Reponses to: Re: Are two parties enough?

POLICY & POLITICS

Currently 1.7
0
1
2

(45)

Dennis Kucinich

Uploaded on 12/19/2007

Description: The two party system is really a one party system," Kucinich says.

Transcript: No. No absolutely not. I mean two . . . The two-party system is really a one-party system. You can call it the Demuplican party or the Republicrat party. Take your pick. Everyone knows I’m telling the truth about this. You know at the top . . . You know look where we are. We’re at war. Both parties have supported the war, even though the Democrats have said, “You vote Democrat and we’ll get you out of Iraq.” Right. Here we are a year later. Both parties support the oil companies. Otherwise you’d have a windfall profit tax. Both parties support the insurance companies. Otherwise you’d have a not-for-profit healthcare system. So when you look at some of the key economic issues that Americans have . . . You know both parties support these multi-national corporations. Otherwise you wouldn’t have all these jobs lost. Now the mythology is, “Well vote Democrat and your job will be protected.” No, because the Democrats brought you NAFTA and China trade. So you know you . . . My candidacy is about changing the direction of the Democratic party. It’s about having a real Democratic party as opposed to a fake version of the Democratic party. And people know that their choices are being limited. So should there be more choices? Look, I’m a green Democrat. I’m an independent Democrat. In some ways I’m a libertarian Democrat because I stand up for people’s basic constitutional rights. Don’t forget, you know, Democrats in the Senate helped pass the Patriot Act. You know one candidate for president bragged then about how he was the co-author of it. So let’s have a real difference between the parties, and let’s have a real debate. If you don’t have that, we absolutely have to have more . . . more political parties.

Recorded on: 10/19/07

RESPOND TO THIS IDEA

Responses

SORT BY

popular | date

Re: Re: Are two parties enough?

gjdj3

I firmly agree with Congressman Kucinich. Our government was created by a group of people who had just escaped from a tyrannical leader. Their main goal when framing our constitution was to protect the rights of the people. What they realized was that one of the main enemies of working democracy was the forming of factions. Factions are small goups working for their own good, against the common good. George Washington was opposed to political parties all together. While he had views that were in line with the Federalists he refused to join their party. The party system is dysfuntional.

Re: Re: Are two parties enough?

7Millionaire7

I think the party system should be done away with as somone before said. The only benefits I see of the party system at the moment are that they seem to make it really easy for people to prejudge a candidate and assume their stances on certain issues. It seems to cause more trouble with those who don't align 100% with the rigidity of the two parties and stand somewhere in the middle of two extremes. I especially think our current political and social climate leads to more people being led in a direction than becoming informed and making their own decisions. Without parties, I think we could get a little but closer to open-ended thinking.

Do we really have a representative democracy?

andoscia

I've always been a strong supporter of Mr. Kucinich and I was glad to see him on this forum. The two party system is nothing more than pseudo-reality television. It has no greater value than does the television show Survivor or Big Brother. Yes, we could say that these television shows have a certailn, voyeuristic entertainment value, but for making judgments regarding who should being the most powerful person on Earth, I would rather that not be relegated to infotainment.

The the Republicrat party feeding from the corporate trough we really can't say that we have a democracy. What we have is something new. A corporatocracy. And there's no evidence that anyone in the Democratic or Republican parties is going to challeng that orthodoxy.

So we need a third party...and a fourth party...and a fifth party. We need an expanded debate in how to run our country. We need to re-think the very social structures that brought us to this level of political stagnation. We need a radical realignment of American Democracy.

As it stands, neither the Democratic nor Republican parties represent us, the common men and women, or our children. Instead, they represent elite interests. Well, if our elected representatives do not represent us, then can we say that we have a representative democracy? Of course not.

And what does it take to create a representative democracy? Political action from the bottom. Democracy is never a top down ideology. Democracy is the result of anger and agitation from the common man, shaking their fists and demanding social justice.

It's time to start shaking our fists in the face of power rather than waste our time who's going to win the "reality" television game known as American Election Year.

Re: Re: Are two parties enough?

TommyMac

As you have stated, this is not a two party system in this country, nor has there been in a long time. It appears to be a system of who is the "most popular" chip we can plug into the system at the end of the race that gets the nod. All tout that they will "change the system" but it is all rhetoric in the pursuit of "winning the grand prise" but nothing ever changes. Studies have shown and polititians prey opon political apathy from the masses. Most Americans want to be told sound bites and headlines to draw their opinions from, they want to vote for the person who is leading the polls, never knowing what it is that they stand for, we're convinced a single voice is irrevelent, so we go along with the crowd......and when things go wrong we quickly point to those in power and say that it is their fault

it is not....it is our own for alowing it to happen in front of us without question. Major media "journalists" shy away from asking the tough questions for fear of losing their spot, a pointed finger from the President to stand and lob a softball.......European journalists don't do this, and is the reason why the President is no longer interviewd by them.

We are to blame...we accept what we see as credible at face value assuming it must be true...after all they said it on TV. We vote for people to tell us what we wish to hear and ridicule those who tell us the plain hard truth ie, Ron Paul because taht would necessitate personal engadgement and effort....and we would rather watch TV.

it's our fault.....and until we can face this hard truth we will always get the same result.......

You see the writing on the wall........is this the legacy you wish to leave your children? We already appear to be comfortable with it the way it is for ourselves, even though in our hearts we know we are lying.

Are two parties enough?

politicaljunkie

Political parties are dead; they've been dying for many years. Since Kennedy, presidential candidates have run almost independent of parties, which has contributed to this trend. Parties were useful in organizing governing coalitions in a new nation; we now have other means of doing so, primarily the media and, now, the internet. Another important contributing factor has been the inability of parties to achieve anything. Consequently, most now believe not just that political parties can't do anything, but that they prevent doing anything. Presidential candidates increasingly will need to campaign across traditional party lines. This will include informal cooperation ("endorsement"?) of office holders in other power centers (e.g., presidential and congressional candidates) without reference to party. Essentially, it represents building an issue-based mandate that can be used to accomplish objectives in the brief window immediately after an election.

PAGE

Meta

Physical