I am often amused by the blathering of holier than thou types who take pride in their being opposed to the two major political parties. They are a self proclaimed, principled bunch who believe that, those who do not run under their independent or third party name tag, lack principles. They feel that being a Republican or Democrat is what creates our problems and that all would be different if we only listened to them and adopted their perceived principles, under their group’s name.
I however, contend that these same individuals are naïve and leave something out of their conclusion. They leave out the reality of human nature.
I have long contended that it is not simply party affiliation which hurts policy, it is human nature. I have maintained that it is individual ego and personal benefit which steals away the potency of many principled stands.
Take the Libertarian party for example.
There are some on u4prez who would have you believe that their party is the only real principled party. They would have you believe that conservatives are sell outs and that the G.O.P. is a meaningless entity.
Yet despite the seemingly pristine principles which they believe they stand on, top Libertarians have abandoned the national party after they held a national convention which held no regard for that which Libertarians claim to stand for.
Last year’s Libertarian convention which nominated Bob Barr as their presidential nominee saw the party sell itself out.
Despite their opposition to many various federal laws. Libertarians nominated for President a candidate who incarcerated people for the very laws they object to.
Even though Bob Barr supported the Patriot Act, which Libertarians see as antithetical to their being, they supported Barr as their standard bearer.
There were many ways in which Bob Barr was diametrically opposed to what so called Libertarians represented. As a supporter of an Iraqi invasion, sponsor of foreign aid, aggressive proponent of the drug war and author of the Defense of Marriage Act, Bob Barr represented opinions that did not reflect a pristine interpretation of non-interventionist policies that kept our government out of areas of the world and our lives that Libertarians claim to believe it should not be.
Yet even though, Bob Barr was a contradiction of what the Libertarian party is suppose to stand for, I do not see u4prez Libertarians condemning themselves for maintaining their party label.
I hear little objection from u4prez Libertarians regarding Libertarian national delegates who elected Bob Barr to represent their cause as their Presidential candidate.
The decision did however lead many national Libertarian party members to jump ship. People such as candidate for the Libertarian Presidential nomination, Christine Smith, have stated “What I saw at the LP convention disgusted me. My illusion that a political party existed which represented libertarian principles is gone.
In a March 5th letter, Smith writes “The libertarian principles which made this the party for me have been abandoned. The party has become an end in itself, but I believe the cause of liberty trumps any party. Barr’s campaign will certainly attract more interventionists, more anti-immigration and more anti-freedom conservatives like himself to the LP, so the delegates may get their growth (and perhaps increased vote counts in November) they so eagerly seek, but the cost is that true libertarians now have no political home since the LP chose as its standard bearer a man who is the antithesis of libertarianism. No matter how the LP delegates and Libertarians who supported this may rationalize it to themselves, they sold out their libertarian principles”.
Many true believers of Libertarian thought have felt the same way. Many have joined with Christine Smith and abandoned, not the cause of liberty, but the cause of the Libertarian party.
Where did Libertarians go wrong?
The answer to that lies in what I stated at the beginning of this post. Human nature.
The desire to win often overcomes us mere mortals. The thought of having control and being able to institute our desired plans or policies often compels people to compromise or even sell out.
Is this justifiable?
Does winning, in politics, justify one ignoring one set of facts for another?
In politics that is not always an easy question. It brings into question what facts you are ignoring. It brings into question how important the art of compromise truly is. Does one consider someone who is an enemy 20% of the time but a friend 80% of the time to be a friend or an enemy?
These are questions that can only be answered by one’s self and for one’s self. It is called politics.
What there is no question about though is that politics plays a role in any and all institutions. Just as it did in 2008 when Libertarian delegates sold themselves out to nominate a candidate with relatively high name recognition in order to win.
Does this mean that Libertarians do not believe in their principles? Does it mean that they are all insincere.
The answer is no.
The same is true of Republicans and or Democrats. Politics and the combined effects of human nature have a way of diluting original intentions. I for one did not want John McCain to represent my party as its Presidential nominee. There were positions he took that I did not appreciate. Yet his positions did not change mine. His interpretation of the Republican party on all the issues did not change my interpretation of the party and it certainly did not give me cause to abandon my principles or the organization that I see as the best organized political affiliation for me to advance those principles through. It did not cause me to determine that a candidate that I disagreed with 35% of the time was worse than a candidate that I disagreed with 70% of the time
For me, continued vigilance in my beliefs and continued efforts to support those beliefs helps to bring us closer to a day when the issues become more clear and the answers become more convincing and obvious.
