2000-2016: R.I.P. GOP and Democratic Party

[Jed Dilligan]

I'm talking about the best-case scenario: we control Congress starting next week and the White House starting in 2008. For once, total Democratic control of the government.

Maybe it feels good to gloat as we watch the GOP splitting into paleo, neo, theo, and pure tax-cut factions. But will it be any different for us? Once we attain power, do you think our factions will sit still for whatever the bosses try to do?

Especially with the bugaboo of the GOP dismantled, I seriously doubt that we can achieve unity. Some of us will be immensely disappointed when the Democratic Party in control fails to end all our overseas military engagements, when it keeps fighting the vampiric War on Drugs, when it distances itself from the cause of gay rights, and when it fails to pass any meaningful new antipoverty legislation. The rest will tell us to shut up and wait. Structurally this is the same as the disappointment of various GOP factions with the ruling neocon faction, although of course we are right and they are wrong.

A neoliberal Democratic regime will lose its base, when instead of a monolithic GOP we are faced with an array of right-wing parties. Those of us who hold our nose and vote "D" out of sheer puke-o-phobia will either stay home in even greater numbers (making the very "democracy" of the system questionable when participation dips into the 20s) or, the better solution, form new parties.

All in all I think this would be a good thing. Moderates could take heart that former partisans will be forced into coalitions. Progressives could take heart that our causes will actually be represented by elected officeholders. There would be some real right-wing loonies sitting in Congress, as they do in some European parliaments, but they wouldn't have the amount of control they do now.

Am I wrong? I'm sure someone thinks so and I look forward to hearing why.

[keta11]

1. More like Republican Congress 1994-2006 R.I.H.

- Rot in Hell

[Jed Dilligan]

3. Well, yes, but I'm looking beyond that

What are we going to do with the country once we get it back?

[Mojambo]

2. The only way we can form viable 3rd, 4th and 5th parties

Is if we shift to a parliamentary system. And that doesn't seem possible to me without basically tearing up the Constitution and starting over.

[Jed Dilligan]

4. Because of the electoral college?

Or something else?

[Mojambo]

5. That's a big part

But as I understand it (and I'm no scholar) the whole structure of our government is two party centric. I just don't see how 3rd party candidates get anywhere in Congress when it's basically a winner take all system.

[Jed Dilligan]

12. Actually, with the houses split right down the middle,

a few "wedge seats" in between them will wield a lot of power--especially if they become a small bloc.

[Mojambo]

13. Yes, but all the committee chairs go to the majority party

The law that gets made will still be made exclusively by the majority party.

[Jed Dilligan]

14. I'm almost at the point of hoping

that NO new laws get made--seeing as all the new legislation is surrealistically terrifying in intent and scope. A little obstruction might do us good right now.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Your theory is accurate in inverse proportion to the size of our majority

If we have a razor thin majority and are hounded endlessly by the Republic Party, your theory may well hold true.

As out marjority grows and as the Republic Party loses sway, you'll start to see some movement on the issues you mention.

But you see, here's the **real** issue: The country is what it is and is the mood of the country that will, in the end, determine what is allowed to move forward.

I think the country is more conservative than many wish to believe. I'm not at all saying the country is as right wing as the government is now, but it is more conservative than many on DU (to try to establish a relative comparison).

[Jed Dilligan]

7. I guess what I'd like is for representation

to be more local. I don't like being in a party with war supporters, homophobes, and drug warriors. Most people where I live don't either. I would like to send someone to Congress who actually represents my views, instead of someone less unrepresentative than the other choice. There are people across the board politicially who feel the way I do. Wouldn't it be more democratic to have more parties?

[mrcheerful]

8. If you look back to the turn of the last century you would see that we are in another cycle

of religious fear mongering. Thats what brought in the republican party of Herbert Hoover and the corrupt, Nazi loving republican party that put corporations ahead of we the people, with the same results. Unemployment, crime, drug running and gang banging. The fundies are running out of steam and will once again disappear back out of sight to start another breeding program to insure the next fundie out coming america will become the United States of Christ.It runs in cycles, dooms day seekers, religious zealots, power hungry politicans mixing together and then fighting amoungst themselves when things don't point to the second coming. If you notice, this election cycle the fundies are strangly quiet. Humans are creatures of habit.

[Jed Dilligan]

9. Didn't the Bull Moose party of 1912

split off the progressives from the Republicans, leaving them essentially a big business party?

[mrcheerful]

15. Yep, TR was fed up with what he saw going on in the puke party.

But the new pukes fooled enough voters into thinking that they were still the party of Lincoln right up to HH and 1929.

[depakid]

10. IMO neither major party survives peak oil

Both have been negligent and complicit- and when people start really hurting and the economy goes way south, it'll be fertile ground for third parties like the Greens- or maybe some other coalition.

[Jed Dilligan]

11. That's true

When Mama Nature comes home to roost, we're going to have a lot of hungry and thirsty people looking to fire their "leaders" in a resounding way.