Democrats and Republicans have switched sides—and nearly half of voters now call themselves independent. Peter Savodnik meets the politically homeless.
EVERY voter should be independent. Political parties exist for the benefit of the party. Assigning yourself to help them, almost exclusively at the expense of the actual voter, is insane.
Vote for CANDIDATES who you actually believe will follow through on their commitments (whatever they are and whatever you care about). Outside of federal income taxes, a two party system was viewed as the greatest threat to our freedoms by many of our founding fathers, and for a reason. There is no difference between a centralized government - exactly what the founding documents existed to protect us against - and two centralized parties acting as a duopoly to expand that government through mock competition
Spot on. The founding fathers also warned us against foreign entanglements. However, both establishment parties have bipartisan consensus on foreign interventions that have killed/injured/displaced millions and put us into record debt, while enriching them and their Military Industrial Complex cronies. The DNC is the only party machine trying to keep opponents off the ballot, whether it's Trump or Dean Phillips - the only Democrat with enough courage to run against Biden.
The DNC and the RNC are, at least to voters, exactly the same thing. I use this anology often, but we should think of political parties as NFL franchises. Yes, the players are HIGHLY competitive with each other, as are the coaches and the front offices, etc... but, at the end of the day, the owners all sit down together and talk not for one second about how they beat each other, but ENTIRELY about how they work together to increase the revenue to the league as a whole. They work together toward maximizing how much money they can extract through fans, partners, and intermediaries. Everything else is secondary, and not like a close second, but so distant a second it basically becomes irrelevant.
That is the DNC and RNC. They portend competition because the people involved have huge egos and want to appear to be important, but at the end of the day they exist to enrich the system they support. They exist to keep out other entrants and to extract as much money from voters, partners, and intermediaries as humanly possible, and everything else is secondary, and not like a close second, but so distant a second it basically becomes irrelevant.
Politicians CAN care about their constituents, parties can't... The sooner we figure that out, the better off we'll all be.
Bingo. The whole topic of politics in the US boils down to money. The combatants seem to be different from one another and ideologically motivated, and many are. But fundamentally they’re all conspiring to do one thing..make government bigger and more perceptually indispensable to the average person. That’s how they all get rich. And boy have they. The feds can do some things no state or local government can. Those things are spelled out in the Constitution. But there’s been massive mission creep over the past 100 years, especially the past 75, to the point where people can hardly talk about their lives in any vein without reference to a government program, mandate, or benefit. The mission creep is the common currency of your politics regardless of what side you run on....So long as the machine gets bigger, there’s no grease too sticky. Which is why I support two proposals more than any others. Term limits on all federal political officers and employees (curtail the professional political class) and statutes of limitations on all federal laws. No one should be able to be a professional politician (it’s what, at core, America was founded against) and no federal law should be automatically permanent, but instead should require periodic and active reinstatement.
The feds are specifically designated border security and national defense. The mission creep you cite is largely, if not exclusively, the fault of Congress failing to do its Constitutionally mandated oversight function.
I don't think it is possible without reversing JFK's executive order allowing federal government employees to unionize. It is not a law, but no Republican president had the balls (or interest) to rescind it.
I wasn't aware of that EO, but it kind of makes my point. Executive orders are one of the primary levers used to augment government power and jurisdiction. And unions? Don't get me started. They had a role to play once upon a time. Still valuable, but less so. But there's a reason no GOP president has rescinded it. I'm not a fan of Trump but this is exactly what is meant by draining the swamp. Professional political class = bottomless pit of bureaucracy and wealth transfer.
"Term limits on all federal political officers and employees (curtail the professional political class) and statutes of limitations on all federal laws. No one should be able to be a professional politician (it’s what, at core, America was founded against) and no federal law should be automatically permanent, but instead should require periodic and active reinstatement."
Amen! I would add, return to rule by the majority of the people.
I've always been partial to, "they will both screw you, just in different ways". Having been in the federal government as employee, union VP and supervisor, it is always evident who is in charge after an election. It was whiplash when the party in charge changed.
I was an advisor for a governor and state senator. And yes, each party in charge will find a way to help their people at the expense of others. Tribalism has destroyed our political system.
2 term limits for politicians - two terms (12 years) for senators and six terms (12 years) for Reps. House of Reps elections every four years, not every two, so they are (marginally) not constantly running for re-election;
There’s a lot more but I’ll quit now. Some of these could be easily introduced by Executive Order, not ideal but if Congress will not do its job, it’s the only way to get things done, as Clinton and Obama discovered. The GOP in Congress have not been FOR anything (except tax cuts) for 30 years, a complete abdication of legislative responsibility.
I have mixed feelings about term limits. Having worked at companies where turnover is high, a lot of institutional knowledge is lost and a lot of time wasted in new people figuring out how things work.
I like most of your ideas. I would change a couple:
1. Election Day(s): at least two days so those who work can vote.
2. Mixed feelings as I said
3. Term limits for SC justices so that each president gets to appoint two justices.
4. Yes
5. Yes, but this won't work as long as there are only candidates from two parties.
We should definitely have a law that states that any elected official who votes for war should be a veteran or have children in the military. What we have now is a mercenary army to fight unvoted on, undeclared wars with military involvement decided upon by politicians receiving donations from weapons manufacturers. Does that sound fair?
Always thought that Bernie was the sell out when he dropped out of the CA primary for president. It would have been nice for Bernie to “fight the machine”
There is no difference between a centralized government - exactly what the founding documents existed to protect us against - and two centralized parties acting as a duopoly to expand that government through mock competition
Why? I don't even understand why the primaries are anyone's business aside from the Parties...Dems and Reps are not part of the government. The fact that state money is spent on the primaries has never made sense to me. If the Dems or Reps want to allow the public to help them pick their candidates, that is fine.
In the absence of a rational voting system, having open primaries is a second-best way to discover a consensus candidate from the swarm intelligence of popular opinion. Given that each party only comprises around a quarter of the population in most places, and that the voting method in the general election is irrational (more on that in a second), only allowing partisans to make that decision means that the only viable candidates we get in the general are those representing minority relatively fringe opinions. Half of a quarter is 12.5%. A close primary therefore means the rest of us independents (the majority now) only get to choose between two candidates that only maybe 12% of the voting public would put down as their first choice - less if there's a crowded primary field and no one even gets half of first place votes.
About "rational" voting systems - by that I mean systems that disincentivize strategic voting and incentivize honest voting. The whole point of voting is to actually measure public sentiment, not some distortion of public sentiment brought on by strategic voting. The terms "protest vote" (that one guy in the article threw out there) and "spoiler candidate" are not fundamental realities, but rather side effects of our peculiar first-past-the-post (FPTP) plurality voting system. On the flip side of the coin, the two party system is also arguably also a side effect of this same system on game-theoretic grounds. It does not incentivize people to express their honest opinion unless they happen to align with one of the 2 major parties that emerge from that system.
I don't fault the founders, because at the time simplicity was required. But various experiments have since proven that we need not have these side effects. In many European countries, several parties thrive simultaneously and are forced to cooperate to form coalitions. This is a result of proportional representation (not relevant to presidential elections but worth mentioning) and more nuanced ballot systems usually involving preference specification. In reality, most people's preference is not "blue/red no matter who" but rather some variation of "I'd prefer X (maybe blue/red, or independent), but if they aren't viable then I'll take Y (maybe an independent, or red/blue), and finally Z (maybe the opposite major party from X)". With preference ranking, you can locate the compromise candidate that makes the most people the least unhappy. But "blue/red no matter who" is exactly what the FPTP system forces you to express on your ballot, at the expense of "wasting your vote". And so we get dishonest strategic voting and minority rule.
Well said, Matthew. Australia has had preferential voting since the 19th century (first country in the world to bring in universal suffrage and votes for women). It works well. It encourages, even forces, candidates and parties to try to “capture the Center” (because that’s where most of the votes are). Still a two-party system in the lower house, while fringe parties can bag a few seats in the broad electorate upper house (similar to the U.S. Congress). Avoid proportional representation at all costs: yes, it invites compromises but it almost inevitably leads to pernicious outcomes, for example recently in (among others) Israel; New Zealand; Belgium; the Netherlands; and Spain.
Australia also, for what it’s worth, has compulsory voting (“the vote is a privilege AND a responsibility”) but I’m not naive enough to think we’d introduce that here.
I'm curious to understand the general patterns of the pernicious outcomes you mention with proportional representation. I don't have a lot of specific historical knowledge of these places, just a general theoretical idea about how PR seems more representative of public opinion.
Also, for what it's worth - and this might be a controversial take - I kind of think compulsory voting is a really bad idea. Like if someone can't be bothered to exercise the great privilege of voting, they're probably not motivated enough to have done sufficient research on the candidates to know who truly represents them best.
This ^^ So much this. I was going to post similar but you covered it. Most of our electoral and governing dysfunction comes from this "not Constitutionally provided but institutionally mandated" bifurcated "majority by a first past the goalpost" electoral system and "majority vs minority" institutional structures - of which I would add the stupid Congressional rules of "majority party rules" that led to the recent Republican "majority" breakdown but actually, in a backhanded way, demonstrated how a "coalition" government *could* work - if the "majority" caucus is as dysfunctional as the current Republican majority is, it cannot function as an actual majority and has therefore forced some actual coalitionizing. I know that's not what the GOP factions intended, but I thank them all the same for giving us a somewhat of a preview of how a coalition government could operate, hopefully in the future intentionally and in the open and not just to stave off "majority dysfunction driven crises", but still ; P
Legitimately, there should be no primaries, but open and run-off general elections. Primaries have simply institutionalized the political parties into the electoral system. Districting should be calculated by a computer that weighs by priority: population density, city/county demarcations, geographical boundaries in that order. "X" number of constituents drawn into a district defined by those guidelines, districts are as large and/or small as needed to accommodate "x" number of constituents into along those lines. No "gerrymandering" or the absurdity of politicians and political parties choosing their electorates and engineering fake majorities from. If we can't get rid of the Electoral College via Constitutional Convention (a big lift), most/all states should move towards proportional Electoral Vote awarding like Maine (?) has. Electors are awarded after a run-off vote giving the top 2 candidates a proportional share of the electors. This gives third party candidates a viable path, and doesn't completely disenfranchise up to 49% of a given state's electorate from having a say in the Presidential election. Congress (both arms) should be run by a set of consistent rules that require all bills that have at least a 1/3 backing to be brought to up and down floor votes, no "filibuster" or "majority of the majority" BS that simply gives a fringe minority an unearned veto. Leadership/Speakership is also a full floor vote of all nominees. Maybe this rewards a "natural majority" but the practice of confining this selection to yet another "majority of a majority" and with the expectation of "promises" in exchange for votes (including the rules of Congress!) is exactly what delivered the dysfunction this cycle. Committee seats are also awarded proportionately to representation and subject to some sort of floor vote, not party favorship.
The emergence of an almost plurality of "independents" demands some institutional and electoral changes, even with the boundaries of the Constitution. The continued dominance and institutional support of "Democratic" and "Republican" parties needs to end - otherwise, it is as you say - the incentivizing of perverse voting strategies and prioritizing of a few sliver of issues and "branding" that drives voting. I want to be able to choose from candidates that run on a set of issues, commit to some degree of coalition making on others, and are not part of some party "cult" or "brand".
> "Legitimately, there should be no primaries, but open and run-off general elections. Primaries have simply institutionalized the political parties into the electoral system. Districting should be calculated by a computer that weighs by priority: population density, city/county demarcations, geographical boundaries in that order."
Somebody raised the money spent/state involvement in primaries with me earlier and I did not have a good answer. But on reflection it is because the states maintain the voter rolls. The primaries are the precursor, literally, to the general election and voter qualification matters. Not casting multiple votes matters. Having an actual.primary with verified results matters. Otherwise Hillary would pick all the candidates.
Why? Because the parties have effectively bared anyone other than a Dem or Repub to run for elected offices. So everyone should a vote in who the candidates will be. In Nebraska pick a side to vote in the primary and do so. The biggest advantage to voters is, the candidate has to pay attention to the independents, those who now decide elections. There are more independents who vote than base/partisan voters in either party.
Yip Australia stopped mail in ballots at the turn of the 20th century, why because your respective parties could not control the ballots, there was no chain of custody etc. This is our current system today. Also your voting population is different, according to Democrats here Republicans are suppressing a large section of the population by making them vote with registration,ID and same day voting. For some unknown reason, they claim we need 2 months before to vote and send in our ballots And really expect us all to believe there is no grift and gaslighting taking place. Crazy stuff!
And? The point of the primaries is to help the party narrow down who their candidate is. The Parties don't have to involve the public at all if they don't want. You have no right to vote on who the parties run. And I don't know of a legal reason the parties couldn't have multiple people on the ballot if they chose (they will never do this because it dilutes their votes).
In the current situation, lets say you were going to end up voting for Biden...why should you have ANY say in who the republicans get to vote for as president? The only reason to allow that is so you can try to kick out candidates that you don't want them to be able to pick from. Which I realize some states are trying to do anyway.
A lot of what the parties do is just organize the campaigns at every level of government. My husband ran as an independent in our local election last Fall for our town's Board of Finance. But because independents have no party structure, our town Republican Party agreed to run him (I am also the Treasurer of our local town Republican Party), otherwise he would have had to fund and run his own campaign, not an easy thing to do even on a local level. In the end, my husband didn't win even though he was probably the better candidate; Our town is floating a bond for the first time in 30 years (for an ambulance building) and he's an expert in structuring bonds. He lost primarily because he had an 'R' after his name in a Democrat leaning town. Folks didn't vote for expertise, they voted for 'D' and missed out on one of the most knowledgable guys around to help them through the bonding process. Parties do offer candidates a way to campaign and offer structure in doing so.
Totally agreed. Parties are important. They must be broad enough to maintain an influential body while remaining narrow enough that they can focus on certain issues and achieve results. Consequently, not everyone is going to feel represented by a party, but, largely, our two parties do a good enough job representing large swaths of the voting public.
I don’t follow. Are you suggesting I’ve been somehow fooled? I look at the Republican’s platform and I see policies I largely agree with. The party funds and supports politicians that align with those policies, thus it is rational to vote Republican.
This does not mean I vote straight ticket. I voted for some Dems in ‘20 and ‘22 if I thought the candidate was more competent.
What part of this suggests to you I’ve been sold some package of lies?
Parties exist so uneducated voters will vote for greater power consolidation. The party picks who gets to run, and they accumulate the power under the faux perception that the candidate themselves controls anything.
If we didn't have party affiliation your husband could have won and likely won with 50 votes, because only the VERY educated would have voted and they would have voted for the person best positioned to solve the problem. Instead, a bunch of voters with no idea what they're voting for a why voted "D" because "that's their team."
The outcome is that parties accumulate power and candidates are simply placeholders for party power accumulation. And it's even worse if you win, because that uproots your whole life and now they OWN you. Because you need them to get reelected. Vote out of step? See ya. Break with the team because your constituents want you to? You'll be replaced in the snap of a finger by someone who will toe the line. Joe Biden literally doesn't know who he is anymore (he couldn't remember his own favorite food) but he toes the party line so he gets to stay.
You can pretend these parties "help candidates get elected," but that's the opposite of what they do... they help parties accumulate power by controlling who gets to do what, even at the local level.
I agree with you for the most part about the negatives of party politics, consolidation of power, etc. but running for office isn’t exactly easy. Most people have no clue what it takes - time, money and smarts - to run. Campaign ‘mechanics’ are boring but necessary. It’s really, really hard for an individual to do. It’s a group sport.
I totally agree - and it's not easy on purpose. That's part of the point of a duopoly, to eliminate competition, and especially the most important competition, which is individual candidates. It's exactly how we've bastardized free market economic competition in America as well. The key is giving the masses, who have no idea what they're doing or talking about, an easy button. And that's what parties are. They own the process, specifically because they've convinced a bunch of COMPLETELY uninformed people to "just vote the party." Running for office in local politics would be REALLY easy if it weren't for parties because it'd take about 20 votes to get elected to important offices, and all 20 of those votes would be people highly motivated and well-informed on the actual topic at hand. Instead, they make it so you HAVE to compete against a party and the only way to do so is to join the other party, and now the party owns you, because you and them both know you got elected because of the party and not because of your own merits... Even if you actually HAVE merits (which, let's be honest, most candidates at ALL level of politics, do not...)
But, to me, it shouldn't be complicated. It should allow for the general population to run, since the point of all of this is to allow us to govern ourselves. We aren't supposed to need some elite class to help us.
Much in the same way that big companies support laws that make it harder for small businesses to compete with them, the big parties have made sure that the process is too hard for regular people to get involved with.
Democrat a..holes you can bet there is going to be much backhanding in the ambulance building project and what a shame they didn’t give this to your husband, however I think he must definitely keep an eye on it even if it’s just to irritate the Democrats.
I agree in its current manifestation it is what you call a duopoly and I call a Uniparty. Which is bad. But the system was designed for a winner take all scenario, from President to dog catcher. You win you get your chance to implement your policies. I have been enamored of multi-party systems but I do not see that as the solution as that inevitably means compromised governance. Not government by compromise. Compromised government. Which is what we have her at this time anyway. But I think Europe and Canada were down the rabbit hole before we were. We all read, and read, and read about the division, the lack of unity, the this side versus that side and we all say we are tired of it. But it is in the duopoly/Uniparty's interest for us to remain this way. Because that way there is no clear winner implementing his/her policies. The duopoly/Uniparty is the foe of the American, not just citizen, but populace. They do not have our interest at heart they have their interest at heart. And the only thing that can stop that is a fair election where the US voter says no more. Loudly, clearly and probably more than once. For that reason I like your no-party suggestion - deny them their base. Alternatively, if you cannot give up your party then get busy doing something other than just voting - start with your party's local precinct meetings, work up to your party's state convention, and from there to the national convention. Make your voice heard. You may not make a difference at your first one but if you stick with it you will. Make them understand that we want to be unified in support of a moderate, centrist government.
It wasn't designed for a winner take all...it became that way. There was a time when the VP was the runner up...meaning the next in line was the person the president ran against. So the people had their second choice next in line.
The president is not meant to be the king. They aren't supposed to pass laws or hand down edicts. But over time, the citizens allowed government to increasingly get away with things...many of which may have seemed good at the time. Like, say, the Louisiana Purchase. It was a great deal for the country...but it also allowed the president to do something he was not supposed to be able to do.
Its kinda like Power Creep in games. The longer a game goes on and keeps adding stuff to it, the more power creeps in. Sadly, the fix will likely be some kind of 'reset' which is likely to be very painful to the people who are around when it happens.
I still think it is a winner takes all design. And not just for the President. I did not know that about the VP; second in the primary? For all the bluster about the President if Congress were not AWOL for any issue other than spending, largely to buy future votes, the presidential power would be limited to proposing policy and enforcement of existing law. Instead we had what you describe, a president functioning as a king and signing executive orders. But at least that type of president was still elected. Bu
During the previous administration the executive branch career bureaucrats disavowed loyalty to the executive and we are now ruled - ruled, not governed - by those bureaucrats who are accountable to no one.
Edited to add: if you have never read Senator David Crockett's speech in response to an attempt to use federal money to aid victims of a horrendous fire in Baltimore as I recall you should check it out.
This country is currently in a serious battle. It is between the common people and the Deep State/ foreign globalists. They will destroy the Western World to win power over us and it's happening NOW. I hope to God that someone emerges to help lead us and get the majority to realize that we have a common enemy and time is fast running out.
it seems too late to do anything about it now. There's no way in heck they'll ever cede power to DJT again. In the name of saving democracy I predict there will never be another Republican president.