For me, the abandoning of one party because it seems that another party offers greener pastures for the cultivation of my beliefs is an exercise of futility.
Human nature does not make any one pasture greener than the other. Each pasture involves a certain amount of manure during its growth.
Each pasture maintains some of the same elements contained within others and such is the case with political organizations.
Human nature consumes the actions of any and all mere mortals regardless of party affiliation. That is why it is naïve for those who take pride in not being a Democrat or a Republican to think that America would be served better by their label than either of the two major labels. They are naïve for thinking that their institution will do any better, be less cliquish, more principled or more productive than either one of the two parties.
Their third party affiliation does not exempt them from human nature. Their independent affiliation does not change the need to build consensus or establish compromise agreements.
So the next time a holier than thou political participant tries to lay claim to ideological purity or political superiority, ask yourself this, if your party had power, would human nature not play a role? Would you abolish attempts to reach agreements with compromise?
Not having leadership or power affords one the luxury of speculating what they would do with power. However, being in power has a way of eliminating the luxury of speculation. It forces one to actually come through with results and see your position through.
A perfect example of how leadership changes ones intended action or their perceptions is President Obama whose administration, this weekend, made it clear that the American economy is sound. Back in October, candidate Obama was mocking President Bush and Senator John McCain for making that same statement.
Just the mere thought of having power even changes one.
The 2008 Libertarian convention proved that. The hope for power forced them to sell themselves out for a candidate who had higher name identification than others but defied some of the very principles that Libertarians claim to stand for.
Do these facts provide any legitimate reason for equivocating when it comes to ones beliefs? Not really, but it does give reason for those who are residing in glass houses to stop throwing stones.
|
http://christinesmith.us/wordpress/
Nah, not Kempite. A play on words? Certainly not from an upstanding citizen and a credit to his race like Kempite. Someone as honorable as him wouldn't have to resort to play games with people's names, would he? I expect things like that from a junior high school student, or Liberal411. Kempite is supposed to be the sole incarnation of conservative values, should we assume that one of those values is referring to candidates with penis references?
He either misspelled erock or is making a play on words.
I just want Kempite to tell us who this Ecock cat is.
Libertarians > parisan republican apologists like Kempite
Who's Ecock, Kempite?
Politics and the combined effects of human nature have a way of diluting original intentions. I for one did not want Bob Barr to represent my party as its Presidential nominee. There were positions he took that I did not appreciate. Yet his positions did not change mine. His interpretation of the Libertarian party on all the issues did not change my interpretation of the party and it certainly did not give me cause to abandon my principles or the organization that I see as the best organized political affiliation for me to advance those principles through.
In my time here I have seen maybe 4 repulicans and a whole plethora of Liberals, Remocrats, democrats, and just plain loonys. The people here argue in a circular manner proving the fact that "one who is convinced against his will is of his own opinion still". Nobody here is for repairing our nation they are for changing it according to their own opinion (no matter how assinine) of what the founding Fathers "really meant" discounting their wisdom and insight as "outdated". Like it or not We are based on Biblical ethics and morals. Unfortuanatly those are hate words now. So tell me who is predujedced?
Yet another attack, and more name calling.
I am seriously questioning spending anymore time here.
Yes or no Haster did nothing when the situation first came to light? Where did I say Bush for that situation? I never did. O and the page scandal was before I was on the hill their Kemp another lie. Vito was supposed to be a staunch christian republican conservative who ended up looking like a hypocrit. Actually I never claimed the US was always an isolationist nation so their is another lie. The fact is the GOP did oppose nation building under Clinton and Bush ran as opposed to nation building in 2000. O and your right the US under Reagan turned a blind eye when Saddam was using chemical and bio weapons in its war against Iran that worked out well didnt it? Kemp you can lie all you want your good at it as a politcal hustler who switches from one team to another trying to win just to keep power. In every election I have voted for a Republican untill 2008 when I refused to vote for a man who shared nothing in common with my belief system of limited government. You tried to help the man win. Your the slick used car salesman who tries puts a fresh coat of paint on the car trying to hide the fact that the car's engine is not working as well as it should.
After reading Grrrr's comment I also read ecocks's comment. That was a mistake. I ignore his inane, unsubstantiated, bloviations, knowing full well that he never makes either a coherrent point or a legitimate case. As usual he proved my point. With absolutely no basis for his diatribe, he tries to claim that the GOP was behind improper relations with a Congressional page. He even claims that Presidednt Bush covered it up. By his thinking, I can only assume, that as a recent congressional pee-on to a Republican congressman himself, ecock must have been involved in this sexual Republican scandal and conspiracy. Being the Republican pee-on that he was at the time, by his own logic, I must assume that ecock made the arrangements for all of Vito Fossela's clandestine rendezvous with his mistress.
