by Newcomer
Your first statement (in your post #38) summarizing how I feel about this is a bit off (this is to Taxpayer). On a National level, I do feel that the political parties have separated themselves from the people they are supposed to represent. However, your second thought is not my conclusion about this; namely that “therefore the people can somehow be vanquished from taking any responsibility for their government.” This is an incorrect characterization about my position on this. In fact, I feel completely that the opposite is true. Because there is such a disconnect between the political parties and society at large, the people who are not part of this machine must come together collectively to exert their influence upon their elected officials and the political parties whom those officials represent.
Politicians like to tell us all about how they represent us when they are campaigning. But then they get into office and owe their party and so many special interests favors for getting them elected that the people end up at the bottom of the totem pole. The people need to stop tolerating this. We need to stop allowing our elected officials to put our interests last instead of first. And, no, I do not have much confidence that this can be done from the inside out (from within a political party). It’s too late for that. Both parties have grown too wealthy and too powerful and they are now locked in a power struggle with one another. This can only be done at the grass roots level, in my opinion.
You mentioned the tea party movement in a different post elsewhere in this thread. I think that movement needs to exercise caution at this point. I believe that over the summer when the town hall meeting were being held regarding health care legislation, that many regular people were turning out to both the town halls and the tea party rallies. But now, that movement is beginning to align themselves with Sarah Palin and there’s talk among tea party organizers about uniting to form a new, third party. To me, doing such a thing would be a mistake. They risk going from grass roots to mainstream if they officially become a party and if they align themselves with a Republican who is a controversial and somewhat polarizing figure. The focus needs to stay with the people.
In one sense, that is how Scott Brown gained all of the momentum that he did. Even though he is a registered Republican, he had a relatively small campaign budget in the beginning and conducted his campaign on a grass roots level by driving his personal vehicle all over the state to get out and meet people and talk with them. He got away with calling himself an independent even though he’s a registered Republican because he does have a record of working with the Democrats in the State legislature. And although not yet sworn in, he’s already told the Democrats in Washington that he is open to their ideas and he has told the Republicans that he owes them nothing and will vote as he feels is in the best interest of the people of his state, on an issue-by-issue basis, not based on pressure from a political party. I think that’s why people got excited about him and got behind him. He didn’t just talk about actually representing the people during his campaign – all politicians talk about doing that. But by his actions of using his own vehicle, not something a campaign (ie. political party or special interest group) bought for him, and investing his own time to drive all over the state and talk with the regular people, that showed a sincere committment to represent the people. It will be interesting to see how long he can hold out against the lobbyists, the money, and leaders of his party. I sincerely hope that he remains the independent thinker he appeared to be on the campaign trail and does not just fall in lock-step with his party, and does not become a puppet for special interests, nor a vote for Democrats to manipulate against the Republicans.
The Scott Brown that we saw during his campaign, both in his words and in his actions, one who seems to be an independent thinker and a fair-minded person, that’s the kind of person (though preferably he/she would be unaffiliated with either party) that we need more of to keep both parties in check. I just hope he can actually be the person he held himself out to be and remain so now that he’ll be swimming with the sharks in D.C.
NC,
I think you are missing my point altogether. My point was that perhaps the political parties have become what they are because people like you have failed to involve yourself on any level with them. The same will occur with the Tea Party, as you suggest, if it’s ownership is left to political pundits. So whether you involve yourself in the Republican Town Committee, the Democratic Town committee, or the local Tea Party does not matter, so long as you involve yourself on a substantive committed level. Let me know when you do. If not, then please, don’t complain about them.
There is a new facebook group forming called “Woodstock Ct Courier” dedicated to the Town of Woodstock. Just starting. If you are a facebook member and interested, please join.
