Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: One party Country - Good Idea?

  1. #1

    One party Country - Good Idea?

    Karl Rove has openly set the agenda for Republican dominace of the Government for the next 20 years. I ran across this in the news;

    "Wallsten, who is also author of a book coming out next month titled "One Party Country: The Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century," had asked about White House credibility now in the aftermath of top aide Karl Rove having been cleared in the CIA leak investigation. But Bush said he wouldn't comment with another top White House aide still facing prosecution in the case"

    My question is a one party dominance good for the Country?

  2. #2
    Cyburbian zman's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    9,005
    Blog entries
    2
    I would think that this would be a good idea if (and only if) I (myself...., aka ME) was the Grand Exhalted Honorable Handsome Dictator for Life.

    ZMan dons Crown.

    Actually I think that supreme dominance from either party is bad. A good, equal parity in the House and Senate is good for debate and middle ground, therefore good for the (Commie term a'comin') Collective.
    You get all squeezed up inside/Like the days were carved in stone/You get all wired up inside/And it's bad to be alone

    You can go out, you can take a ride/And when you get out on your own/You get all smoothed out inside/And it's good to be alone
    -Peart

  3. #3
    Unfrozen Caveman Planner mendelman's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Staff meeting
    Posts
    8,152
    It worked for Mexico for 70 years. Should be OK?
    I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?

    Let's not be didactic in this profession, because that is a path to disillusion and irrelevancy.

    Six seasons and a movie!

  4. #4
    Cyburbian otterpop's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Down by Dun Ringill
    Posts
    5,857
    Blog entries
    6
    Certainly not. Especially if the one party is the Republican Party. The Republican Party is pretty much against what I am for and for things I am against.

    One political party dominating to exclusion of other views would be wrong. Checks and balances are a necessary component of the U.S. government.

    Our nation is not wholly Republican or Democrat. We are a mix, with Libertarians, Greenies, etc. thrown in. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have all the answers.

    Carl Rove and the members of this crusade will not succeed. Our nation is not about to walk in lockstep to the desires of Rove and his friends. "We are the Rove. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Yeah, right.
    "I am very good at reading women, but I get into trouble for using the Braille method."

    ~ Otterpop ~

  5. #5
    Chairman of the bored Maister's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    on my 15 minute break
    Posts
    17,698
    The Good - one party would be a more efficient form of decision making.

    The Bad - Top story in the news today...yes, everyone agrees that having one party is best for all concerned. Coming up next is Lisa with your local weather.....
    People will miss that it once meant something to be Southern or Midwestern. It doesn't mean much now, except for the climate. The question, “Where are you from?” doesn't lead to anything odd or interesting. They live somewhere near a Gap store, and what else do you need to know? - Garrison Keillor

  6. #6
    Cyburbian Plus Whose Yur Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    5,777
    Don't we have that already? PU brings up valid concerns and the potential for abuse is great.
    When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?

  7. #7
    Cyburbian Jeff's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Mr. Cool Ice
    Posts
    4,161
    Are there other political parties in this country other than us?

    You'd never know.

  8. #8
    Cyburbian Planit's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In a 480 square foot ex baseball nacho stand
    Posts
    6,979
    I recommend a NO Party system. That way people will be elected based on their actions and not the assumption of following a parties values.

    Am I being too idealistic?
    "Whatever beer I'm drinking, is better than the one I'm not." DMLW
    "Budweiser sells a product they reflectively insist on calling beer." John Oliver

  9. #9
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    personally I like having lots of parties. With lots of beer and chips and stuff.

  10. #10
    Cyburbian Tide's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The Gig City
    Posts
    2,644
    I would love to see a no party system (but the Dems and GOP will never let that happen, God forbid a third party either). The downfall with this is voters would actually have to identify issues and think rather than voting down party lines. Some cities and townships around here have non-partisan elections, but you still know what party they are so what good does that do?
    @GigCityPlanner

  11. #11
    Cyburbian Queen B's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2003
    Location
    "Somewhere in the middle"
    Posts
    3,160
    Let me remember, I think it was on the CBS Sunday morning show last week they talked about the two party system.. Bush and Clinton, 4 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Bush, 8 years of Hilary, 8years of Jeb and we will be into the next generation of Clinton and Bush. Then they explored the possibility of a joining of the parties Clinton/Bush.