Ecock tries to claim that the marital infeldity of a congressman was also a Republican plot. He tries to claim that for more than the past two decades, the GOP was an isolationist party. I guess our involvement in other nations, was all a hoax.
Ecock does everything except explain why he believes himself to be the only decent Republican that exists in America.
Ecock's problem is that he fails to connect any facts to his ramblings. He fails to articulate any core belief or any willingness to take a stand for those beliefs. That is probably why today he is a Republican,yesterday he was a Democrat and tomorrow he will either be a socialist or an independent. It is also why I normally disregard any words that follow his name. He is like an annoying pop up ad that is always pushing something you don't need or want.
Actually did I hit a nerve? Why didnt you vote McCain? O wait for the same reasons I didnt!
No, actually I wrote in "Micky fucking Mouse"not that it's any of your damned buisness kid
did u vote for McCain? yes or no? Nixon was a Republican who expanded the government's power. Thats a nice touch. And yes or no did Reagan nation build? Did he leave a large debt on his watch? Just admit to a mistake simply denying it does you no good.
Where by the way ave I ever said anything about McCain?
So good is never enough eh? I wonder what you would do? Nixon was a fair to middlin pres as well but folks only remember Watergate. Just like you have a selective memory. I pointed out morals you pull skewed history out. I remember those days well and I know what happened.
Actually I am a reagan baby. O and Reagan didnt nation build either. and Reagan was good but could have done more to fight the national debt instead of increasing it. And how is McCain someone I am sure you voted for like Reagan? He opposed tax cuts, and a host of other conservative issues. Actually before 08 the GOP was calling him a RHINO. Hmm and you wonder why he didnt get my vote.
No youngster, I support reagens kind of republicanism. you probably weren't even born then.
Umm yes or no the GOP in the 90s ran against nation building? Yes or no Bush in 2000 opposed nation building? And you can not refute the fact that the deficit under Bush increased yes or no? And how is McCain an old school Republican? Thats good for a few laughs. I oppose nation building, and I like to be fiscally responsable thats old school. This new school your the one who supports it not me.
You just proved the predjudece against anything resembling old school.
the neo-cons and the religous right pushed out the fiscal responsablity tyeps and non nation building types.
posted by erock on 03/16/2009 @ 7:35 PM
Thanks you just made my point in spades
Grrrr thats BS and you know it. The GOP under Bush increased pork spending, pushed marriage amendments, increased the defict, and covered up a Congressman who hit on Congressional Pages, and then we had Congressman Vitto a Christan man who was found to be cheating on this wife with an other woman and had a son. Its a trust issue of the GOP botched Katrina, Iraq, and Afghanistan to just to name a few issues. the neo-cons and the religous right pushed out the fiscal responsablity tyeps and non nation building types.
Why the kid gloves? eh? Racism in reverse perhaps? Why in your diatribes against republicans and their evils didn't anything like this get mentioned?
9 February 2009: Exactly 21 months ago, on June 9, 2007 I filed my last update on the murder case against a Dania, Florida Muslim man by the name of Abdelaziz Bilal HAMZE. At that time the vehicular homicide murder of Sandra Hall, a 44-year old mother of two, had resulted in premeditated murder charges being filed against HAMZE.
As you will recall, my original report related the following information. On Sunday night at about 10 PM on June 3, 2007, 24-year old Abdelaziz Bilal HAMZE (pictured at left), a naturalized US citizen from the Lebanon, rear-ends a Cadillac driven by Michael Williams with his white Dodge Caravan. Williams was in the process of pulling over to investigate a possible broken headlight when struck by HAMZE near Riverland Road on Route 441 while northbound in Ft. Lauderdale. Williams proceeds to follow HAMZE as he flees the scene of the fender-bender accident. The ensuing chase winds through at least one residential neighborhood before returning to Route 441 northbound. It is here, at a stoplight in heavy evening traffic, that Williams approaches HAMZE’s vehicle, he is joined by his fiancee and passenger, an incensed Sandra Hall. HAMZE begins to flee again, but this time Hall latches onto the hood of the Dodge Caravan and refuses to let go even as Williams unable to pull her off. HAMZE then accelerates to a reported 70 MPH as Williams sprints after the vehicle on foot for the next two miles. Sandra Hall looses her grip during this segment of the incident and falls under the Caravan, becoming wedged under the vehicle chassis and is dragged for most of the next two miles. Her lifeless, horrifically wounded body deposited by HAMZE’s vehicle in the middle of RT 441.
