• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

The Second American Civil War?

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
LOS ANGELES--Whatever your politics, you have to be oblivious to reality to deny that America today is torn by ideological divisions as deep as those of the Civil War era. We are, in fact, in the midst of the Second American Civil War.

Of course, one obvious difference between the two is that this Second Civil War is (thus far) non-violent. On the other hand, there is probably more hatred between the opposing sides today than during the First Civil War.

And I am not talking about extremists. A senior editor of the respected center-left New Republic magazine just wrote an article titled "The Case for Bush Hatred," an article that could have been written by writers at most major American newspapers, by most Hollywood celebrities, or by almost anyone else left of center. And the conservative hatred of former President Bill Clinton was equally deep.

In general, however, the similarities are greater than the differences. Once again the North and the South are at odds (though many individuals on each side identify with the other). And once again, the fate of the nation hangs in the balance. The two sides' values and visions of America are as incompatible as they were in the 1860s.

For those Americans who do not know what side they are on or who are not certain about what the Second American Civil War is being fought over, I offer a list of the most important areas of conflict.

While the views of many, probably even most, Americans do not fall entirely on either side, the two competing camps are quite distinguishable. On one side are those on the Left--including liberals and Greens--who tend to agree with one another on almost all major issues. On the other side are those on the Right--including conservatives and libertarians--who agree on stopping the Left, but differ with one another more often than those on the Left do.

Here, then, is the list of the major differences that are tearing America apart:

The Left believes in removing America's Judeo-Christian identity, e.g., removing "under God" from the Pledge, "In God we trust" from the currency, the oath to God and country from the Boy Scouts Pledge, and so on.

The Right believes that destroying these symbols and this identity is tantamount to destroying America.

The Left regards America as morally inferior to many European societies with their abolition of the death penalty and their cradle-to-grave welfare and religion-free life; and it does not believe that there are distinctive American values worth preserving.

The Right regards America as the last best hope for humanity and believes that there are distinctive American values--the unique combination of a religious (Judeo-Christian) society, a secular government, personal liberty, and capitalism--worth fighting and dying for.

The Left believes that impersonal companies, multinational and otherwise, with their insatiable drive for profits, have a profoundly destructive effect on the country....

Read the rest of the article: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20031014.shtml

Part 2 - http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20031021.shtml

DENNIS PRAGER, a radio talk-show host, is a columnist for Creators Syndicate.

Before anyone freaks, yes I realize he is a conservative commentator. I don't present the article as being without bias. But I think he is right. We will fight through the courts for a few more decades, but I think the shooting will start eventually. Sad -EG.

(Dan) Quote tags added.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,623
Points
34
What is this "distinctive American lifestyle" you refer to?

Being an American, I am too fat and lazy to follow your links.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
iamme said:
You have done Fox News proud with your depiction of the "Right" and "Left" ideologies.

I didn't do shit...I just posted the guy's article (with a BOLD disclaimer at the bottom). Post your Village Voice diatribe if you feel it needs equal time. My point is we are getting very polarized as a nation. Wanna debate that point? :)
 

The Irish One

Member
Messages
2,267
Points
25
The Libertarians will rule the US government in the future

The Nonlibertarian Tories are in trouble for the long run. One could see it as Libertarian ideology became much stronger and more pronounced throughout the 90's. I believe there will come a day when Libertarians and the Left will demand the removal of religious anything from all public domains, which includes money, national songs and even the Constitution. The Constitution will evolve/devolve into a document that has to respond to issues not yet found in our society. While I agree the American future has a few battles in it, before guns are fired something more incredible will take place! The advancement of a super race to intelectually run the country and the world. No, they will not be a specific color, nor religion but their intellect will be genetically enhanced way beyond our norms of today. This superior race will control economies with vicious detail resulting in human suffering on a much larger scale.
 
Last edited:

Dan

Dear Leader
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
18,809
Points
69
I love how spokespeople for the right attempt to speak for the left. Let me do the same thing, only vice versa ...