We are a one party state. We are in fact ruled by oligarchy. The battle for a seat on that council is between the party that believes the egg should be cracked at the broader end and the party that insists at the narrower. We however won't get an egg. We get to provide the eggs for the "leaders".
They forget they should be servants. The only serving they do is self.
💯correct - but I have never not voted. I cannot boycott my late parents will turn in their graves and I have warned my children to always vote so I have picked who I am voting for on 6th November.🇺🇸🇺🇸
Correct. The biggest misconception in American politics is that government exists to "get things done." All government is a tax on society. Period. In the best circumstances it is a tax we agree is worth it (a judicial system that removes rapists and murders from society), in other situations it's a tax that may be worth it though the free market would likely better solve the problem (roads and bridges) and in the other 99% of situations it's a tax on the people for the benefit of the tax collectors.
The US constitution existed to limit government power such that you wouldn't need political parties because the government was supposed to stay the hell out of the way...
This is really long, but please give it a read - https://butthedatasays.substack.com/p/has-the-american-dream-been-eaten. My point isn't that political association won't always exist, common working groups exist in every single facet of life. The point is that you shouldn't vote for it. Think of your life - and pick anything you care about. If you were going to hire a babysitter would you interview the babysitter and pick the one best situation for your family, or just randomly be assigned one by your preferred babysitter ranking organization? What about work? Would you just randomly hire the person because they happen to have a certificate from an industry organization you believe in? Or would you hire multiple candidates and chose the best?
Political parties don't exist to create working groups - humans would do that naturally. Political parties exist so the uneducated voter can vote for a candidate they know NOTHING about, in may cases have never even heard of, but "align with their values" (HA!!!!!) to ensure the party continues to control politics at the expense of the voter. Vote for PEOPLE, and let those people chose who they align with, hopefully to get absolutely nothing done so we stopped being "taxed to no hell" to make our life outcomes worse (education declining, freedoms declining, life expectancy declining, all health markers declining, class mobility declining, I could go on and on...)
The federal government I see as largely a failure. The only thing they're good at is bilking me out of the fruits of my labor. The trillions they efficiently harvest by compelling the most productive of us to become their tax collectors and then prove to them that we are being compliant at our expense under pain of huge financial penalty is a demonically brilliant system. The exemption of course is if you are fedzilla or one of major corporations that comprise the oligarchy.
What do we get for our money? My state is inundated by uncountable numbers of humanity that are here for the gimme. They are evaporating local resources at the expense of our working poor. I'm mostly concerned with this issue because it's the one fedzilla failure that most affects us. If measured any one of the responsibilities mandated by charter the federal government system fails to some degree.
If you were going to freely render your earnings to the tune of thirty odd percent would you write that check to the federal government?
You will feel just as unrepresented living in a partyless society as you do in a two party system because the problem is not the parties, the problem is you have only one vote and 320 million other people vote too. Everyone will always feel they aren’t being represented because no one is, we all must cast our vote and accept the government we hate is actually an accurate depiction of the society we live in.
Most people don’t vote straight ticket anyway. I’m a Republican and a fairly rigid conservative one at that but I still voted for a few democrats last election.
The system is more dynamic than people give it credit, and the two parties are morphing constantly to match the ever changing electorate. 15 years ago no party would support my same sex marriage, now it’s not even a concern in my mind.
I mean this in the kindest way possible, but I think you're blinded by your own intelligence. Political parties do not exist to align working groups - humans would naturally do that just as they do in every single function of society without having to define it. I collaborate toward specific ends at work all the time without the need to label myself and only work with others who label themselves the same way. Political parties exist as a marketing function specifically for the uneducated. The VAST majority of voters DO vote party ticket - specifically because they're uneducated.
It's like branding in any endeavor. An auto mechanic knows a Porsche is fantastic (the brand), but equally you could take the Porsche emblem off the car and they could just look at the individual components (the actual issues) and they'd know exactly what they want, or identify it as a Porsche, as such, based on the combination of components.
People who care about politics and actually pay attention to the issues and the candidates see party as a downstream affiliation, but the VAST majority of people view politics like they view cars - they saw in Consumer Digest that Toyota's were reliable, or even worse they heard from a friend this one time, and they see a lot of Toyota's out there, so what the hell, I guess I'll buy a Toyota. They aren't "buying" issues, they don't even know who the candidates are, they simply vote for "R" because that's what the people around them do and they heard they were supposed to, so what the hell. And they view that decision as MUCH less impactful than buying a car, so it gets even less actual work than buying a car does (which most consumers still do with very little insight).
And political party's are even worse, because they're car dealers - they get to control, monopolistically, what you can even get access too. One of the other commentors, who agreed with you on the value of political parties openly admitted that her husband ran for office and could ONLY do it as a Republican, because it's "impossible to run without them" (apparently not realizing that's both my point AND the problem!!!!!) and lost, despite being the more qualified candidate, because it was a D area and absolutely no one cared about the issue at hand (bond issuance) or who was best prepared to manage that process - they just voted D because they vote D.
Eliminate parties and people would only vote for the candidates they actually know, and the issues they actually care about, and we'd all be MUCH better off for it.
And then representatives would still work together to get stuff done, and form alliances, and partnerships, and collaborations, just as they do in every other country that doesn't have a two party system and every other function of life where people collaborate for the collective benefit all the time...
I.e. the kindness wasn’t meant for you - I hopefully was/have been kind to you (if not certainly tell me) - it was in reference to non-politically inclined voters to whom I was comparing someone like you too…
Haha - that’s fair, but I promise it was. Or it wasn’t, I guess I can’t say for sure, only you can determine that, but I’d appreciate your perspective on my take. Specifically the comparison of you, who clearly cares, vs those who don’t…
The party structure is valid, it provides a framework and a platform to advance political objectives. One does not need to agree with every issue to understand that the best way to see their preferred issue through is to form an alliance, even if imperfect. Parties provide funding, expertise and an administrative back bone to one’s political causes.
If you’re entirely out of line with both parties there’s nothing wrong with being an independent and voting as you wish, but some of us feel broadly represented by a political party and see the value in banding together.
The problem is not parties per-se...it is only having 2. It forces everyone to either follow a party or feel like they have no vote. But it also allows those parties to manipulate their voters easier. Yes, parties can offer expertise. But much of their expertise is needed because they exist in the first place. I would need a Party's help, because I would be running against someone in a party.
Ideally we shouldn't need parties. People should run on what they believe and intend to do and people should vote on that.
“But it also allows those parties to manipulate their voters easier.”
I strongly disagree with that statement. If this were true the Republican Party would not be in the predicament it’s in right now. It would have long ago steered the ship clear of Trump, instead he hijacked it. Democrats have a little more top down control but I believe that is more a function of the leftist mindset which is much more collectivist than they like to admit.
Maybe. I think you should give people more credit though. It’s easy to dismiss people as thoughtless followers than to admit there are lots of people who choose to disagree with you.
Context is yours. People follow for all sorts of reasons, most of them social. Some others are that they prefer not to think so hard, or to listen rather than act, or to sit on the fence or take the easier path.
I agree one should be Independent and vote for a candidate, not a party BUT if you aren't a declared Democrat or a Republican you don't vote in the Primaries and you don't influence choice.
"Wrong, IF you believe in Limited then you are a Republican.
" and two centralized parties acting as a duopoly to expand that government through mock competition"
Some Small questions. Would the Democratic Party nominated (say) Barry Goldwater...Ronald Reagan? Wrote (and passed) The Contract For America, Cut Taxes several Times? I could go on and on and on. Thee is this Silly idea mainly pushed by Libertarians that there is no difference between the 2 major Parties. NOTHING could be farther from The Truth.
Its May 2020 MPLS, IF A Republican were mayor at that time would the 3rd Precinct have burned down? Doubt it.
People who say things like No Difference either want to sell you something, sound political sophisticated, or are dumber than dirt.
That was never the case, that is a GOP marketing line, little more. Instead it's what aspect of life will each party expand the reach of government into?
Shelle Lichti, if you'd like to run for President, I'll support you with every bit of energy I have. An actual American who's simply speaking the truth formed by your life experiences instead of headlines.
And if you read this, please know that my restaurant is 5 miles off I80, in Iowa City, and you'll always eat free. I'll even scrape something up for the pup.
I hope so too as I'd love to meet her. Maybe let me ride a couple hundred miles with her. I'll arrange for transportation back. I'm sure she's got a lot of fascinating stories that I could (even at 67) learn from, and I've got a few myself.
Jon, I lived in Iowa City from 1980 to 1985. My own political realignments had yet to launch. I was dumbfounded that Ronald Reagan had won… I so enjoyed my time in Iowa City…great drinking sessions with graduate students.
I actually live in Cedar Rapids, which is a little closer to the rural mindset that existed when this country was formed. Iowa City likes to think they're as progressive as Berkley, A2 or Harvard, but they've still got a lot of old school rural genes in their City.
I've lived all over the country and landed here 13 years ago. The people, in general, are amazing compared to Denver, Vegas, NOLA, Upstate NY and Detroit. No slam on those places, but the people here are refreshingly civil.....for the most part. :)
Yes, Iowa City a big university town including law school, med school, graduate writing program and townies. Somehow, at that time, everyone seemed salt of the earth— no nonsense mid west values. Btw living in different regions of this still amazing country is well worth it…plaudits to Shelle Lichti
The thing I found odd about this piece was that in several places, Savodnick uses "pro-civil-liberties" as shorthand for liberal. I don't know any Republicans or (especially) Libertarians who are anti-civil-liberties. I'm curious as to what he means by the implication. Surely, as Mr. Fleming says, Covid showed us the, shall we say, somewhat limited commitment the political left has for civil liberties overall. Only certain liberties are approved.
Freezing the bank accounts of the truckers in Ottawa was definitely a threshold. I don't think for a moment that Gavin Newsom, if he were president, wouldn't resort to it if he thought he could.
I know someone whose checking account was penetrated by the State of California for taxes on an investment that moved from Massachusetts to California.
I vaguely remember reading a piece about his family (including his utterly corrupt wife, and her family) having nearly absolute power in the backwater of Alagoas state before he became president.
Collor froze every account in the nation. Irrespective of the amount held in the account you were permitted 50 Reis. The rest were converted into non cashable government bonds. He did this on his first day in office.
Exactly right. Get all the abortions you want, but you better not want a gun. You better take this shot or we will fire you. Abortion is health care but the unvaccinated should be left to die in the street. Say anything within the law but you'd better not say anything wrong, as decided by...... Masks for all, no shopping or dining out, no beauty salons, unless you're one of the chosen elite.
The reverse is just as bad: get all the guns you want, but how dare you need an abortion. Call yourself a woman when you look like a man and you're fired. Etc.
America is drunk on Rageahol and until we detox, the culture wars will continue.
We're two or four different societies. I have no affinity for the left. I think you're completely wrong and you insist on compelling me to buy into your madness. The progressive's 1854 war of northern aggression is the glaring example.
You like to flatter yourself by misappropriation. That's fine most loony leftists do. You're no liberal and this liberal calls you on it. Empirical evidence points to 170 years of leftist madness having almost completely undermined our great social experiment.
I has become my opinion that whomever has the power is against civil liberties. Because it is harder to keep power without control...which requires taking away freedom. I don't think either party has a monopoly on allowing or removing liberties. Just depends on what exactly it is and if they currently have the power to force it.
They’re not liberals in the traditional sense. The ACLU coming out in favor of vaccine mandates or removing Trump from ballots does not represent a liberal view. I’m not sure what it is, maybe progressive fascism. But not liberals. Liberals believe in individual liberty and limits on government authority.
I came down to the comments to see if anyone else had noticed that. Even in an attempt to write a balanced piece, Savodnick couldn't stop himself from inferring that if you think voting laws should exist, or cratering a newborn's head should be wrong, or that, maybe, we can't take on the complete collapse of all the countries who rejected all the freedoms we hold dear, you're anti-civil liberties. We live in the post-modern, post-moral hellhole of the left's making.
I might mostly agree with you, but the evidence for at least one civil liberty I value highly (free speech) suggests otherwise. Consider a survey of students conducted by FIRE recently, which showed those identifying on the left are more likely to approve shouting down a speaker. I think the comment section doesn't allow links, but search for the following 2023 paper on SSRN: "Partisan conflict over content moderation is more than disagreement about facts" by Appel, Pan and Roberts. Here's the money quote from the abstract: "Even when Republicans agree that content is false, they are half as likely as Democrats to say that the content should be removed and more than twice as likely to consider removal as censorship."
If we are not free to be wrong, we are not free, period.
"If we are not free to be wrong, we are not free, period."
Amen to that, DNJ. Particularly because right or wrong in the world of opinions and commentary is solely in the eye of the beholder. Nobody should be able to tell me my view of Trump, Biden, or the Man In the Moon is "wrong."
And I am pretty ardent in not censoring ANY views, even those repellent to me personally. Neither social media should not be in the censorship business, only in the honest umpiring business (government) and platform-providing business (media). If the Nazis want to "heil" on Twitter, let them, I'll give them a digital finger and then ignore them.
I'm genuinely surprised that Wolan's marriage survived her telling her husband, "You’re never going to understand me, because you’re white, a man, privileged." Her husband is clearly more patient than I would be if my spouse said something like that to me.
One of the things that I always thought of as one of the greatest things about this country (as an immigrant) is the idea and social acceptance of interracial/interreligious marriage. Something that would be unthinkable or at worst heavily stigmatized in most of the world is now seen as nothing special. That is a credit to America and how it has changed and it allows two people to put aside what would be vast differences and find their commonalities, which are enough that one could commit to marriage.
I was under the impression that most interracial marriages were like that. If they are not, either
1. These couples just bring up their differences and have never managed to move past them
2. The new leftist victim ideology is so potent and destructive that it can break apart love and marriage.
The article seems to say that the recent adoption of #2 is what led to these comments. That just goes to show how much of a problem the victim ideology is.
It's 2, unfortunately. I was a conservative Dem and my spouse a middle-of-the-road Dem when we married 30 years ago. Now I'm an Independent. None of my positions have changed, but the party now shuns many of them. Soon after the 2016 election, spouse adopted so-called "progressivism" as religion, not so much for its own sake but more as a never-Trumper.
Sadly, we are no longer able to discuss politics. Like other "liberals" cited in the article, she's not able to have a rational, civil discussion about presidential politics beyond "Orange Man Bad." I actually think she's starting to question some of the silly catechisms, as are more and more of our neighbors and friends (we live in a blue county). We'll see if that continues.
I would also observe that the far-left's increasing illiberalism is doing more to cause "normal" Democrats to rethink their party allegiance than anything Republicans are saying. ("Normal" referring to those who have been Dems since way back when, and don't follow politics closely, so are only recently becoming more aware of some of the far left's growing proclivity to stifle dissent.)
Imagine if the situation were reversed. If her husband had magnanimously decided that she did, in fact, have a right to her own vote/opinion, people would NEVER forgive him for his patriarchal arrogance.
Disagreeing about the best solutions is one thing. Disagreeing about the other people's worth as a human being because of their essential characteristics is quite another.
Thankfully her spouse had more faith in her core humanity and rationality than people in an Internet comment section! Which seems validated now that she’s rejected those views.
I think in this case, Wolan did not feel that way until she fell into the toxic Identitarian crowd, and that her point is she now has rejected that crowd.
That is what I got out of it. That she hadn't originally been this way. Wokism infected her and she became that way. But she realized what had happened and was able to back away.
Her story gave me all the negative feels. What a hypocritical, poisonous person to have allowed herself to be so captured by the madness of the crowd that she would jeopardize her relationship with her husband (and children!) over a BS trumped up “narrative” of empty bitterness and mass accusations. I’m surprised she didn’t divorce during #metoo (the earliest of the sweeping illiberal mass condemnation hysterias). Ugh. Her newfound “sanity” leaves me highly dubious.
I know, right??? What if he'd said to her, "you're brown, a woman, privileged." What hell would have erupted then? And since when is a marriage two "sparring partners?"
Absolutely. If that had happened to me, there would have been a very serious discussion immediately following, somewhere outside of the earshot of our children.
And then what?... She firmly believed, and in her mind KNEW that her husband was evil. OK maybe I'm projecting. She KNEW that her husband held some unforgivable opinions. How then does the conversation outside the earshot of the children go? Perhaps, "I'll take the kids. You get the house and 50% of the 401k."
Deep breath. Her husband wasn't being evil. Opinions vary. The conversation would go something like, "Would you please explain to me what the heck just happened?" There is a big difference between being angry at your spouse because "You're not hearing me" and telling the person that you are married to and have children with that he is essentially incapable of hearing you because his skin is white and he has a penis. Ergo, the private "what was that about and what triggered it" conversation.
I did notice that the marriage survived because she turned away from the Leftist propaganda that led her to accuse her husband of being "privileged" and "white." This is far from the first person who realized, with some shock, that the ideology they'd bought into had turned them against people they loved.
He may be "clearly more patient," or he may just have considered what the effects of any response would have been. Perhaps he does not want to end the marriage. It sure sounds like she does.
That's what I meant by "clearly more patient." He valued the marriage enough to have not reacted with instant "this is a deal-breaker" negativity to being dissed by his wife as an inherently evil white man.
Personally, I have a tendency to take people at their word. If someone in my life spewed that kind of attack against my immutable characteristics, that would be the end of the relationship.
When my Thai wife says that I don't understand because I'm not Thai, I reply, no, I don't understand because you're not clearly explaining your point. Then we start over and eventually, I understand what she is saying and it has nothing to do with my lack of Thaiability. It's all about language and meaning.
These are some interesting profiles of Americans that underscore the nuance in how we all approach politics. As a lifelong independent myself, I don't feel "politically homeless" - I feel free. I am not constrained by a party some of whose positions or leaders I might disagree with. Not belonging to a party, I don't have to hate the other guys. Those of you who belong to a party - what has it done for you personally? The way their positions morph tells you it's all about power, not principles. I'm surprised anyone falls for the whole good guy/bad guy party game. Within a political party, you are a pawn. Outside of them, you are free. America is my party.
See, as an Independent i don't feel free...because I know that for the most part, my vote won't change anything, since there are so few independent candidates that stand a chance. I am surrounded by people who will vote R or D, no matter what.
I don't just vote for independent candidates - they're all independent as far as I'm concerned. I'm surrounded by the same R&D people. Just keep talking to them and sharing your perspective. When independents are a majority of registered voters in this country (currently 41%), I think that may be a tipping point for change.
I agree with the principal. I wish everyone would simply vote your conscience. And NOT vote for people if you don't actually know who they are and what they stand for.
But so long as everyone keeps voting for D or R and are afraid of "throwing away their vote" the parties don't care how you are registered. They still get your votes. So what is their incentive to change? Even if 100% of us registered independent, our votes still go to R and D as a whole, so they don't care.
Hmmn.... some good points. I think, though, if they didn't have so many diehard party loyalists they would have to attract voters from across the party spectrum, because independents would decide every election. It might temper the extremes in both parties.
I think we're in the middle of a paradigm shift, though. It seems the number of people voting 3rd party is increasing every election cycle. And this year will be very telling.
I agree most of them tilt Democrat or Republican. They say so. But the fact that they don't join a party tells me many of them are persuadable by a strong candidate with sound policies. The problem IMO is that those candidates don't seem to make it to the finish line because those same two parties have a long list of favors to dole out, debts to be repaid, contributions to reimburse via government contracts, etc. They can't take a chance on someone unreliable enough to have integrity - they might bring the whole game crashing down.
