When I was a child, 50 years ago, I was taught that govt spying on its citizens was what our enemies did, and it was what American values opposed, because America championed individual freedom and they didn't. Now I've lived long enough to see America become what we used to stand against.
Freedom in America has become little more than freedom to assent or not assent to having your personal life recorded by Big Brother. It doesn't matter which you choose - BB will record your personal life whether you want it to or not. Choosing to not assent will mean you earn more scrutiny by the central scrutinizer. But you have that freedom.
Slaves arguably have freedom to assent or not to being slaves. It doesn't matter which they choose - they're still slaves. But they can assent to it or not. That's the kind of freedom that America is telling us we will have to live with. ------- Now is when we need to enlist someone for the 2016 race who won't sell us out like this. If Hillary runs and gets the Dem nomination, or someone else who doesn't seriously (and really) oppose our govt spying on our personal lives, this fundamental issue will be lost.
On this issue, Obama has admitted that what he claimed to stand for when his original election was held aren't what his real positions were. The values he claimed to hold, aren't the values by which he's actually led America. Fuck him.
"Politicians are not born. They're excreted." - Cicero ------------ Remember - whenever we have a November election, and you don't like either major party candidate, you've already lost. You lost back in the primaries.
3rd parties always lose for president. In hundreds of 3rd party runs for prez since the Civil War, none have ever won. Only one (Teddy Roosevelt, an ex-president) has even come in second. The vast majority never even crack 1% - like the Greens, the last 3 elections. All 3rd party voting does, is splinter and weaken support for whichever major party is closest to the 3rd party.
Our "first past the post" elections forces us to have only 2 major parties. Our constitution was written before parliamentary governments started being created. Until our rules change, voting 3rd party is a "feel good" action that (sadly) has no practical impact. It is what people do, who vote to feel righteous, instead of vote to have a real impact.
The way to change America is to hijack and change one of the major parties. The threat to major party status quo that its controlling power structure can't fight is a grassroots challenge from below.
We need a Dem candidate in 2016 who will end US govt spying on its citizens. And not be lying to us about it, like our present White House excretia did. The 2016 Dem primary is what we need to win. Trapped in a world I never signed up for...
Message edited by junco - Friday, 2013/06/14, 3:13 PM
I completely share your desire for positive change, real democracy, and your disgust for the status quo of the two major parties.
However, I disagree with your conclusion. The major culprit of the isolation of possible "third" parties is the fact that people are uninformed, intellectually lazy, watch mostly corporate media, and are creatures of habit.
True progressive alternatives exist, but even well-intention people find every reason not to vote for them.
I wish you and all the others like you the best of luck in "taking back" the political game from the corrupt olygarchy of the 1%ers in charge of the two major parties.
I, on the other hand, will gladly vote for the Green Party rejoicing in choosing a candidate that fully represents my values. I know that most people will decide otherwise and that will actually keep the status quo going, but that takes nothing away from the Green Party or my choice.
Yes, LIB, I think on this matter, we disagree over strategy, not goals. I voted Green back in the late 80's/early 90's, and realized it remains a backwater of votes that never makes a difference. Here are the 32 most successful 3rd party runs for prez since the Civil War, since the present 2 major parties ascended to power. They're listed by party/candidate/% of vote garnered. The ones listed are only those 3rd parties that managed over 1% of the vote. Hundreds of 3rd party attempts didn't even manage to make 1%, like the Green Party, for the last 3 elections. In hundreds of tries over 150 years, none have won; none have even come close. 1864 - none 1868 – none 1872 – none 1876 - none 1880 – Greenback Labor Party / Weaver / 3.3% 1884 – Greenback Antimonopoly / Butler / 1.7% -------Prohibition / St. John / 1.5% 1888 – Prohibition / Fisk / 2.2% -------Union Labor / Streeter / 1.3% 1892 – Populist / Weaver / 8.5% -------Prohibition / Bidwell / 2.2% 1896 – National Democratic / Palmer / 1.0% 1900 – Prohibition / Woolley / 1.5% 1904 – Socialist / Debs / 3.0% -------Prohibition / Swallow / 1.9% 1908 – Socialist / Debs / 2.8% -------Prohibition / Chafin / 1.7% 1912 – Progressive “Bullmoose” / Roosevelt / 27.4% -------------(only 2nd place finish for a 3rd party) -------Socialist / Debs / 6.0% -------Prohibition / Chafin / 1.4% 1916 – Socialist / Benson / 3.2% -------Prohibition / Hanley / 1.2% 1920 – Socialist / Debs / 3.4% -------Farmer-Labor / Christensen / 1.0% 1924 – Progressive / LaFollette / 16.6% 1928 – none 1932 – Socialist / Thomas / 2.2% 1936 – Union / Lemke / 2.0% 1940 – none 1944 – none 1948 – States Rights “Dixiecrat” / Thurmond / 2.4% -------Progressive-Am Labor / Wallace / 2.4% 1952 – none 1956 – none 1960 – none 1964 – none 1968 – American Independent / Wallace / 13.5% 1972 – American Independent / Schmitz / 1.4% 1976 – none 1980 – independent (no party) / Anderson / 6.6% -------Libertarian / Clark / 1.1% 1984 – none 1988 – none 1992 – Independent / Perot / 18.9% 1996 – Reform / Perot / 8.4% 2000 – Green / Nader /2.7% 2004 – none 2008 – none 2012 - none
Insanity has been described as doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. 3rd parties have been tried hundreds of times, and never win. This is why I see voting for 3rd parties as a faith-based effort, not a fact-based vote. I see it as akin to supporting abstinence-only sex education - the idea appeals to some people, but doesn't work to curb unwanted pregnancies. And for those people it appeals to, no amount of reasoning will change them.
