OpEdNews » Republicans and Democrats have Become Obsolete

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): Business; Change; Commonsense; Corporations; Democratic; Government; Greed; Ideas; Ideology; Issues; (more...) Money; Political Elite; Political Parties; Political Strategists; Political Values; Politicians; Politics; Republican; Rights (less...)
Add to My Group

December 5, 2007 at 12:48:35

Republicans and Democrats have Become Obsolete

by Timothy V. Gatto Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

The American political landscape has changed and I believe the change is permanent. The two main political parties should be disbanded, because they are irrelevant. Most Americans that don’t make their living in politics see no great difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The issues that separate them no longer apply.

The Republican Party that once believed in smaller government and a smaller role in social programs while favoring business and States Rights (A great departure from the party of Abraham Lincoln) now believes in government interference in everything except the corporate bottom line.

The Democrats, once the party of the Middle Class and large scale involvement in social programs while defending the American taxpayer from corporate class-warfare is a thing of the past, both political parties and the people that comprise them can’t be recognizes from each other without a pundit telling us which side they are on.

There are two separate and distinct political views in our nation today. They are not the Republican view or the Democratic ideas of government. The two main schools of political thought in America today are the politicians that support involvement of big money and corporations to lead this nation, and the people that want a return to constitutional law and exclusion of multi-national stateless corporations in running the affairs of this country.

We may just as well call these two differing sets of people political caucuses. In fact, the divide is so great that this country would be better off scraping the two political parties that dominate this nation and forming two parties that accurately reflect the political realities of today’s political climate. We could call these two differing parties the Corporatists and the Constitutionalists. This would be a better way to differentiate the politicians that run for office, and make the process easier for the people of the United States.

To illustrate my point, let us take the current field of candidates and separate them not by the confusing labels of Democrats and Republicans which mean absolutely nothing in today’s political reality, but separate them into the two political divisions I mentioned above. It is apparent that the party lines would not only be drastically different, but it would also be much easier to differentiate these politicians by ideology.

Corporatists; Biden, Dodd, Clinton, Obama, Romney, Guiliani, Tancredo, Huckabee, Thompson, McCain. Hunter, Keyes

Constitutionalists: Kuchinich, Edwards, Richardson, Paul, Gravel

Makes quite a difference doesn’t it? I would rather see a debate along these lines than a debate among so called “Democrats and Republicans”. These two parties have outlived their usefulness. To use an old expression, for most of the candidates that claim membership in either party, there is not a “Dime’s worth of difference” between them. Either you accept that corporations are covered by First Amendment rights which of course they are not (see my article “Revolution by any Other Name…” which explains why this is not the case) or you accept the myth that corporations have “personhood”. Either way, at least you will understand what you are voting for.

Blindly trusting the corporate class to lead this nation is the worst development to come out of the last fifty years (or longer). When you trust businessmen to lead the most powerful nation on Earth, you are setting the stage for an Orwellian society where individual rights are pushed aside for profit and greed. This is just commonsense. To understand how our government is being transformed, ask someone that works for a large corporation how they are treated when they express their individuality.

That’s the way I see it.

http://liberalpro.blogspot.com

Tim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the site. Tim's accusations that he was banned for his political positions are untrue. Check his articles. He repetitively wrote about and had published exactly the things he claimed he was banned for doing.

Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. A regular contributor to OpEdNews, he is the author of Kimchee Kronicles and is currently at work on a new novel.

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

5 comments

Currently I'm a cartoonist and contributing writer for The New Orleans Levee. For those wishing to view my work you can see my latest at: nolvee.com
Mr MCurrently I'm a cartoonist and contributing writer for The New Orleans Levee. For those wishing to view my work you can see my latest at: nolvee.com

Guit right

Indeed, that's why Paul is getting so much backing (I'd rather see Kucinich) from the grass-roots. His message is clear in that he simply uses the Constitution as a yard-stick for every decision he makes and that resonates with the people. They can understand the simplification just as easily as they can see the corrupting effects big money has had on what we jokingly call our representative government as it is today.

by Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1398 comments) on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 1:24:44 PM

Hater of Nazis above all. Hobbies include activism, military model building, military history, exciting and vital conversation with retired crooks. Retired
John HanksHater of Nazis above all. Hobbies include activism, military model building, military history, exciting and vital conversation with retired crooks. Retired

Republican Abusers and Democratic Enablers.

