Is there a need for another political party????

tian

Star
Registered
I just want your opinions on this matter.

In the past couple of months, I have been fighting off attempts by both Republicans and Democrats to join their parties. I was looking into the Republican party, but, dangit... it's too conservative for me. There are still too much of a "slavemaster" mentality for me to join. I mean, I can't stand some of the rhetoric here in the South, including the whole Dixie flag controversy. Plus, there's no sympathy for the inner cities, at all.

Now, the Democratic party makes me sick with this out of touch reality and loose moral ethics that are championed in their party politics. I mean, it kinda goes without saying that if you believe that God intervenes on behalf of humanity in the 21st century then you are too stupid to belong in the intellectual elite of the Democratic party. The elitism is nauseating, and it's hurting blacks because it seems that all they have to do is throw us some lip service and a couple of bones and they can count on our celebrities and leaders to sing and dance to their music.

So, on the one hand, you have blatant racism, On the other, you have blatant elitism. And black folks are hanging in the balance.

Of course, I've looked at those "Fringe" parties (Progressive, Libertarian, Green, etc.), but they are either a one issue party, or a party so crazy and extreme, that you wouldn't possibly want your name attached to it.

So, what do you think? Do we need new parties or what?


tian
 
tian said:
So, what do you think? Do we need new parties or what?

For what???I’m not surprise that we are not properly represented. Their constitution was not written with us(blacks) in mind. Dude wrote “All men are created equal.” while owning 200 slaves.
 
There are a thousand party's covering a thousand issues already and they all pretty much suck. Politics is like religion in a way, it's always vulnerable to being coopted by the most extreme or exploitative at the top while the masses of good normal people suffer or deal with "guilt by association". What I'd really like to see would be non-party, issues driven elections (but that would take massive campaign finance reform and the near dissolution of the two major parties). It would also mean that voters would have to take a more active role in their governing since they may have to weed through 50 candidates to find the right one. The candidates would have to address REAL issues instead of grasping on to one or two fake issues or catch phrases (Bush - gay marriage, Clinton - war on drugs) and the voters would have to decide what was important to them (I mean honestly, WHAT THE FUCK WAS "A THOUSAND POINTS OF LIGHT" OR "MORNING IN AMERICA" ABOUT). The current system is lazy, the voter wants to hit a button every four years (if that) and the politicain wants to make a few speeches and cash checks.
 
I think the new party should be called the Realist Party. No bullshit gimmicks. If you want better laws, a better life and a better country you cant get it with the crap the DemonCrats and the Rept-publicans are pushing. Those parties are so out of sync with modern America. They are extreme polar opposites there is no middle ground at all. I hate politics
 
dont blacks have a YEARLY income of 600-700 billion dollars and already have about 40 members in congress? why do we need to latch onto yet another white party.

how many different ways are we willing to be fucked with no vaseline relying on whites?
 
I agree, both of the present major parties have detestable extremists. There are a multitude of detestable "other" single-issue-crazy parties out there. A "Realist party" sounds good, but what is one man's realism is often surreal to the next (its just rare for a significant number of people to agree without a fatal divergence). A party of our own sounds good, but do we have the numbers, under the present system, to elect candidates at the national level (outside of our majority enclaves) ???

Of course, our present numbers in congress is mostly due to those majority enclaves and we probably wouldn't lose much there -- but would we gain any ??? Maybe/not. More importantly, would a Party Of Us attract others than us and would that be necessary to successfully shaping issues we believe to be important ???

Tian, good topic.

QueEx
 
You know, it would indeed be scary for the powers-that-be if African-Americans actually came up with a party that was centrist in agenda, but varying in viewpoint. I mean, a party that encompasses liberals, conservatives- but consistent with a centrist theme.

But, do you know how incredibly difficult that would be?
For instance: What would be the Foreign Policy? What about Defense? Domestically, what would be the view on education, taxes, and others?

What would be the views on Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice? Gay Marriage? Or, would it have a "who cares?" attitude... because many people does have strong views on those subjects?

Affirmative Action- Of course, it will be in favor of it, but in it's current form?


But, you know what? It may be kinda fun to come up with some basic policies. Shoot! If we, as members of this forum could come up with policy that we could agree with, then, I am sure a political party could come out of it.