    I laughed histarically...what a thought.
    It is all a matter of perspective!!!

  12. #12
    Super Moderator kjel's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wishing I were in Asia somewhere!
    Posts
    9,641
    Blog entries
    5
    I thought we already did....the party for politicians: Republicrats
    "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" Jeremiah 22:16

  13. #13

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468
    Dittos on the "there is only one party" arguments above. We have basically a consensus-the: a combination of "The Business of America is (Corporate) Business" and "Empires-R-Us" in support of the first principle. The two "parties" are basically squabbling over the side issues. Not that these "side issues" are not important, but...

    Roger at Limited,inc published an interesting chart looking at the average percentage of GDP absorbed by the Federal Government over the last, I believe, 50 years or so. Amazing how little difference between "tax and spend Democrats" and the "Fiscally Conservative" Republicans.

    Note that the current Republican Party terrifies me because it so utterly devoted to the two core principles that there is indeed an almost totalitarian mindset.

    Why, the plutocrats ask, do we have to give in at all? There is no alternative to plutocracy? There are no "Commies" anymore that we have to forestall through things like unions and social welfare. No alternative "system." Hence, social welfare, civil rights, environmental protections-all can be dismissed as irrelevant to the two motivating principles. Thus, we are seeing the shredding any of the codiciles, limits, caveats, ameliorations, etc. that limited the "damage" of the imperial corporate agenda.

    Of course: there is an even scarier alternative, and that's flat out medieval theocracy. It's interesting that the GOP contains THIS aspect within its structure as well. Will "Bidness" conflct ultimately with the "Will of God"? We'll see.

    There's my wordy rant for the morning.

  14. #14
    Cyburbian boiker's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    West Valley, AZ
    Posts
    3,894
    With a no party system, there's no objection or significant minority. The goals and objectives of the "no-party" will easily be achieved with no resistance in the house, senate, or executive. This, in a way, is privatized gov't. The gov't does what it feels best for the interests of the gov't...whatever that might be.

    In the current case, best for business, top-down economics. It seems as if business is trying to pay it's employees as little as possible--just enough to keep the system afloat. If too little is paid, the system falls apart, if too much is paid, potential profits are eroded due to "waste and overhead".

    Keeping things simple: corporate profits are way, way up, salary is lagging behind inflation, and millions of Americans have borrowed time by borrowing money. The piper is calling.
    Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.

  15. #15
    Cyburbian The One's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where Valley Fever Lives
    Posts
    7,039

    Arggghh.....

    Quote Originally posted by Queen B
    Let me remember, I think it was on the CBS Sunday morning show last week they talked about the two party system.. Bush and Clinton, 4 years of Bush, 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Bush, 8 years of Hilary, 8years of Jeb and we will be into the next generation of Clinton and Bush. Then they explored the possibility of a joining of the parties Clinton/Bush.

    I laughed histarically...what a thought.
    I'm glad you can laugh.....'cause I'm crying

    My simple plan:
    1. Don't ever vote for the incumbent.....ever
    2. You can only run with the cash money available to the poorest candidate for local office. For Congress you will get $100,000, Senate $500,000, President $1,000,000 all paid for by the tax payer for the top 3 candidates by percentage.
    3. There should always be three choices for every job and if they manage 51% of a vote...hey that's great....if not.....oh well....
    4. Congress is a 4 year term and senate is a 7 year term with President still 4 years. Congress and Senate are limited to 1 term each.
    5. Local senate and state reps. get 3 years each and only 1 term.
    Skilled Adoxographer

  16. #16
    Member Wulf9's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Near the Geysers
    Posts
    922
    The problem with one party government is that it can make some very bad decisions, and there is no force pushing back.

    In the book Guns, Germs, and Steel the author asks why China, which has a thousands-year lead in technology, was overtaken by some pretty insignificant Europeans coming out of a dark age. The answer comes back to one-person leadership. Europe had several competing political forces. Any hare brained proposal (such as sailing west to get to the east) could be "shopped" among many competing kings and queens. One royal might be foolish enough to take the bait. (Ferdinand and Isabel were the third try.)