In many if not most states , as an independent one can’t vote in primaries. This further disenfranchises the independent as they have less say in who runs in the general. There is little enough choice esp on the Dem side. Look what they did to RFK jr , a lifelong Dem was treated like crap and boxed out of the party. Why do we need these political parties at all?
We have closed primaries in my state so if I don't pick a party, I don't get to vote in a primary. I don't feel constrained by belonging to a particular party.
Within the party I get a chance to influence which candidates can run. I am no one's pawn. I have selected a party that aligns with more of the most important positions I hold. Mor, but not all.
The parties pick the candidates and shift on the issues, especially after being elected. Your utility to them is your vote and your money. It's a machine, and we are very, very small players in this game. I'm sticking with "pawn".
I don’t believe in party affiliation of any kind. I have registered Republican. I have registered Democrat. I have registered Independent depending on the candidates in any given year.
I'm looking forward to when The New York Times throws in the towel, ie, abandons its pretense of practicing real journalism. Every post by The Free Press brings that day a little closer.
I was going to mention this. Alex Berenson has a good article on substack about it. He points out that the WSJ had NO actual sources to back up their claims of Musk's drug use.
Heaven help us if the WSJ can't provide a firewall to the editorializing that postures as news at most MSM. The Free Press and other substacks with integrity may eventually replace them all.
The WSJ censored me for quoting an Oregon law regarding "gender affirmative care." LOL! Apparently the leftist extremists who do their censoring don't want the texts of leftist extremists' laws to be exposed. LOL! They said my comment wasn't up to "the community standard."
"Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, the poetry of Robert Frost, Mozart sonatas..."At the height of the decolonization narrative, people would say, ‘Why are you teaching them this? This is the Western canon"
Because P Diddy and the Transgenders have been making our world SUCH a better place. Maybe we should consult Claudine Gay, our nation's supreme educator, and see what she thinks?
I hear you. I was bothered by "Then, she learned her son was transgender, and it seemed like a dangerous time to be trans or Muslim or Mexican." What exactly does this mean "her son was transgender"? There should be more curiosity about that - especially by his own mother. Let's get a scientific definition. Her son is likely just a confused gay guy who is about to be medicalized. Of course, some are serious autogynophiles - Admiral Levine likely is (the child mutilation enthusiast who is our Assistant Health and Human Services Secretary) - was Richard and married with 2 kids but goes by "Rachael" now as our first female admiral - or something. And, I do not like the Identity Politics fear mongering about how it is/was a dangerous time to be "brown" - especially when being "white" or "brown" moves around according to who the victim is in a given situation.
Claudine Gay is staying on at Harvard with a very high salary - I think $900,000. She got herself a lawyer to negotiate a profitable way to step down from the Harvard presidency. And, it worked. As a dean she was a real academic bully.
Agree. I am compassionate and supportive of people with true gender dysphoria, but it's clear the 99% of the current trans debacle is a politicized social contagion, and it's being egged on by people who want to deconstruct western civilization. Because they've somehow failed to thrive in the best society in human history. Because they're losers.
"and it's being egged on by people who want to deconstruct western civilization" Definitely. I think they do it for power and money. It translates into political power and a great deal of money for Pharma and "Medicine". Synthetic Sex Hormones were always a drug looking for a market. And, trans makes lifetime patients. See Cohn, below.
"true gender dysphoria" It used to be called Gender Identity Disorder - and I think something else before that. It was understood as a psychological disorder and people disagreed on the best way to help those (tiny number of male people who suffered with it from and early time). The first problem was giving it a new name which was going to be "kind" and not make anyone feel like is was a "disorder" because they might feel bad? Next, it became some sort of "new gay", a new "rights" campaign. Next, it became taught in schools as just another way people are different. Next, teen girls started re-writing their childhoods and really came to believe they had "always been this way". This was encouraged in a way that anorexia never was. It feels very much like a cult if you know ROGD girls - some are same sex attracted and some just don't fit in in high school for other reasons. Under-socialised or brainy girls or girls uncomfortable with puberty are a few categories... See Dr. Lisa LIttman's studies.
Two fellas who transed and have given it much thought are Anne Lawrence (I think he is happy and honest about being male) and Corina Cohn (who has regrets).
Dave, me too. Still, it’s an abiding mystery to me, this whole transgender “debacle”. JK Rowling was the early and prominent victim by being crazy brave enough to state the obvious: that biological males are males regardless of what they call themselves. And it’s gone downhill from there. It’s interesting that ALL of the pressure and hate (& nonsense about sports places) is coming from biological males; the dysphoric females are mostly silent, yet much of the anxiety and distress in under-age kids who are being “gender affirmed”, and the controversy around puberty blockers and gender re-assignment surgery being recommended for minors, is for anxiety-stricken teenage girls.
Yes, the men using it to win in sports do it for attention/"affirmation" I think. It might wind up being their undoing. I think they have a problem where no amount of attention will ever be enough. They will always crave more. There are less aggressive men trying to live quietly (but they do have a disorder for sure if maybe not the same one). I think the girls/women are entirely different and I am not sure it is even correct to say that they are "dysphoric". "Gender Dysphoria" is a catch phrase of the time and recalls the Satanic Panic era. There is even a UCSF doctor who was big in SP days and is big now in GD days:
Girls have always been more prone to mass hysterias in the past - like the Tanganyika laughter epidemic. I think there have been many in history. The Salem Witch thing comes to mind.
P.S. Historically, most boys with GID (Gender Identity Disorder) got over it (ie, it "resolved") by adulthood and were gay.
As for the others - if you read Helen Joyce's book (to name one) it explains that it always comes down to sexual desires, some of which were considered parafilias before everything became "OK" including "minor attraction".
As for the money side - it is crazy profitable even though we now know so many regret:
"U.S. Sex Reassignment Surgery Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Gender Transition (Male To Female, Female To Male), And Segment Forecasts, 2022 - 2030"
I think the "trans" thing keeps many hospitals afloat. I think that the clinic in TN was shutdown after it came out about brags regarding all the money it brought in.
As if the whole transgender "movement" isn't a western creation. The academics are always trying to claim that a few sporadic instances of "neither completely male nor female people" means that the whole transgender idea is a movement of oppressed colonized peoples but come on; the idea of transgender and gender non-conformity could only exist in a modern, Western society. A society that is able to have norms and values change quickly and willing to accept individuals who bend traditional gender roles is unique and is a product of Western ideals of individual expression and freedom and equal rights for all. This sort of thing wouldn't have ever gained traction in an Islamic country or a traditional Buddhist country.
Heck the ideas of free speech, individual rights, and equal treatment under the law that were so integral to the real change of the civil rights movement led by Dr. King and others were based on Enlightenment values from the West, not on any belief system or line of logic from the "colonized peoples"; most of the world didn't have this sort of beliefs about outgroups. These Enlightenment values were also the basis of independence movements in India, Tunisia, South Africa (from apartheid), Latin America, etc.
Well I guess I have been homeless for 52 years because since age 18, I am a registered INDEPENDENT voter. I am now 70. I don't particularly care for either party and I have a disdain for "party politics" particularly when senators and congressional leaders are pressured to toe the "party line" even when they disagree. I think I lean towards being libertarian. I believe in a small federal government, a strong military, responsible spending bills (which appear to be non existent), conservative foreign policy and have moderate social views. For example I am pro choice with limits but anti abortion as an expedient BC method. I don't care if people want to "trans" as adults but am against anything being done on children. The election is going to be tough this year because the two candidates I like will probably not be the front runners but I sure as heck will NOT VOTE for Biden. Democrat policies are NOT helping this country. WHAT TO DO❓
That can be difficult to know. The candidates say and promise things that they have no intention of fulfilling, or say things that later turn out to not be doable.
The media, both mainstream and alt, can help. I'd probably not favour anyone being pushed in my face by either the NYT or TFP and be inclined to whoever they were ignoring or saying "Look! Shiny!" as a distractor everytime their name came up. Needless to say, (But I'll say anyway!) voting any Democratic Party candidate would be insane. Might as well shoot yourself in the head and be done. :-)
Granted I’m biased because I agree with the premise of the article so take this with a grain of salt. But this seems to once again reinforce that if the GOP nominated anybody but former President Trump, they’d win a historic triumph and if they nominated DeSantis, they’d introduce an epoch-shifting change into our politics.
I am sorry to agree that GOP would win, assuming that there is no more widespread corruption in the elections, but I think that the electorate is too pissed off right now to believe in any other candidate but Trump! He has warts, but he has a clear vision on America's future, especially that America's future should be guided by Americans, not global politics.
Voting for a deeply-flawed candidate because you're "pissed off", while understandable, is a lazy approach. We need to insist on better candidates - Trump and Biden are both a disagrace.
The primaries are a problem. In 2016, Donald Trump ran against a dozen look-alikes. Jeb Bush and John Kasich were at least sane.
Trump won because he stood out, giving his rivals silly monikers, like a silly prepubescent, and stalking around the stage imitating cripples and dissing war veterans. That was clownish behavior.
There were too many running against him. They split the vote. Of course he was elected.
That his handlers surrounded him with decent people, and he was able to push through the Abraham Accords and get a Covid vaccine made and delivered, was worthy of appreciation that many won't give him.
Trying to strong-arm election officials into finding more Trump votes really wasn't.
You raise a good point. We independents have to sit our primaries in most states, so we're stuck with what's left. If a majority of voters turn independent, I would like to see them negotiate to open primaries in both parties to independents as California now does. The parties can still (and have a right to) pick their own candidates. What do you think?
Not much because then you have people doing things like voting in the primary of the party they oppose to pick fringe candidates to improve their chosen party's chance in the general. Word is that happened in those open primary states in the last mid-term.
And now we have the spectacle of left-wing dark money groups running ads for the fringe primary candidate they think will be easier to beat - not in the Presidential elections yet, but in many 2020 Congressional races. This is an equally underhanded tactic on a more organized scale. And it works, so they'll keep doing it. It is critical for voters to realize they all must vote in the primaries, even if their party's candidate is a sure thing. True for both sides, but at the moment more true for the GOP.
A Republican until the early 1990s, when I felt that Christian fundamentalism was getting too powerful in the GOP, and an Independent since then, I just re-registered as a Republican so that I can vote in the primaries and perhaps help find a better choice than Donald Trump.
A Democrat I could never have become despite my support for various liberal causes.
That's a good call, and another option for independents - to become "tactical" voters and frequently change party affiliation. I wonder how many people such a characterization would apply to?
There's a big block of Trump votes. Then a split between Vivek, Nikki and Ron. Trump is going to win the R nomination. And I am not voting for him in our R primary, but will do so in the general election.
Then, like middle-school homeroom teachers, political parties should limit the number of candidates for any office so that they don't get 15-30 running, or even a dozen, with the popular alpha-child winning with very little real support except for her besties and hangers-on.
A vote between Trump, Bush and, say, Rubio or Cruz might have had a very different outcome.
Savvy homeroom teachers know that you don't want the good kids canceling one another out.
Why do we need parties at all. What value do they add to the process? Vivek Ramaswamy is running as a Rep but is hated by the party establishment. I think he is refreshing , smart as hell, attractive to the youth because he is Young . If we don’t encourage smart independent people who sacrifice much to throw their hat in the ring, then we a country will get what we deserve.
What sane, non narcissistic , intelligent, moral person would even consider running for higher office at this point knowing the venom, untruths, and hate that would be directed at them and their families. How we lower the vitriol and encourage good candidates to run is a difficult problem, but until we solve it we will continue to end up with choices like Trump vs. Biden.
And how do we go about "insisting on better candidates" when the people apparently are not part of the process? Only the political parties control this, since only they profit from maintaining power. That is the disgrace.
For instance I was pretty annoyed when the FP kept ragging on RFK jr cause it was the fashionable media thing to do. He is at least intelligent and coherent which Biden can’t lay claim to. He is often shouted down as anti-vax. Yet none of these people attempt to explain, for example, why we are giving neonates hep b shots—a disease overwhelmingly transmitted by dirty needles and promiscuous sex—that have only been tested for five days and have no liability for the manufacturers. Anyone who is not asking questions about our vaccine program is either not informed or worse.
Not true. At this point in time Nikki Haley could wipe out Biden. All the polls agree. But there is no way she can run as a Republican bc.Trump is beating her by large percent. Non of this makes sense for the country
I would vote for anyone against the current crop of Democrat slime puppets, except Haley. I have waited my whole life to vote for a qualified woman for president, but Haley has crawled out of the same old swamp. I'd have to abstain, I suppose.
You can be active in your party. Go to your local precinct meeting. They welcome the involvement. And if they do not you absolutely know there is a significant problem. But even then don't give up. Just take reinforcements with you to the next one.
We can instist all we want and that will have no effect on who the canidates are. They are chosen for us and we have no input. The current crop of Repos are just a sideshow. The RNC has chosen it's leader. Ditto the DNC.
Yes, that’s what the polls seem to suggest. Call me pollyannish, but I think there’s a decent chance neither makes it to November. Biden’s obvious cognitive decline could reach a point that simply can’t be ignored. And Trump could say one too many stupid things and alienate critical supporters, or be convicted of something that Americans find unseemly. If that happens, the Republicans have a deep bench. The Democrats have a problem.
What is Trumps vision for our future? Certainly not an end to the corruption that benefitted his family and benefits politicians on both sides. Certainly not law and order, he watched as his minions lay siege on the Capitol, beating up cops, and refused reasonable court orders such as returning the damned documents. Certainly not a world with more individual freedom, he worked very hard to please Putin and Jong Un with words and love letters and banned reporters from his White House briefings. Certainly not a world leadership role for the US, he poked our allies in the eye repeated, publicly. Certainly not honesty, I’ll say no more.
This article was outstanding and I saw myself reflected in several of the Americans featured. And I was encouraged. Both parties have fractured into two or more ideological factions. Maybe that’s a sign that we will begin to have new voices in politics, that can work together in good faith, negotiating and compromising and if need be biding their time in convincing voters to see it their way.
You may list a million things wrong with the right, the left, Biden. I get it. The US needs to reflect on our ills and act on solutions and fast. But I don’t see how it’s reasonable to suggest Trump will solve our very serious political divides, internally and internationally given his background, experience, reactions, lack of respect for voters and his moral compass.
A few comments back at ya Ann22, but first, you are entitled to your opinions.
see the ** for my comments re your intro paragraph.
What is Trumps vision for our future? Certainly not an end to the corruption that benefitted his family and benefits politicians on both sides. **what family corruption are you alluding to for the Trumps? He is a businessman, and no one has shown any corruption or evidence of same, surely accusation abound. There are clearly politicians who are corrupt, or absolutely questionable in their actions, on both sides of the aisle. How do we remove these folks, Elections that are honest and open.
Certainly not law and order, he watched as his minions lay siege on the Capitol, beating up cops,**another opinion, and from my chair, Trump had no chance to stop the riot, and as is public knowledge, Trump offered Nat Guard days before the rally and his offer was refused. NO, he did not demand or order the troops in, he simply offered and was refused.
and refused reasonable court orders such as returning the damned documents. **NO there was no court order for returning documents, but a NARA request, that some documents be returned. From all I read, the communication btwn the two parties was just fine, not confrontational, until the August raid on Mar A Lago, which was the tip of the spear. Looking objectively at this document issue, Trump has been treated in a clearly biased manner, esp as an Ex Pres vs Pence, Biden, Clinton and others who remain nameless, but carried docs home without any clearance to do so. Certainly not a world with more individual freedom, **the only folks he is concerned with re freedom are AMERICANS. What the following countries do to their residents is out of his control. he worked very hard to please Putin and Jong Un with words and love letters and banned reporters from his White House briefings**one CNN reporter, Jim acosta had his pass suspended for a week. No big deal when you consider how the "press" twisted and obfuscates what Trump says, or tried to execute on, he was always a scapegoat for the press. Certainly not a world leadership role for the US, he poked our allies in the eye repeated, publicly. **any examples here, as it seems 4 years later his "pokes in the eye" were pretty astute. UK, Germany, France, allies yes but all suffering from terrible policies that often impacted the US negatively. Most of those allies are making a notable shift in their stances, re Russia, energy, immigration etc. Certainly not honesty, I’ll say no more.
take care
rich
PS re riots, during 2020 Trump suggested calling up the states Nat guard to virtually every city being burned up. Crickets from those dem run cities as they facilitated or ignored the burning of their businesses, shameful.
Appreciate hearing your views. But seems we are different planets. Big sigh. There is testimony and eye witnesses from his daughter (among others) who asked repeatedly to get on his phone and call it off. Also…I have repeatedly said that those who committed violence or destruction of behavior during blm protests, and the J6 riot, should be prosecuted. No sympathy for either here.
re planets, are you referring to "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus?" ( a friendly play on your statement above.)
"Testimony and eyewitness" from the Jan 6 committee, that was clearly compromised and agenda driven. Trumps daughter appeared voluntarily to the subpoena, and her comments as you suggest, carry no weight in Trumps ability to "call it off". Yes, a peaceful assembly turned ugly in some ways, once it arrived to the capitol. Yes, some should be prosecuted for actual crimes. Over 1100 J6 people have been arrested, with ~500 pleaing a deal or being sentenced to some form of time or penalty. Many of those who were sentenced did so under duress. They did not have $ resources to fight the tax dollars at work against them. Many are still in jail or have not had a trial after 3 years, which is incredulous to me. Proud boys leader was not at the J6 assembly, yet he was convicted to 18 years in prison?? There are another half dozen of these examples of sentencing, yet in my humble opinion, they are clearly without merit or excessive to the "crime" committed.
Re 2020 rioters, the numbers of arrested are quite high, I dont have a good count, but what is more surprising is the very limited number and minor penalties those convicted have faced. The disparities should be shocking to all. Camera footage and witnesses provided tons of evidece for arrests and prosecution. Elected leaders of our country were funding bailouts for 2020 rioters. If you felt so strongly about the 2020 rioters "facing the music", please say so, objectively. Damage to the capitol is est to be $1.5 million. Damages from all the 2020 riots are est to be $1.5 BILLION, not to mention the losses to business owners who were driven out of business. Most important to me, the loss of faith in our law enforcement officers. This will take years to build back from all the defund police movements. Idiocy.
The numbers arrested in 2020 were really high because in WA, I believe, for si stance, hundreds of peaceful protesters were rounded up as a (illegal) deterrent and thus had to be released. Furthermore the vast number of protesters went home peacefully. Numbers of violent offenders were far fewer to begin with. Hard to have a decent conversation about a phenomenon that happened in cities across the country, many protests were uneventful and not covered extensively by media. As for J6 my family and I watched on TV, switching from one channel to next, online,and Twitter….from the speeches that morning to trumps calling it off in late afternoon and then some. What part of “violent” am I getting wrong. And remember, assaulting cops will get you jail time…esp when caught on camera. Finally I in no way support defunding the police.
Regarding "testimony and eyewitnesses from his daughter (among others) asking him to get on the phone and call it off[.]" What do you contend this is evidence of?
I personally have never heard of an unarmed insurrection, especially when you can buy guns, I think, at Walmart. To me, it is obvious that J6 was a riot. There is credible evidence that federal agents of some sort were in the crowd promoting entry into the Capitol. Anyone who followed the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case would find this very easy to believe.
He tweeted or texted in late afternoon to tell people to “go home”. And they did. Why didn’t that happen when the first window in the Capito was smashed, anyhow, the truth is not important anymore. Political posturing is, and as always, monied people get to tie up the courts with appeals so the public don’t have the proceedings to help them understand.
