Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Are political parties better described as "cults" or "factions"? George Washington called them 'factions'. You?

But mainstream media ignore context and pique our emotions along party lines and care nothing for sound, respectable journalism.

The more emotionally-charged are the People, the less seriously we take our responsibility to restrain government - the only task entrusted us by our founders to maintain self-governance.

For over a year, we've become a nation of crows and sheep: attacking one another with noise yet perfectly submissive to government.

Look at the answers to this question.

Notice the nature & name of the avatar:

As for the media, watch the video link below and explain where it's wrong:

Youtube thumbnail

Are we walking through life with or eyes 'wide shut'? Face it, folks: We've been corralled. The least we could do is accept it.

Your thoughts?


9 Answers

  • TLB
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    We are unlucky we are forced to choose between two groups. What if I like a third party candidate? Many voters don’t vote for a third party because they feel it would have no effect. Parties are conducive to this feeling. Just as two parties is better than one party, it seems to me that many parties are better than two parties. In places like Israel, with 20 or so parties, where they have to form coalition governments, it allows the voices of more minor groups to get heard. It more accurately reflects the will of the people, don’t you think? Following that vein, infinite parties, or in other words no parties, is the ideal voting situation. True, the voter may have to think more and actually look at the candidates instead of voting for a party, but I think that is a good thing.

    Power tends to corrupt all human institutions, but the U.S. Constitution and its balance of powers has worked well to deal with corruption or abuse of power. The two-party system plays a real role in this process in debating issues and exposing self- interest. To a remarkable degree, we have enjoyed a self-correcting system. Now, however, the special interests have found a way to avoid this self-correcting system. They have taken over both political parties. They advance their coercive agenda by electing all or most of those who make the rules. It does not matter whether someone is a Republican or a Democrat - do they support and defend your particular interests?

    They can often pass and stop legislation at will. Their actions are becoming increasingly blatant. Lobbyists' campaign checks are being handed out on the floor of Congress. What better symbol of how corrupt the process has become? It isn't the validity of your cause, but how you work the system. We use the resources of the uncomplaining many to satisfy the complaining and self-interested few. Eventually, this is a political Ponzi scheme that is bound to crash.

    This dilemma seems to be beyond the reach of the normal political process. The U.S. Constitution is still an effective document. We still have two major political parties. The problem is that there has developed an end-run strategy which controls public policy through election laws, party rules, and special interest money. Our problems are more with our funders than our founders. It is not our Constitution that is flawed, but this end-run strategy that has developed to elect, fund, and lobby all our elected officials. We cannot express the national will because we cannot get around those with a special agenda. It is Thomas Jefferson's ultimate nightmare: Alexander Hamilton's "economic elite" has taken over both political parties.

    The first step in solving a problem must be to correctly identify the nature of the problem. As Abraham Lincoln observed, "The hole and the patch must be coterminous." We have an institutional problem more than a political problem. Both political parties are for sale; both are hopelessly compromised by special interest money. Our political institutions, instead of being part of the solution, have become part of the problem. Only a new party, unencumbered by the past, can take the money out of politics or reduce its caustic influence. Real political reform will require a Constitutional amendment allowing limits on campaign spending, or possibly publicly funded campaigns, and nothing short of a political revolution will garner the needed political support. The Republican and Democratic foxes will never adequately protect the henhouse. The historic solutions have themselves become the problem.

    There is an important distinction here. There will always be special interests; they are not inherently evil. Madison, in Federalist No.10, observed they were integral to democracy. However, when they change their modus operandi from argument and logic to buying political influence, it is time to act. They must inevitably exist; they do not have to inevitably control the process.

    The vacuum still exists and is growing. American politics is not driven by ideas or idealism, but by organized special interests. Confidence in the existing political system is low and will likely move lower as both parties use the hearings in Congress on campaign reform to expose the opposing party. Time is not a friend to the existing political parties. It will be hard for the public to regain confidence in the existing system. When both political parties have the same disease, it is unlikely one of them will be the cure.

    There is a natural coalition out there for a new political movement. Take the pro-choice Republicans and the economically realistic Democrats and you have the core of a new party—the fiscally responsible Democrats and the socially progressive Republicans. Lop off those who have no faith in government and those with a blind faith in government, and organize the remainder. Most Americans neither want to dramatically extend the power of the federal government, nor dismantle it. The center of American political opinion is ripe for conversion. The need is great—and the time is now.

