It is the Republicans’ fault, not the Democrats, for America's failures

Bravo! Hear, hear! Well said. Well reasoned. Well thought out.

Please consider my solution to this recurring problem. It's described in an easily readable form in my novel "Invisible Hand" available complete here on Gather (see my profile) and at nopom.info in both text and MP3 forms.

I agree ... my solution: (+=-)>(+/-) ...

Thank you and will do Larry!

Stopped by while browsing through the group : We comment back

"simply by virtue of their support for entitlement programs, their opposition to alternative lifestyles, and their overall desire to impose the will of their constituents upon those for whom they disagree."

Describes some people on this site quite well!

Describes most people everywhere from what I have observed.

@George - exactly

@August - just joined up, but not my first time to the dance. I am sure you are right.

Welcome (back?) to Gather, John~things are bound to get hot & heavy (even nasty) the closer we get to the 2012 elections.

You bet August! Got my gloves off already :-)

The best way to protect minorities is to accept that the Constitution is the law of the land and that it allows the Federal government to take certain actions and prohibits others. It is not a license to do whatever the current political majority determine itself wanting to do. Madison recognized this and modern Democrats don't.

You are right in recognizing that the Founders created and the Republicans (and to an even greater extent the Tea Party) support a government which at it's core establishes checks-and-balances that if maintained and respected will allow the fallen human nature to be held at bay resulting in the happy governance of the nation.

Exactly Ken. It is about principles; this is why I so often cite the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. People say, "well, the Declaration is not law" and I reply, "no, it is not. It is a foundation for a moral society."

The GOP might have wasted time reading the Constitution but they have no idea on how to obey it.

I agree Lori. Are you saying though that the Democrats do know how to obey it?

Lori thinks that if they get elected they are automatically obeying the Constitution. Oath - smoath! Rule of law - rule of slaw!

Anyone paying attention and values their country over their party will admit that the democrats are as bad if not worse then the Republicans in this regard.

That depend whether one is speaking of the people or their politicians ... there is far more good will and intentions with the people than with with their purported leaders who lie about everything.

This is very true.

Nonsense,
It's all the Republicans fault because they weren't being Republican enough? B.S.

Well, yes and no. It is their fault because their actions are no different in principle than the democrats. Seriously, what complaint do you have about Bush you cannot say the same in regard to Obama? There is no real difference in principle between republican and democrat politicians. Seriously, what's changed?

Patriot Act - same

Wars - MORE and this time without even consulting congress!

Gitmo - no change

Handouts for those who did not earn it? Same

Easy money policies? No change

Handouts to corporate failures at our expense - SAME

Seriously, Dan, anything changed? If you cannot cite any and run from this discussion, just remember you care more about your political party than your own country.

I was a republican until the Patriot Act, TARP and massive failures in equalizing foreign trade.

Since then, I have been a constitutionalist. We need a 3rd party that is an actual party that is defined and organized.

~M

I think the Republicans and the Democrats should just join together and be the one party that represents majority rule. Then another party be a party that actually believes in American values. Then let's see who wins the debate over ideas.

We need a third party but not one co-opted by Far Right Koch Bro types.

Ranked voting is the answer.

>Hence, simply by virtue of making one’s views popular among 51% of the voting public, a person or group can force their will upon all other citizens. This is the Democratic way.

No, not "simply". The Court's job is to make sure that the tyranny of the majority doesn't take away anybody else's rights. It's suppose too, anyway. Democrats who want Civil Rights have always hoped the Courts will step in when the mob gets ugly. You hear the Republicans cry about "democracy" being fgnored when the Courts do step in to stop bigoted oppression.

IGNORED!

"fgnored" isn't a word, is it, lol

The US is not a democracy and the few can impose "bigoted oppression" just as well as the majority. Neither should rule in a moral society Pete.

I kind of liked fgnored....lol. It implies a stronger form of ignore. ;)

I think the whole "as its name implies" premise of this article fails when we consider that the party we now refer to as the Democratic party began as the Democratic-Republican party, which was commonly referred to at the time as the Republican party.

As does the fact that one of the founders of that party was the aforementioned James Madison, and that the "Democratic way" has not been to advocate "pure democracy."