The Left believes in removing America's Judeo-Christian identity, e.g., removing "under God" from the Pledge, "In God we trust" from the currency, the oath to God and country from the Boy Scouts Pledge, and so on.
The Right believes in breaking down the barriers between church and state, and establishing Christanity, specifically the Southern Baptist and non-denominational evangelical forms of it, as a de facto state religion.

The Left regards America as morally inferior to many European societies with their abolition of the death penalty and their cradle-to-grave welfare and religion-free life; and it does not believe that there are distinctive American values worth preserving.
The Right believes that the sanctity of human life is far less important than that of corporations; that their survival and well-being is more important than that of the population as a whole. Excepting fetuses, of course.

The Left believes that impersonal companies, multinational and otherwise, with their insatiable drive for profits, have a profoundly destructive effect on the country....
The Right believes in unbridled lessez faire capitalism and economic Darwinism, a la late 1800s US and UK, discounting market failure and the trajedy of the commons, where the success of the lucky few justifies the poverty of the masses; that it's fine for people to light Cohibas with $100 bills and obtain Crosseus-like wealth through any means necessary while othes who may work just as hard while struggling to survive.

Fair and balanced. :D
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
I heard an interesting comment on the right and the left. The commentator said that the ultra right has hijacked the "right" and the ultra left has hijacked the "left."

So there are far right, right, left, and far left political leanings - but politics is only delivering far right or far left candidates. So moderates are being controlled by radicals, and the moderates would abhor the full radical program if it were implemented.

Not that the above answers anything, but it argues against the civil war theory.
 

Dan

Dear Leader
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
18,809
Points
69
Wulf9 said:
but politics is only delivering far right or far left candidates.

Show me some far left candidates running for office on a Decomratic ticket. I don't see Michael Moore or any of the so-called "Hollywood liberal elite" on the allot.

Strange, how the right complains about the supposed dominance of left-wing thinking among celebrities, while most Hollywood figures that run for office are Republican. I don't see Barbara Streisand running for the Senate, Charlie Sheen running for governor of California, or Jeanae Garafalo with her own AM radio talk show.

I would argue that conservative liberals have hijacked the left. Richard Nixon had a political agenda that was far more liberal than Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. If we didn't impeach him, we'd have the National Family Health Care Act -- that's right, universal, single-payer health coverage -- and minimum family income legislation. Nixon reestablished relations China (a pinko leftist Communist country), and championed environmental legislation that served as a model for the world. Even New Zealanders would have been envious of the safety net Americans would have recieved if Nixon wasn't booted.

I get the feeling that there's far more malfeasance practiced by the Bush administration than by Nixon's gang. Of course, it would be unpatriotic and treasonist to do anything about it. 9-11, you know. :(
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
Like El Guapo, I was quoting a talk show host for discussion purposes.

But I did note that our (now recalled) Democratic governor was such a slave to his special interests that he could not represent the middle. However, I am even more struck that moderate Republicans continually hold their nose and vote unanimously for the most un-Republican things (like loss of personal freedoms, manipulated economies, deficit budgets).
 
Last edited:

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
24
EG might suggest that the liberal media on the radio that is comparable is called public radio, in effect, he has suggested this.

The format being comparable (radio), but enough difference exists to wonder why their are no "liberal" figureheads filling the airwaves.

How about the possibility of more left leaning people prefereing thier dose of godless liberal dogma in PBS format, and those in oposition on the right leaning side hearing it from the head drug adict on the am dial?
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
Duke Of Dystopia said:
The format being comparable (radio), but enough difference exists to wonder why their are no "liberal" figureheads filling the airwaves.

Actually, the reason there is so much conservative talk radio is that radio is a "subsidized" media. It is subsidized by a Federal agency giving national monopoly (okay, oligopoly) to a few major corporations. Since they tend to be conservative the government subsidy gives us conservative talk radio.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
24
Wulf9 said:
....... It is subsidized by a Federal agency giving national monopoly (okay, oligopoly) to a few major corporations. Since they tend to be conservative the government subsidy gives us conservative talk radio.