New reports indicate that jury selection for HAMZE’s trial begins today, with possible opening statements occurring this afternoon. What I find to be interesting is that in the interim of the past 21 months, the particulars of this case have been virtually devoid of any mention in media. Particulars such as the original premeditated first-degree murder charge have apparently been reduced to a second-degree charge. Of the two new reports I have seen on this case this morning, neither contains any of the relevant specific details of the original incident, and they effectively have reduce this murder case to a mere “traffic light altercation” with minimal, if any, mention of HAMZE’s fleeing the scene of the original hit-and-run and the traffic light stop because he feared for his life.
Other particulars from my original report included small details such as the fact that HAMZE not only conducted a vehicular hit-and-run, and then fled the scene of a cold-blooded vehicular homicide, but he then immediately fled the state of Florida by booking a flight from Ft. Lauderdale to New York City on Delta Air Lines Flight 88 with a connecting flight to Athens, Greece on board Delta Air Lines Flight 132. I doubt HAMZE planned to stop in Athens and intended to complete his flight from justice somewhere in Lebanon. All of this warrants the reduced charge of second degree vehicular homicide? Stay tuned.
Part of the problem is this arjay. The Gop has been taken over by young people who have very little moral compass in fact you will be crucified on the spot if you even mention the word "Morals" The compass is skewed those who claim to be Christian are evil people "Morals" are evil things. Family men who have more than the prescribed 2.5 children are evil, conservatives are racist and evil. You wonder why there is no GOP? we are now a one party country thats why. The NEW republicans claim that all the OLD republicans are evil,. In other words buddy all republicans are evil unless they conform to the liberal views of the new republicans who are really little more than "remocrats"
That is not to say you shouldnt honor Reagan the way the Dems honor FDR but we need a future. And Maditude has a point after 3 Presidents in the last 30 years now each leaving a bigger government and more debt the GOP has a trust issue.
Or the GOP simply clining on to Reagan. Pawlenty is right the GOP needs new leadership and new ideas.
Nobody's got it right, it usually takes about two or three elections for the independent to come out. In '88 I voted for the first George Bush for president because I was young and dumb and from Arizona, a Goldwater Baby. In '92 and '96 I voted for Clinton because I came to learn I was a liberal, and in voting for the lesser of two evils, I stayed inside the paradigm. In 2000 I voted for Nader, so you can blame me for Bush getting into office. 2004--Michael Badnarik, Libertarian. 2008--Barack Obama, running an atypically clean campaign, absorbing every nasty thing the Republicans were saying about him as a person, keeping his own remarks on his opponent's record. Had Obama gone as negative as McCain did, I would have voted for McKinney. That's a big one for me, the negative campaign, and that's all the Republicans have. Kempite really didn't answer Maditude question from before--what should ever compel him to vote Republican ever again? What should compel me to, when all I see is negativity?
LC..........there already exist such elections. There are many municipalities across America that are non-partisan. They do not run with party labels, yet they still have to participate in the process. They still have to gain ballot access and the fact of the matter is that even in those nonpartisan elections, "people" still organize along ideological beliefs. You can try to take the labels away but the same still exists regardless of what you call the players.
But Kempite, without those labels, I think that more regular people would have a shot at getting into office. The way it stands now, you pretty much have to kiss up to either the Dem or the Repub party leaders. Wouldn't it be better if candidates (and even potential candidates) had to appeal to more grassroots groups of concerned citizens instead? There really isn't a single party that appeals enough to me to join them - all require too much idealogical sacrifice, and aren't true to their own philosophies.
Anon......Where have I put my money on Bobby Jindal or any other single Republican? Where have I put any single Republican forward as the individual we need to base our future on? Perhaps you have me included with others who have stated that Jindal is our best hope, but I have not. That does mean that I write Jindal off as you do. I appreciate the good work he has done and continues to do for Louisiana. But you can try to claim that the party as whole is gone, as much as you would like to believe. That however does not make it true. You can wait for a few to lead the party in a direction that you want but I choose to do my part in leading not be led. I work towards the promotion of candidates whom I believe in like John Thune, Eric Cantor, John Kasich, Haley Barbour, Jennifer Beck, Jay Webber, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Bob Portman to name a few. I work towards defining my principles and the principles of my party rather than just being defined by others. You may be comfortable joining the ranks of those who give up and spend their time simply pointing fingers but I am not.