But, is it possible that we could actually come together?



tian
 
LOL, tian. That would be unigue (Black) and difficult to form (Black) but otherwise not new. What you've described is the Republican and Democratic parties. Both contain most, if not all, of the elements you mentioned. The only difference is how could one run off the extremists of either of those parties. ???

QueEx
 
Why do you need to run them off? Sometimes, in order to get the true Centrists view, you gotta have extremists on both sides to be of one party. For instance, if you have a party that has delegates that believe that the Morning After pill should be administered in public schools discussing the issue with those who believe that abortion is murder to set and establish a party's agenda, then you just may get to the center.

Remember, in all of us, there are some extreme views.

This is not without precedent. The Republicans controlled Georgia in various times during the 1860s and 1870s- even with people being hung and shot for voting Republican in the South. And there were Republicans in the party that believed in Slavery. And the Democrats outnumbered Republicans in Georgia, and had wealth because they were mostly plantation owners.

How did they do it? They came up between themselves a centrist view between two extreme viewpoints.



tian
 
tian said:
Why do you need to run them off? Sometimes, in order to get the true Centrists view, you gotta have extremists on both sides to be of one party. For instance, if you have a party that has delegates that believe that the Morning After pill should be administered in public schools discussing the issue with those who believe that abortion is murder to set and establish a party's agenda, then you just may get to the center.
I think we disagree over how the middle is formed. You may be right, but I think it takes a hellava lot more than mere debate to form true centrism. What you're saying (as I read it), is that the middle is a result of struggles between opposing extremes -- a compromise, if you will, of ideas. I, on the other hand, believe that centrism results from a certain understanding of reality, a moral value system that includes tolerance of others, practicality, and temperance.

Rather than being a compromise of extremes, centrisim itself causes extremism to compromise towards temperance and practicality. Of course, this may be a chicken and egg (which came first) argument, but I think there is a difference.

Remember, in all of us, there are some extreme views.
That I can't deny and it goes against my argument. Nevertheless, I think some people are raised up as centrists (perhaps a reflection of maturity of their parents) and others become centrists by maturity. But, you're right, there are deviations left and right, some of which may be extreme (at least by someone's definition).

This is not without precedent. The Republicans controlled Georgia in various times during the 1860s and 1870s- even with people being hung and shot for voting Republican in the South. And there were Republicans in the party that believed in Slavery. And the Democrats outnumbered Republicans in Georgia, and had wealth because they were mostly plantation owners.

How did they do it? They came up between themselves a centrist view between two extreme viewpoints.
Frankly Charlotte -- I think they were both extremists. The compromise or difference between the two was not of benevolence for us, it was one side trying to triumph over the other on issues not related to who we were, but what economically we represented -- with us in the damn middle. There wasn't a dime's worth of difference between them, really.


QueEx
 
Good subject Tian,
There are enough political parties out there,what blacks need is to form is an Economic Party (same party THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN FORMED BY PEOPLE FROM OTHER CULTURES)
1 that will teach us how and where to spend our yearly est billions +, collectively or in economic groups established all over the country.
An economic party that will teach us how to execute basic money management.
An economic party that will guide us in owning our media (TV & Radio) and having CONTROLS over what is shown and spoken.
Start or join an investment group. Become active.
Guess who I think have the powers to implement this? Black pastors, (who have 85% of our folks under hynopsis) but i don't think majority of them will implement this becuz they need to bling and outdo their fellow pastors, unless Martin Luther King comes from his grave.
Yes, individually,some of us do teach money management and basics to our family but not on a widescale.
Our insatiable desire we have to impress other people with materialism is crazy. It is not what we ride in,live in or wear that determines wealth but what we are left with after subtracting our debts from our assets.
Good topic..
 
Zero said:
There are a thousand party's covering a thousand issues already and they all pretty much suck. Politics is like religion in a way, it's always vulnerable to being coopted by the most extreme or exploitative at the top while the masses of good normal people suffer or deal with "guilt by association". What I'd really like to see would be non-party, issues driven elections (but that would take massive campaign finance reform and the near dissolution of the two major parties). It would also mean that voters would have to take a more active role in their governing since they may have to weed through 50 candidates to find the right one. The candidates would have to address REAL issues instead of grasping on to one or two fake issues or catch phrases (Bush - gay marriage, Clinton - war on drugs) and the voters would have to decide what was important to them (I mean honestly, WHAT THE FUCK WAS "A THOUSAND POINTS OF LIGHT" OR "MORNING IN AMERICA" ABOUT). The current system is lazy, the voter wants to hit a button every four years (if that) and the politicain wants to make a few speeches and cash checks.