That works both ways, PBS operates at a heavy subsidy also. They are comparable and probably a wash as to the effectiveness of the audience reached.

PBS usually operates thier radio stations out of public universities using state funding for the equipment. Almost no area of the country is left uncovered. That makes our government schizophrenic, ala self induced polarization. Thats great! :|

PBS radio format is different than corporate am radio format and niether are more or less gratuitous than the other. Both have target constituencies but the conservatives on the am dial have greater name recognition than the PBS stations

I normally agree with EG on things, but when I even see the HINT of religious connection, I find it frightening enough of a triger to fight tooth and nail.
 
Messages
3,690
Points
27
Dan said:
I love how spokespeople for the right attempt to speak for the left. Let me do the same thing, only vice versa ...


The Right believes in breaking down the barriers between church and state, and establishing Christanity, specifically the Southern Baptist and non-denominational evangelical forms of it, as a de facto state religion.


The Right believes that the sanctity of human life is far less important than that of corporations; that their survival and well-being is more important than that of the population as a whole. Excepting fetuses, of course.


The Right believes in unbridled lessez faire capitalism and economic Darwinism, a la late 1800s US and UK, discounting market failure and the trajedy of the commons, where the success of the lucky few justifies the poverty of the masses; that it's fine for people to light Cohibas with $100 bills and obtain Crosseus-like wealth through any means necessary while othes who may work just as hard while struggling to survive.

Fair and balanced. :D

If I weren't already hitched and knocked up, I'd ask you to marry me. My thoughts exactly. :)
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,995
Points
31
Duke Of Dystopia said:
I normally agree with EG on things, but when I even see the HINT of religious connection, I find it frightening enough of a triger to fight tooth and nail.

[Bob Dole Mode] EG keeps his politics clearly distant from his lack of supernatural beliefs, or lack there of. Read his stuff if you don't believe him. [/Bob Dole Mode]

Dan said:
Show me some far left candidates running for office on a Decomratic ticket. I don't see Michael Moore or any of the so-called "Hollywood liberal elite" on the allot.

Dan You have a blind spot my friend - Missing Sharpton and Braun, (Dean, Gephart, & Weasel Clark too) shows you don't perceive the left being spread as far to the hard core left as I (and others) do.

BTW - Liberals & leftist hollywood wonks have been running for office and campaigning as long as republicans. Please don't make me list all the liberals that have editorial access to the media, or who have tried their hand at talk radio and failed, or who have moved seamlessly between politics and journalism. Springer, Cumos, Stephanopolis....yada yada yada. I can list more if that is what this thread comes down to. When a liberal fails at competitive talk radio they get a guest host slot on NPR.

Sorry if Mr. Prager pissed you off by daring to sum up liberal postitions as he saw them. I think he was, in his way, trying to be kind and present them fairly. So you can see that there is a disconnect in this country. The pent up hostility on both sides is alarming. Coming back to my point, the future of politics in this country is going to be ugly. This thread uncovers a bit of that.
 

SGB

Cyburbian
Messages
3,388
Points
26
The alternative perspective

A question:

Are any political pundits writing much about what unites the United States as a country these days?

:-$
 

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,473
Points
25
I'm just sick of my rights as an American citizen being taken away, as well as the constitution being ripped apart. Its both sides of the dial that are screwing this country up.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
H - I am pretty sure the south lost.

I think the great chasm is something to be concerned about. I think the Hatred of Bush and the Hatred of Clinton is stupid really.

I think ultimately it is good that there are clear differences between liberals and conservatives, but we all throw too many petty stones at each other.

Instead of writing that Bush is stupid (of course ignoring his IVY League degrees) and writing that Clinton was a liar (of course ignoring that somebody elected him to two terms)

Its juvenile, but mostly its dishonest.

