology will not change fundamentally. As a consequence, I similarly do not see fundamental changes in society which do not accommodate or are resultant of this basic psychology. Even if it may seem to prove rather robust, such as the wide social differences between Chimpanzees and Bonobos.

By the way, as it is with most computer systems, the functionality is based on the user; meaning that unskilled user can crash every system. That is so with political ideologies as well.

In the largest part, I would agree as well. The vast majority of computer errors are human caused. The vast majority of management and government failures are, similarly, human error. Though there are issues of fundamental errors in manufacture and complexity which can contribute as well. No matter how adept the user, Windows ME could never compare to XP in regards to security, stability, and portability. The Xbox 360 had overheating issues that plagued launch batches, no matter how meticulously clean and gentle the user was. Further, even a computer expert cannot guarantee against errors and conflicts when installing new hardware, updating drivers, or installing new service packs.

PCs being an open-ended system with great degrees of variability can take much longer for drivers to be written in order to ensure compatibility... and errors in particular configurations can cause resource conflicts or other bugs. However, the new release of an ATI driver/Software rarely causes significant portions of the market to go offline. On the inverse, console systems like the PSP or 360 have closed hardware with very little variation. Changes can be made across an entire spectra of hardware seamlessly and automatically. However, it also ensures that that bugs and errors are every bit as uniform. On more than one occasion, a dashboard update had to be quickly removed, the service taken offline, or additional updates added because an error exposed vulnerabilities to modification or "bricked" the systems it was applied to.

As applied to a governmental system, such a state is vulnerable to new technologies shaping culture and society, human error, unforeseen environmental and political complications, economic repercussions... etc. Government has to remain malleable and adaptable to changing times.. and this requires new insight and new ideas be injected. Though order is a fragile thing, and is very difficult to regain once lost. This is where the interplay between conservative and liberal mindsets are needed most... and where special interests and lobbyists are doing the most damage by impeding this process.

And please note, I use conservative and liberal in their basest contexts. I do not mean to refer to them in any way to the Republican or Democratic parties. Liberal and Conservative spectrum exist in most all forms of government - from totalitarian to democratic. It's merely a measure of how open to change and modification a position is in contrast to the rigidity of preserving an establishment or institution.

And.. Aren't modern states merely forms of glorified tribalism?

Yes, they certainly can be. The "unification" of America in the days after 9/11 could be seen as a collective response by the "American" tribe in response to an outside antagonist. Other tribal identifiers that often divide us (race, religion, gender, political affiliation, etc) were dropped, often voluntarily, to come together and console one another and make sense of what happened to us. Excepting, of course, for many Americans of middle-eastern descent whom often bore the brunt of our outrage. As time went on, and the threat and pain became more distant, our other tribal groups and identifiers took on renewed importance in our lives - and began to divide us again.

I don't have time to get into too much depth, but this then dovetails into one of the arguments for increased globalization. Thomas Hobbes suggested that primitive tribal cultures existing close to nature without social infrastructure tended to lead lives that were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" - not because they were close to nature or technologically unsavy - but because they constantly lived in a state of fear of being raided or attacked by other tribes. They would often raid each other preemptively out of this fear. Instead, he suggested the establishment of the Leviathan - a strong central governing force which could act as peace keeper and mediator between the various factions. This concept was an apparent influence (though I don't recall a specific reference) in the call to unify the colonies under a single governmental banner via the Federalist Papers. A move which would seek to resolve conflict between states and prevent foreign powers from splitting the colonies in conflict against one another.

I.E., a central government to whom a measure of authority was granted. Globalization is the next step, reducing conflict by building infrastructure and stable independent societies who's prosperity rely upon each other in increased economic trade and cooperation as a means to reduce global conflict and poverty.

I don't have the time to go into it more fully, as I have obligations to attend to. If you want to read up on the Leviathan Theory, I'll post a link to it. As well as a Wikipedia overview.

It can well be argued that Leviathan was the first formal and most influential work on the establishment of social contracts establishing states and nations.

Note: I don't necessarily AGREE with the Leviathan Theory as written by Hobbes, but it's an important document to understand when considering how we got to where we are and where we're going in the future. A literal application of it cannot work in today's culture and concept of ensuring basic civil liberties.

For example, one of it's tenants I (and I suspect many here would) strongly disagree with was the denial of any sort of rebellion or usurpation of the governing body. However, this particular issue had already been addressed by statesmen and philosophers long before the founding fathers, and summarily corrected.

I use to be a Republican because I had bought into the lies and con game. However, my whole life, I've always been of the belief that an individual should be able to do as they please as long as it does not infringe upon another person's rights.

I no longer buy the left/right con game and fully subscribe to a minarchist mindset.

I vote Democratic because I can't endorse a single Republican idea that they have put forward in the past 20 years but that is at the same time not a rousing endorsement of the Democrats either.