Tax,
And my point is to disagree with your point. This errosion of the parties’ representation (again, on a National level) has been going on since just before the turn of the 20th Century at least. At this point in time, it’s too late. The system that they operate in must be overhauled to remove the influence of special interest money first and foremost. Then, maybe people from within would be able to effect true, lasting change. Aside from that, I believe the only way to motivate both parties to change back toward making the people they are supposed to represent the #1 priority, is to support grass roots candidates and movements that are interested in reforming the political system and for the people to band together collectively with the power of their vote to send a clear message that the voters will withdraw their support of any more candidates who tell us one thing and then do the opposite. I believe that this was the message that Massachusetts voters sent. First, the Republicans were sent a messge that the majority of voters did not like the way things were handled in the last Administration. The voting majority gave complete and total control over to the Democrats. Promises were made. And now a year into the new Administration, some voters are beginning to feel that those promises aren’t going to be kept and in Massachusetts, the message was sent that the voters still want change. If you promise to bring change and do not deliver it, you’re outta there. It was the Independents in Massachusetts who turned this tide primarily.
You seem to be saying that getting involved in the status quo of the present system is the only way to change it. I am saying that I do not believe that to be the case. I believe it can be changed from the outside if a grass roots movement, or candidate, can gain the kind of attention, support, and momentum that Scott Brown gained during his campaign.
Primarily, I am complaining about the unwillingness of the two parties to clean up their own house.
NC-
But your logic is flawed. Scott Brown did not run as an Independent. He ran as a Republican. And while the independents vote may have secured his election, he, as a Republican party member, helped to shape his party into something that represented more than just the status quo (which you wrongly accuse both parties of). Under Mr. Brown was a host of like-minded Republicans who “got” the message being sent by the people and created a campaign based on this platform.
So while the Tea party may take some credit for making this message heard, it took a team of people working in the Republican party to actually make it happen.
So sure, we all have an impact when we voice ourselves loud enough, but we can also have an impact within a party when we see to it that the people’s message is heard and then acted on by the party.
Tax,
I watched some of the excerpts from Scott Brown’s campaign speeches a few weeks before the election. If you listened to his speeches, he played up being an independent voice and down-played being a registered Republican. He certainly didn’t deny he was a Republican, but I did not get the impression that he focused too heavily on it either when I listened to him. Here’s an example. This link is to the “about” page from his senate campaign website. It gives a lot of info about his background and certainly the things that he stands for are part of a Republican platform, but the word Republican is omitted. so no, I do not feel that my logic is flawed.
He’s a pro-choice Republican. So what does that mean? By your reckoning, he shaped his Republican party into something more moderate (heading toward liberal) than the status quo of his party’s platform.
I think this spports my line of thinking moreso than yours. Here’s the link:
http://www.brownforussenate.com/senator-brown
Yes. I have heard and seen much of Scott Brown’s speeches. He knew he had to get the independent vote in MA in order to win, so there was a moitve. However, he did moderate the party in the process…much like any one can if they were to get involved.
That’s my whole point, but I can see we are getting no where with this as it is becoming a matter of ego with you.
Standing at the sidelines hoping that your complaining will cause a shift in political thinking is fine. Call it “independent” if you will, but I believe there is a better way.
Tax,
It’s not a matter of ego. I have been speaking about being proactive, just not proactive in the mainstream process. Attending rallies supporting grass roots efforts and grass roots candidates is not standing on the sidelines. Working on a campaign for an independent candidate is also not standing on the sidelines. If a registered Republican or Democrat attends a rally for a candidate of one of those parties, would you consider that getting involved? I would. I would likewise consider it getting involved in regard to a cause or candidate who is not a member of the Republican or Democratic party.
We’re getting nowhere with this because you seem to have tunnel vision. It’s as though you feel that joining a political party and trying to change it from the inside out is the only acceptable method to effect change. That makes no sense. Sometimes real, effective, lasting change starts well outside the mainstream. If change only came from within the conventional political system, we’d all still be colonists over here trying to convince a British monarch and Parliament to let us govern ourselves. Think about it.
Tax:
You need to show us the way. Please. You more or less tell folks to “put up or shut up” but I haven’t seen you put up.
On the other hand, you do manage to get some of us to keep replying.
JK-
Cop outs and now cheap shots?? Come on, how about an opinion instead?
Newcomer thinks that complaining and attending rallies is a substantive way of being involved (I wish she would tell that to all of our Woodstock volunteers who put in endless hours on committees and political parties.) She seems to believe that her lack of involvement in any particular party earns her the right complain about them and then dismiss them as being eroded.