We should have honest discussion of the real issues that divide us.

Maybe Dan says we should have universal healthcare; I say ok, but how much does it cost and will the quality meet our standards?

Maybe BKM says we should have signed on to Kyoto; I say ok, but what are the real impacts on our American business and what about developing nations?

Maybe I say conservatives don't want a state religion called Christianity, but we think it is rediculous to take 'under god" out of the pledge; Maybe PlannerGirl says not everyone believes in God; Maybe I say the foundation of the Country in 1776 was based on a belief in God and we should not abandon that idea.

See, at no point did I say Michal Moore is an idiot (he is) and that Bill O'Reilly shoudl get over himself (he should).

I have to go to work.
 

Seabishop

Cyburbian
Messages
3,838
Points
25
I don't see the situation as bad as the author describes it. The country's pretty much 50/50, when people feel the republicans have too much power and don't like the direction they're headed more liberal leaders will be elected. I'm pretty sure the ideological differences between north and south were much sharper during the Civil War. No matter what the issues are they're not as bad as slavery.

There are lots of people like me who don't really identify with either side because I don't like having a platform with pre-ordained opinions on every issue. The whole Red State/Blue State thing gets blown out of proportion because people see the states neatly categorized on tv. I also think the author knows if he uses the term "civil war" he'll get attention.
 

Wannaplan?

Bounty Hunter
Messages
3,223
Points
29
There is no 2nd Civil War. Most Americans are undecided when it comes to voting and voter turn-outs are miserabley low. The so-called "extreme" divisive politics between liberals and conservatives, and Democrats and Republicans is a product of the American news media because it has to generate a false "point/counter-point" buzz in order to get people to tune-in and watch the advertisements. I don't believe the hype - any news station, whether MSNBC or Fox News, that has to devote air time to the story of the deep-sixing of the Reagans mini-series is not really in the "news" business.
 

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,473
Points
25
Wanigas? said:
There is no 2nd Civil War. Most Americans are undecided when it comes to voting and voter turn-outs are miserabley low.B]


Sure there is, I'm getting ready for it all ready. I think I'm decided that I'm sick of both sides of the political scene.
 

H

Cyburbian
Messages
2,850
Points
24
gkmo62u said:
H - I am pretty sure the south lost.

I am fully aware of the outcome. However, traveling around the rural south I have seen and met many people that would like nothing more than to "rise again". ;)

I am not supporting this thought, just stating a truth of some southern feeling even though it would never really happen.

(the first post was meant to be funny, but that obviously didn’t work out real well). :)
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,270
Points
30
Rumpy Tuna said:
Sure there is, I'm getting ready for it all ready. I think I'm decided that I'm sick of both sides of the political scene.

A legitimate third party movement would not be a Civil War, it would be exercising the constitution.
 

The Irish One

Member
Messages
2,267
Points
25
I don't believe the hype - any news station, whether MSNBC or Fox News, that has to devote air time to the story of the deep-sixing of the Reagans mini-series is not really in the "news" business.

The news is truly propagandic crap!

Sure it would, if a third party canidate won, think of what would happen....

Both houses would kill any effectiveness of a third party candidate. I'd still like to see a new party in the system though.
 

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,551
Points
42
No, a legitimate third party would be a revolution, because this country was built as a two-party system. A true third party would lead to a fourth and fifth and so on until you have a situation like the various parliaments of multi-party nations where the President would have to try to develop coalitions of fractious small parties so as to govern. The democratic process as we know it would end -- would it be better or worse? I have no idea, but it would be utterly different. I think this scenario is quite likely -- if we continue to allow interest groups to continue to divide us. It is easy to drive a wedge into a pluralistic society such as ours.

Our time needs a new Thomas Paine to write a new Common Sense.
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
Chile has multi partidism... and our current government is a Center-left coalition, so they only have like 3 oposing parties, The communists (that opose to everything except themselves) and the 2 right wing parties that love to fight between them.