A Republican Nazi is a Fascist with a Knife. A Democrat is a Fascist with a Rubber Knife. (A rubber knife is better than nothing.)

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1186 comments) on Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 8:00:17 PM

57Yo m I'm a "been there, done that! Bought the tee shirt,to hide the scars!" type of person Ive workedï¿½many jobs fromï¿½a chicken slaughterer to managing a branch of a multinational and many jobs in between.Raised in colonial PNG Left School 16,Grad Hi school 22 Night School, University 36ï¿½ BBus (majored in Psyche and Marketing), Dip Comp prog and project Mmnt.at 50 I've been in 48 different community org ,23 on board with 18 prez or deputy prez.First social campaign at 17 for the aborigine...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Andris57Yo m I'm a "been there, done that! Bought the tee shirt,to hide the scars!" type of person Ive workedï¿½many jobs fromï¿½a chicken slaughterer to managing a branch of a multinational and many jobs in between.Raised in colonial PNG Left School 16,Grad Hi school 22 Night School, University 36ï¿½ BBus (majored in Psyche and Marketing), Dip Comp prog and project Mmnt.at 50 I've been in 48 different community org ,23 on board with 18 prez or deputy prez.First social campaign at 17 for the aborigine...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Tim, what are you doing?

I hardly know where to start. on so many levels this is your most improbable offering.

Practically How do you propose raising the prerequisite moneys?

How do you propose getting all thelittle fiefdoms to give up their existing power structures?

How are you going to the people to give up their cherished loyalties?

It seems the only half plausable option is 're badginhg " and even then you would be facing incredible resistance from those who have power and inertia from the voters.

Even as a comentary on the failing of the politik your analysis is painfully superficial and seems to epose a political myopia.

Having read your writing before I inclined to suggest that this is one of those peices that should be filed under "it seemed like a good idea at the time" A bit like me as a young man in that I never went to bed with an ugly girl but I did wake up with few though. I'm getting to that age now a days where I'm almost pleased to just wake up.

My concern about your analysis is that its based on an interest, intelligence,and a progressive mind set none of which I would ajudge is relevant to assume has or could superimpose on mr/ms Voter. Analysis of elections will show that governments are changed/or formed not by the ideological edges but by the non alligned selfish self interested 5-7% either side of the notional centre line between left and right. Democracies world wide have move rapidly towards the ideological right in Thatcher's time and was followed by Reagan and is now edging towards the left. To be more specific Were back to centre right . John Howard was a little right of Gengis Khan ...Whell if you can get a little Hyperbolic so can I . Anyway His replacement is from the labour party but hes from the centre faction. GWB is is even more right that Howard. The swing was 5% enough for a 26 seat swing and government. The landslide claim is relative 600000 center dwellers moved. Keep in mind this is to the background of mandatory voting.

Having defined that one then is left to then determine what determines a political swing Here is my favourite Everyone's favourite radio station WII FM (What's In It For Me) in the case of Australia it was an American Style Work contract legislation. Every one saw that they would loose industial benefits. That was the catalyst then all Howards errors came back to haunt him. He became the 2nd sitting Prime Minister in history to lose his seat.

While the decision to change vote may be based on the incombants faiures it needs a catalyst.

My point is that I doubt that the public (the swinging voter) is even really aware or concerned by the issues you raise. He /she is more likely to vote on which side offers the best incentives or frightenes them the most.

It is a political truism that states oppositions never win ellections Governments lose them either by disasterous decisions or in the case of Howard 'work choices' was a bridge too far.

I can't stress too strongly the importance of a 3rd party that can gain the balance of power. Up untill the last parliament Australia had such a watch dog but due to in fighting it crashed and howard went ideological.

I wonder if the real problem is the Constitution its self. The old girl was written with 18th century ideals, understanding, technologies and appropriate legal precidents. Consider for a moment it was written pre industrial companies has people and assets conglomerations didn't exist Steel bottomed battle ships didn't exist, neither did instant computerized communications. But most importantly it was influenced by Adam Smith's some what idealistic view of Capitalism. The founding fathers would be horrified by todays corporatism and suppression of the public. While totally impractical I still say all constitution like countries should be up graded to cope with the circumstances in which the populous lives......Or make me world Emperor...I'd still be corrupt but It would unite the world in their hatred of me...common enemy principal.

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Friday, December 7, 2007 at 12:26:10 AM