I feel this is a very accurate accounting of the current political climate. In short, apathy. That is the biggest enemy because it opens the door to the few who have the desire to corrupt it. What I find funny is that for years we celebrated the two party sustem in this country, as it was unique. Now that the newness is gone, now we may "need " more. While I do not feel that we should be limited to two (which is actually quite rere in American History, as we have had other parties in vougue through the years), we will have as many parties as the majority of Americans work for. No more and no less.
 
JUju2005 said:
For what???I’m not surprise that we are not properly represented. Their constitution was not written with us(blacks) in mind. Dude wrote “All men are created equal.” while owning 200 slaves.

This fatalistic approach does not help, and in my opinion, is childish. First of all, you don't HAVE to be Black to properly represent a black electorate.

Second of all, much of the undervoting (the percentage of eligible voters vs. the percentage that actually votes) that occurs has to do with apathy.

Third, if you allow your line of thinking, what the hell is the use ? why not just give up? lay back and bitch and moan all day ?

Well, I won't do that, as I feel it would be an insult and betrayal to those who fought, suffered and died for these rights. Holla.
 
Fuckallyall said:
This fatalistic approach does not help, and in my opinion, is childish. First of all, you don't HAVE to be Black to properly represent a black electorate.

Second of all, much of the undervoting (the percentage of eligible voters vs. the percentage that actually votes) that occurs has to do with apathy.

Third, if you allow your line of thinking, what the hell is the use ? why not just give up? lay back and bitch and moan all day ?

Well, I won't do that, as I feel it would be an insult and betrayal to those who fought, suffered and died for these rights. Holla.
Good points all. I would like to add, however, in addition to " you don't HAVE to be Black to properly represent a black electorate" ... the reverse, you don't HAVE to be white to properly represent a white electorate, is equally as true, but less accepted. Black people have been voting for white people all our lives -- while white people have been far less receptive to applying the commutative property of <s>addition and multiplication</s> <u>voting</u>.

QueEx
 
QueEx said:
Good points all. I would like to add, however, in addition to " you don't HAVE to be Black to properly represent a black electorate" ... the reverse, you don't HAVE to be white to properly represent a white electorate, is equally as true, but less accepted. Black people have been voting for white people all our lives -- while white people have been far less receptive to applying the commutative property of <s>addition and multiplication</s> <u>voting</u>.

QueEx

The reverse goes without saying, Que. But there have been very noticable diffirences (Barak Obama being the most recent example).

I see less and less reliance on race and more and more reliance on "morals" lately. FYI, here in Maryland, the LT. Gov., who is black, enjoys much cross societal appeal.
 
Fuckallyall said:
The reverse goes without saying, Que. But there have been very noticable diffirences (Barak Obama being the most recent example).

I see less and less reliance on race and more and more reliance on "morals" lately. FYI, here in Maryland, the LT. Gov., who is black, enjoys much cross societal appeal.
Bro,

There are always "Exceptions" -- but I don't believe whites voting for Blacks, in a race where there is a choice, is any where near. By now, all candidates being relatively equally qualified, you would think race wouldn't matter, as much. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to see the numbers which show whites vote for black candidates where the Black candidate is as good or better, all things considered, as the white candidate. Show me the numbers.

QueEx
 
We need to bring this party back:

black%20panther%20party.jpg
 
<font size="5"><center>In Southwest, a Shifting Away From Party Ties</font size>
<font size="4">A growing number of voters are going independent, especially in the Southwest, a trend that could lead to more competitive races</font size></center>

New York Times
By KIRK JOHNSON
Published: October 24, 2006

SHOW LOW, Ariz. — Political parties are like cowboy boots in many parts of the West. If one pair doesn’t fit, you try on another.

Hal F. Butler is old enough to remember when the boots here in Navajo County were overwhelmingly filled by Republicans, and then, beginning in the late 1940’s, how the county turned Democratic. Mr. Butler became a Democrat in the 1950’s at the urging of his mother, a staunch Republican who said the Democratic Party was the party of the future for an ambitious young man.