A second american civil war? If that happened I bet it would be a fight for freedom again.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
24
Let me clarify, I did not intend to suggest that EG espoused a religous bent in his conservativism. I lumped multiple ideas together in the cause of brevity. Sorry about that.

I do not think that our politics are more divisive now than they have been in the past. In fact, it has been worse in the past than it is now. We percieve it to be worse now, because we are alive and operating in the present. We never new the political climate of the past OR the details of the recent past has faded.
Even the idea of cultural change through the fiat of court opinion is not a recent development.

Liberals exist to force change on conservatives. Conservatives exist to prevent Liberals from changing things to fast. Its a story as old as human settlements. The best outcome is that niether side gets thier way
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
Gedunker said:
No, a legitimate third party would be a revolution, because this country was built as a two-party system. A true third party would lead to a fourth and fifth and so on until you have a situation like the various parliaments of multi-party nations where the President would have to try to develop coalitions of fractious small parties so as to govern. The democratic process as we know it would end -- would it be better or worse? I have no idea, but it would be utterly different. I think this scenario is quite likely -- if we continue to allow interest groups to continue to divide us. It is easy to drive a wedge into a pluralistic society such as ours.

Our time needs a new Thomas Paine to write a new Common Sense.

Folks that think a multi-party system would ever flourish in this country are missing the point, I think. Maybe you mean what I'm thinking Gedunker, but it's unclear - for multi-parties to flourish it would require and actual revolution oveerthrowing our present Constitution. The way I see it, the reason that we don't have a multi-party state has nothing to do with campaign finance, or lack of third party leadership, or the like - and everything to do with the fact that the two major parties (whichever they might be at any given time - Federalist, Anti-Federalist, Whig, Democrat-Republican, Democrat, Republican, whatever) are great at coopting any useful ideas from emerging third-parties, rendering them near-useless. The reason the Bull Moose, Prohibition Party, Green, Socialist, Reform Parties, etc. don't catch on is because they lose any meaningful difference pretty quickly. That's precisely because we have a bicameral republic and not a parliamentary system. Presidents don't have to develop coalitions of several fractious small parties because the major parties already do that dirty work for them in the legislature and consequently in selection of candidates and campaign strategies - that's what they're for. That's not to say that third party's can't flourish in this country - hell's bells, the Republican Party was a "true" third party - but they will always supplant the one of the two biggies that can't keep internal divisions together, or at least papered over. I think TIO mentioned Libertarians - they may supplant the Dems or Repubs in the future, but that'll be because they exploit internal differences in the majors and bump the weaker off, and it can't lead to long-term political fracturalization because of the way the founders set us up.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
I think that traditional definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are meaningless and inaccurate.

Liberals exist to force change on conservatives. Conservatives exist to prevent Liberals from changing things to fast. Its a story as old as human settlements. The best outcome is that niether side gets thier way

Do you really believe that the "conservative" Bush Administration is "preventing change from happening"? How are the large corporations, mass media culture (promoted and spread as much by "conservative" Fox) elimination of trade barriers, elimination of pay for overtime (great for family values), consolidation of economic power in fewer and more remote hands, genetically modified foods, radical right wing evangelical Christian missionary movements, and the like "conserving" anything? "Capitalism," as defined by jresta in another thread, is a profoundly un-conservative, raidcal, economically determinist view of the world. "Liberals" are fighting a feeble, rear-guard action, with no clearly defined ideology against one of the most raidcal administrations this country has seen in some time.

As for the second Civil War-I am going to propose a pretty "conservative" viewpoint: reign in the federal government and its imperialist tendencies. Thanks to the corporate focus on short term profits, we can't afford an empire, anyway. Why should California be limited by the retrogade social policies of a Governor Roy Moore in Alabama (or any of the Texas cabal)?
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
BKM said:
As for the second Civil War-I am going to propose a pretty "conservative" viewpoint: reign in the federal government and its imperialist tendencies. Thanks to the corporate focus on short term profits, we can't afford an empire, anyway.