These are opposition talking points, some of which have merit. Trump policies were successful in international affairs, regardless of the thoughtless elitist responses by the Euro leaders. And I apologize for the cliches. Certainly his border policies were successful. Certainly his economic policies were more successful for the general population than the blow it all up for green energy policy.
It sure is. It’s also interesting how much tribalism is on display in the comments of an article that’s expressly about abandoning that type of thing. But I’ve come to expect that of FP comment sections.
Well....what's in a name? This publication is called The Free Press and unlike some of the unseemly pile-ons I've witnessed in places like The New York Times, and even on my own personal Facebook page, people here are given the space to express their point of view, even if it doesn't fit into what the Ladies of the View might deem "acceptable." That's a good thing, though you call it "tribalism."
The GOP doesn't care about winning. They've proven that during mid-terms and elections 2023. The Republican leadership only cares about advancing their own political careers. That's why they're all falling in line behind Trump. They're happy to be the minority party if it comes to that, because that just means they can keep complaining about the Dems while not having to do anything.
None of the politicians in either party cares about "the people". We're idiots and tools to them. They just need enough votes from us to get them the membership card into the political/media elite club where they then get to live the life they want and be part of the action, the scene, and the club cocktail parties.
I believe the Republican party is concerned with winning by a vote of the people. Little that the Democrats are doing now has to do with persuading voters to support them. The Democrats are focusing on seizing the election through loose voting laws, removing the opposition from ballots, lawfare, slander and liable.
It's possible that Republicans may catch up on ballot harvesting, but they're way behind on lawfare and the rest.
In favour of who, Nikki Haley? 'cos she's the next highest polling. It's up to you to avoid the call-up; you don't want to die. /s Vivek has a "snake oil" vibe unfortunately; and DeSantis has managed to burn his boats. Only argue with reality if you are desperate for a Darwin Award.
Interesting, different people's perspective. I always considered myself, in the two-party system, a republican. Notably because I support gun rights, free speech and limited government. On the (D) side, that's somewhat of a classic liberal - I don't support what you say, but will defend your right to say it.
That doesn't describe recent (R) candidates like $&L McCain or Milquetoast Mitt (it's not a tax, it's a fee!). When the Bad Orange Man started his run in 2015, back when he was just a reality TV star/Rich Guy, I thought, based on his past, he'd be another RINO. The establishment hated him but then when he won, his policy directions were great but he was attacked from all sides - Paul Ryan and other (R), the Deep State and then the corporate media would only tell you have the story.
Now he's being slurred as a populist - like that's a bad thing? I guess in our crazy upside world where a man can put on a dress and instantly be a woman and where words are violence (or silence is violence depending upon the issue), that's probably to be expected....
Those who are pro choice do NOT see abortion as murder. There are good people on both sides. There are good arguments on both sides. . If conservatives don’t find a way to compromise ( which is what smart politics requires) they will continue to lose elections at all levels of government. If we don’t start winning the dangerous Dems will retain control and we los3 on ALL other also important issues that we face as a nation
I agree with all of your post. The percentage of Americans who want to completely ban abortions is about the same as the percentage who promote "gender affirmative care" for minors. Both groups are extremists who are at odds with the values of the majority of Americans. Time to bring back majority rights and majority rule in the U.S.
I witnessed it first hand in my jurisdiction, a college town. That vote was ginned up with Soros and Sam Bankman-Fried money. And I am neither guessing nor speculating. They were there to Vote Blue No Matter Who. Voter literacy tests started to make sense to me.
Time for the Republican extremists to start listening to the voters rather than preaching about creating "a culture of life." (DeSantis) Time for the Democrat extremists to start listening to the voters rather than preaching anti-whiteness and all their other craziness. Both parties deserve to be destroyed and will be, because they turned themselves over to the most unpopular factions in their respective organizations.
Keep in mind that for some, abortion isn't an issue of ending a pregnancy. It is more about bodily autonomy. The Political marketing people have made sure that many on the left only see it through that lens. "Those mean Republics are trying to tell women what they can do with their own bodies".
When you look at it like that it makes it easy to get against pro-lifers, since it then becomes about freedom and not about whether or not you are ending a life.
I am a physician, and I teach bioethics to undergrads, 75% women with a healthcare career as a goal. These young women understand. They get both sides, but they also are grounded in humaness. Many (most) come from Latino backgrounds and they are aware that they are being used. A number of them got pregnant at 16 and are now scoring near perfect gpas to make their families and the world better. There is hope!
Whether you believe abortion is “ending a life” if performed before foetal autonomy is a theological not a medical issue, and most women therefore do indeed see this as one of bodily autonomy, especially when they see the cruelty being displayed by Republicans in Texas when they do get absolute control. This is a HUGE voting issue, and it deserves to be.
This is absolutely true. It is very unfortunate that the Republicans have decided they would prefer to lose elections to pander to anti-abortion extremists. There is no way that I will throw away the rights of young women to have access to contraception and abortion.
I'm sure they'll thoroughly enjoy their free late-term abortions in the totalitarian state the Dems want to create. If not, well, they got what they voted for.
As can be seen in places like San Fran, Chicago, NYC, etc, people are obviously not great at putting together how who they vote for impacts their day to day lives.
That is part of why the political marketers get people to focus on single issues. Its like a magic trick. Look over here at Abortion, so we can sneak all of this other crap past you/
While I agree with you to a point, the issue is it is the top item for THEM. And, that is what makes us the great melting pot, we all have our own thoughts and desires and should be able to express them. No different than the top items for me are freedom of speech and bodily autonomy...even before immigration and size of government.
There are a great many women who will reject candidates who promise to ban abortion in the U.S. An overwhelming majority of young women are in favor of preserving access to abortion, and they are the people who have the most right to decide this issue.
I disagree, they need to keep pushing pro-life. It’s slow, but it’s coming. More and more young people are pro-life. I see the signs everywhere: in students, in comment sections, and in the shift in the way we talk about abortion. I cannot stress this enough about the truth about abortion: once you see it, you can’t unsee it. It’s only a matter of time until pro-life arguments reach a critical mass of people. Mark my words.
a "100% pro-life, have your rapist's baby, no-exception for health of the mother, and carry an unviable fetus to term" position will never win nationally. There has to be a compromise, like 12 weeks. The Dems will continue to run on abortion rights and be able to resist any restrictions as long as the GOP take an unreasonable and hardline stance.
There is nowhere in the US that I am aware of where that language in quotes is the law. That is mis-information writ large. And don't both sides need to tone down the rhetoric? Doesn't compromise mean both sides give some?
that's what the far right wants. Look at Texas where doctors are being prosecuted for giving medically necessary treatment when it comes to abortions. That's what people see and fear would be the case nationally. And the rend result is the left being able to use that to avoid any limits. The Dems are extremists too but as long as the GOP has a flank of the party who is pushing an hardline approach they'll be able to obscure their radical positions.
Oh please. To my knowledge no doctors have been prosecuted. Which is not surprising because doctors are not really known for sticking their necks out. In fact they are known for being very risk averse. Can't risk the wealth you know. If you are talking about the Cox case the fact that her doctor (despite giving ample opportunity to do so) would not use the words reasonable medical certainty, that there would be harm to the mother, it was the doctor who threw her under the bus. Either there was no such risk to Mrs. Cox and the doctor would not perjure herself; or there was such a risk and Mrs. Cox had inept doctors, lawyers, or both; or this was a balloon sent up to test the judicial air and gin up people like you by enflamung and enslaving emotions. If you are talking about the ERs using reasonably necessary procedures, including abortion, to stabilize a patient case that was a failed failed gambit by the Biden Administration to us federal medicaid regs to gut the Texas law. Texas passed a law. The governor and legislature are pretty well supported thereafter. How about your state does what it and its populace feel is right and have the decency to allow Texas to do the same. You can't do that though because you have the need to impose your will on others. FWIW I may be the only person in the nation willing to say, I don't know what the abortion answer is. I can see the validity of a multitude of arguments. If not for the women enforcing their demand for health care (theirs, not the fetus' nor the father') every time they have an oopsie I would think the government should not be involved at all. But how many is too many? At say 5 isn't that horrifyingly callous?
yes exactly, and this is why they won't do anything about it on a federal level. They can run the country to the ground with crime, maim gender confused children, fail to deter 2 (3?) international wars and leave the border as porous as a sieve but as long as they have abortion it's smooth sailing to victory!
If people were smart and put political issues into a hierarchy, they would be better able to choose between the terrible two choices (democrat and republican) that we have.
The hierarchy is simple, in this order:
1. Economic,
2. Sovereignty, foreign policy, and
3. Social.
If you have a weak economy, you cannot protect yourself and project power, nor can you help your fellow citizens. Once the economy is strong, you must solidify your sovereignty. Only after this, can help your fellow citizens.
I actually love this new alignment and new way of thinking.
We don't all have to agree on everything but there are certain things that, to me, seem incontrovertible.
First, we cannot have a country or an ordered, compassionate society, with open borders.
Second, and a corollary, we cannot have a country that ignores criminality and lets violent offenders roam wild to hurt and victimize our citizens.
An important third principle is that equal protection under the law is sacrosanct.
And Fourth, if we do not have Free Speech,, we are not America. This cannot be compromised.
Fifth, we must not devolve into tribalism No benefits or demerits for skin color or ethnicity.
Sixth, the new feudalism must end. The new oligarchs of our society have demonstrated themselves, for the most part, to be utterly incapable of ruling us or in directing our civic lives. The tax benefits that the ultra rich and the universities enjoy must be ended.
I'm open to any others. I hesitated to mention abortion. I am not a fan of it nor do I believed it should be criminalized or banned within limits. In any event, I do think we need a realignment of Americans dedicated to the principles stated above and political party that will doggedly be faithful to them. Meaning America first, no more spying on American citizens and no more foreign wars that weaken our nation.
I agree with your principles! As regards abortion, may we return it to the purview of medical treatment, for a doctor and patient to decide? Perhaps a European style protection up to 15 weeks, then thereafter for acceptable medical reasons (life, health, non survivable developmental defects)? There is a lot of wiggle room in there. So many medical procedures are regulated enough for patient safety, but not so heavily to limit access.
Most Americans already agree with these positions. The problem is that the people at the extreme 10% at both ends reject reasonable compromises. It appears to be more important to them to shout about their unpopular views than it is to craft policies than are supported by the majority.
One thing i will add is that people shouldnt expect recent (last 3-20 years) immigrants to accept open borders and vote Democrat. Most that i interact with in NY and LA resent these new migrants who compete for resources and jobs and are handed FREE things while they all had to struggle to establish themselves in the US. The ones i know are favoring Trump to stop this nonsense (as if he will actually do something, who knows?).
One thing that the pro-immigrant Leftists don't seem to have considered is that Latin American immigrants are, largely, conservative Catholics. The social policies being pushed by the Left are not going to win them over.
The blanket term of "immigrant" also covers the illegal immigrants...start calling the illegals out. The immigrants that you talked to are most likely legal immigrants not illegal. Trump's rage against immigrants and Biden's open border policy fails to comprehend the legal progress and value that many Americans place on being a citizen.
the whole immigration issue is infuriating for so many reasons. yes the system needs to be reformed, and yes we can absorb many millions of immigrants, but why aren't we using a merit based system that attracts educated immigrants who can work in tech, medicine, etc and who won't be dependent on drained systems?
Shirley, there are nearly 800,000 fully qualified H1B immigrants (that’s the high skill category) queued up for 82,500 annual H1B quotas waiting for their visas. These are the best and the brightest. They would immediately add to the country; there are probably at least a few future Nobel Laureates among them. It’s maddening to see the perfidy (by both parties) over immigration - let all of them in, and build a wall to deny the illegals (who are mostly poor, uneducated and unskilled who will be a burden on America for at least a generation).
It’s completely insane. This feels like such a clear compromise but there isn’t even a discussion on the table. Why?? I’m not a conspiracy theorist but this feels awfully fishy to me.
After going through the visa, green card, and finally citizenship with my spouse, I agree with you that there is much to be reformed. But reform is different than just trashing the whole system. Having criminal checks with finger prints is valid & making sworn statements that you are not an enemy of the US on pain of deportation are the bureaucratic means that gives court the opportunity to deport. (Think Al Capone charged with tax evasion) There is also paper work that ensures that an immigrant has sufficient funds so that they will not become a ward of the state.
There are visas for the skills that are needed and lacking in the US which can eventually flex into citizenship. There are special programs for political refugees, etc. Note: the US did not vigorously use these programs to provide translators and other supporters of the military in Afghanistan to be evacuated and get citizenship.
The illegals are like shoplifters...they are taking something that does not belong to them. There arrival/action has multiple negative impacts on the community. Shoplifting is often ignored by security, but it doesn't lessen the fact that it is a crime. Entering the US illegal and not being stopped does not make it legal immigration.
Very interesting as I also consider myself politically homeless being a life long conservative Republican. The new conservative group has destroyed our local party, one that my parents actually helped start. I don’t like their tactics or hypocrisy. I’m not 100% behind Trump but I fear no one else will win. I’m frustrated that the GOP seems blind and deaf.
I totally agree. I switched to unaffiliated for the first time in my life. To me it was the abortion issue that did the in. 6 weeks? really? we need to be realistic and compromise and create logical legislation that strikes a balance. but then what would drive the voters to the polls if we did something silly like that?
EVERY voter should be independent. Political parties exist for the benefit of the party. Assigning yourself to help them, almost exclusively at the expense of the actual voter, is insane.
Vote for CANDIDATES who you actually believe will follow through on their commitments (whatever they are and whatever you care about). Outside of federal income taxes, a two party system was viewed as the greatest threat to our freedoms by many of our founding fathers, and for a reason. There is no difference between a centralized government - exactly what the founding documents existed to protect us against - and two centralized parties acting as a duopoly to expand that government through mock competition
Spot on. The founding fathers also warned us against foreign entanglements. However, both establishment parties have bipartisan consensus on foreign interventions that have killed/injured/displaced millions and put us into record debt, while enriching them and their Military Industrial Complex cronies. The DNC is the only party machine trying to keep opponents off the ballot, whether it's Trump or Dean Phillips - the only Democrat with enough courage to run against Biden.
Dwight Eisenhower tried to warn us in his farewell address: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-deliver-a-farewell-address-eisenhower
The DNC and the RNC are, at least to voters, exactly the same thing. I use this anology often, but we should think of political parties as NFL franchises. Yes, the players are HIGHLY competitive with each other, as are the coaches and the front offices, etc... but, at the end of the day, the owners all sit down together and talk not for one second about how they beat each other, but ENTIRELY about how they work together to increase the revenue to the league as a whole. They work together toward maximizing how much money they can extract through fans, partners, and intermediaries. Everything else is secondary, and not like a close second, but so distant a second it basically becomes irrelevant.
That is the DNC and RNC. They portend competition because the people involved have huge egos and want to appear to be important, but at the end of the day they exist to enrich the system they support. They exist to keep out other entrants and to extract as much money from voters, partners, and intermediaries as humanly possible, and everything else is secondary, and not like a close second, but so distant a second it basically becomes irrelevant.
Politicians CAN care about their constituents, parties can't... The sooner we figure that out, the better off we'll all be.
Bingo. The whole topic of politics in the US boils down to money. The combatants seem to be different from one another and ideologically motivated, and many are. But fundamentally they’re all conspiring to do one thing..make government bigger and more perceptually indispensable to the average person. That’s how they all get rich. And boy have they. The feds can do some things no state or local government can. Those things are spelled out in the Constitution. But there’s been massive mission creep over the past 100 years, especially the past 75, to the point where people can hardly talk about their lives in any vein without reference to a government program, mandate, or benefit. The mission creep is the common currency of your politics regardless of what side you run on....So long as the machine gets bigger, there’s no grease too sticky. Which is why I support two proposals more than any others. Term limits on all federal political officers and employees (curtail the professional political class) and statutes of limitations on all federal laws. No one should be able to be a professional politician (it’s what, at core, America was founded against) and no federal law should be automatically permanent, but instead should require periodic and active reinstatement.
The feds are specifically designated border security and national defense. The mission creep you cite is largely, if not exclusively, the fault of Congress failing to do its Constitutionally mandated oversight function.
When your job and paycheck rely on mission creep to get more of both, you will have mission creep.
Fedzilla fails at its mandates but excels at extraconstitutional meddling and illegal monitoring into the activities
and the lives of Americans that resist leftist lunacy.
True. But Congressional oversight would limit it. Or at least have the ability to do so.
I don't think it is possible without reversing JFK's executive order allowing federal government employees to unionize. It is not a law, but no Republican president had the balls (or interest) to rescind it.
I wasn't aware of that EO, but it kind of makes my point. Executive orders are one of the primary levers used to augment government power and jurisdiction. And unions? Don't get me started. They had a role to play once upon a time. Still valuable, but less so. But there's a reason no GOP president has rescinded it. I'm not a fan of Trump but this is exactly what is meant by draining the swamp. Professional political class = bottomless pit of bureaucracy and wealth transfer.
We need to limit executive orders! If President can't get Congress to pass it, too bad. Gotta convince more folks.
"Term limits on all federal political officers and employees (curtail the professional political class) and statutes of limitations on all federal laws. No one should be able to be a professional politician (it’s what, at core, America was founded against) and no federal law should be automatically permanent, but instead should require periodic and active reinstatement."
Amen! I would add, return to rule by the majority of the people.
Great post!
This post is great. It explains very clearly the reason for Trump "tissue rejection" inside the Beltway
I use the following analogy to explain the above: they are 2 pockets of the same pants where $ wind up.
I've always been partial to, "they will both screw you, just in different ways". Having been in the federal government as employee, union VP and supervisor, it is always evident who is in charge after an election. It was whiplash when the party in charge changed.
I was an advisor for a governor and state senator. And yes, each party in charge will find a way to help their people at the expense of others. Tribalism has destroyed our political system.
These are all good arguments in favor of Rank Choice voting. Or anything that doesn't limit the candidates to just two party stooges.
Agree Dan, and here’s a few more:
1. Election day on the weekend;
2 term limits for politicians - two terms (12 years) for senators and six terms (12 years) for Reps. House of Reps elections every four years, not every two, so they are (marginally) not constantly running for re-election;
3. USSC judges must retire at 75;
4. Abolish the filibuster;
5. (As you said), introduce rank choice voting aka preferential voting;
....
There’s a lot more but I’ll quit now. Some of these could be easily introduced by Executive Order, not ideal but if Congress will not do its job, it’s the only way to get things done, as Clinton and Obama discovered. The GOP in Congress have not been FOR anything (except tax cuts) for 30 years, a complete abdication of legislative responsibility.
I have mixed feelings about term limits. Having worked at companies where turnover is high, a lot of institutional knowledge is lost and a lot of time wasted in new people figuring out how things work.
I like most of your ideas. I would change a couple:
1. Election Day(s): at least two days so those who work can vote.
2. Mixed feelings as I said
3. Term limits for SC justices so that each president gets to appoint two justices.
4. Yes
5. Yes, but this won't work as long as there are only candidates from two parties.
I want institutional knowledge destroyed as it applies to Congress lol. Make them look at the original documents and go back to doing it that way.
That was an excellent analogy.
As did George Washington. He was very opposed to a 2 party system.
We should definitely have a law that states that any elected official who votes for war should be a veteran or have children in the military. What we have now is a mercenary army to fight unvoted on, undeclared wars with military involvement decided upon by politicians receiving donations from weapons manufacturers. Does that sound fair?