Thank you for your comments Will! The underlying point of the article is to make the distinction between what it is to be a democracy and what it is to be a republic, as well as where the US lies in regard to these facts. The conclusion is that we live in a constitutional republic where people possess all of the rights, because our rights are self evident and natural. At the same time government also has rights and those rights are outlined in a document called the Constitution. If the right is not expressly stated, the government does not possess it. Hence the term “constitutional republic.”

People confuse the fact that we use democrat process to make legislative decisions and to elect officials, not to impose the will of the group that happens to be popular at a particular time on some minority.

Both major parties in the US do not get this as well as most of the voting public, in other words, their views are un-American and anti-republic. Regardless of the titles they give themselves.

"The underlying point of the article is to make the distinction between what it is to be a democracy and what it is to be a republic, as well as where the US lies in regard to these facts."

If that was your intended point, you might've had better luck conveying it if you hadn't made such inaccurate comments based on the names of the parties.

What did I state about the parties that was inaccurate?

For one, you stated that the Democrats advocate pure democracy.

Can you cite any instance when a democrat politician advocated for anything but a democratic form of government? How about even a republican (beside those, of course, that are not part of the republican establishment).

You didn't say anything about any particular democrat politician advocating for a democratic form of government. You said that "the Democratic way" was to advocate for pure democracy.

Can you provide evidence that the party as an organization, as well as every single person associated with it advocates pure democracy, and that it is and always has been the core goal of the organization since it was initially established by Jefferson, Madison, etc.?

"How about even a republican (beside those, of course, that are not part of the republican establishment)."

Do you have a list handy to point out which Republican party politicians are part of the Republican establishment and which ones aren't?

Thank you for hanging in there Wil! I appreciate your participation and the challenge you pose. People like you make me a better writer.

Nevertheless, they are the "Democratic Party" Wil. I have to be blunt here and say your points make no sense. It is like saying, "he is a member of the Catholic Church, but he is not Catholic." I don't have to show anyone has done anything, they are Democrats! Maybe your issue is not with my article, but with the dictionary? I believe it is incumbent upon you to prove that Democratic Party is not democratic. I have such incontrovertible proof like the dictionary to back me up.

So again I ask, please cite one Democrat politician advocating for anything but democracy. I do not believe you can because, of course, they are in fact democrats.

I have to be blunt here and say that if you want to be a better writer, it would help if you learn to back up what you've written.

I am under no obligation to prove something that I never said.

Also, still waiting for that list.

I know the dictionary is a big thick book Wil, but you can just go to the page that is relevant and read a few lines. You should try it some time.

Maybe you should try it, and then tax yourself just a little more and try to grasp the differences between pure democracy and liberal, representatitve, Constitutional democracy. It's really not that hard.

Back up your claims, John. Isn't that what good writers do? Didn't you mention something earlier about becoming a better writer? Then provide evidence to back up your claims. How hard could that be? I mean, unless you're just making stuff up.

And where's that list of establishment and non-establishment Republicans?

Well, let's see Wil. I have the dictionary which you seem to have an aversion, the 51st Federalist Paper, and the Constitution. Sounds like a pretty solid set of citations considering the content matter at hand. You have nothing but your opinion and your pre-drawn conclusions. Sounding more and more like a troll than anything else Wil.

Neither the dictionary, the 52st Federalist Paper, nor the Constitution back up your claims about "the Democrat way". They also fail to provide that list of establishment and non-establishment Republican politicians. So while they're no doubt a solid set of citations for many things, they don't provide any support for your particular claims.

You're sounding more and more like a writer who can't defend his own writing, John. Maybe you're too busy trying to tell people what "true Americans" can and cannot do, according to your opinion.

Really? Let me hold your hand, you are obviously a very special person who needs some help:
democracy:

Cite: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/democracy

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.

democrat:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/democrat

1. An advocate of democracy.
2. Democrat A member of the Democratic Party.

Now, let's see if you can try to do the same. Look, you don't even have to pick up a book, you can just surf the web these days Wil! Come on man, I know you can do it!!!

Hey, you're right. I can do it. I'll start with a little quote from the Wikipedia entry for democracy:

Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government.

Hey, how about that? Liberal democracy! Now there's a concept! And what does the dictionary have to say about that term? Let's see...