My point is that perhaps the apathetic lack of involvement in the political parties by the American people, as exemplified by Newcomer, is what has led to the opinion that they are eroded.
For this, NC tells me I have tunnel vision and that with this attitude we would still be colonists under Great Britain.
What she forgets is that our founding fathers who fought for this freedom created a government by the people and for the people…with the expectation that the joyous priveledge for living in such a great country would move men and women to actively serve in protecting it… and not just complaining and rallying against its bumps and curves when they see fit–or worse, sitting on sofas, eating doritos, and watching TV while others take care of it.
Your opinion JK?
I have to agree with Newcomer saying “Tax, you still don’t get it” – I also have to speak out, Tax – and suggest that your disparaging statement about how Newcomer “forgets…that our founding fathers who fought for this freedom…etc.” – seems an unfair statement, without basis and inappropriately judgmental.
I don’t think Newcomer forgot any such thing, but is actually expressing notions that the Founding Fathers envisioned as one viable, honest and sustainable form of government and governing – I’ve heard that George Washington believed that the formation of competing Political Parties was a bad idea (I don’t know if it’s true). I believe that part of Newcomer’s message to Tax is ‘You seem to be stuck because you believe our ideas are mutually exclusive.’ I don’t see how that Newcomer is focussed on “just complaining and rallying” – but is trying to say something much different and the idea doesn’t fall into some negative category by default. I don’t mean to put words in NC’s mouth, but wanted to help break up this frustrating logjam…
Certainly there is far, far too much division in this nation now – more than I’ve seen and at it’s worst it’s reminiscent of McArthyism – like when Ms. Palin and her ilk talk about who is or is not a “True American” and when Right Wing radio shock jocks assert that liberals are literally ‘enemies of Liberty’ who endeavor to tear down fundamental constitutional notions in favor of the unilateral imposition of socialistic government BY the Elite OF the unwashed.
This Judgmental element is where these dangerous fear-mongers lose me. There is no proper place in this country for such ‘Judgementalism’. When I hear these knuckleheads asserting that selected American Citizens are in fact fundamentally unpatriotic and are agents of an Anti-American movement whose purpose is to destroy America as we know it, I lament that they are lost – there is no longer any way to engage them in any kind of meaningful, open debate. I realize that, having made up their closed minds and having literally judged these other Americans as NO ONE has the right to do, they have actually come to represent a kind of enemy to Liberty themselves – specifically because it seems that they would unilaterally deprive U.S. Citizens of rights granted by the Constitution and recognized as ‘natural rights’.
They truly are Fear-Mongers because if they really believe what they preach then it seems that, IF they had the power and capability, they would ‘defend the nation’ by defeating their opponents – their ‘enemies’ – The Liberals. It sets up tremendous fear to consider that American Citizens actually consider large groups of other American Citizens true ‘enemies’.
Tax,
Newcomer never said that volunteering on local boards is not being actively involved. Newcomer implied no such thing. You invented that line of thought and falsely attributed it to me. I have repeatedly stated in my comments that I was speaking in terms of the political parties on a National level. No wonder why I repeat myself so much – and it STILL doesn’t sink in.
You are making an erroneous assumption that lack of involvement in a political party automatically equates to apathy. I am saying that while apathy may be a reason for some to avoid participation, so is dissatisfaction with either/both parties, party partisanship, and/or the degradation of the 2 party system’s motivation to represent the people over the special interests.
You will never convince me that the only way to fix a broken system one finds distasteful is to join said system and try to change it from within. The collective voice of the people is the most effective means of bringing about change – as exemplified by the recent election of Scott Brown; not because he’s an establishment Republican, but because he emphasized his “independent voice” as the mantra of his campaign.
You are failing to recognize the same thing that the Democrats are failing to recognize with Brown’s election. Independent voters made the difference in determining the outcome of that election. They chose the more independent and less partisan, party-line-walking candidate of the two. I’m not the only one who is fed up with partisan games. Tell the independent voters in Massachusetts who turned out on 01/19 that they are apathetic because they think that voting is doing their part, when really, they should all choose up sides and jump into a political party.
