Which issue?
 

I want to try something slightly new here. A little background, my interest of political study focuses mainly on political parties, their alignments throughout history, etc.

Some theorists, such as James Sundquist, have argued that partys realign, and ideological loyalties shift, when one big issue is ignored by the two main parties, thus generally and historically leading to high third-party activity, or a swelling of reform from within one or even both of the parties.

So my question is this: Do any of you see such an issue troubling the two-party system in the near future??? Is there any issue that you feel both parties have neglected, to the point that it could cause a major shift in the system somewhere down the road....?

I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts.

TERRORISM

I hate you so much. :( :wah

"Do any of you see such an issue troubling the two-party system in the near future?"

Yes and no. Off the top of my head I could easily list a number of intrinsically important concerns which should impact the political spectrum powerfully enough to warrant a third party resurgance. . .

But the paradigm, I believe, has shifted beyond that. America, historically, has maintained a civically oriented focus within the community revolving around certain political tenants such as liberty, freedom and communal responsibility -tenants which fostered attentiveness and activism within society. In recent years we have seen a chasm develop between the mindset of past generations and those existant now. Yes, the issues are there which would support the zenith of third party emminance, but not the public support to give such parties necessary influence.

In short, too many Ranxers, Zhukovs, Ronnies and Vinths without enough Italians, Spinsters, Burbanks and Herbivores.

Great. I have just been blacklisted. I supose an explanation would be too much, as I don't really understand this thread. A simplification for the simple, if you will.

No offense intended friend, but as I see it there are two types of political people: There are those whom educate themselves upon the issues, meditate upon each individual proposition, and after careful reflection come to a conclusion. People like Kevin and Italian.

There there are those whom ground themselves upon a given ideology and study everything within that context, often (if unintentionally) sacrificing objectivity to conviction. People like you and I, or in the extreme, Vinth and Ranxor.

It's more of a philosophy... Thanks anyway, I'm just happy to get a mention.

Well, if we could see a major issue, I doubt it would be ignored. I think there may be issues we are all underestimating, but I think the bigger problem is more of posturing without action by all sides. I mean, one side offers a half assed idea, and instead of improving upon it or making a counter proposal, the other side just bitches and moans.

At least, thats how I see it.

Or maybe I am still just high off paint fumes.

Yep, that is 100% correct. If you just happen to agree for the most part with one side's views almost down the line, that means you are narrow-minded in the political sense. It doesn't mean, however, that the person did research from all sides and their views are the natural conclusion of their research.

That is a pretty bigoted statement. I could just as easily say that there are too many burbanks/blancos/herbivores/yourselves and too little OAOs/myselfs.

You do OAO a great disservice by lumping him in with yourself.

nice question, i got into a summation mood over this..
in general it looks to me like the demicans at major city or higher levels are pretty much solidly corrupt.

the system of corruption is cannibalistic enough to constantly make me wonder how the hell it doesnt crumble.

the only thing i can see keeping it running (inside america) is the balancing of a high degree of apathy and fear. most people seem to think they can't make any difference(48% of the population voting).. might as well try to get ahead using the system that is already corrupt. 'play the game' and get yer rewards but it's shrinking.
the business concepts operating on an infinite resource basis are doomed.
plus if you believe in sustainable practices your business is under attack by many forces. most of which have to do with lower wage competition.

it really is soo bad that if you believe in purchasing a product that is 'violence free' as per international human rights standards you cannot go to 85% plus of the businesses out there.. you have to be damn near an activist to track down most alternates to a non-living wage race to the bottom system of dog-eat dog profits.

as both parties continue to allow corporate buyouts of policy, huge amounts of tax dollars written off and spent in 'secret' without major corporate responsibility we are on borrowed time
..the cash-in being money flight and implosion..

grassroots third parties should get easier and easier to organize..

job loss, tax increases, healthcare nightmares, declining environmental health.. its majorly about problems of privatizations' short term solutions without oversight.. both parties talk about the problems but nine times out of ten there is a sellout or non-resolution due to some inability to 'sell' the ideas..

like we have to 'sell' the idea that we should think long term.. we only have a choice for so long folks, we will be forced to think sustainably ..the more we put it off the more violent the transition, whether it be global warming catasrophies, monocrop disasters or riots and martial law.

- guess the basis of this is a pessimistic view that the dems, if they unseat the armed and dangerous bush, will fail to protect workers or bring universal healthcare.. thus a total decline of both parties on those two issues. we'll see.

if dean had nader as a running mate i don't think bush would have a chance.

I think you just summed up American politics from its inception.

the vice president should not be allowed to be picked by the president, nor should he be of the same party. The idea of giving one man all the power is horrible enough, but giving one party? I would suggest the same for Congress and all that shit. Brings more solutions into a situation.

Thats is how the VP used to be picked. He was the loser.

Yea, that's how it should be now a days. We should just have a council or some shit. One man either means: A) He has all the power and is a dictator of some form or B) He's just a weakass figurehead being manipulated by everyone, through politics or a direct means. Both are pretty sad.

Also, they should have to fight to the to become president, with entire catchup bottles at their disposal, and the only way to become president is to drown the other in the red sauce.

One and Only sometimes pisses me off, but he's so much more nuanced in his opinions than you are Vinth, that me might even know what I meant by saying he was nuanced in his opinions.

If by research you mean your gut reaction to stories you've heard or your feeling that if you 'asked anyone in the real world', well, then we're talking about two different things.