Now Mr. Butler, who is 81 with half a century of elected and appointed office behind him, including a stint as Show Low’s mayor, sees an emerging third wave: the age of the independents is here, he said, and his own family is shifting along with it.

“The independent vote is swinging everything,” he said. “They’re going to be the powerhouse.”

Nowhere has the shift been more pronounced in recent years than in the Southwest, where Republicans have enjoyed an overwhelming advantage since the days of Barry Goldwater. Here in Arizona, people who reject the old major party labels are by far the fastest-growing category of voter, with the number of independents doubling over the last 10 years, to more than one in four.

Numbers like that are the stuff that ulcers are made of for party regulars and election prognosticators, who are trying to figure out where the new independents are coming from politically or geographically and where they might hang their hats on Election Day. No one is fully confident. Anxiety is high.

“Arizona has always had an independent streak, but these new voters are of all stripes,” said Garrick Taylor, a spokesman for the Arizona Republican Party. “They’re going to be a wild card.”

But if the trend toward independent voters continues — and there is no sign of faltering — experts say it will lead to more competitive races not only on local and statewide levels but also in the presidential election.

As the Nov. 7 elections approach, the whole idea of party is in flux in many parts of the nation as candidates and voters reassess the connotations — in baggage or benefit — of party association. Some office seekers are omitting their party label on their lawn signs, and some dwell at length on the stump on how much they disagree with their own parties on issues like the environment or stem cell research— all to look more unaffiliated in order to lure the independent vote.

Closer elections and more balanced war chests, meanwhile, in races across the nation are elevating the role of independents regardless of their numbers — and changing as well the strategies of how to reach them, even as they turn their noses up at what the two-party system has become.

“The first message they’re sending to us in the political world, and to general public, is ‘Don’t assume anything,’ ” said Michael J. Frias, director of campaigns for the Arizona Democratic Party.

Who the independents are is probably the first assumption to discard, politicians and researchers say. Polls by Arizona State University, for example, suggest that younger voters who no longer see the relevance of party membership are one of the largest engines of the growth.

But here in Arizona’s First Congressional District, the growing number of independents — about 23 percent — is compounded by a surge in newcomers, especially from California and the Midwest.

A spokesman for Representative Rick Renzi, a two-term Republican, said many of the new independents were libertarians who rejected party just as they rejected intrusion by government. A spokesman for Ellen Simon, Mr. Renzi’s Democrat challenger, said that the independents could not be pigeonholed and that the only reasonable campaign tactic was to talk to them — and talk and talk.

“With the independent voters, you have to talk to them more often, with more frequency and be as specific as possible,” said Brandon Hall, the campaign manager for Ms. Simon.

In other races around the country, courting independent voters has coincided with a feeling that party affiliation of any kind this year could be toxic. In New Hampshire, where independent and third-party voters account for more than 40 percent of the electorate, Representative Charlie Bass, a Republican, has run television advertisements proclaiming how different he is from his party.

In Colorado’s closely fought Seventh Congressional District outside Denver, lawn signs for the candidates — Ed Perlmutter, a Democrat, and Rick O’Donnell, a Republican — mostly carry no party identification. About one in three voters in Colorado are independents — in the Seventh it is even higher, 37 percent.

Some election experts are skeptical about voter statistics and say party registration as counted by most states is a poor measure of the electorate. Massachusetts, for example, has rules that encourage strategic registration, since independents can vote in any party’s primary. Most national surveys have shown little change in the numbers of self-described independents since the late 1970’s, but the polls tend to ask about ideological preference rather than actual party registration.

But here in the Southwest, the shift away from major party affiliation has been pronounced. Of the seven states with the fastest-growing proportion of independent or third-party voters from 2000 to 2004, four are clustered in the Southwest — Arizona, California, Nevada, and New Mexico, according to Election Data Services, a nonpartisan consulting company that tracks election information. New Hampshire had the second-fastest growth after Arizona, followed by Florida and Maryland.