That is the other problem. We no longer declare war. The Executive branch starts a war and Congress goes along with it. Both parties do this.
And you saw what they did to Bernie Sanders.
Always thought that Bernie was the sell out when he dropped out of the CA primary for president. It would have been nice for Bernie to “fight the machine”
Bernie is the machine, or at least a cog in it. No one should be allowed to be a Senator or Congress person without having had a real job.
If “insider trading” is a real job, there is a high level of employment in the Senate & Congress on both sides of the aisle.
That job comes after the election. They should have had a real job before the election.
Well put:
There is no difference between a centralized government - exactly what the founding documents existed to protect us against - and two centralized parties acting as a duopoly to expand that government through mock competition
Yes. It is in effect an end run.
"Political parties exist for the benefit of the party." and you ain't in the club.
Exactly right.
The problem is closed primaries.
Why? I don't even understand why the primaries are anyone's business aside from the Parties...Dems and Reps are not part of the government. The fact that state money is spent on the primaries has never made sense to me. If the Dems or Reps want to allow the public to help them pick their candidates, that is fine.
In the absence of a rational voting system, having open primaries is a second-best way to discover a consensus candidate from the swarm intelligence of popular opinion. Given that each party only comprises around a quarter of the population in most places, and that the voting method in the general election is irrational (more on that in a second), only allowing partisans to make that decision means that the only viable candidates we get in the general are those representing minority relatively fringe opinions. Half of a quarter is 12.5%. A close primary therefore means the rest of us independents (the majority now) only get to choose between two candidates that only maybe 12% of the voting public would put down as their first choice - less if there's a crowded primary field and no one even gets half of first place votes.
About "rational" voting systems - by that I mean systems that disincentivize strategic voting and incentivize honest voting. The whole point of voting is to actually measure public sentiment, not some distortion of public sentiment brought on by strategic voting. The terms "protest vote" (that one guy in the article threw out there) and "spoiler candidate" are not fundamental realities, but rather side effects of our peculiar first-past-the-post (FPTP) plurality voting system. On the flip side of the coin, the two party system is also arguably also a side effect of this same system on game-theoretic grounds. It does not incentivize people to express their honest opinion unless they happen to align with one of the 2 major parties that emerge from that system.
I don't fault the founders, because at the time simplicity was required. But various experiments have since proven that we need not have these side effects. In many European countries, several parties thrive simultaneously and are forced to cooperate to form coalitions. This is a result of proportional representation (not relevant to presidential elections but worth mentioning) and more nuanced ballot systems usually involving preference specification. In reality, most people's preference is not "blue/red no matter who" but rather some variation of "I'd prefer X (maybe blue/red, or independent), but if they aren't viable then I'll take Y (maybe an independent, or red/blue), and finally Z (maybe the opposite major party from X)". With preference ranking, you can locate the compromise candidate that makes the most people the least unhappy. But "blue/red no matter who" is exactly what the FPTP system forces you to express on your ballot, at the expense of "wasting your vote". And so we get dishonest strategic voting and minority rule.
Well said, Matthew. Australia has had preferential voting since the 19th century (first country in the world to bring in universal suffrage and votes for women). It works well. It encourages, even forces, candidates and parties to try to “capture the Center” (because that’s where most of the votes are). Still a two-party system in the lower house, while fringe parties can bag a few seats in the broad electorate upper house (similar to the U.S. Congress). Avoid proportional representation at all costs: yes, it invites compromises but it almost inevitably leads to pernicious outcomes, for example recently in (among others) Israel; New Zealand; Belgium; the Netherlands; and Spain.
Australia also, for what it’s worth, has compulsory voting (“the vote is a privilege AND a responsibility”) but I’m not naive enough to think we’d introduce that here.
I'm curious to understand the general patterns of the pernicious outcomes you mention with proportional representation. I don't have a lot of specific historical knowledge of these places, just a general theoretical idea about how PR seems more representative of public opinion.
Also, for what it's worth - and this might be a controversial take - I kind of think compulsory voting is a really bad idea. Like if someone can't be bothered to exercise the great privilege of voting, they're probably not motivated enough to have done sufficient research on the candidates to know who truly represents them best.
First country in the world to give women voting rights was New Zealand
This ^^ So much this. I was going to post similar but you covered it. Most of our electoral and governing dysfunction comes from this "not Constitutionally provided but institutionally mandated" bifurcated "majority by a first past the goalpost" electoral system and "majority vs minority" institutional structures - of which I would add the stupid Congressional rules of "majority party rules" that led to the recent Republican "majority" breakdown but actually, in a backhanded way, demonstrated how a "coalition" government *could* work - if the "majority" caucus is as dysfunctional as the current Republican majority is, it cannot function as an actual majority and has therefore forced some actual coalitionizing. I know that's not what the GOP factions intended, but I thank them all the same for giving us a somewhat of a preview of how a coalition government could operate, hopefully in the future intentionally and in the open and not just to stave off "majority dysfunction driven crises", but still ; P
Legitimately, there should be no primaries, but open and run-off general elections. Primaries have simply institutionalized the political parties into the electoral system. Districting should be calculated by a computer that weighs by priority: population density, city/county demarcations, geographical boundaries in that order. "X" number of constituents drawn into a district defined by those guidelines, districts are as large and/or small as needed to accommodate "x" number of constituents into along those lines. No "gerrymandering" or the absurdity of politicians and political parties choosing their electorates and engineering fake majorities from. If we can't get rid of the Electoral College via Constitutional Convention (a big lift), most/all states should move towards proportional Electoral Vote awarding like Maine (?) has. Electors are awarded after a run-off vote giving the top 2 candidates a proportional share of the electors. This gives third party candidates a viable path, and doesn't completely disenfranchise up to 49% of a given state's electorate from having a say in the Presidential election. Congress (both arms) should be run by a set of consistent rules that require all bills that have at least a 1/3 backing to be brought to up and down floor votes, no "filibuster" or "majority of the majority" BS that simply gives a fringe minority an unearned veto. Leadership/Speakership is also a full floor vote of all nominees. Maybe this rewards a "natural majority" but the practice of confining this selection to yet another "majority of a majority" and with the expectation of "promises" in exchange for votes (including the rules of Congress!) is exactly what delivered the dysfunction this cycle. Committee seats are also awarded proportionately to representation and subject to some sort of floor vote, not party favorship.
The emergence of an almost plurality of "independents" demands some institutional and electoral changes, even with the boundaries of the Constitution. The continued dominance and institutional support of "Democratic" and "Republican" parties needs to end - otherwise, it is as you say - the incentivizing of perverse voting strategies and prioritizing of a few sliver of issues and "branding" that drives voting. I want to be able to choose from candidates that run on a set of issues, commit to some degree of coalition making on others, and are not part of some party "cult" or "brand".
> "Legitimately, there should be no primaries, but open and run-off general elections. Primaries have simply institutionalized the political parties into the electoral system. Districting should be calculated by a computer that weighs by priority: population density, city/county demarcations, geographical boundaries in that order."
1000% agree
Somebody raised the money spent/state involvement in primaries with me earlier and I did not have a good answer. But on reflection it is because the states maintain the voter rolls. The primaries are the precursor, literally, to the general election and voter qualification matters. Not casting multiple votes matters. Having an actual.primary with verified results matters. Otherwise Hillary would pick all the candidates.
👍🏻
Why? Because the parties have effectively bared anyone other than a Dem or Repub to run for elected offices. So everyone should a vote in who the candidates will be. In Nebraska pick a side to vote in the primary and do so. The biggest advantage to voters is, the candidate has to pay attention to the independents, those who now decide elections. There are more independents who vote than base/partisan voters in either party.
Yip Australia stopped mail in ballots at the turn of the 20th century, why because your respective parties could not control the ballots, there was no chain of custody etc. This is our current system today. Also your voting population is different, according to Democrats here Republicans are suppressing a large section of the population by making them vote with registration,ID and same day voting. For some unknown reason, they claim we need 2 months before to vote and send in our ballots And really expect us all to believe there is no grift and gaslighting taking place. Crazy stuff!
Except, a very small part of the public gets to pick in a closed primary.
And? The point of the primaries is to help the party narrow down who their candidate is. The Parties don't have to involve the public at all if they don't want. You have no right to vote on who the parties run. And I don't know of a legal reason the parties couldn't have multiple people on the ballot if they chose (they will never do this because it dilutes their votes).
In the current situation, lets say you were going to end up voting for Biden...why should you have ANY say in who the republicans get to vote for as president? The only reason to allow that is so you can try to kick out candidates that you don't want them to be able to pick from. Which I realize some states are trying to do anyway.
A lot of what the parties do is just organize the campaigns at every level of government. My husband ran as an independent in our local election last Fall for our town's Board of Finance. But because independents have no party structure, our town Republican Party agreed to run him (I am also the Treasurer of our local town Republican Party), otherwise he would have had to fund and run his own campaign, not an easy thing to do even on a local level. In the end, my husband didn't win even though he was probably the better candidate; Our town is floating a bond for the first time in 30 years (for an ambulance building) and he's an expert in structuring bonds. He lost primarily because he had an 'R' after his name in a Democrat leaning town. Folks didn't vote for expertise, they voted for 'D' and missed out on one of the most knowledgable guys around to help them through the bonding process. Parties do offer candidates a way to campaign and offer structure in doing so.
Totally agreed. Parties are important. They must be broad enough to maintain an influential body while remaining narrow enough that they can focus on certain issues and achieve results. Consequently, not everyone is going to feel represented by a party, but, largely, our two parties do a good enough job representing large swaths of the voting public.
I've got this bridge for sale...
I don’t follow. Are you suggesting I’ve been somehow fooled? I look at the Republican’s platform and I see policies I largely agree with. The party funds and supports politicians that align with those policies, thus it is rational to vote Republican.
This does not mean I vote straight ticket. I voted for some Dems in ‘20 and ‘22 if I thought the candidate was more competent.
What part of this suggests to you I’ve been sold some package of lies?
Do you work for a political party?
No, but I’m active in the Log Cabin Republicans. Our chapter is a joke though. It’s politically unserious and does no real advocacy.
CC, you're kind of making my argument for me.
Parties exist so uneducated voters will vote for greater power consolidation. The party picks who gets to run, and they accumulate the power under the faux perception that the candidate themselves controls anything.
If we didn't have party affiliation your husband could have won and likely won with 50 votes, because only the VERY educated would have voted and they would have voted for the person best positioned to solve the problem. Instead, a bunch of voters with no idea what they're voting for a why voted "D" because "that's their team."
The outcome is that parties accumulate power and candidates are simply placeholders for party power accumulation. And it's even worse if you win, because that uproots your whole life and now they OWN you. Because you need them to get reelected. Vote out of step? See ya. Break with the team because your constituents want you to? You'll be replaced in the snap of a finger by someone who will toe the line. Joe Biden literally doesn't know who he is anymore (he couldn't remember his own favorite food) but he toes the party line so he gets to stay.
You can pretend these parties "help candidates get elected," but that's the opposite of what they do... they help parties accumulate power by controlling who gets to do what, even at the local level.
I agree with you for the most part about the negatives of party politics, consolidation of power, etc. but running for office isn’t exactly easy. Most people have no clue what it takes - time, money and smarts - to run. Campaign ‘mechanics’ are boring but necessary. It’s really, really hard for an individual to do. It’s a group sport.
I totally agree - and it's not easy on purpose. That's part of the point of a duopoly, to eliminate competition, and especially the most important competition, which is individual candidates. It's exactly how we've bastardized free market economic competition in America as well. The key is giving the masses, who have no idea what they're doing or talking about, an easy button. And that's what parties are. They own the process, specifically because they've convinced a bunch of COMPLETELY uninformed people to "just vote the party." Running for office in local politics would be REALLY easy if it weren't for parties because it'd take about 20 votes to get elected to important offices, and all 20 of those votes would be people highly motivated and well-informed on the actual topic at hand. Instead, they make it so you HAVE to compete against a party and the only way to do so is to join the other party, and now the party owns you, because you and them both know you got elected because of the party and not because of your own merits... Even if you actually HAVE merits (which, let's be honest, most candidates at ALL level of politics, do not...)
But, to me, it shouldn't be complicated. It should allow for the general population to run, since the point of all of this is to allow us to govern ourselves. We aren't supposed to need some elite class to help us.
Much in the same way that big companies support laws that make it harder for small businesses to compete with them, the big parties have made sure that the process is too hard for regular people to get involved with.
Democrat a..holes you can bet there is going to be much backhanding in the ambulance building project and what a shame they didn’t give this to your husband, however I think he must definitely keep an eye on it even if it’s just to irritate the Democrats.
I agree in its current manifestation it is what you call a duopoly and I call a Uniparty. Which is bad. But the system was designed for a winner take all scenario, from President to dog catcher. You win you get your chance to implement your policies. I have been enamored of multi-party systems but I do not see that as the solution as that inevitably means compromised governance. Not government by compromise. Compromised government. Which is what we have her at this time anyway. But I think Europe and Canada were down the rabbit hole before we were. We all read, and read, and read about the division, the lack of unity, the this side versus that side and we all say we are tired of it. But it is in the duopoly/Uniparty's interest for us to remain this way. Because that way there is no clear winner implementing his/her policies. The duopoly/Uniparty is the foe of the American, not just citizen, but populace. They do not have our interest at heart they have their interest at heart. And the only thing that can stop that is a fair election where the US voter says no more. Loudly, clearly and probably more than once. For that reason I like your no-party suggestion - deny them their base. Alternatively, if you cannot give up your party then get busy doing something other than just voting - start with your party's local precinct meetings, work up to your party's state convention, and from there to the national convention. Make your voice heard. You may not make a difference at your first one but if you stick with it you will. Make them understand that we want to be unified in support of a moderate, centrist government.
It wasn't designed for a winner take all...it became that way. There was a time when the VP was the runner up...meaning the next in line was the person the president ran against. So the people had their second choice next in line.
The president is not meant to be the king. They aren't supposed to pass laws or hand down edicts. But over time, the citizens allowed government to increasingly get away with things...many of which may have seemed good at the time. Like, say, the Louisiana Purchase. It was a great deal for the country...but it also allowed the president to do something he was not supposed to be able to do.
Its kinda like Power Creep in games. The longer a game goes on and keeps adding stuff to it, the more power creeps in. Sadly, the fix will likely be some kind of 'reset' which is likely to be very painful to the people who are around when it happens.
I still think it is a winner takes all design. And not just for the President. I did not know that about the VP; second in the primary? For all the bluster about the President if Congress were not AWOL for any issue other than spending, largely to buy future votes, the presidential power would be limited to proposing policy and enforcement of existing law. Instead we had what you describe, a president functioning as a king and signing executive orders. But at least that type of president was still elected. Bu
During the previous administration the executive branch career bureaucrats disavowed loyalty to the executive and we are now ruled - ruled, not governed - by those bureaucrats who are accountable to no one.
Edited to add: if you have never read Senator David Crockett's speech in response to an attempt to use federal money to aid victims of a horrendous fire in Baltimore as I recall you should check it out.
This country is currently in a serious battle. It is between the common people and the Deep State/ foreign globalists. They will destroy the Western World to win power over us and it's happening NOW. I hope to God that someone emerges to help lead us and get the majority to realize that we have a common enemy and time is fast running out.
it seems too late to do anything about it now. There's no way in heck they'll ever cede power to DJT again. In the name of saving democracy I predict there will never be another Republican president.
Yip it will be a ine party state
A one party state sorry these iPhones
We are a one party state. We are in fact ruled by oligarchy. The battle for a seat on that council is between the party that believes the egg should be cracked at the broader end and the party that insists at the narrower. We however won't get an egg. We get to provide the eggs for the "leaders".
They forget they should be servants. The only serving they do is self.
Boycott the vote.
💯correct - but I have never not voted. I cannot boycott my late parents will turn in their graves and I have warned my children to always vote so I have picked who I am voting for on 6th November.🇺🇸🇺🇸
Nailed it.
I agree in theory but I never understood this argument - what's the alternative? a splintered system where no one has a majority?
Correct. The biggest misconception in American politics is that government exists to "get things done." All government is a tax on society. Period. In the best circumstances it is a tax we agree is worth it (a judicial system that removes rapists and murders from society), in other situations it's a tax that may be worth it though the free market would likely better solve the problem (roads and bridges) and in the other 99% of situations it's a tax on the people for the benefit of the tax collectors.
The US constitution existed to limit government power such that you wouldn't need political parties because the government was supposed to stay the hell out of the way...
This is really long, but please give it a read - https://butthedatasays.substack.com/p/has-the-american-dream-been-eaten. My point isn't that political association won't always exist, common working groups exist in every single facet of life. The point is that you shouldn't vote for it. Think of your life - and pick anything you care about. If you were going to hire a babysitter would you interview the babysitter and pick the one best situation for your family, or just randomly be assigned one by your preferred babysitter ranking organization? What about work? Would you just randomly hire the person because they happen to have a certificate from an industry organization you believe in? Or would you hire multiple candidates and chose the best?
Political parties don't exist to create working groups - humans would do that naturally. Political parties exist so the uneducated voter can vote for a candidate they know NOTHING about, in may cases have never even heard of, but "align with their values" (HA!!!!!) to ensure the party continues to control politics at the expense of the voter. Vote for PEOPLE, and let those people chose who they align with, hopefully to get absolutely nothing done so we stopped being "taxed to no hell" to make our life outcomes worse (education declining, freedoms declining, life expectancy declining, all health markers declining, class mobility declining, I could go on and on...)
The federal government I see as largely a failure. The only thing they're good at is bilking me out of the fruits of my labor. The trillions they efficiently harvest by compelling the most productive of us to become their tax collectors and then prove to them that we are being compliant at our expense under pain of huge financial penalty is a demonically brilliant system. The exemption of course is if you are fedzilla or one of major corporations that comprise the oligarchy.
What do we get for our money? My state is inundated by uncountable numbers of humanity that are here for the gimme. They are evaporating local resources at the expense of our working poor. I'm mostly concerned with this issue because it's the one fedzilla failure that most affects us. If measured any one of the responsibilities mandated by charter the federal government system fails to some degree.
If you were going to freely render your earnings to the tune of thirty odd percent would you write that check to the federal government?
You will feel just as unrepresented living in a partyless society as you do in a two party system because the problem is not the parties, the problem is you have only one vote and 320 million other people vote too. Everyone will always feel they aren’t being represented because no one is, we all must cast our vote and accept the government we hate is actually an accurate depiction of the society we live in.
Most people don’t vote straight ticket anyway. I’m a Republican and a fairly rigid conservative one at that but I still voted for a few democrats last election.
The system is more dynamic than people give it credit, and the two parties are morphing constantly to match the ever changing electorate. 15 years ago no party would support my same sex marriage, now it’s not even a concern in my mind.
I mean this in the kindest way possible, but I think you're blinded by your own intelligence. Political parties do not exist to align working groups - humans would naturally do that just as they do in every single function of society without having to define it. I collaborate toward specific ends at work all the time without the need to label myself and only work with others who label themselves the same way. Political parties exist as a marketing function specifically for the uneducated. The VAST majority of voters DO vote party ticket - specifically because they're uneducated.
It's like branding in any endeavor. An auto mechanic knows a Porsche is fantastic (the brand), but equally you could take the Porsche emblem off the car and they could just look at the individual components (the actual issues) and they'd know exactly what they want, or identify it as a Porsche, as such, based on the combination of components.