From the Oxford English Dictionary:"(The advocacy of) a democratic system of representative government in which individual rights and civil liberties are officially recognized and protected, and the exercise of political power is limited by the rule of law."Hmmmm...so much for your "It's in the dictionary!" argument. But hey, since I'm logged into the OED, let's see how it defines "republic".

republic (noun):

1. The state, the community; the common good. Also in figurative context. Obs.

2. A state in which power rests with the people or their representatives; spec. a state without a monarchy. Also: a government, or system of government, of such a state; a period of government of this type.

3. Any community of people, animals, etc., esp. one considered to have equality between its members.

So according to the dictionary, a republic is a form of government that doesn't involve a monarch. There's the People's Republic of China, and the Islamic if Iran, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and the French Republic and on and on. Now, shall we use your "as the name implies" argument to decide which of those kinds of "republic" everybody who uses the word must be referring to?

Now, let's see if you can do a little better than that, and actually provide evidence that the Democratic Party as an organization, as well as every single person associated with it advocates pure democracy, and that it is and always has been the core goal of the organization since it was initially established by Jefferson, Madison, etc., and also provide that list of establishment and non-establishment Republicans.

First, just the fact that you cited Wikipedia shows your utter ignorance. And seeing you are a troll, Wil, I ask that you cite the pages of the information you provide so that I can read them in full. Trolls by definition are not trustworthy. So let's see it Wil.

First, just the fact that you're whining about the fact that I cited Wikipedia after you cited the Yahoo! Dictionary shows your utter silliness.

And I've already cited the source of the definitions I provided. The Oxford English Dictionary.

And when you're done reading them in full, if you can come up with something else besides name-calling, let's see your evidence that the Democratic Party as an organization, as well as every single person associated with it advocates pure democracy, and that it is and always has been the core goal of the organization since it was initially established by Jefferson, Madison, etc.

And also that list of establishment and non-establishment Republicans.

You're really not very good at this, are you?

Wow, you really are challenged aren't you Wil? I didn't cite a yahoo dictionary, it was a cite provided by Houghton Mifflin that Yahoo uses. You would have had to read the cite to know that, too much to ask I guess.

Wikipedia, apparently you are not aware, can be edited by anyone. You probably created the definition then cited it, although that would have been something that would have taken some thought . . . so maybe not.

I am not calling you a name, I am citing a fact. Look it up, you are a troll.

I am not signing up for a free dictionary trial. Provide a link that is accessible to everyone reading the thread as I did. Only a troll would provide the on dictionary of dozens that one has to sign up in order to view.

True, you didn't cite a Yahoo! dictionary. You cited Yahoo! Education, a website provided by an online marketing company. So, to rephrase, the fact that you're whining about the fact that I cited Wikipedia after you cited an online marketing company shows your utter silliness. Better?

"Wikipedia, apparently you are not aware, can be edited by anyone."

Of course I'm aware. I'm an editor. Apparently you're not aware that Wikipedia has been compared to other encyclopedias, including Britannica, Britannica.com, and Encarta, and did pretty well. A study published in Nature (438, 900-901 (15 December 2005)) found an average of 2.92 mistakes per article in Britannica and 3.86 per article in Wikipedia. Of course a good thing about Wikipedia is that as soon as those mistakes were found, it was possible to correct them.

"You probably created the definition then cited it, although that would have been something that would have taken some thought..."

Since Wikipedia, unlike Yahoo! Education and Houghton Mifflin, is transparent, you could look and see for yourself when that statement (not a definition) was added to the Wikipedia entry. If you had, you could've discovered that the statement I quoted was added to the entry on 6 October, 2007. But that would've taken some thought, and a little common sense . . . so I can see what you didn't.

"I am not signing up for a free dictionary trial."

That's your problem, not mine. I've cited my source. If you're too lazy to read it, I'm not surprised.

"Only a troll would provide the on dictionary of dozens that one has to sign up in order to view."

If you have issues with my choice of dictionary, pick one you like better. But don't bother with your Yahoo! Education Houghton Mifflin American Heritage choice, because it doesn't have a definition for "liberal democracy". Neither do the online versions of Miriam-Webster, Cambridge American English, or Dictionary.com (which claims to be the largest and most trusted free online dictionary). See, that's why I prefer to use the OED. With 600,000 entries compared to say, the American Heritage Dictionary's 200,000, it's a lot more likely to actually have definitions for the words and terms I'm looking up.

Of course you could always take your own advice, skip the free online dictionaries, and go look it up in one of those "big thick book" printed-on-actual-paper dictionaries. As you pointed out, all you've got to do is "just go to the page that is relevant and read a few lines." Surely even you can do that, can't you? Personally, I suggest the OED.