When I was 18 I was a virgin voter. I voted for hope and change. I voted for Carter. When I was 22 I was an angry voter. I voted for Reagan. When I was 26, I became a smart voter. I voted libertarian. You are definitely entitled to your opinion. Peace!
I am a conservative and did not miss anything. It proved to me, by what Newt Gingrich said and how he has acted, that he was pushed out. And he isn't even one of those hated Goldwater Republicans. I was a Republican since 1990. I look at the party leadership now and see nothing. You think that goofball Bobby Jindal is going to move anything. Even Kissenger is now special envoy to Obama. There is no separation of power or purpose in the Republican party. Like I said, its the other way around. The Bob Barrs of the world are leaving the party, because the party doesn't represent them anymore. I am not going to donate my time and money to promote Bobby Jindals goofass face to be the next Bob Dole, just to say that I tried.
Anon......Your advice is appreciated but it has little bearing on the adherance to the beliefs that I maintain and it has little bearing on my efforts to advance the policies which promote those beliefs. As for your reference to CPAC, you apparently you apparently missed much of it.
The CPAC conference of 2009 seemed to be devoid the big names and faces this year. Its seemes that the Conservatives are moving along without the Republican party. Newt Gingrich included. If there was any leakage of former Republicans into the libertarian party, its proof that the party members are choosing to leave and not the other way around. So Kempite I give you this advice. Hold on loosley, but don't let her go. If you kling to tightly, you are going to lose control.
LC...........all that would do is remove the label. It would not rid us of the need to build consensus. It would not rid egos from running amuck and prevent some people to angle for leadership roles. All that removing the parties would do is lead to the same struggles being fought under different names.
Maybe the answer is that we shouldn't have parties. Maybe it should be like how judges run - no political affiliations. We can have 2 parties or 10, and the problem is still going to be that their ultimate purpose is to divide the nation, forcing the choosing of sides, not unite it. Just a thought.
The GOP leadership shouldnt need a some other party for them to do the right thing. The fact is we are still waiting for our party leadership to do the right things. And the problem is even if they start to do it will the people trust them again?
Mad.....I am not attacking your party, I am merely pointing out a fact. But your rebuttal does prove my point when you say the Libertarian Party that nominated Bob Barr is not the same Libertarian Party of prior years. You hit the nail right on the head with that statement. It shows that with growth, comes influences that for good or bad, may change original intentions, but that does not neccesasarily mean that your intentions have changed. It does not mean that you will stop fighting for the Libertarian beliefs that you hold true to and it does not mean that you will stop trying to influence your party in that direction. As for your claim that I fear an organized LP, I do not fear it, I welcome it. I for one believe that a strong LP would help to force the G.O.P. to get its act together and streghnthen us. But the bottom line is as I originally pointed out, power and even the desire for power has a way of diluting any and all political institutions. Such as we saw when Libertarians nominated Bob Barr.
Again, this is where I'm going to disagree. The thought that all people and parties are corruptible is based on two parties having nearly universal dominance over every level of American government for 150 years. It's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the Republicans and the Democrats are corrupt to the core. We have not seen the same sort of behavior from the other two parties, so the argument that the Libertarians and Greens and others are prone to the same corruption is moot until they are put in the same sort of position. This argument that everyone is corruptible simply has not been proven in this country. The best way to prove it is to vote the Reps and the Dems out, put different parties in, and see what happens. Otherwise, this argument over the universality of corruption is a self-serving line the proven criminal parties use to smear the others, when the others don't have a speck of mud on them. Instead of your cynical conclusion, I'm going to turn it on its head and say it's the very reason why you should vote for alternative parties, give them a chance to prove whether or not they're corruptible. If you don't, we'll just never know, and the argument that power corrupts universally will forever remain worthless.
Kempite, if you had done your homework, you would have known that the Libertarian Party that nominated Bob Barr is not the same Libertarian Party of prior years. Barr (and his followers) seemed to have confused libertarianism with conservatism. Those who have been in the party since 2005 did not nominate him... At the Libertarian Convention in 2008, Barr only received 24% of the votes. If you include Wayne Alan Root's vote total in the first round (20%), that only gave the conservatives 44%. The difference between Barr receiving the nomination and Mary Ruwart was Mike Gravel and the deal that Barr brokered with him...