People who care about politics and actually pay attention to the issues and the candidates see party as a downstream affiliation, but the VAST majority of people view politics like they view cars - they saw in Consumer Digest that Toyota's were reliable, or even worse they heard from a friend this one time, and they see a lot of Toyota's out there, so what the hell, I guess I'll buy a Toyota. They aren't "buying" issues, they don't even know who the candidates are, they simply vote for "R" because that's what the people around them do and they heard they were supposed to, so what the hell. And they view that decision as MUCH less impactful than buying a car, so it gets even less actual work than buying a car does (which most consumers still do with very little insight).
And political party's are even worse, because they're car dealers - they get to control, monopolistically, what you can even get access too. One of the other commentors, who agreed with you on the value of political parties openly admitted that her husband ran for office and could ONLY do it as a Republican, because it's "impossible to run without them" (apparently not realizing that's both my point AND the problem!!!!!) and lost, despite being the more qualified candidate, because it was a D area and absolutely no one cared about the issue at hand (bond issuance) or who was best prepared to manage that process - they just voted D because they vote D.
Eliminate parties and people would only vote for the candidates they actually know, and the issues they actually care about, and we'd all be MUCH better off for it.
And then representatives would still work together to get stuff done, and form alliances, and partnerships, and collaborations, just as they do in every other country that doesn't have a two party system and every other function of life where people collaborate for the collective benefit all the time...
I didn’t read past “I mean this in the kindest way possible.” There’s just no way that statement can be followed up with anything constructive.
I.e. the kindness wasn’t meant for you - I hopefully was/have been kind to you (if not certainly tell me) - it was in reference to non-politically inclined voters to whom I was comparing someone like you too…
Haha - that’s fair, but I promise it was. Or it wasn’t, I guess I can’t say for sure, only you can determine that, but I’d appreciate your perspective on my take. Specifically the comparison of you, who clearly cares, vs those who don’t…
The party structure is valid, it provides a framework and a platform to advance political objectives. One does not need to agree with every issue to understand that the best way to see their preferred issue through is to form an alliance, even if imperfect. Parties provide funding, expertise and an administrative back bone to one’s political causes.
If you’re entirely out of line with both parties there’s nothing wrong with being an independent and voting as you wish, but some of us feel broadly represented by a political party and see the value in banding together.
The problem is not parties per-se...it is only having 2. It forces everyone to either follow a party or feel like they have no vote. But it also allows those parties to manipulate their voters easier. Yes, parties can offer expertise. But much of their expertise is needed because they exist in the first place. I would need a Party's help, because I would be running against someone in a party.
Ideally we shouldn't need parties. People should run on what they believe and intend to do and people should vote on that.
“But it also allows those parties to manipulate their voters easier.”
I strongly disagree with that statement. If this were true the Republican Party would not be in the predicament it’s in right now. It would have long ago steered the ship clear of Trump, instead he hijacked it. Democrats have a little more top down control but I believe that is more a function of the leftist mindset which is much more collectivist than they like to admit.
Some. That is key. Some feel broadly represented. The rest follow.
Maybe. I think you should give people more credit though. It’s easy to dismiss people as thoughtless followers than to admit there are lots of people who choose to disagree with you.
I didn’t say they were thoughtless, though, did I?
Correct, you did not literally use that word. I assumed it from context. Was I incorrect?
Context is yours. People follow for all sorts of reasons, most of them social. Some others are that they prefer not to think so hard, or to listen rather than act, or to sit on the fence or take the easier path.
I agree one should be Independent and vote for a candidate, not a party BUT if you aren't a declared Democrat or a Republican you don't vote in the Primaries and you don't influence choice.
"Wrong, IF you believe in Limited then you are a Republican.
" and two centralized parties acting as a duopoly to expand that government through mock competition"
Some Small questions. Would the Democratic Party nominated (say) Barry Goldwater...Ronald Reagan? Wrote (and passed) The Contract For America, Cut Taxes several Times? I could go on and on and on. Thee is this Silly idea mainly pushed by Libertarians that there is no difference between the 2 major Parties. NOTHING could be farther from The Truth.
Its May 2020 MPLS, IF A Republican were mayor at that time would the 3rd Precinct have burned down? Doubt it.
People who say things like No Difference either want to sell you something, sound political sophisticated, or are dumber than dirt.
/Rant
That was never the case, that is a GOP marketing line, little more. Instead it's what aspect of life will each party expand the reach of government into?
And Your alternative is....?
May be the best comment I've seen this year... 8 days in.
So, like kind of a compliment? :) Still appreciated, lol.
Lol that’s how it was intended
Couldn't agree more. That's why I've always voted 3rd party and will again with RFK Jr.
Shelle Lichti, if you'd like to run for President, I'll support you with every bit of energy I have. An actual American who's simply speaking the truth formed by your life experiences instead of headlines.
And if you read this, please know that my restaurant is 5 miles off I80, in Iowa City, and you'll always eat free. I'll even scrape something up for the pup.
Bless you!
I thought She and a few others would make an interesting Documentary Ken Burns where are you?
I wouldn't trust Burns to tell the story anymore, but I'd love to see someone else do it.
Bari, are you listening? TFP needs to add docs to its bow. The freaking 'Daily Wire' needs the competition.
I sure hope she reads this!
I hope so too as I'd love to meet her. Maybe let me ride a couple hundred miles with her. I'll arrange for transportation back. I'm sure she's got a lot of fascinating stories that I could (even at 67) learn from, and I've got a few myself.
I'll bring treats for the dogs.
Jon, I lived in Iowa City from 1980 to 1985. My own political realignments had yet to launch. I was dumbfounded that Ronald Reagan had won… I so enjoyed my time in Iowa City…great drinking sessions with graduate students.
I actually live in Cedar Rapids, which is a little closer to the rural mindset that existed when this country was formed. Iowa City likes to think they're as progressive as Berkley, A2 or Harvard, but they've still got a lot of old school rural genes in their City.
I've lived all over the country and landed here 13 years ago. The people, in general, are amazing compared to Denver, Vegas, NOLA, Upstate NY and Detroit. No slam on those places, but the people here are refreshingly civil.....for the most part. :)
Yes, Iowa City a big university town including law school, med school, graduate writing program and townies. Somehow, at that time, everyone seemed salt of the earth— no nonsense mid west values. Btw living in different regions of this still amazing country is well worth it…plaudits to Shelle Lichti
It's an excellent school, but it's not untouched by some of the toxic practices that are/have taken over our Universities.
Sheila seems great, but I’m not so sure about that pup . . .
The thing I found odd about this piece was that in several places, Savodnick uses "pro-civil-liberties" as shorthand for liberal. I don't know any Republicans or (especially) Libertarians who are anti-civil-liberties. I'm curious as to what he means by the implication. Surely, as Mr. Fleming says, Covid showed us the, shall we say, somewhat limited commitment the political left has for civil liberties overall. Only certain liberties are approved.
And look at how Canada handled COVID. The utter disregard for civil liberties was shocking even from an American leftist's standpoint.
Freezing the bank accounts of the truckers in Ottawa was definitely a threshold. I don't think for a moment that Gavin Newsom, if he were president, wouldn't resort to it if he thought he could.
And GoFundMe tried to confiscate the $$ from donors. Unbelievable.
I know someone whose checking account was penetrated by the State of California for taxes on an investment that moved from Massachusetts to California.
Read up on Fernando Collor in early 90s Brasil
I vaguely remember reading a piece about his family (including his utterly corrupt wife, and her family) having nearly absolute power in the backwater of Alagoas state before he became president.
Collor froze every account in the nation. Irrespective of the amount held in the account you were permitted 50 Reis. The rest were converted into non cashable government bonds. He did this on his first day in office.
Yikes. No wonder he came to be so hated so quickly. If I remember correctly, he was spoken of as Kennedyesque by our media.
Exactly right. Get all the abortions you want, but you better not want a gun. You better take this shot or we will fire you. Abortion is health care but the unvaccinated should be left to die in the street. Say anything within the law but you'd better not say anything wrong, as decided by...... Masks for all, no shopping or dining out, no beauty salons, unless you're one of the chosen elite.
The reverse is just as bad: get all the guns you want, but how dare you need an abortion. Call yourself a woman when you look like a man and you're fired. Etc.
America is drunk on Rageahol and until we detox, the culture wars will continue.
We're two or four different societies. I have no affinity for the left. I think you're completely wrong and you insist on compelling me to buy into your madness. The progressive's 1854 war of northern aggression is the glaring example.
I have no "madness" for you to buy, but if you want to send me money anyway, who am I to deny you the pleasure?
I'm a liberal, not a leftist, so go nag one of them about your "war of northern aggression" and see if they're dumb enough to argue with you.
You like to flatter yourself by misappropriation. That's fine most loony leftists do. You're no liberal and this liberal calls you on it. Empirical evidence points to 170 years of leftist madness having almost completely undermined our great social experiment.
Naw. I flatter myself by knowing that on my worst day, I'll still be smarter than you.
In Thailand my wife and I were refused entrance to a large hotel's restaurant because we didn't have a vacination card.
Not uncommon here during the depths of Covid, either.
Stupidity is universal.
Indeed yes.
I has become my opinion that whomever has the power is against civil liberties. Because it is harder to keep power without control...which requires taking away freedom. I don't think either party has a monopoly on allowing or removing liberties. Just depends on what exactly it is and if they currently have the power to force it.
They’re not liberals in the traditional sense. The ACLU coming out in favor of vaccine mandates or removing Trump from ballots does not represent a liberal view. I’m not sure what it is, maybe progressive fascism. But not liberals. Liberals believe in individual liberty and limits on government authority.
The ACLU has been taken over by the woke cult. They no longer protect civil liberties.
I came down to the comments to see if anyone else had noticed that. Even in an attempt to write a balanced piece, Savodnick couldn't stop himself from inferring that if you think voting laws should exist, or cratering a newborn's head should be wrong, or that, maybe, we can't take on the complete collapse of all the countries who rejected all the freedoms we hold dear, you're anti-civil liberties. We live in the post-modern, post-moral hellhole of the left's making.
It is almost as if he thinks the battle has been won as evidenced by the manipulation of language but things are not as expected post-victory.
We're all pro- or anti-civil-liberty depending on what each of us considers a civil liberty.
I might mostly agree with you, but the evidence for at least one civil liberty I value highly (free speech) suggests otherwise. Consider a survey of students conducted by FIRE recently, which showed those identifying on the left are more likely to approve shouting down a speaker. I think the comment section doesn't allow links, but search for the following 2023 paper on SSRN: "Partisan conflict over content moderation is more than disagreement about facts" by Appel, Pan and Roberts. Here's the money quote from the abstract: "Even when Republicans agree that content is false, they are half as likely as Democrats to say that the content should be removed and more than twice as likely to consider removal as censorship."
If we are not free to be wrong, we are not free, period.
"If we are not free to be wrong, we are not free, period."
Amen to that, DNJ. Particularly because right or wrong in the world of opinions and commentary is solely in the eye of the beholder. Nobody should be able to tell me my view of Trump, Biden, or the Man In the Moon is "wrong."
And I am pretty ardent in not censoring ANY views, even those repellent to me personally. Neither social media should not be in the censorship business, only in the honest umpiring business (government) and platform-providing business (media). If the Nazis want to "heil" on Twitter, let them, I'll give them a digital finger and then ignore them.
We should let them, then we know who/where they are.
Agreed. I like to know who my enemies are and where they live, so if they start causing trouble, we know where to find them and what to do to them.
I'm genuinely surprised that Wolan's marriage survived her telling her husband, "You’re never going to understand me, because you’re white, a man, privileged." Her husband is clearly more patient than I would be if my spouse said something like that to me.
One of the things that I always thought of as one of the greatest things about this country (as an immigrant) is the idea and social acceptance of interracial/interreligious marriage. Something that would be unthinkable or at worst heavily stigmatized in most of the world is now seen as nothing special. That is a credit to America and how it has changed and it allows two people to put aside what would be vast differences and find their commonalities, which are enough that one could commit to marriage.
I was under the impression that most interracial marriages were like that. If they are not, either
1. These couples just bring up their differences and have never managed to move past them
2. The new leftist victim ideology is so potent and destructive that it can break apart love and marriage.
The article seems to say that the recent adoption of #2 is what led to these comments. That just goes to show how much of a problem the victim ideology is.
Well said ST. Well said.
It's 2, unfortunately. I was a conservative Dem and my spouse a middle-of-the-road Dem when we married 30 years ago. Now I'm an Independent. None of my positions have changed, but the party now shuns many of them. Soon after the 2016 election, spouse adopted so-called "progressivism" as religion, not so much for its own sake but more as a never-Trumper.
Sadly, we are no longer able to discuss politics. Like other "liberals" cited in the article, she's not able to have a rational, civil discussion about presidential politics beyond "Orange Man Bad." I actually think she's starting to question some of the silly catechisms, as are more and more of our neighbors and friends (we live in a blue county). We'll see if that continues.
I would also observe that the far-left's increasing illiberalism is doing more to cause "normal" Democrats to rethink their party allegiance than anything Republicans are saying. ("Normal" referring to those who have been Dems since way back when, and don't follow politics closely, so are only recently becoming more aware of some of the far left's growing proclivity to stifle dissent.)
The part that got me was she finally accepted he had a right to his vote/opinion. How very kind of her, no?
Imagine if the situation were reversed. If her husband had magnanimously decided that she did, in fact, have a right to her own vote/opinion, people would NEVER forgive him for his patriarchal arrogance.
so...mighty white of her?
too soon?
Way too soon lol.
LOL I'm shocked it got as far as marriage. I wouldn't have last in the dating realm with her.
I think this is what the article debunks. No reason why people in a marriage can't disagree.
Disagreeing about the best solutions is one thing. Disagreeing about the other people's worth as a human being because of their essential characteristics is quite another.
Thankfully her spouse had more faith in her core humanity and rationality than people in an Internet comment section! Which seems validated now that she’s rejected those views.
Bingo. Was going to say something similar but you said it better LOL.
Any woman calling me white privileged man I don't want to be with her.
And frankly, the same is true if the roles were reversed.
I think in this case, Wolan did not feel that way until she fell into the toxic Identitarian crowd, and that her point is she now has rejected that crowd.
Good for her and her husband/marriage.
That is what I got out of it. That she hadn't originally been this way. Wokism infected her and she became that way. But she realized what had happened and was able to back away.
Her story gave me all the negative feels. What a hypocritical, poisonous person to have allowed herself to be so captured by the madness of the crowd that she would jeopardize her relationship with her husband (and children!) over a BS trumped up “narrative” of empty bitterness and mass accusations. I’m surprised she didn’t divorce during #metoo (the earliest of the sweeping illiberal mass condemnation hysterias). Ugh. Her newfound “sanity” leaves me highly dubious.
Right? Poor guy. Run.
I've had a few dates end similarly.
I know, right??? What if he'd said to her, "you're brown, a woman, privileged." What hell would have erupted then? And since when is a marriage two "sparring partners?"
Absolutely. If that had happened to me, there would have been a very serious discussion immediately following, somewhere outside of the earshot of our children.
And then what?... She firmly believed, and in her mind KNEW that her husband was evil. OK maybe I'm projecting. She KNEW that her husband held some unforgivable opinions. How then does the conversation outside the earshot of the children go? Perhaps, "I'll take the kids. You get the house and 50% of the 401k."
Deep breath. Her husband wasn't being evil. Opinions vary. The conversation would go something like, "Would you please explain to me what the heck just happened?" There is a big difference between being angry at your spouse because "You're not hearing me" and telling the person that you are married to and have children with that he is essentially incapable of hearing you because his skin is white and he has a penis. Ergo, the private "what was that about and what triggered it" conversation.
I think Awilson's point is that she genuinely DID consider her husband evil...while she was in the thrall of those Leftist views.
Fortunately, she seems to have recovered. ;-)
Listen to her now, not 5 years ago, that's why the marriage survived.
Listen to Barri, Nelli and Suzi now, not five years ago. Listen to Sasha Stone (Please!) and Jenny Hollander (Please again) now, not five years ago.
Those people fought through the indoctrination and survived. They're now helping to shed all of the bullshit that society pushed on them post 1990.
Otherwise CM, you're always correct :)
I did notice that the marriage survived because she turned away from the Leftist propaganda that led her to accuse her husband of being "privileged" and "white." This is far from the first person who realized, with some shock, that the ideology they'd bought into had turned them against people they loved.
He may be "clearly more patient," or he may just have considered what the effects of any response would have been. Perhaps he does not want to end the marriage. It sure sounds like she does.
That's what I meant by "clearly more patient." He valued the marriage enough to have not reacted with instant "this is a deal-breaker" negativity to being dissed by his wife as an inherently evil white man.
Personally, I have a tendency to take people at their word. If someone in my life spewed that kind of attack against my immutable characteristics, that would be the end of the relationship.
When my Thai wife says that I don't understand because I'm not Thai, I reply, no, I don't understand because you're not clearly explaining your point. Then we start over and eventually, I understand what she is saying and it has nothing to do with my lack of Thaiability. It's all about language and meaning.
"lack of Thaiability. " Love it.
Also known as Thainess. In the case of the king, it's your royal Thainess. it the summer of short skirts it's Thighness.
Maybe he really really loves the women he fell in love with and thought she might return?
I turned away from the article at that point..
These are some interesting profiles of Americans that underscore the nuance in how we all approach politics. As a lifelong independent myself, I don't feel "politically homeless" - I feel free. I am not constrained by a party some of whose positions or leaders I might disagree with. Not belonging to a party, I don't have to hate the other guys. Those of you who belong to a party - what has it done for you personally? The way their positions morph tells you it's all about power, not principles. I'm surprised anyone falls for the whole good guy/bad guy party game. Within a political party, you are a pawn. Outside of them, you are free. America is my party.
I love the way you said this.......I now feel free too! America has always been my party.
Well articulated! I’ve been feeling really free lately too as I’ve drifted away from my former “democrat” identity.
See, as an Independent i don't feel free...because I know that for the most part, my vote won't change anything, since there are so few independent candidates that stand a chance. I am surrounded by people who will vote R or D, no matter what.
I don't just vote for independent candidates - they're all independent as far as I'm concerned. I'm surrounded by the same R&D people. Just keep talking to them and sharing your perspective. When independents are a majority of registered voters in this country (currently 41%), I think that may be a tipping point for change.
I agree with the principal. I wish everyone would simply vote your conscience. And NOT vote for people if you don't actually know who they are and what they stand for.
But so long as everyone keeps voting for D or R and are afraid of "throwing away their vote" the parties don't care how you are registered. They still get your votes. So what is their incentive to change? Even if 100% of us registered independent, our votes still go to R and D as a whole, so they don't care.
Hmmn.... some good points. I think, though, if they didn't have so many diehard party loyalists they would have to attract voters from across the party spectrum, because independents would decide every election. It might temper the extremes in both parties.
I think we're in the middle of a paradigm shift, though. It seems the number of people voting 3rd party is increasing every election cycle. And this year will be very telling.
What if there was an election and no one voted? That would scare the shit out of them.
I think what would truly scare them is if everyone voted.
That would indeed make quite a statement! If only we could get every voter to agree to that.
I don't believe there are that many independents. I believe that is what they tell the pollsters.
I agree most of them tilt Democrat or Republican. They say so. But the fact that they don't join a party tells me many of them are persuadable by a strong candidate with sound policies. The problem IMO is that those candidates don't seem to make it to the finish line because those same two parties have a long list of favors to dole out, debts to be repaid, contributions to reimburse via government contracts, etc. They can't take a chance on someone unreliable enough to have integrity - they might bring the whole game crashing down.