It's also instructive to recognize that in 1992, 3rd party candidate Ross Perot got nearly 19% of the vote. His signature issue was opposition to WTO, but he lost, and it was the OPPOSITE of his platform that got passed, with broad bipartisan support. The lesson here is that even 19% of public vote for a 3rd party is ignored with impunity by the 2 major parties.
In the last 3 presidential elections, Greens managed - 2004 - 0.10% of vote 2008 - 0.12% of vote 2012 - 0.36% of vote These were after the high water 2000 election, when 2.74% voted for Nader the Green.
There are no Green party senators or congresspeople in Washington DC. Green hasn't managed to send a single member to Congress. The fact is, both major parties write off a tiny percentage of 3rd party voters who won't ever vote for them. To vote Green is to have no impact, and be written off by those who win.
The Republican party held its first presidential convention in 1856, because the Whig Party (which had been one of the 2 majors) fell apart over slavery issues after holding its last convention in 1852. The Republican Party only became a major party AFTER one of the previous 2 majors collapsed. That same scenario won't happen again until either of the present repug or Dem parties collapses. History supports that will be when the next 3rd party will rise to prominence.
Those who ignore history's lessons are doomed to repeat its failures, over and over again. ---------- History shows that the political change we've had since the Civil War has always revolved around change to our 2 major parties, not from 3rd party victory. Lincon’s repug party changed to become McKinley’s, which quickly changed to become TR’s, which changed by Hoover’s time, which changed again by Eisenhower, which was different from Reagan’s, which was different from Bush’s. Jefferson's Dem party was changed by Jackson, which changed by Buchanan’s time, which changed again by Wilson, which was different from FDR’s, which was different from LBJ’s, which is different from Obama’s.
During all those changes, the only constant was, 3rd parties never won. 3rd party supporters are suckers for the fallacy that major parties won’t change.
In my lifetime, I've seen the repug party of Eisenhower, which always lost the south, become the repug party that always wins the south. And I've seen Kennedy's Dem Party become closer to Eisenhower's repug party, than the repugs are. Over time, HUGE changes happen to the major parties, as energized new guards take control from the worn-out old guards. Times change, and people do. Election and policy victory goes to those who best manage and wield the power of the 2 major parties, never to 3rd party supporters. The strategy for victory has always operated within the major parties, never from outside them. Over the last 35 years, repugs have better organized to pull the entire nation to the right, than Dems have organized to pull the entire nation to the left. Major parties are NEVER static; they always change to reflect who controls them. We lefties dilute our potential impact by splintering into factions more than they do. ---------- Regarding our differences in views, LIB, my interest is not convincing you to change, but to recognize how and why our views differ. That's where learning takes place. When I try to figure out why Green supporters ignore what history roundly instructs, I've come to suppose that it appeals to a certain type of personality, and no amount of pointing to the huge pile of historic evidence will change that.
Our difference here echoes conversations between Americans that are as old as our govt. We differ over strategy, not goal. We're both mouthpieces for views that Americans have been debating for centuries. I enjoy being part of that tradition with you, exchanging well-considered reasons for our respective views, and better understanding why we disagree. That goes for everybody; not just you.
And, thank you for your work providing this venue to discuss our differences. You're doing a wonderful thing with this. :-) Trapped in a world I never signed up for...
Message edited by junco - Saturday, 2013/06/15, 9:55 AM
Very well put Junco and thank you for participating in the discussion. I agree with you 100% on the fact that the 2 major parties are more than just odds on favorites to win elections and that the jockeys do change as do their riding styles. However, I disagree with you 100% on your assessment that the repukelicans have successfully tilted the nation to the right. In fact, the exact opposite is happening now.
The repukelicans did a fine job last November alienating most demographics. Afro-Americans, Latinos, Gays, Women and even Students. The problem is more so how they managed to tilt the democratic politicians to the right, not the people that voted in general.
Hope and Change is = to the American dream.... it doesn't exist.
3rd parties for prez HAVE been tried hundreds of times since the Civil War, and lost every time. Here's a list of some of them - http://www.presidentsusa.net/thirdparty.html Since the Civil War, it lists 79 people and 139 different 3rd party campaigns for the WH. And at the bottom, that page acknowledges it's only a partial list. There were also many other smaller campaigns. They were each serious efforts, consisting of many people who firmly believed in their cause and worked hard to win, but they never do. Most of the attempts listed didn't even manage to get 1% of the vote. The electoral college system that America has (which most other democratic/republics don't) prevents 3rd parties from winning here. Our system remains most stable with only 2 parties. I don't like it that way, and it's not what the founders intended, (Madison and Jefferson didn't like political parties), but it is what it is.
That page lists only 4 -3rd parties running for prez in 2012. But there were others. The Justice Party ran Rocky Anderson, and America's Party ran Tom Hoefling. Each of them got only 0.03% of the vote.
The Green Party has been running presidential candidates since 1996. Only once has it broken the 1% mark. In 1996, Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader managed 0.71% of the vote. In 2000, Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader managed 2.74% of the vote. In 2004, Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb managed 0.10% of the vote. In 2008, Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney managed 0.12% of the vote. In 2012, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein managed 0.36% of the vote. You can find a source for this information at the wikipedia page for the elections - e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012 You can change the year to bring up 2008, 2004, etc.
There have been times when the Dem Party has won and done good things - such as during FDR's administration. There has never been a time, in hundreds of campaigns, when a 3rd party won. I like the Green Party platform more than the Dem platform, but voting Green for prez was always casting a wasted vote, so I quit. I still vote Green on some undercard races, but not for prez because they always lose. Bad. Trapped in a world I never signed up for...
Message edited by junco - Sunday, 2013/06/16, 7:54 AM
Main 