When you read something by Coulter or Boortz, do you ever experience doubt? If I read something in a Nation Op Ed, my first reaction is doubt, not necessarily as to the facts sighted, but as to which fcts were chosen and how they were interpretted. You cut n' paste Boortz so fast and echo him so completely, up to and including assinine pap like WWIV, you might as well stick a post it on your forhead that says "Human Dictaphone".

Third parties don't necessarily have to raise themselves to the prominance of something like the main two parties to have an influence. All they need is an important, relevant issue to make part of their platform. From there, they have enough influence to split the vote and endorse whichever party seems to be leaning closer to their stand on said issue. If the issue is important enough, I suppose this third party can one day blossom into a major third party but I don't see anything like that really happening right now.

The problems with you Max is the same problem I have with a lot of other liberals. You believe that we just don't happen to agree with what we listen to. You think we just latch on and expound everything they say without question. I question my resources on numerous occasions. I just so happen to agree with most of what Neil Boortz says. We disagree on a lot of issues. But I know you don't understand that becuase it tears into your sterotype of right wingers.

I don't have a particular steryotype of right wingers, which is why I can write back and forth with OAO, Eye Tie, El Blanco.

The only person currently here I cocnsitently make fun of and believe is a dogmatic blowhard human megaphone is you. Why do you think that is? Are the other conservtives here not REAL meat n' potatoes right wingers? Are you the only one? Then I deffinitely have no stereotype, because you're the only one I know. Why lump yourslef into a group when it might be Just Plain You I find thoughtless, rude, shallow, callow and moronic?

Hell, I find Boortz less objectionable than you, if only becuase he doesn't offend the english language. Go to Boortzs homepage today and you'll find a lead article there I agree with most of. Explain that. My guess is if you found that article in the Nation, word fo word, you'd say it was the work of a knee jerk, crybaby liberal. Once I asked you what your left wing sources were and you listed a bunch of web sites I'd never even heard of. Hell, you concider CNN Left Wing.

Where is the evidence of your thought process? In another thread, you as much as admitted the left has NEVER worked toward anything you agree with. I don't think you ONLY parrot what you've heard, I think you sometimes feel it isn't marginalized enough. Aside from your constitutional right to underwater handjob action, where do you deviate from the current republican party line? I already know where you disagree with Boortz. Pretty much every place I agree with him. You aren't just a right wing conservative, you're a HUAH, painted football fan, my team, kill 'em all let god sort 'em out' conservative.

Am I wrong? As you're so fond of saying, go out and prove it! Excpet when anyone throws that back at you, all you have to say is "I don't have to, I don't care" Is it shocking no one takes you seriously? Why in the world would they?

Come on Kelly, this isn't terribly hard. The question is "Do any of you see such an issue troubling the two-party system in the near future?" In order for a two party system to be 'troubled' there must be some threat, and in this context, the threat outlined by Kevin is a three party system.

"Third parties don't necessarily have to raise themselves to the prominance of something like the main two parties to have an influence. All they need is an important, relevant issue to make part of their platform"

Stupidity. What they need is to garner a voter base, which in my opinion, will never occour. Americans are politically disinterested, they don't support the two institutions already emplaced, why the hell would they suddenly be startled from their stupor for a third party? Issues are irrelevent at this point in time, and will continue to be irrelevent until they begin infringing upon the fat happy lives of the average citizen -by which time it will be far too late.

That was my point ... kind of. Even if there was a pertinent issue raised by some grassroots movement that jostled the fat happy lives of Joe Sixpack, I believe that one of the major parties would more or less just absorb the new concept as part of it's own platform and it probably wouldn't amount to much more than a "speed bump", so to speak. :/

Kevintheplantdestructor: Sentencing guidelines maybe?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/30/ju....ap/index.html

Hmm, I'd have to disagree. Do you think this issue, as important as it may be, could literally rip the nation apart, both politically and socially, as issues such as slavery, taxation, and silver have...?

I guess we'll never have geographic rips such as those anymore, because we probably aren't such a geographically minded nation anymore (well, with perhaps my current home of Texas as an exception :/).

Ror and Kelly, you both seemed to have a permiating argument that apathy has led to, well....apathy. But I think traditionally, issues such as this only caused rips when they DID in fact directly effect the lives of people. Slavery in the latter 19th Century, debt, coinage, and monopolies towards the end, these were things that altered the lives of Americans, be them slave holders, slaves, farmers, silver interests, etc.

So, I guess the point is this, to clarify my point: Is there any issue with enough magnitude to shake the apathy loose...? What about free trade, health care, or social security?? Maybe taxes?? And the activity doesn't necessarily need to be in the form of 3rd party activity, although it might be. Kelly, IMO, is right. Historically, it would seem that when a third party arises, it is either absorbed by the two majors, or it shortly dies out once their issue loses relevancy (ie. the "Anti-Nebraska Party", pre-version of the Republican Party).

Anyway, is America too far gone to care anymore...? Further, could this be a reason why the two major parties have become such stagnant institutions...?

You know, I have a buddy stationed over in Washington who was talking about the tax on cigarettes being like two bucks a pack if they are bought off base. He bitches everytime he calls, but it doesn't stop him from buying them. I think that is fairly typical of Americans today, all of us, we have a high threshold for bullshit. Most people just want to be left the fuck alone.

Politics
 

There are never enough Italians..... :evilletcherouswoman