BKM, I'm trying to be both probative and provocative, I guess: What do you mean by "empire," and is it necessarily bad?

Why should California be limited by the retrogade social policies of a Governor Roy Moore in Alabama (or any of the Texas cabal)?

You slay me, with your "Texas cabal," but I am with you 100% on your federalist streak. You go BKM! Texas cabal, though...hah...:).
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
Foreign troops in dozens of countries. "Pre-emptive strike" etc.

One of my main concerns is that empires bankrupt nations, both financially and morally.
 

Budgie

Cyburbian
Messages
5,270
Points
30
Rumpy Tuna said:
Sure it would, if a third party canidate won, think of what would happen....

The third party representative would be wooed by both sides, which would give the individual third party representative significant power as a vote no one has automatically in the bag. There are far too many political ideologies in the USA to represented by only two parties. Unfortunately local Green Party affiliates are full of wackos who focus on things they have absolutely no control over. They talk about focusing locally, but they love to get wrapped up in the national and international rhetoric.
 

The Irish One

Member
Messages
2,267
Points
25
So in the future when Libertarians are much more powerful, the winning party will be the one that adapts the platform of the thriving libertarian movement.

My media comments, well what can I say, I have watched less and less tv over the years and am now totally convinced that it's feeding a steady stream of crud and that in no way possible can 5 minute clips of major events ever clarify what a situation really is, not even night after night. I see it as propaganda, but not in the way that they're controlling my mind, it's more like if you watch it enough you'll be dumbed down to- tv is the source. And tv does sell itself and the messages that come on it, even in the news. This isn't a conspiracy theory, I just think 99.9% of tv news is as healthy for your societal understandings as fastfood is for your body. My experience.

Edit: I still catch the news once or twice a week.
Edit 2: I still enjoy the occasional fast food meal.
 
Last edited:

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,463
Points
29
To quote a silly bumper sticker: "Kill Your Television." I may watch three hours per week. A nerd am I.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,713
Points
24
BKM said:
.......Do you really believe that the "conservative" Bush Administration is "preventing change from happening"? .......

Not at all, they are there to roll back each and every step the other party has strived for. They are also there to reinforce thier own view of things.

For all your discussion of corporate ills, the GOP seems to be loosing thier efforts to create a conservative social agenda that can last. They have not been able to prevent free speach, a court that is viewed as center right keeps telling the religous right power base that homosexuals are people to that deserve full rights as citizens, rap and hip hop are popular, and basicly most things in the social realm seem to be getting less conservative. FOX talks conservative and then shows the most culturaly base programing with T&A there is on network tv. Corporate, Job and moneywise, see the other thread.

The Dems will get it together or they will be replaced. Just takes time. Its called MUDLING THROUGH. Its not much of a plan but it is how things work.
 

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,473
Points
25
Duke Of Dystopia said:
Not at all, they are there to roll back each and every step the other party has strived for. They are also there to reinforce thier own view of things.

Thats both parties for you, but I think this administration has really tried to roll back others accomplishment, I.E. Roe Vs. Wade.
 

giff57

Corn Burning Fool
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
5,452
Points
34
I think we should throw out much of the current system. The President should have little power, much like the Queen in the UK. Congress would get nothing done for a while, but soon the folks back in their states would get PO'ed and elect folks that can get stuff done.

Short of the drastic, unconstitutional change, at least the contribtion issue needs taken care of. Give every canidate a certain amount of tax money for campains, no contributions or their own money can be used. Make them accountable for every dollar spent on the election. The penalty for any cheating is imeadiate dismissal.
 

Dan

Dear Leader
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
18,809
Points
69
The Irish One said:
So in the future when Libertarians are much more powerful, the winning party will be the one that adapts the platform of the thriving libertarian movement.

