Skip to main content

View Diary: Three Reasons Why I am a Parasitic Democrat (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not if (0+ / 0-)

    There is a similar movement from the right, which there is.

    •  Yeah, the right has a movement -- further to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wilderness voice, Cedwyn

      the right. The Tea Party isn't trying to make Republicans saner, they're trying to make them crazier by the second. At somepoint they might explode, fracture the party in two, and we'll see blue dogs and "centrist" Democrats work with the remnants of the old Republican party. But until that happens holding the Democrats together, and accountable to progressives, is the only game to play. Unless you've got some meaningful way to fix the "winner take all" voting mechanism in this country.

      To me progress is not so much a goal as it is a process and I believe it will not follow a straight course. Remember, the drops of water that form the river may not take the shortest path but they will still reach the ocean.

      by ontheleftcoast on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:02:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I for one (0+ / 0-)

        would be happy if the Republican Party split and we lost a few Blue Dogs to a more centrist Republican Party.  In order for that to be viable there have to be structural changes that have to come from within the existing parties that will inevitably diminish the power of both.

        •  Huh? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wilderness voice, Cedwyn

          We're working to push Democrats to the left and don't look now but this election we suceeded in doing just that. And it didn't take any "weakening" or "diminishing" to achieve that. It did take working and organizing that was from outside the party but you have this bizarre idea that something other than a two-party system is possible in America. It isn't. Unless you can change the election system which gives "winner take all" to even a plurality of votes we're stuck with two parties. A 45-35-20 race goes to the 45, not some coalition of the 35-20 parties. And, thus, the 20 group will realize the futility, join with either side, and "Viola!" you're back to two parties. This isn't some European parliament where meaningful third (and fourth and fifth) parties exist, this is America with all the warts of an electoral system crafted nearly a quarter of a millenium ago.

          To me progress is not so much a goal as it is a process and I believe it will not follow a straight course. Remember, the drops of water that form the river may not take the shortest path but they will still reach the ocean.

          by ontheleftcoast on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:16:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  One of The Beautiful (0+ / 0-)

            things about the American Constitution is the degree to which it was designed to be changed.  But the two party system was not written into the constitution and among the many ways that we can broaden the party structure, changing the constitution is not necessarily the most viable.

            •  The "winner take all" part is the problem (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wilderness voice

              The Constitution doesn't even have the concept of parties in it. But it does say who gets the most votes, not a majority of the votes, is the winner, thus two parties will form as a natural response to that demand. Strictly speaking it does allow individual states freedom to choose how they run their elections. But few states are willing to adopt a system that loses them any influence at the national level. Maybe we could see some change with the NPV but I doubt it'll result in any meaningful 3rd party. You're as deluded as the Article V fanboys we get from time to time. There was one so fixated on it that he actually committed property crimes so he could effectively read his manifesto in to the court records. Don't be like that, find a way to make better Democrats, it works.

              To me progress is not so much a goal as it is a process and I believe it will not follow a straight course. Remember, the drops of water that form the river may not take the shortest path but they will still reach the ocean.

              by ontheleftcoast on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 10:43:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Okay (0+ / 0-)

                That is just ridiculous.  I suppose that I could talk about the things that Hitler did and then say to you, "don't be like that." Keep in mind that you are arguing against change in general not specifically.  That is the definition of conservative.

                •  No, I'm arguing against stupid, pointless attempts (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Cedwyn

                  at change. I'd love to see a viable 3rd, 4th, etc. party in this country. It would help with the mind-numbing gridlock and blindness on issues like global warming. But you aren't proposing a workable plan to get their. So either do that or work with the existing system to make it better. That's called 'reality' not 'conservative'.

                  To me progress is not so much a goal as it is a process and I believe it will not follow a straight course. Remember, the drops of water that form the river may not take the shortest path but they will still reach the ocean.

                  by ontheleftcoast on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:49:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site