In 1980 I voted libertarian for John Anderson because I did not like either mainstream choice...but came to see it as a wasted vote. I have not voted third party since.

I have no faith in the Democrats but I have less faith in the Republicans...

If there were a viable third party out there that could win elections I would vote for them but to date I see none...

The Constitutionalist party is as far out in right field that you can get as far as I can see and so will not back them.

I like the Greens but until they start running winnable candidates and start making head roads into the Democratic base enough to get into office I don't see them happening either.

I call myself a liberal because that is the closest description that fits but so does left leaning social libertarian.

In the long run I have not endorsed either party or a candidate since I worked for McGovern in 1972 and I was 16 then.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by grover]

Because if you want to vote for somebody you got to pick 1 of the options.

This thread is humorous! Nobody wants to be labeled a Republican or a Democrat, yet somehow last presidential election a Democrat got 66 million votes and a Republican got 58 million.

Calling yourself an independent or libertarian or some other less popular political faction is the "in thing" to do now.

I would like to see none of the above on the ballot and if none gets the most votes both parties would have to go back and pick somebody else. I also want a vote of no confidence.

I simply look at each issue as it comes.

I wish there was a party called: "None of the Above" - - that allowed one to vote freely in all elections including primaries.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
This thread is humorous! Nobody wants to be labeled a Republican or a Democrat, yet somehow last presidential election a Democrat got 66 million votes and a Republican got 58 million.

Calling yourself an independent or libertarian or some other less popular political faction is the "in thing" to do now.

You can find it humorous all you like, even hypocritical, but if you were to ask me, and if you had been here the day of the election. You would know that I didn't waste my time or my vote on EITHER candidate. This is one person who WILL stick to principles no matter how the media labels me.

I am not a republican, I am not a democrat. I have conservative values, but if you were to ask me, I'd tell you I'm an American. Not a republican american, not a democrat american, I'm simply an American. Old fashioned, red-blooded American. Do them young'ins tease me about it because I'm too "old fashioned"? Of course they do, but then again, I always get to laugh at them afterward when they realize the big mistakes they made.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I don't fit into your 66million or 58 million mark, and even though there are few of us out there, there are still people who still want to stick to core principles.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by Hitemhard]

reply to post by Lasheic


Your reply again was very insightful and indepth. Hobbess' Leviathan is somewhat unfamiliar to me, but I recall something of it, especially the part that it stated that revolution against the agreed establishment was highly forbidden according to Hobbes.

Originally posted by Lasheic

My basic point is that we likely won't undergo some fundamental shift in basic human psychology.

Yeah, that might be the case. However, way I see it, the change has to happen (if it happens) from inside out, meaning that the 'users' of the system has to change fundamentally before any kind of change in the whole system is to happen.

And what you said about computer systems was very astute. PS system's functionality is quite distinct to - let's say - PC system. In place of these computer systems we can think of various political systems.

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by v01i0

 

And please note, I use conservative and liberal in their basest contexts. I do not mean to refer to them in any way to the Republican or Democratic parties.

Although I thought I was seeing your standpoint, this was an important clarification. What I meant was that in fact people tend to identify themselves with either of these party, regardless of their personal beliefs. It is kind of a 'go with the flow' mentality.

You seem to speak from perspective of philosophical classifications of these concepts.

In the end, I think my first post is to blame of taking this thread astray of it's original topic. But nevertheless it has been thought provoking dialogue with you Lasheic.

My output can sometimes (well usually) be quite incoherent, leaving open ends in many directions, and chances for many misinterpretations. Words, of course, are just words, but they are all we have, and with them we'll have to do. To my ashement, I am not native english speaker and my grammatics aren't always very correct.

Sincerely,

-v

[edit on 14-10-2009 by v01i0]

reply to post by ninecrimes


I AM an American.

I have conservative values, it's a life-style choice, a world view, it's how I go about my daily life. I tend to vote republican, although I am a registered Independent.

I will call an idiot an idiot whether he/she is dressed in the flag, or burning it.

Neither: They are both useless parties of scumbags, by the scumbags and for the scumbags.

Rather than talk about a 3rd party solution, how about a 10 party solution or a NO PARTY solution?! We need an organized effort to push the independent candidate!

Originally posted by slimpickens93
I really not familiar enough with any particular party's doctrines to say I support only that party. I am not a registered/official member of any party.

I do believe in small/limited government. I do believe in the United States Constitution. I do believe in individual liberty.

So what does that make me? A Republican Constitutionalist Libertarian Independant?

Is there a party that combines all of those?

Nevermind, I don't want to be in a party.

....as if it mattered.


Choosing sides between Republican or Democrat makes about as much sense as choosing sides between Bloods and Crips to me.

It makes you (us actually as I am the same) a "Classic American" what it "used" to mean to be an American. Ironically Diversity and Freedom of speech, 2 of the bastions of Americanism, are part of what is now destroying her.