  • 1 decade ago

    Although I found the YouTube tape very interesting, I'm afraid it ignores some pertinent facts. I have no idea how many total internet users there are, but I would be willing to bet that by far the majority of them don't look for information on politicians. All you have to do is look at the ratings for television as a whole. Who gets the highest ratings? WWF or the Lehrer News Hour? In addition, there are as far as I know of no statistics on the amount of people who do not use the internet at all. Thousands of people use the computer merely for playing games and sending email. The people watching TV news programs want something simple. They don't want an in depth analysis of our problems or the solutions to them. Even if there are hundreds of thousands of hits on Ron Paul's stuff, that's a mere wisp of the number of people who aren't searching him. In fact, the fact that he is searched for more than McCain or Obama reflects the fact that those searching are looking for more information than that provided by the national media. When you add to that the poison of the Electoral College system, it's highly unlikely that a third party will ever have any chance at all of coming to power.

    A cult demands a commitment that most voters do not have to either party. If they were committed, people who claimed to be in favor of fiscal responsibility would have been screaming for years about Bush's abuse of the system. If they were committed to social issues, they would have been screaming for eight years about his signing social bills and then refusing to fund them. I wouldn't even class them as factions. As far as I can tell, they are just name identifications of the way people see themselves in our society.

    As to the other question, I have seen thousands in the last 8 months claiming the same thing about one issue or another. In almost every case, it was a simple Google procedure to find them multiple media reports on the topic they chose. People still insist that the media has a political agenda, when all it has is a commercial agenda. They show what people watch.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I'll take cults for 500, Alex. I just have too much respect for this nation to watch it go to the lowest bidder. And this time you can own it and its on me.

    There aren't many things I can say I really love outside family and faith. But we're so lucky we should kiss the ground every morning when we wake up. Instead, waste every morning kissing up to parties. We Americans are about the only people I can think of who should look at the genius behind our government the same way an architect looks at the parthenon or the way an art lover sees a van Gogh painting.

    It's hard to read the Constitution and not love everything about it. This time, s'ME'e, it's me that Love Hurts. It hurts to watch this thing brought down by something a five year old could think of. Only there aren't many five year olds with enough money to make it work.

    I hope TLB is right and that time isn't on the side of parties. Not that I don't like parties; I just don't like political parties.

    I think Love Hurts everyone who has read the Constitution and sees what is happening now.

    Youtube thumbnail

    Love hurts. But it sure makes us fight for what we love.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, they are Factions, as Washington used the term.

    They are not the government, yet most adherents to the parties think of them as such.

    They have special protected status in various ways nationwide, which lesser Factions/parties do not enjoy, which helps ensure that the two current major factions will always be the major factions.

    Neither discusses the Constitution to any significant extent in any campaign, particularly when making promises to do things that exceed it.

    There's more difference between a California orange and a Florida orange than there is between the two major parties.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    He!! IF! Sure, the media is giving it their all to sculpt the US into their own little notion of heaven, but that doesn't mean you have to settle for their brand of reporting. Even Fox buried Ron Paul, but the counter for that is to campaign in your own areas, to knock on doors on your own dime and wise up your neighbors, and anyone who might remotely be classed as such. He can't afford to pay you, but if we could make the Revolution a reality by 2010, he'd have help, and maybe enough people with a clue that he would stand a prayer of being elected in 2012, to keep the ball rolling downhill.

    And what to do about the MSM? Boycott them, just like you would a gas station that sold you watered fuel. Or a restaurant whose pasta put you in the hospital. Poison doesn't half cover their betrayal of the American people, and I for one, am ready to see them pay through the nose for their perfidy.

  • 1 decade ago

    That's how I see it. They may have been factions in Washington's day but today they are cults as much as some of the religious cults are.

    I laughed at the answer that there are a separate set of rules for cons and libs. This is proof perfect that they are cults when one thinks they are under different rules.

  • 1 decade ago

    I have not been corralled. I well aware that republicans and democrats both have flaws. I am also aware that there is no respectable jounalism.

    I was of the opinion that republicans favored smaller government.

    Hey I answered that question.

    As to the video... what does that have to do with actually voting. Just because you search for someone or find a video on doesn't mean anything.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There was a time when a Republican was a Republican and a Democrat was a Democrat...with the marriage of the two we have the yielded plutocrats who serve Wall Street interests first and foremost.

  • whimsy
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Unions, seems to describe them aptly, too...

    Or, Political Cartels...

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.