And the changes in voter registration have coincided, at least in the West, with a decidedly positive turn for local Democratic candidates in states where Republicans had been dominant, either by history or in number. Four states in the eight-state Rocky Mountain region — Arizona, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming — now have Democratic governors, up from zero in 2000. And in Colorado, Bill Ritter, a Democrat, has led Representative Bob Beauprez, a Republican, in most polls going into next month’s election for governor.

Arizona had the fastest growth in the nation in no-party and third-party registration from 2000 to 2004 among the 25 states that count party numbers, up to 25.5 percent in just four years from 14.7 percent of the electorate, according to Election Data Services. Nationally, the ranks of the independent rose by 21 percent in that period among the 25 party-counting states, compared with a 7.4 percent increase for Democrats and 5.5 percent for Republicans.

Meanwhile, Republicans of Western libertarian bent have chafed as their party has held ever more tightly to the morals-based agenda of its Christian evangelical wing, said Ryan Sager, author of the recently published book “The Elephant in the Room,” which chronicles the libertarian-evangelical tension.

California, with Democrats dominant but independents rising in number, also has a moderate Republican governor in Sacramento, which suggests that perhaps nonparty voters are not tilting Democratic at all, that the only certainty is that they have rejected the old labels.

“The Western image of the small-government, leave-me-alone conservative no longer fits into the modern Republican Party,” Mr. Sager said in an interview. “And the Democratic Party is not as scary as it used to be.”

Experts like Mr. Sager say that places like Navajo County, about three hours northeast of Phoenix, are a natural breeding ground for antiparty sentiment because party labels have always been a bit artificial, reflecting local culture more than ideology, and are therefore easier to shake off. Between the 2000 election and last month, the number of independents here rose from about 15 percent of the electorate to 22 percent heading into the November elections, according to Arizona secretary of state’s office. Shifts like that are getting politicians’ attention all around the country.

“Politics has become a winner-take-all game played at the expense of ordinary citizens,” said Ben Westlund, a state senator from Oregon who resigned from the Republican Party this year to run for governor as an independent. But Mr. Westlund withdrew from the race in August because he said he did not want to be a spoiler candidate who would skew the election.

The deepened sense of polarization in American politics is also making the independent voters’ journey harder. As recently as the 1970’s, for example, many voters told pollsters that they would vote across party lines for a presidential candidate they liked. They have become much less likely to think outside the box in the years since, said Robert Y. Shapiro, a professor of political science at Columbia University.

Here in Show Low, which was named for a turn of the cards in an 1800’s property dispute between two ranchers — low card takes all — hardened partisan orthodoxy is exactly the problem. “Both parties are out for themselves,” said Greg Butler, Hal Butler’s son, who grew up a Democrat but changed to independent in 2004 and said he was supporting candidates in both parties this year. “I think you’ve got a right to do what you want and a right not to be labeled — I like that,” said Mr. Butler, 56.

His son, Dusty Butler, 26, skipped the Democratic phase entirely and went right to independent when he registered for the first time. He plans to vote mostly for Republicans next month, he said.

“I asked Dad a lot of questions, and it made sense to me,” he said.

Some Navajo County residents say that because lots of Democrats have voted for Republicans over the years, and vice versa, the divisions between the parties are not as pronounced here, which makes it easier to abandon the idea of a party at all.

Other people say the major parties have simply made people angry.

Hal Butler said that some of environmental protection rules under the Clinton administration, including restrictions on mining, ranching and forestry — the big three traditional industries here in Navajo County — were not popular, to say the least. But Mr. Butler said the Republicans had made no friends by promising to reverse the Clinton rules and mostly failing to follow through.

Mr. Butler said he had kept his Democratic Party membership, for now, in support of his son Gary H. Butler, a Democrat who has been the elected Navajo County sheriff for the last 18 years. When Gary Butler retires in two years, Hal Butler said, that obligation will end and he will quit the Democratic Party and turn independent.

Gary Butler, 60, said he, too, planned to resign his party membership upon retirement, though he was not sure where he would go.

“Right now, both parties are way too far apart and nobody is looking out for the good of the people,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/u...e21945fcdab&hp&ex=1161662400&partner=homepage
 
This "shift" cannot happen fast enough for me but shifting to an independent doesn't mean much if those major parties to vote for are the same getting the votes.