Doubtful, IMHO. LIbertarianism will be a fringe movement as long as it remains idealistic and impractical. The public at large sees contemporary libertarianism as akin to anarchy; few government regulations and protections, no safety net, toll booths at the end of every street, and so on; it's essentially advocacy of a state that resembles early Victorian Britan, without the monarchy.

Most libertarians I know fall into two camps; a few bearded intellectuals who are fans of Ayn Rand, and a bunch of gun nuts that want the right to store an unlimited amount of junk cars, bald tires and scrap metal on their residential properties.

The libertarian movement will gain more support when it promotes a more workable, less threatening, practical agenda, with recognition of market failure and the trajedy of the commons, and no "get rid of zoning, privatize all government services, and make every road a toll road" bull. Libertarians need to ditch their vision of an ideal Randist state, and place an emphasis on issues such as personal liberty (relaxation of drug laws, lowering the drinking age, right to privacy legislation, gay rights, etc.), corporate welfare reform, and tax reform.
 

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,551
Points
42
El Feo said:
Folks that think a multi-party system would ever flourish in this country are missing the point, I think. Maybe you mean what I'm thinking Gedunker, but it's unclear - for multi-parties to flourish it would require and actual revolution overthrowing our present Constitution.

I agree with you EF. I don't envision a "revolution" with armed mobs in the streets and bloodbaths in the halls of Congress is necessary, nor even likely.

There is a huge group of citizens that are not republicans or democrats -- they both agree with and disagree with -- both parties, and they "split their tickets". I imagine this bloc as fertile ground for one or more parties to arise and begin taking seats in the House and later the Senate. Darwinism may erase one of the established parties but there is no reason to believe that either will go immediately away. Then we have three valid parties in Congress and the need for coalition building.

Nothing in our bicameral system (literally "two houses") prevents more than two parties from being seated in Congress as we have Jim Jeffords of Vermont, an Independent.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,080
Points
34
I am with those who say this talk of "civil war" is nonsense. We have always had divisions in our society, and the division that now exists between the ultra-left and ultra-right is no different than any of these others. I am far more concerned with the turn our politics has taken to return to being all about power. It has strengthened the position of ideologically-extreme candidates, given undue influence to financially strong special interests (from teacher's unions to road builders), and encouraged politicians to bribe elements of the electorate at the cost of fiscally irresponsible decisions. The threat of our government collapsing, or of unscrupulous politicians and special interests usurping government "by the people" is far greater than any risk of civil war between competing ideological factions.
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
Gedunker said:
Nothing in our bicameral system (literally "two houses") prevents more than two parties from being seated in Congress as we have Jim Jeffords of Vermont, an Independent.

No. nothing legally prevents it, but systemically it is greatly discouraged by a bicameral republican system, and was especially discouraged prior to the 16th amendment. That's what I'm talkin' 'bout.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,623
Points
34
I have long dreamt of reconstituting the (yankee leaning) Whig party for 2004. The Free Masons have gained too much power in the expanding Whig power vacuum. When the Whigs evaporated from the political scene, the southern pro-slavery groups gained momentum and cajones,and not so coincidentally resulted in the first Civil War. Although the outcome of the first was favorable, the Whig absence since 1860 has caused this country nothing but pain. Their return should herald the start of the second!
 

Mastiff

Gunfighter
Messages
7,181
Points
30
BKM said:
One of my main concerns is that empires bankrupt nations, both financially and morally.

I'm not sure if you mean that the nation creating the empire goes bankrupt, or it creates OTHER bankrupt nations, but...

87 billion for Iraq... with about 20 billion for "rebuilding, right? Well, I don't know about you folks, but my state and city need funding, too! I have water, sewer, and street projects to do for U.S. CITIZENS!

Now, let's just take the "rebuilding" money. That'd be $68.35 per person, making my city amount $216,806. I could use that... If we had the whole 87 billion, that's 4x the amount, or close to a million dollars for my tiny city.

Hey Congress, wake the hell up!
 
Top