Kempite, if you didn't hear criticism it was because of two reasons: The first was because I did not have a computer between July and November and was not on very frequently. But the few times I was on I did criticize the LP for selecting Barr. I ended up voting for Charles Jay of the Boston Tea Party...
I was a Republican until 1996, when I heard Bob Dole suggest he would continue to spend at a higher rate than the rate of inflation. I joined the Libertarian Party and quit my federal job. I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and regretted it.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/maditude/2007/12/01/V
ortex-of-Freedom-Radio ...
Let's face it, the future of the Republican Party is in trouble. You can't call yourself an "open tent party" by pissing on the libertarian wing of your party... One reason why Republicans (and Democrats) are attacking the Libertarian Party like never before is because Americans are beginning to wake up. They see a Republican Party that is fiscally responsible when they are the minority party and fiscally reckless when in power. One trillion dollars of debt was spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. We accumulated an additional $3 trillion of debt on top of the $6.5 trillion Bush inherited and the $1 trillion from war. That's three trillion dollars more than collected from revenue. Domestic spending...
I will ask you this, Kempite: Why should I ever waste my vote on a Republican again?
Well power may curropt but sometimes we do need a changing of the guard.
Anonymous......I hold no opposition to any third, fourth, fifth or sixth party and their growth. I do however state fact when I remind them that they too will have to will have to, one day, if they catch on, have to contend with all that comes with politics. I make it clear that they too will have to deal with party members who do not see eye to eye to them on everything. They too will have to deal with a bad apple or two in their bunch. If you wish to interpret my making those facts clear,as a roadblock to all other parties than you have a misconceptions of your own. As for your attempts to belittle my political causes, all I can say is that I may not have been a part of as many epic political battles as you. I may not have had a hand in writing as much legislation as you have or have played a role in blocking as much bad legislation as you, but I am proud of those which I have had a role in. I am proud of every candidate I assisted in advancing the cause and every campaign that I ran to victory or tried to. And if the sacrifices I make and effort I exert on that and those I believe in is a "game", than score one for me.
erock, I do not see that Kemp is attacking 3rd parties, but rather pointing out that all parties are prone to the same selling out and disappointment that the two major ones often display. Power corrupts.
Kemp I think its funny how you attack third parties as the GOP came from a 3rd party. And whoever the anonymous is is right on the money. Your a political huckster who does anything even if its turing a blind eye to how much McCain didnt support most of what you believe in to try and ensure he won. I would point out that most of the rank and file Libertarians didnt vote for Barr either so maybe they are the not sell outs you think they are.
There is sociological evidence that permits a simply 2 party system. As in boxing, it would be pretty rediculous if you had 3 people fighting each other. One tends to root for the other guy. But that is all politics is about. And it shouldn't be that way. We should demand choice instead of casting that aside as something that is not political. Thats all you are about Kempite, is the politics. The Show Biz aspect of politics. All of these clowns fight each other on TV and friends with each other under those marble ceilings. They are like profressional wrestlers in front of the camera. And your participation in this system is nothing more than getting to see the wrestling match. You have been adverse to third party politics ever since you came on the site. Swatting the third party away like flys for bothering your flow. While in real life, which you so constantly uphold as a serious politician, is nothing more that being a ping pong ball for any Republican candidate that will take you. You don't believe in anything except the game.
The best way to test that theory is to vote out the two main parties, the ones which have dominated American politics for 150 years. It's sort of a self-serving argument to say ALL people in ALL parties are as dishonest and corrupt as the Reps and the Dems. I am all for that idea, just voting the bastards out, getting new blood, new parties, new names into power. We've seen what the Reps and Dems are all about. We'll never know until we try, what do you say?
Are you denying the competitive nature of human beings? Are you saying that the competitive nature of all human beings would be eliminated by switching political influence to a party that is not to the left or to the right? Do you claim that political parties are the cause of corrupt leadership. Because if you are, I must disagree. I believe that individual ultererior motives create corruption, regardless of party. I contend that it is human frailty which makes our system less than perfect and that regardless of the party name or the number of parties, the same problems will exist and the same compromises will be met and the level of corruption and diluted principle will still exist.
** This comment was deleted by kempite due to inappropriated content **
So exactly what is the reality of human nature? Are you saying that people have a fixed nature? I think most would say that human nature is not fixed. Having a counter culture rise up to become the broadly accepted norm has occurred quite frequently in history, so I would say that human nature is subject to many variables. Especially when their opinions are being influenced by corrupt leadership.
|
|
<< Home