These parties sole people for existing is to fleece the American people out of their land, property and tax dollars. They go into office poor, and retire with so much loot and living so damn well it's just unbelievable. Then they craft laws that keep you in a box, tax you into poverty and do it under the guise taking the wealthy and you vote them into office to do just that. DUMB ASS if you need something I'm the only one selling it, drugs, heating oil, cars and shit, who do you think I will pass those higher taxes onto? Most people who live on minimum wage or just above it pay NO taxes now. So why would a politician tell you to come vote so they would tax the wealthy? Because they know the pool of people paying those taxes in the form of higher gas, heating oil, telephone taxes is your dumb ass. But he got you thinking you won't get touched. That's some magic trick.

Those same voters who thought two dollars an hour was going to spring board their asses off the rooftops in New Orleans into that deluxe apartment in the sky. It is a lie to keep you electing them to continue to make millions for themselves and their special interest investors.

My solution would be to evict ANY and ALL politicians that's been in office longer than 10 years. Take your punk ass back to civilian life and leave Washington alone.

-VG
 
<font size="5"><center>Independent voters don't help</font size></center>

Denver Post
By Al Knight
Denver Post Columnist
Article Launched:11/01/2006 01:00:00 AM MST


As the nation lurches toward next week's election, there is still no answer to this pressing question: Are independent voters less informed and more easily manipulated than those who have declared a party affiliation?

Independent voters make up about a third of the total, and a huge amount of campaign cash is spent on television ads wooing them. It's true that all those nasty ads seem to be aimed not at the voters who have a party affiliation, but rather at the people who don't give a fig about partisan politics, people who most often haughtily claim to "vote for the person, not the party."

Recent studies show that the effect of negative advertising on those with a party affiliation is most often to deepen the existing party affiliation. In other words, Republicans, seeing a negative ad about a Democrat, will side with the Republican and Democrats will do the same thing in response to a negative ad about a Republican.

But not everyone agrees on what happens when these same ads are shown to independent voters. Almost by definition, they start each campaign without a prior position and so seem more susceptible to ads that produce a strong emotional reaction. The independent voter, lacking a strong tie to a party or policy position, may respond viscerally to ads that make them feel proud or optimistic or, conversely, to ads that make them feel angry or fearful.

That, at least, is one of the conclusions of a Stanford University researcher who was also intent on avoiding harsh characterizations.

Using his own data and observations, it is easily possible to put his observations in more stark terms, for example: Independent voters may not have either the time nor the inclination to form lasting conclusions and policy positions. Because they have avoided detailed thought about issues, they are especially free to respond to the mood of the moment or to what they perceive as fashionable trends.

In this particular election, they may, for instance, be persuaded that the tide is running in the direction of the Democratic Party and they need only decide one thing: whether to hop aboard the bandwagon or not.

While political scientists have gone to a great deal of trouble in recent years to map the ways that certain groups respond to various forms of communication, their research has barely scratched the surface when it comes to understanding the independent voter. About the only thing they know for sure is that television ads have a different effect upon them as a group than on the affiliated voter.

A half century ago, President Harry Truman said that when Dwight Eisenhower used the power of television to win re-election in 1956, it was the first time in 148 years the approval of the president didn't carry over to congressional candidates of the same party. Television had given birth to the era of the independent voter. In the five decades since, it has only gotten worse.

Candidates for public office now typically resort to negative advertising earlier in a campaign, presumably in order to help create indelible initial negative impressions about their opponent. It has also been shown that these ads have the deepest effect on those who are poorly informed. Gender doesn't seem to matter, although there is some evidence that the older the voter, the more likely it is that he or she will be skeptical of all negative advertising.

This year, there are enough independent voters that they may well decide the outcome of the elections. Wouldn't it be a good start if the mass media abandoned the impulse to praise the independent voter at every turn as somehow superior to those who belong to a political party?

Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post's editorial-page staff. His column appears on Wednesdays.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_4581055
 
The only way for democrats and republicans to step their game up is for more people to vote for a third party. As long as people have the "lesser of the two evils" mentality, things will never change. There's only been a couple of times in U.S. history that an independent party has had major political clout. Teddy Roosevelt, with the Progressive party and the Populist party. Then Dems and Republicans adopted many of their stances.
 
This thread seems more relevant now than when it was first started in 2005.

QueEx
 
Back
Top