But apart from all that, how about instead of whining about my sources (the information from which you've yet to actually refute) and demanding that I do your homework for you, how about you get busy providing evidence that the Democratic Party as an organization, as well as every single person associated with it, advocates pure democracy rather than liberal democracy (or any other kind of democracy), and that it is and always has been the core goal of the organization ("the Democratic way") since the part was initially established by Jefferson, Madison, etc.

And also that list of establishment and non-establishment Republicans. I mean, after all, you're the one that brought them up.

He's not the first teabagger/libertarian type I've come across who's trotted out the old "rational morality and objective reasoning" line but then quickly retreated to childish insults and name-calling. It seems to be the go-to move when anybody challenges their arguments in a way that don't have a quick and easy answer for. When "duh, it's in the dictionary" didn't work, I guess he didn't really know what else to do except insult me and hope I'd go away.

You're just a troll whose greatest accomplishment is being an editor on Wikipedia. Blah blah blah blah, thank you for all your comments though!!

If I'm such an unaccomplished nobody, it should've been so easy for you to put me in my place using "rational morality and objective reasoning", but you couldn't do it. Instead, all you could muster was your lame "duh, it's in the dictionary" argument and a few childish insults. You can type words like "reason", "values", "duty" and "principles", but it's clear to me that those words don't actually mean much of anything to you.

Are you feeling all extra American yet?

One of the "problems" is that John is relatively new to Gather and doesn't know yet the folks he is dealing with here ... Wil is no troll ... just an exceptionally bright person that knows how to handle those who underestimate him. :-)

Thanks, Jerry. I know we dont' always see eye-to-eye on every issue, but I really appreciate that. :)

New to Gather but no new to the game. Wil is a troll.

Wil is no troll. And he's absolutely right.

John, it's the fault of the Citizens. A first principal of political science is a nation gets the government it deserves.

After ten years of the Bush Tax Cuts creating all this prosperity, I am beginning to wonder how much more prosperity we can tolerate before we begin to starve.

@Karl, l agree completely on your first comment. This is why I write, in hopes that some people might recognize the mistakes they made. I also agree regarding the Bush tax cuts, but the size and scope of government grew under him and he started the bailouts. Between that and the easy money policies, he really messed things up.

@Norman, I have said this at times myself. Although, I wish we had a more ironclad definition of our government's power and limitations so that the pendulum had no where to go . . .

Republicans began caving when Democrats began offering freebies to the unemployed in the 1930s. Republicans had to offer at least as much to keep getting votes. FDR made fun of this in a reelection speech in which he said Republicans were saying give us power and we will do everything the Democrats are doing except we will do even more and better. Or as a British aristocrat noted, once voters in a Republic realize they can vote themselves freebies, they will vote for whomever offers them the most. Once Democrats changed human rights to include "freedom from want and fear" and the rest (ref: the FDR monument area in the cherry orchard by the Tidal Basin) the two party system became largely a matter of who could bribe voters with the promise of greater goodies.

BTW there is no need to "start anew." There already is a party which rejects both the Democrat and Republican approaches, wants the US to once again stand for the principles of maximum personal freedom and minimal government. They are called the Libertarians, and their vast informal expansion in the "Tea Party" offers the prospect of victory in 2012 for one of their own, if only the Democrats did not have a stranglehold of the news and political commentary outlets that the majority of Americans use to politically orient themselves.

"They are called the Libertarians, and their vast informal expansion in the "Tea Party" offers the prospect of victory in 2012 for one of their own..."

I think you might be trying to more of a connection between those two groups than actually exists. I don't doubt that there's some overlap, but from what I've seen, a lot of those "Tea Party" folks aren't likely to vote for Libertarian candidates who stand with the LP platform on issues like sexual orientation and gender identity (particularly with regard to marriage, child custody, etc.), abortion, immigration, criminal justice, internal security, and in many cases, retirement and income security.

Exactly right Eagle. The problem libertarians face is the electoral process, which is geared towards a two party only system. I advocate for a ranked voting system so that elections are based on ideas, not parties.

With consideration of your comments, you are likely already aware but if by chance you are not here is a link to the FAQs regarding "Fair Vote" i.e. ranked voting:

http://archive.fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm

John

@Wil - I have been involved with my local tea party movement from the onset and I can say that in what I have experienced you are wrong. Although there are many republican stereotypes you cite, most just want government out of our lives.