    In the early 1400's, just as Europe was starting to send ships throughout the world, there was a power struggle in China, and the losing side was also the maritime side. The Emperor dismantled a huge fleet of ships and destroyed all the shipyards. The west grew, China stagnated as a result of one party vs multi-party decisions.

    It's hard to say that the current Administration is making wise decisions. And they are probably the most powerful examples of one-party government in U.S. history. Here are a couple of ways the one-party government has handled the economy.

    Deficits.



    and corporate profits (results of worker efficiency) and worker pay (not getting paid for their contributions to efficiency).


  17. #17

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468
    Quote Originally posted by Wulf9
    The problem with one party government is that it can make some very bad decisions, and there is no force pushing back.

    In the book Guns, Germs, and Steel the author asks why China, which has a thousands-year lead in technology, was overtaken by some pretty insignificant Europeans coming out of a dark age. The answer comes back to one-person leadership. Europe had several competing political forces. Any hare brained proposal (such as sailing west to get to the east) could be "shopped" among many competing kings and queens. One royal might be foolish enough to take the bait. (Ferdinand and Isabel were the third try.)

    In the early 1400's, just as Europe was starting to send ships throughout the world, there was a power struggle in China, and the losing side was also the maritime side. The Emperor dismantled a huge fleet of ships and destroyed all the shipyards. The west grew, China stagnated as a result of one party vs multi-party decisions.

    It's hard to say that the current Administration is making wise decisions. And they are probably the most powerful examples of one-party government in U.S. history. Here are a couple of ways the one-party government has handled the economy.

    Well: Here's a question: is the centralized American Empire in the same position as medieval China? Would it perhaps be better to revist the idea of a more decentralized, even common market system of smaller, more innovative states? Or-are the environmental and social probels so continental in scope that we need a unified state?

  18. #18
    Member Wulf9's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Near the Geysers
    Posts
    922
    Quote Originally posted by BKM
    Well: Here's a question: is the centralized American Empire in the same position as medieval China? Would it perhaps be better to revist the idea of a more decentralized, even common market system of smaller, more innovative states? Or-are the environmental and social probels so continental in scope that we need a unified state?
    The China example was illustrative. The U.S. is not headed that direction yet. You still have states that can be innovative, like Mit Romney proposing statewide universal health care for Massachusetts. But the imperial presidency, supported by both houses of congress and the supreme court (one party government), are making quite a mess that will take years to clean up. I am surprised that those who support the current administration are not alarmed by the deficit, huge sums of taxpayer funds directed to private business with no oversight, lobbying that looks a lot like the bribery found in third world countries, repeated and endemic personal dishonesty, government funded propaganda in America, spying on citizens, and a lot more. These are pretty much the things earlier Republicans (like Eisenhower or Goldwater) would have found abhorrent. And those types of things can only happen with a one party government.

  19. #19

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468
    Quote Originally posted by Wulf9
    The China example was illustrative. The U.S. is not headed that direction yet. You still have states that can be innovative, like Mit Romney proposing statewide universal health care for Massachusetts. But the imperial presidency, supported by both houses of congress and the supreme court (one party government), are making quite a mess that will take years to clean up. I am surprised that those who support the current administration are not alarmed by the deficit, huge sums of taxpayer funds directed to private business with no oversight, lobbying that looks a lot like the bribery found in third world countries, repeated and endemic personal dishonesty, government funded propaganda in America, spying on citizens, and a lot more. These are pretty much the things earlier Republicans (like Eisenhower or Goldwater) would have found abhorrent. And those types of things can only happen with a one party government.

    Maybe that ridiculous windbag Fred Barnes is RIGHT after all. He (W) is "Rebel in Chief." He is certainly not a Conservative in any real sense of the word. Conservatives out there. A Challenge: Name one way, other than the piffle about Gay Marriage or "Burning the Flag" that the actions of the Bush Administration are "conservative."

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 1
    Last post: 20 Nov 2010, 4:11 PM
  2. Limiting business growth - a good idea?
    Economic and Community Development
    Replies: 4
    Last post: 03 Jan 2010, 1:00 PM
  3. Why co-pilots are a GOOD idea.
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 0
    Last post: 25 Feb 2008, 3:16 PM
  4. Good Idea Gone Bad
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 5
    Last post: 09 Sep 2003, 8:39 PM