If that’s your position, you might be interested to know that your comments would make George Washington do backflips in his grave.
In his farewell speech in 1796 he said:
“All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
“However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
Indeed, the founding fathers most certainly created our government to be by the people and for the people – ALL people in America; even the ones who don’t want to join an established political party.
Newcomer,
I’ve for many years struggled with a similar question, how to get people to the polls?…(see Kevin’s new article. Admin).
is it too late to interject that Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Madison and countless other founding fathers owned humans as slaves; these men controlled every movement of many peoples lives. Our dear F. fathers’ fear of insurgency that might be enacted upon them by small groups (slaves) was very real . . A fear that existed for very good reasons.
Life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was the attainable goal ONLY for a finite group of white men who owned property — NO ONE ELSE COULD PARTICIPATE at that time in our great democracy. A democracy that we now, no matter what color, race or income, can continue to pursue happiness within a one person/one vote system of democracy. We question, pull apart our nation at the edges, rail against the injustices, we also go to the polls. All of which is, the point of democracy. I doubt that Washington and his fellow INSURGENTS foresaw all this. They mostly sought freedom from an oppressive Monarchy.
Newcomer,
Take a deep breath and re-read my comments to you. Go slow and try to keep an open mind. You are grossly misinterpreting what I have said. When you have done so, please reply to me in five sentences or less. (In your typical back handed way you are mis-characterizing people. Keep it up and you will no longer have a voice at the Cafe. Admin)
Con,
You have it backwards and upside down. Newcomer is the one being judgemental and I am merely calling her on it. When she forfeits her right to be involved in either of the two political parties which dominate our great country, she also forfeits some of her credibility in passing judgement on them. (In your typical back handed way you are mis-characterizing people. Keep it up and you will no longer have a voice at the Cafe. Admin)
Nary,
Excellent point…which is all the more reason people need to involve themselves in our political parties-lest special interests supercede those interests of the greater good of this country. Would you agree with this or am I totally off base? We’ve obtained the right to participate, why forfeit it??
Con, a classic story to highlight your point. Several years ago at the height of failure in Iraq, I was at a party where I got into a debate about the “war” with a couple of hard core republicans. They labeled me as unpatriotic and not a true “American”. As you could imagine, things got heated at that point.
The really funny thing about it was that I was the vet, they have never served their community as even a soccer coach for a day in their lives. I did things that these people would have never done. But yet, they were somehow more patriotic because they followed the republican party line. The fact that I dared challenge the republican party line, I was no longer a patriot, no matter what I had done to lay myself on the line. Somehow, sitting in front of their TV eating potato chips was more patriotic than service to this country. The republican party has become corrupted by these fools.
Dean,
If you believe that the Republican party is being corrupted, then wouldn’t you think that more people should consider getting involved so that they can help regain and renew the party? If we shrug our shoulders, turn our backs, and walk away, what does that accomplish? Sure change can come from the outside, but wouldn’t it be best to secure it from the inside as well?
Nary,
Obviously the founding fathers got it wrong with slavery. They weren’t the only ones who practiced slavery, but it was an atrocious practice for all who engaged in it. I’m not sure what the correlation is between slavery and political parties. I think that George Washington’s assertions about political parties in the comments I quoted from him above are turning out to be accurate.
Dean,
While I don’t believe that military service automatically means one’s opinions are the The Right opinions, it sure does add weight, credibility, etc. When it comes to your illustration/anecdote, your military service (Thank You!) flat-out TROUNCED those fool’s argument. It is the classic ‘How can you say you support Troops when you won’t support War?’ (and we’ve all seen the assertion that ‘supporting War means supporting The U.S.A.; failure to support one is failure to support the other’ – ludicrous and, BTW, an UN-American line of reasoning).
I recall the frenzy of American Flag display following 9/11 and how anyone ‘caught’ not displaying a Flag (a Lapel Pin or the equivalent) was also JUDGED to be Unpatriotic – in a country FOUNDED on notions of equality, tolerance for all views and freedom of speech. The irony of it all was shameful – that all of the sudden there were Americans judging Americans, deciding who was or was not a Patriot – we have no right to do so and it was a dark period in this Democracy when so many failed to see that Judging others is contrary to the very principles on which this Nation was founded.