In many if not most states , as an independent one can’t vote in primaries. This further disenfranchises the independent as they have less say in who runs in the general. There is little enough choice esp on the Dem side. Look what they did to RFK jr , a lifelong Dem was treated like crap and boxed out of the party. Why do we need these political parties at all?
We don't. And there's no reason why anyone has to vote "the lesser of two evils."
exactamundo!
We have closed primaries in my state so if I don't pick a party, I don't get to vote in a primary. I don't feel constrained by belonging to a particular party.
Amen! Being independent means being free. Love it!
Within the party I get a chance to influence which candidates can run. I am no one's pawn. I have selected a party that aligns with more of the most important positions I hold. Mor, but not all.
The parties pick the candidates and shift on the issues, especially after being elected. Your utility to them is your vote and your money. It's a machine, and we are very, very small players in this game. I'm sticking with "pawn".
Amen!!!
I don’t believe in party affiliation of any kind. I have registered Republican. I have registered Democrat. I have registered Independent depending on the candidates in any given year.
I'm looking forward to when The New York Times throws in the towel, ie, abandons its pretense of practicing real journalism. Every post by The Free Press brings that day a little closer.
I routinely promote The Free Press over on the Wall Street Journal boards. The WSJ is trending toward a NYT-like demise.
Their hit piece on Elon Musk's supposed drug use was the final straw for me. Quit my subscription last night after 30+ years as a subscriber.
I was going to mention this. Alex Berenson has a good article on substack about it. He points out that the WSJ had NO actual sources to back up their claims of Musk's drug use.
Just read it. Thanks for the tip. If I had more cash, I'd subscribe to Berenson, too.
Heaven help us if the WSJ can't provide a firewall to the editorializing that postures as news at most MSM. The Free Press and other substacks with integrity may eventually replace them all.
The WSJ "editorial" section is where the real news is, funnily enough.
Yes, the WSJ is going down the sh1tlib drain fast. I just canceled my subscription, as leftist propaganda is free everywhere.
Agree completely.
Especially as they banned me because I wouldn't comply.
The WSJ censored me for quoting an Oregon law regarding "gender affirmative care." LOL! Apparently the leftist extremists who do their censoring don't want the texts of leftist extremists' laws to be exposed. LOL! They said my comment wasn't up to "the community standard."
Wear it like a badge of honor.
I do.
"Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, the poetry of Robert Frost, Mozart sonatas..."At the height of the decolonization narrative, people would say, ‘Why are you teaching them this? This is the Western canon"
Because P Diddy and the Transgenders have been making our world SUCH a better place. Maybe we should consult Claudine Gay, our nation's supreme educator, and see what she thinks?
I hear you. I was bothered by "Then, she learned her son was transgender, and it seemed like a dangerous time to be trans or Muslim or Mexican." What exactly does this mean "her son was transgender"? There should be more curiosity about that - especially by his own mother. Let's get a scientific definition. Her son is likely just a confused gay guy who is about to be medicalized. Of course, some are serious autogynophiles - Admiral Levine likely is (the child mutilation enthusiast who is our Assistant Health and Human Services Secretary) - was Richard and married with 2 kids but goes by "Rachael" now as our first female admiral - or something. And, I do not like the Identity Politics fear mongering about how it is/was a dangerous time to be "brown" - especially when being "white" or "brown" moves around according to who the victim is in a given situation.
Claudine Gay is staying on at Harvard with a very high salary - I think $900,000. She got herself a lawyer to negotiate a profitable way to step down from the Harvard presidency. And, it worked. As a dean she was a real academic bully.
Agree. I am compassionate and supportive of people with true gender dysphoria, but it's clear the 99% of the current trans debacle is a politicized social contagion, and it's being egged on by people who want to deconstruct western civilization. Because they've somehow failed to thrive in the best society in human history. Because they're losers.
"and it's being egged on by people who want to deconstruct western civilization" Definitely. I think they do it for power and money. It translates into political power and a great deal of money for Pharma and "Medicine". Synthetic Sex Hormones were always a drug looking for a market. And, trans makes lifetime patients. See Cohn, below.
"true gender dysphoria" It used to be called Gender Identity Disorder - and I think something else before that. It was understood as a psychological disorder and people disagreed on the best way to help those (tiny number of male people who suffered with it from and early time). The first problem was giving it a new name which was going to be "kind" and not make anyone feel like is was a "disorder" because they might feel bad? Next, it became some sort of "new gay", a new "rights" campaign. Next, it became taught in schools as just another way people are different. Next, teen girls started re-writing their childhoods and really came to believe they had "always been this way". This was encouraged in a way that anorexia never was. It feels very much like a cult if you know ROGD girls - some are same sex attracted and some just don't fit in in high school for other reasons. Under-socialised or brainy girls or girls uncomfortable with puberty are a few categories... See Dr. Lisa LIttman's studies.
Two fellas who transed and have given it much thought are Anne Lawrence (I think he is happy and honest about being male) and Corina Cohn (who has regrets).
Lawrence:
http://www.annelawrence.com/autogynephilia_&_MtF_typology.html
https://quillette.com/2019/11/06/what-is-autogynephilia-an-interview-with-dr-ray-blanchard/
Cohn:
https://wesleyyang.substack.com/p/heres-the-bottom-lineit-is-going?r=57dgq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web#details
https://corinnacohn.substack.com/p/the-medical-leash-of-hormone-replacement
https://dailycaller.com/2023/06/30/tucker-carlson-rachel-levine-trans-ideology/
might be a good analysis.,sure sounds a lot rational
Dave, me too. Still, it’s an abiding mystery to me, this whole transgender “debacle”. JK Rowling was the early and prominent victim by being crazy brave enough to state the obvious: that biological males are males regardless of what they call themselves. And it’s gone downhill from there. It’s interesting that ALL of the pressure and hate (& nonsense about sports places) is coming from biological males; the dysphoric females are mostly silent, yet much of the anxiety and distress in under-age kids who are being “gender affirmed”, and the controversy around puberty blockers and gender re-assignment surgery being recommended for minors, is for anxiety-stricken teenage girls.
What’s going on? Can any of you enlighten me?
Yes, the men using it to win in sports do it for attention/"affirmation" I think. It might wind up being their undoing. I think they have a problem where no amount of attention will ever be enough. They will always crave more. There are less aggressive men trying to live quietly (but they do have a disorder for sure if maybe not the same one). I think the girls/women are entirely different and I am not sure it is even correct to say that they are "dysphoric". "Gender Dysphoria" is a catch phrase of the time and recalls the Satanic Panic era. There is even a UCSF doctor who was big in SP days and is big now in GD days:
1. Satanic Panic craze Dr. Diane Ehrensaft is now a big Trans Woo pedler at UCSF. . https://www.thedistancemag.com/p/diane-ehrensaft-satanic-panic-woo
2. 4thwavenow.com
If you want to understand more about what is going on I highly recommend
"Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality" by Helen Joyce and
"Lost in Trans Nation: A Child Psychiatrist's Guide Out of the Madness" by Miriam Grossman MD
I also put a little information into another response to Dave. Thx.
are girls often drama queens, more "hysterical" ? '
Girls have always been more prone to mass hysterias in the past - like the Tanganyika laughter epidemic. I think there have been many in history. The Salem Witch thing comes to mind.
I especially love the last line.
P.S. Historically, most boys with GID (Gender Identity Disorder) got over it (ie, it "resolved") by adulthood and were gay.
As for the others - if you read Helen Joyce's book (to name one) it explains that it always comes down to sexual desires, some of which were considered parafilias before everything became "OK" including "minor attraction".
As for the money side - it is crazy profitable even though we now know so many regret:
"U.S. Sex Reassignment Surgery Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Gender Transition (Male To Female, Female To Male), And Segment Forecasts, 2022 - 2030"
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-sex-reassignment-surgery-market
I think the "trans" thing keeps many hospitals afloat. I think that the clinic in TN was shutdown after it came out about brags regarding all the money it brought in.
LoL
As if the whole transgender "movement" isn't a western creation. The academics are always trying to claim that a few sporadic instances of "neither completely male nor female people" means that the whole transgender idea is a movement of oppressed colonized peoples but come on; the idea of transgender and gender non-conformity could only exist in a modern, Western society. A society that is able to have norms and values change quickly and willing to accept individuals who bend traditional gender roles is unique and is a product of Western ideals of individual expression and freedom and equal rights for all. This sort of thing wouldn't have ever gained traction in an Islamic country or a traditional Buddhist country.
Heck the ideas of free speech, individual rights, and equal treatment under the law that were so integral to the real change of the civil rights movement led by Dr. King and others were based on Enlightenment values from the West, not on any belief system or line of logic from the "colonized peoples"; most of the world didn't have this sort of beliefs about outgroups. These Enlightenment values were also the basis of independence movements in India, Tunisia, South Africa (from apartheid), Latin America, etc.
Thailand. Very Buddhist and knee-deep in ladyboys.
refer to "'One Night in Bangkok"
And getting ready to legitimize same sex marriage.
You mean what she thinks other people think.
Well I guess I have been homeless for 52 years because since age 18, I am a registered INDEPENDENT voter. I am now 70. I don't particularly care for either party and I have a disdain for "party politics" particularly when senators and congressional leaders are pressured to toe the "party line" even when they disagree. I think I lean towards being libertarian. I believe in a small federal government, a strong military, responsible spending bills (which appear to be non existent), conservative foreign policy and have moderate social views. For example I am pro choice with limits but anti abortion as an expedient BC method. I don't care if people want to "trans" as adults but am against anything being done on children. The election is going to be tough this year because the two candidates I like will probably not be the front runners but I sure as heck will NOT VOTE for Biden. Democrat policies are NOT helping this country. WHAT TO DO❓
I wouldn’t be surprised if at least 50% of the voting population has exactly the same beliefs as you. Me included.
Weigh it all up; hold your nose; and vote the candidate that'll do the least damage to what you hold important.
That can be difficult to know. The candidates say and promise things that they have no intention of fulfilling, or say things that later turn out to not be doable.
The media, both mainstream and alt, can help. I'd probably not favour anyone being pushed in my face by either the NYT or TFP and be inclined to whoever they were ignoring or saying "Look! Shiny!" as a distractor everytime their name came up. Needless to say, (But I'll say anyway!) voting any Democratic Party candidate would be insane. Might as well shoot yourself in the head and be done. :-)
It's been a few elections since I've done anything else.
Unfortunately that's what we get stuck with and very little seems to change.
Granted I’m biased because I agree with the premise of the article so take this with a grain of salt. But this seems to once again reinforce that if the GOP nominated anybody but former President Trump, they’d win a historic triumph and if they nominated DeSantis, they’d introduce an epoch-shifting change into our politics.
I am sorry to agree that GOP would win, assuming that there is no more widespread corruption in the elections, but I think that the electorate is too pissed off right now to believe in any other candidate but Trump! He has warts, but he has a clear vision on America's future, especially that America's future should be guided by Americans, not global politics.
Voting for a deeply-flawed candidate because you're "pissed off", while understandable, is a lazy approach. We need to insist on better candidates - Trump and Biden are both a disagrace.
The primaries are a problem. In 2016, Donald Trump ran against a dozen look-alikes. Jeb Bush and John Kasich were at least sane.
Trump won because he stood out, giving his rivals silly monikers, like a silly prepubescent, and stalking around the stage imitating cripples and dissing war veterans. That was clownish behavior.
There were too many running against him. They split the vote. Of course he was elected.
That his handlers surrounded him with decent people, and he was able to push through the Abraham Accords and get a Covid vaccine made and delivered, was worthy of appreciation that many won't give him.
Trying to strong-arm election officials into finding more Trump votes really wasn't.
You raise a good point. We independents have to sit our primaries in most states, so we're stuck with what's left. If a majority of voters turn independent, I would like to see them negotiate to open primaries in both parties to independents as California now does. The parties can still (and have a right to) pick their own candidates. What do you think?
Not much because then you have people doing things like voting in the primary of the party they oppose to pick fringe candidates to improve their chosen party's chance in the general. Word is that happened in those open primary states in the last mid-term.
And now we have the spectacle of left-wing dark money groups running ads for the fringe primary candidate they think will be easier to beat - not in the Presidential elections yet, but in many 2020 Congressional races. This is an equally underhanded tactic on a more organized scale. And it works, so they'll keep doing it. It is critical for voters to realize they all must vote in the primaries, even if their party's candidate is a sure thing. True for both sides, but at the moment more true for the GOP.
True. It definitely happened here in California.
A Republican until the early 1990s, when I felt that Christian fundamentalism was getting too powerful in the GOP, and an Independent since then, I just re-registered as a Republican so that I can vote in the primaries and perhaps help find a better choice than Donald Trump.
A Democrat I could never have become despite my support for various liberal causes.
That's a good call, and another option for independents - to become "tactical" voters and frequently change party affiliation. I wonder how many people such a characterization would apply to?
There's a big block of Trump votes. Then a split between Vivek, Nikki and Ron. Trump is going to win the R nomination. And I am not voting for him in our R primary, but will do so in the general election.
Think again about California voting system in theory it is good, but It has resulted in only Democrat candidates for senator, etc.
Good point. Voting in California is about like voting in Venezuela.
Primaries are run by the political parties.
Then, like middle-school homeroom teachers, political parties should limit the number of candidates for any office so that they don't get 15-30 running, or even a dozen, with the popular alpha-child winning with very little real support except for her besties and hangers-on.
A vote between Trump, Bush and, say, Rubio or Cruz might have had a very different outcome.
Savvy homeroom teachers know that you don't want the good kids canceling one another out.
Hmmm...who agrees to drop out first? Same problem as in 2016. And here we are, again.
True. See my comment just above yours. Thoughts?
Why do we need parties at all. What value do they add to the process? Vivek Ramaswamy is running as a Rep but is hated by the party establishment. I think he is refreshing , smart as hell, attractive to the youth because he is Young . If we don’t encourage smart independent people who sacrifice much to throw their hat in the ring, then we a country will get what we deserve.
I have been asking for better candidates since the 90's. It hasn't worked. And it seems to me, they have actually gotten worse.
What sane, non narcissistic , intelligent, moral person would even consider running for higher office at this point knowing the venom, untruths, and hate that would be directed at them and their families. How we lower the vitriol and encourage good candidates to run is a difficult problem, but until we solve it we will continue to end up with choices like Trump vs. Biden.
And how do we go about "insisting on better candidates" when the people apparently are not part of the process? Only the political parties control this, since only they profit from maintaining power. That is the disgrace.
In a lot of ways, the media picks the candidates. Who they cover, who they dishonestly cover, who they cheerlead for.
For instance I was pretty annoyed when the FP kept ragging on RFK jr cause it was the fashionable media thing to do. He is at least intelligent and coherent which Biden can’t lay claim to. He is often shouted down as anti-vax. Yet none of these people attempt to explain, for example, why we are giving neonates hep b shots—a disease overwhelmingly transmitted by dirty needles and promiscuous sex—that have only been tested for five days and have no liability for the manufacturers. Anyone who is not asking questions about our vaccine program is either not informed or worse.
Not true. At this point in time Nikki Haley could wipe out Biden. All the polls agree. But there is no way she can run as a Republican bc.Trump is beating her by large percent. Non of this makes sense for the country
I would vote for anyone against the current crop of Democrat slime puppets, except Haley. I have waited my whole life to vote for a qualified woman for president, but Haley has crawled out of the same old swamp. I'd have to abstain, I suppose.
The media chooses who they are told to choose by the people with the most money to spread around and the biggest influence.
You can be active in your party. Go to your local precinct meeting. They welcome the involvement. And if they do not you absolutely know there is a significant problem. But even then don't give up. Just take reinforcements with you to the next one.
Yes they are.
We can instist all we want and that will have no effect on who the canidates are. They are chosen for us and we have no input. The current crop of Repos are just a sideshow. The RNC has chosen it's leader. Ditto the DNC.
Yes, that’s what the polls seem to suggest. Call me pollyannish, but I think there’s a decent chance neither makes it to November. Biden’s obvious cognitive decline could reach a point that simply can’t be ignored. And Trump could say one too many stupid things and alienate critical supporters, or be convicted of something that Americans find unseemly. If that happens, the Republicans have a deep bench. The Democrats have a problem.
What else can he say lol?
What is Trumps vision for our future? Certainly not an end to the corruption that benefitted his family and benefits politicians on both sides. Certainly not law and order, he watched as his minions lay siege on the Capitol, beating up cops, and refused reasonable court orders such as returning the damned documents. Certainly not a world with more individual freedom, he worked very hard to please Putin and Jong Un with words and love letters and banned reporters from his White House briefings. Certainly not a world leadership role for the US, he poked our allies in the eye repeated, publicly. Certainly not honesty, I’ll say no more.
This article was outstanding and I saw myself reflected in several of the Americans featured. And I was encouraged. Both parties have fractured into two or more ideological factions. Maybe that’s a sign that we will begin to have new voices in politics, that can work together in good faith, negotiating and compromising and if need be biding their time in convincing voters to see it their way.
You may list a million things wrong with the right, the left, Biden. I get it. The US needs to reflect on our ills and act on solutions and fast. But I don’t see how it’s reasonable to suggest Trump will solve our very serious political divides, internally and internationally given his background, experience, reactions, lack of respect for voters and his moral compass.
A few comments back at ya Ann22, but first, you are entitled to your opinions.
see the ** for my comments re your intro paragraph.
What is Trumps vision for our future? Certainly not an end to the corruption that benefitted his family and benefits politicians on both sides. **what family corruption are you alluding to for the Trumps? He is a businessman, and no one has shown any corruption or evidence of same, surely accusation abound. There are clearly politicians who are corrupt, or absolutely questionable in their actions, on both sides of the aisle. How do we remove these folks, Elections that are honest and open.
Certainly not law and order, he watched as his minions lay siege on the Capitol, beating up cops,**another opinion, and from my chair, Trump had no chance to stop the riot, and as is public knowledge, Trump offered Nat Guard days before the rally and his offer was refused. NO, he did not demand or order the troops in, he simply offered and was refused.
and refused reasonable court orders such as returning the damned documents. **NO there was no court order for returning documents, but a NARA request, that some documents be returned. From all I read, the communication btwn the two parties was just fine, not confrontational, until the August raid on Mar A Lago, which was the tip of the spear. Looking objectively at this document issue, Trump has been treated in a clearly biased manner, esp as an Ex Pres vs Pence, Biden, Clinton and others who remain nameless, but carried docs home without any clearance to do so. Certainly not a world with more individual freedom, **the only folks he is concerned with re freedom are AMERICANS. What the following countries do to their residents is out of his control. he worked very hard to please Putin and Jong Un with words and love letters and banned reporters from his White House briefings**one CNN reporter, Jim acosta had his pass suspended for a week. No big deal when you consider how the "press" twisted and obfuscates what Trump says, or tried to execute on, he was always a scapegoat for the press. Certainly not a world leadership role for the US, he poked our allies in the eye repeated, publicly. **any examples here, as it seems 4 years later his "pokes in the eye" were pretty astute. UK, Germany, France, allies yes but all suffering from terrible policies that often impacted the US negatively. Most of those allies are making a notable shift in their stances, re Russia, energy, immigration etc. Certainly not honesty, I’ll say no more.
take care
rich
PS re riots, during 2020 Trump suggested calling up the states Nat guard to virtually every city being burned up. Crickets from those dem run cities as they facilitated or ignored the burning of their businesses, shameful.