Tax,
my point is that any way one chooses to participate in a political system is legitimate and commendable. NO one method of participation is better than another. All have merit and carry inherent promise for desired change.
NC,
my dander got up with your founding gov’t as one for “All people” in America.” I get weary of the conservative flag waving about our Founding Fathers who can be viewed as a small group of insurgents that invested their time and intellect toward their own interests with no authentic meaning of freedom and happiness for ALL. Women and slaves were chattel, we should remember this. The Southern F.F.’s were NOT considering freeing either their slaves or their wives. I don’t think you or anyone else should dismiss slavery as, “oh that.”
In my reading between GW the 1st’s lines I see a well founded paranoia based on many things going on at the time . . the bloody brutality of political horror in France . . plus any outnumbered slave holder’s position who knew daily that they could be over-powered (with good reason). A Fear of group activity. Most small groups with political clout fear other small groups with potential for the same. Slaves did organize and carry out uprisings that shook the foundation of a slave holder dependent upon the institution. A fear of group activity.
Actually, I tried to remain neutral in this back and forth in support of you and Tax. Change comes from all corners and in all forms and by ALL people. That’s why the USA is a far better democracy NOW than when Washington lead the charge seemingly (from depictions in paintings and prints) off the back of his horse.
Con, agreed, military service never means that one is right (look at Tommy Franks, Westmoreland, MacArthur and we could keep working our way throughout history). But to be labeled as unpatriotic by people who have never done anything is a classic example of the “rightists” view of themselves.
Note that these people had no problems sending other people to a war. (They were too affluent for anyone in their families to be “foolish” enough to join the military.) They also didn’t want to pay for it. They were in full support of it just as long as they didn’t have to make any sacrifices, and the sacrifices would be passed on to other families and children.
Nary,
I don’t disagree with you one bit. I’m not jumping on the conservative, flag-waving, founding-father-touting band wagon because I do not feel that the founding fathers were perfect and beyond reproach by any means. But likewise, there are some on the far left who seek to demonize the founding fathers and I disagree with that as well. I feel about the founding fathers as I do about most people and issues. I look for the middle ground because that’s usually where the truth lies. I find truth gets lost in extreme fringes in either direction.
I do not dismiss slavery as “Oh, that” so please do not mistake me. Quite the opposite. It’s a sin that it ever took place anywhere, but especially here in a country founded on freedom and equality for all. You rightly point this out. I did dismiss it for the purpose of my discussion about political parties. I simply didn’t see why it would be relevant to the exchange that Tax and I have been engaged in.
If you interjected it to make the point that I should not quote George Washington because his acceptance of slavery discredits him, I would disassociate the two. I find him and the founding fathers quite credible as pertains to politics because they established what remains the best form of government in the world, flaws and all. As pertains to slavery and women, that’s a moral discussion, not a political one in my view. And as you say, there is much room for criticism of so many self-proclaimed Christian men denying God-given freedoms to anyone who wasn’t a white man.
Nary,
I agree with you. I am not suggesting that one must join a political party to make a difference, however, what I take issue with is Newcomer criticizing the parties that she has never been involved with in any substantial way. I’m afraid that much of what is wrong with our political process is that people like Newcomer don’t involve themselves in it.
Instead they opt to take an emotional “populist” stand on the issues rather than rolling up their sleeves and doing the hard work.
Tax and New C,
I think you need to accept each other’s thoughts and feelings and try less hard to be right all the time.
Tax,
I am involved. I’m probably not as involved as some people in town and I’m definitely not a member of either party, but I am involved. I’ve mentioned my involvement before in other comments here at the Cafe so feel free to look back on them if you don’t believe me. I’m not here to toot my own horn. Your insuation that I’m some kind of complainer who does nothing to take action and get involved are off-base. The bottom line is that I do not agree with you that one must be a member of a party in order to be actively and constructively involved in the political process. Take it or leave it.
Maybe you’ll accept criticism of the political process from someone you may find more qualified to complain:
“It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.” – Ronald Reagan