Appreciate hearing your views. But seems we are different planets. Big sigh. There is testimony and eye witnesses from his daughter (among others) who asked repeatedly to get on his phone and call it off. Also…I have repeatedly said that those who committed violence or destruction of behavior during blm protests, and the J6 riot, should be prosecuted. No sympathy for either here.
followup comments Ann22
re planets, are you referring to "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus?" ( a friendly play on your statement above.)
"Testimony and eyewitness" from the Jan 6 committee, that was clearly compromised and agenda driven. Trumps daughter appeared voluntarily to the subpoena, and her comments as you suggest, carry no weight in Trumps ability to "call it off". Yes, a peaceful assembly turned ugly in some ways, once it arrived to the capitol. Yes, some should be prosecuted for actual crimes. Over 1100 J6 people have been arrested, with ~500 pleaing a deal or being sentenced to some form of time or penalty. Many of those who were sentenced did so under duress. They did not have $ resources to fight the tax dollars at work against them. Many are still in jail or have not had a trial after 3 years, which is incredulous to me. Proud boys leader was not at the J6 assembly, yet he was convicted to 18 years in prison?? There are another half dozen of these examples of sentencing, yet in my humble opinion, they are clearly without merit or excessive to the "crime" committed.
Re 2020 rioters, the numbers of arrested are quite high, I dont have a good count, but what is more surprising is the very limited number and minor penalties those convicted have faced. The disparities should be shocking to all. Camera footage and witnesses provided tons of evidece for arrests and prosecution. Elected leaders of our country were funding bailouts for 2020 rioters. If you felt so strongly about the 2020 rioters "facing the music", please say so, objectively. Damage to the capitol is est to be $1.5 million. Damages from all the 2020 riots are est to be $1.5 BILLION, not to mention the losses to business owners who were driven out of business. Most important to me, the loss of faith in our law enforcement officers. This will take years to build back from all the defund police movements. Idiocy.
rich
rich
The numbers arrested in 2020 were really high because in WA, I believe, for si stance, hundreds of peaceful protesters were rounded up as a (illegal) deterrent and thus had to be released. Furthermore the vast number of protesters went home peacefully. Numbers of violent offenders were far fewer to begin with. Hard to have a decent conversation about a phenomenon that happened in cities across the country, many protests were uneventful and not covered extensively by media. As for J6 my family and I watched on TV, switching from one channel to next, online,and Twitter….from the speeches that morning to trumps calling it off in late afternoon and then some. What part of “violent” am I getting wrong. And remember, assaulting cops will get you jail time…esp when caught on camera. Finally I in no way support defunding the police.
*slow golf clap*
nice job Rich
Regarding "testimony and eyewitnesses from his daughter (among others) asking him to get on the phone and call it off[.]" What do you contend this is evidence of?
I personally have never heard of an unarmed insurrection, especially when you can buy guns, I think, at Walmart. To me, it is obvious that J6 was a riot. There is credible evidence that federal agents of some sort were in the crowd promoting entry into the Capitol. Anyone who followed the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case would find this very easy to believe.
He tweeted or texted in late afternoon to tell people to “go home”. And they did. Why didn’t that happen when the first window in the Capito was smashed, anyhow, the truth is not important anymore. Political posturing is, and as always, monied people get to tie up the courts with appeals so the public don’t have the proceedings to help them understand.
Excellent retort. Thanks
These are opposition talking points, some of which have merit. Trump policies were successful in international affairs, regardless of the thoughtless elitist responses by the Euro leaders. And I apologize for the cliches. Certainly his border policies were successful. Certainly his economic policies were more successful for the general population than the blow it all up for green energy policy.
Appreciate your views, and civilized response!
Co-signed all of this!
Gee thnx. It’s lonely out here…
It sure is. It’s also interesting how much tribalism is on display in the comments of an article that’s expressly about abandoning that type of thing. But I’ve come to expect that of FP comment sections.
Well....what's in a name? This publication is called The Free Press and unlike some of the unseemly pile-ons I've witnessed in places like The New York Times, and even on my own personal Facebook page, people here are given the space to express their point of view, even if it doesn't fit into what the Ladies of the View might deem "acceptable." That's a good thing, though you call it "tribalism."
wishing there was a laugh button
Really? Me too!!
Are there really 21 others just as deluded as you?
22 now.
Sigh
"This article was outstanding and I saw myself reflected in several of the Americans featured."
Me too!
Trump has a vision? Only if its of himself in a fun-house mirror
Trump has warts?!? I’d call them puss-oozing infected boils.
The GOP doesn't care about winning. They've proven that during mid-terms and elections 2023. The Republican leadership only cares about advancing their own political careers. That's why they're all falling in line behind Trump. They're happy to be the minority party if it comes to that, because that just means they can keep complaining about the Dems while not having to do anything.
None of the politicians in either party cares about "the people". We're idiots and tools to them. They just need enough votes from us to get them the membership card into the political/media elite club where they then get to live the life they want and be part of the action, the scene, and the club cocktail parties.
I believe the Republican party is concerned with winning by a vote of the people. Little that the Democrats are doing now has to do with persuading voters to support them. The Democrats are focusing on seizing the election through loose voting laws, removing the opposition from ballots, lawfare, slander and liable.
It's possible that Republicans may catch up on ballot harvesting, but they're way behind on lawfare and the rest.
And rake in the cash.
OMFG I've been screaming this (into the void) for over a year now. Does NO ONE see this? Is he really that hard to jettison?
In favour of who, Nikki Haley? 'cos she's the next highest polling. It's up to you to avoid the call-up; you don't want to die. /s Vivek has a "snake oil" vibe unfortunately; and DeSantis has managed to burn his boats. Only argue with reality if you are desperate for a Darwin Award.
Interesting, different people's perspective. I always considered myself, in the two-party system, a republican. Notably because I support gun rights, free speech and limited government. On the (D) side, that's somewhat of a classic liberal - I don't support what you say, but will defend your right to say it.
That doesn't describe recent (R) candidates like $&L McCain or Milquetoast Mitt (it's not a tax, it's a fee!). When the Bad Orange Man started his run in 2015, back when he was just a reality TV star/Rich Guy, I thought, based on his past, he'd be another RINO. The establishment hated him but then when he won, his policy directions were great but he was attacked from all sides - Paul Ryan and other (R), the Deep State and then the corporate media would only tell you have the story.
Now he's being slurred as a populist - like that's a bad thing? I guess in our crazy upside world where a man can put on a dress and instantly be a woman and where words are violence (or silence is violence depending upon the issue), that's probably to be expected....
The GOP better get behind a better stance on abortion otherwise they will get smoked as the Democrats turn it into a women's right issue.
I agree with you JJ. I know a few women who will vote Democrat solely based on the abortion issue.
That is so pathetic to me ...... the ability to kill babies being their hard line is disgusting.
Those who are pro choice do NOT see abortion as murder. There are good people on both sides. There are good arguments on both sides. . If conservatives don’t find a way to compromise ( which is what smart politics requires) they will continue to lose elections at all levels of government. If we don’t start winning the dangerous Dems will retain control and we los3 on ALL other also important issues that we face as a nation
I agree with all of your post. The percentage of Americans who want to completely ban abortions is about the same as the percentage who promote "gender affirmative care" for minors. Both groups are extremists who are at odds with the values of the majority of Americans. Time to bring back majority rights and majority rule in the U.S.
there was no red wave last year because of that issue.
I witnessed it first hand in my jurisdiction, a college town. That vote was ginned up with Soros and Sam Bankman-Fried money. And I am neither guessing nor speculating. They were there to Vote Blue No Matter Who. Voter literacy tests started to make sense to me.
many GOP and Trump voters would be disqualified by your "literacy tests" as well.
Some for sure. But the Vote Blue No Matter Who thing is pretty telling, is it not? My state has done away with straight party voting BTW.
Time for the Republican extremists to start listening to the voters rather than preaching about creating "a culture of life." (DeSantis) Time for the Democrat extremists to start listening to the voters rather than preaching anti-whiteness and all their other craziness. Both parties deserve to be destroyed and will be, because they turned themselves over to the most unpopular factions in their respective organizations.
that's sad..... while that may be important, it is not THE top item politically-speaking. Those people are IMO myopic.
Keep in mind that for some, abortion isn't an issue of ending a pregnancy. It is more about bodily autonomy. The Political marketing people have made sure that many on the left only see it through that lens. "Those mean Republics are trying to tell women what they can do with their own bodies".
When you look at it like that it makes it easy to get against pro-lifers, since it then becomes about freedom and not about whether or not you are ending a life.
I am a physician, and I teach bioethics to undergrads, 75% women with a healthcare career as a goal. These young women understand. They get both sides, but they also are grounded in humaness. Many (most) come from Latino backgrounds and they are aware that they are being used. A number of them got pregnant at 16 and are now scoring near perfect gpas to make their families and the world better. There is hope!
This is such good news! I'm really glad to hear about your students. These are the youngsters who will carry us forward.
Whether you believe abortion is “ending a life” if performed before foetal autonomy is a theological not a medical issue, and most women therefore do indeed see this as one of bodily autonomy, especially when they see the cruelty being displayed by Republicans in Texas when they do get absolute control. This is a HUGE voting issue, and it deserves to be.
This is absolutely true. It is very unfortunate that the Republicans have decided they would prefer to lose elections to pander to anti-abortion extremists. There is no way that I will throw away the rights of young women to have access to contraception and abortion.
Abortion is also about the fact that the majority of Americans believe they have the right to decide how many children they will have.
I'm sure they'll thoroughly enjoy their free late-term abortions in the totalitarian state the Dems want to create. If not, well, they got what they voted for.
As can be seen in places like San Fran, Chicago, NYC, etc, people are obviously not great at putting together how who they vote for impacts their day to day lives.
That is part of why the political marketers get people to focus on single issues. Its like a magic trick. Look over here at Abortion, so we can sneak all of this other crap past you/
While I agree with you to a point, the issue is it is the top item for THEM. And, that is what makes us the great melting pot, we all have our own thoughts and desires and should be able to express them. No different than the top items for me are freedom of speech and bodily autonomy...even before immigration and size of government.
You are in a predicament. Read some of Matt Taibbi's censorship articles.
I’m curious to how I’m in a predicament. I don’t readily see what you mean with regards to Matt’s articles.
If you truly value free speech and right to abortion. The Dems are not the free speech party . That's why I suggested Taibbi's censorship material.
There are a great many women who will reject candidates who promise to ban abortion in the U.S. An overwhelming majority of young women are in favor of preserving access to abortion, and they are the people who have the most right to decide this issue.
I disagree, they need to keep pushing pro-life. It’s slow, but it’s coming. More and more young people are pro-life. I see the signs everywhere: in students, in comment sections, and in the shift in the way we talk about abortion. I cannot stress this enough about the truth about abortion: once you see it, you can’t unsee it. It’s only a matter of time until pro-life arguments reach a critical mass of people. Mark my words.
a "100% pro-life, have your rapist's baby, no-exception for health of the mother, and carry an unviable fetus to term" position will never win nationally. There has to be a compromise, like 12 weeks. The Dems will continue to run on abortion rights and be able to resist any restrictions as long as the GOP take an unreasonable and hardline stance.
There is nowhere in the US that I am aware of where that language in quotes is the law. That is mis-information writ large. And don't both sides need to tone down the rhetoric? Doesn't compromise mean both sides give some?
that's what the far right wants. Look at Texas where doctors are being prosecuted for giving medically necessary treatment when it comes to abortions. That's what people see and fear would be the case nationally. And the rend result is the left being able to use that to avoid any limits. The Dems are extremists too but as long as the GOP has a flank of the party who is pushing an hardline approach they'll be able to obscure their radical positions.
Oh please. To my knowledge no doctors have been prosecuted. Which is not surprising because doctors are not really known for sticking their necks out. In fact they are known for being very risk averse. Can't risk the wealth you know. If you are talking about the Cox case the fact that her doctor (despite giving ample opportunity to do so) would not use the words reasonable medical certainty, that there would be harm to the mother, it was the doctor who threw her under the bus. Either there was no such risk to Mrs. Cox and the doctor would not perjure herself; or there was such a risk and Mrs. Cox had inept doctors, lawyers, or both; or this was a balloon sent up to test the judicial air and gin up people like you by enflamung and enslaving emotions. If you are talking about the ERs using reasonably necessary procedures, including abortion, to stabilize a patient case that was a failed failed gambit by the Biden Administration to us federal medicaid regs to gut the Texas law. Texas passed a law. The governor and legislature are pretty well supported thereafter. How about your state does what it and its populace feel is right and have the decency to allow Texas to do the same. You can't do that though because you have the need to impose your will on others. FWIW I may be the only person in the nation willing to say, I don't know what the abortion answer is. I can see the validity of a multitude of arguments. If not for the women enforcing their demand for health care (theirs, not the fetus' nor the father') every time they have an oopsie I would think the government should not be involved at all. But how many is too many? At say 5 isn't that horrifyingly callous?
Well done Lynne. Why is it so hard to believe in states rights?
20 weeks or go away. 12 is too early in a lot of cases to even know you are pregnant.
yes exactly, and this is why they won't do anything about it on a federal level. They can run the country to the ground with crime, maim gender confused children, fail to deter 2 (3?) international wars and leave the border as porous as a sieve but as long as they have abortion it's smooth sailing to victory!
been saying exactly this since the mid-terms.
It is a women's rights issue, as well as the right of families to decide how many kids they will have.
Blah, blah, blah.
If people were smart and put political issues into a hierarchy, they would be better able to choose between the terrible two choices (democrat and republican) that we have.
The hierarchy is simple, in this order:
1. Economic,
2. Sovereignty, foreign policy, and
3. Social.
If you have a weak economy, you cannot protect yourself and project power, nor can you help your fellow citizens. Once the economy is strong, you must solidify your sovereignty. Only after this, can help your fellow citizens.
Simple, logical, easy.
Money makes the world go round.
A realist approach.
And therein lies the beauty of a classical, logical education and an incisive mind.
Thank you.
fair to say an open border is a bad idea for reasons related to: 4. All of the above?
This would fall under #2, Sovereignty.
I would I argue it’s economic too? We can’t support this level of need.
Well reasoned. But wa-a-a-ay to much complex thought for some who would rather be spoon fed what they should think or do.
I agree.
I’ve tried to explain this my liberal friends and their eyes glaze over.
Find new friends. Life is too short to surround yourself with folk too stupid to live.
Yes Sir.
I actually love this new alignment and new way of thinking.
We don't all have to agree on everything but there are certain things that, to me, seem incontrovertible.
First, we cannot have a country or an ordered, compassionate society, with open borders.
Second, and a corollary, we cannot have a country that ignores criminality and lets violent offenders roam wild to hurt and victimize our citizens.
An important third principle is that equal protection under the law is sacrosanct.
And Fourth, if we do not have Free Speech,, we are not America. This cannot be compromised.
Fifth, we must not devolve into tribalism No benefits or demerits for skin color or ethnicity.
Sixth, the new feudalism must end. The new oligarchs of our society have demonstrated themselves, for the most part, to be utterly incapable of ruling us or in directing our civic lives. The tax benefits that the ultra rich and the universities enjoy must be ended.
I'm open to any others. I hesitated to mention abortion. I am not a fan of it nor do I believed it should be criminalized or banned within limits. In any event, I do think we need a realignment of Americans dedicated to the principles stated above and political party that will doggedly be faithful to them. Meaning America first, no more spying on American citizens and no more foreign wars that weaken our nation.
I agree with your principles! As regards abortion, may we return it to the purview of medical treatment, for a doctor and patient to decide? Perhaps a European style protection up to 15 weeks, then thereafter for acceptable medical reasons (life, health, non survivable developmental defects)? There is a lot of wiggle room in there. So many medical procedures are regulated enough for patient safety, but not so heavily to limit access.
I think 75-80% of the country would agree with you on this.
That is correct, according to most polls on abortion access.
Most Americans already agree with these positions. The problem is that the people at the extreme 10% at both ends reject reasonable compromises. It appears to be more important to them to shout about their unpopular views than it is to craft policies than are supported by the majority.
agreed... Tulsi Gabbard for prez??? as far as I can tell these are her principles to a tee.
Well we saw how Tulsi was treated by the Democrat Party. I'd love for Trump to pick her. Then his age and excess wouldn't bother me as much.
I call it the Treebeard Party: we're on no one's side because no one is on our side
That's a very good moniker. Very true.
thanks, free for use! Maybe if we label ourselves someone will listen
One thing i will add is that people shouldnt expect recent (last 3-20 years) immigrants to accept open borders and vote Democrat. Most that i interact with in NY and LA resent these new migrants who compete for resources and jobs and are handed FREE things while they all had to struggle to establish themselves in the US. The ones i know are favoring Trump to stop this nonsense (as if he will actually do something, who knows?).
One thing that the pro-immigrant Leftists don't seem to have considered is that Latin American immigrants are, largely, conservative Catholics. The social policies being pushed by the Left are not going to win them over.
The blanket term of "immigrant" also covers the illegal immigrants...start calling the illegals out. The immigrants that you talked to are most likely legal immigrants not illegal. Trump's rage against immigrants and Biden's open border policy fails to comprehend the legal progress and value that many Americans place on being a citizen.
the whole immigration issue is infuriating for so many reasons. yes the system needs to be reformed, and yes we can absorb many millions of immigrants, but why aren't we using a merit based system that attracts educated immigrants who can work in tech, medicine, etc and who won't be dependent on drained systems?
oh whoops I forgot, "merit" is racist.
Shirley, there are nearly 800,000 fully qualified H1B immigrants (that’s the high skill category) queued up for 82,500 annual H1B quotas waiting for their visas. These are the best and the brightest. They would immediately add to the country; there are probably at least a few future Nobel Laureates among them. It’s maddening to see the perfidy (by both parties) over immigration - let all of them in, and build a wall to deny the illegals (who are mostly poor, uneducated and unskilled who will be a burden on America for at least a generation).
It’s completely insane. This feels like such a clear compromise but there isn’t even a discussion on the table. Why?? I’m not a conspiracy theorist but this feels awfully fishy to me.
After going through the visa, green card, and finally citizenship with my spouse, I agree with you that there is much to be reformed. But reform is different than just trashing the whole system. Having criminal checks with finger prints is valid & making sworn statements that you are not an enemy of the US on pain of deportation are the bureaucratic means that gives court the opportunity to deport. (Think Al Capone charged with tax evasion) There is also paper work that ensures that an immigrant has sufficient funds so that they will not become a ward of the state.
There are visas for the skills that are needed and lacking in the US which can eventually flex into citizenship. There are special programs for political refugees, etc. Note: the US did not vigorously use these programs to provide translators and other supporters of the military in Afghanistan to be evacuated and get citizenship.
The illegals are like shoplifters...they are taking something that does not belong to them. There arrival/action has multiple negative impacts on the community. Shoplifting is often ignored by security, but it doesn't lessen the fact that it is a crime. Entering the US illegal and not being stopped does not make it legal immigration.
Very interesting as I also consider myself politically homeless being a life long conservative Republican. The new conservative group has destroyed our local party, one that my parents actually helped start. I don’t like their tactics or hypocrisy. I’m not 100% behind Trump but I fear no one else will win. I’m frustrated that the GOP seems blind and deaf.
I feel much the same about the Democratic Party today. And Biden. I feel your pain!
I totally agree. I switched to unaffiliated for the first time in my life. To me it was the abortion issue that did the in. 6 weeks? really? we need to be realistic and compromise and create logical legislation that strikes a balance. but then what would drive the voters to the polls if we did something silly like that?