It starts with fiscal responsibility, but there are people like me that advocate for a principled approach to government in which freedom exists not just in an economic sense, but in a social sense as well. It is not often discussed because our focus is strictly fiscal, but when it is I find most people either agree or do not speak at all. This means to me to be a very good sign.

"I have been involved with my local tea party movement from the onset..."

I'm not surprised. I've been involved with lots of people in the tea party movement (including quite a few here on Gather), and I can say that in what I have experienced, many of them disagree (in many cases, vehemently) with many of the positions of the Libertarian Party I mentioned.

Yes, some do. It is a diverse group of people for sure. I believe when people are exposed to a rational morality and objective reasoning, they make good decision in regard to their voting and advocacy efforts. Libertarians and tea party members are fertile ground for spreading such ideas.

"Libertarians and tea party members are fertile ground for spreading such ideas."

Yeah, good luck with that. My experience has been that a lot of Tea Party folks are much too heavily influenced by their religious dogma to be all that interested in "rational morality and objective reasoning".

But then if the arguments you've tried to use in this article are any indication, they don't have to worry about you exposing them to such things.

You're just a troll Wil.

"You're just a troll Wil."

Says he who craps on about "rational morality and objective reasoning", but can't even back up his own ridiculous arguments.

Troll.

Juvenile teabagger.

See, I can do it too.

if only the Democrats did not have a stranglehold of the news and political commentary outlets that the majority of Americans use to politically orient themselves.

Sorry, though the bulk of MSM is relatively Liberal, it is only by design to fool the followers into thinking they can get some truth from their media sources ... they exist to be the "fall guy" for the FOX fans ... all MSM is OWNED and editorially aligned with their owners, the Corporate Elite, and on things most important the slant will always be in the same direction on all MSM outlets ...

But Jerry much of the "Corporate Elite" supported Obama, although I realize the myth that Big Business is only in bed with Republicans dies hard. Is there a bigger fish than GE? Westinghouse? Obama even took their guys on his Brazil trip. GE head Imelt has a position in the administration's jobs creation board. If the MSN was really in bed with the Fortune 500 they would be screaming bloody murder about O holding up oil drilling and giving concessions to Petrobras, among other things.

I do realize that the far far left does not think MSM is on their side. They are also the ones who think Obama is a moderate. WTH is he supposed to do, when he has no Brown Shirts to take over and simply decree Socialism? His far left ideological kin (except the Anarchists) expected too much of him, he WANTS "fundamental transformation," he has done some of it, but he is not a dictator - yet.

Obama was prepped, vetted, and presented, by the same BM folks that own both our government and our MSM ... he is a "democrat" in name only, and only relatively so to fool the democratic voters into electing him based upon democratic promises he made campaigning ... republicans all hate him for only a couple reasons, number one being because he has associated himself with the name "democrat", because he is "black", and because FOX (and related talk jocks) tell them to. IMnsHO

This is a very simplistic and triply incorrect interpretation which sounds like every talking point out of every liberal leftist American news network. I am weary of hearing about how stupid and evil the Republicans are. As voters they are the majority of America's small businesspeople and anyone who understands and values the earlier once popular principles of maximum personal freedom and the Rule of Law rather than just rule by the the whim of men. If they were only the superrich and rednecks they never would come close to winning a single election.

Ideologically Obama is a stealth Communist and always has been. Anyone who denies that need to look seriously at his past up to the recent present. Republicans and Libertarians and even many Democrats disapprove of him because of the extent to which his speeches and policies reflect his far left ideology of anti-individual rights, anti-business, anti-western, and basically anti-American Marxism.

Racism is not involved although the left wants so badly to believe it is. The right would love to see a Black man succeed as President, which is one reason why Herman Cain is so popular. If he was the Republican candidate he would get my vote. Fox News "tells" Republicans and Libertarians what to do less often than the other networks, because it is the only one which makes anything approaching a consistent attempt to present both sides. The idea that they call the shots on the right is another myth or rather smear snatched right from the leftist media's mouths, like the one about how the Tea Party called the shots in the recent debt "deal."

Clearly we are on completely opposite political poles. I know you will not believe a word I say, but I put it out there anyway to set things straight in my own mind.

Clearly we are on completely opposite political poles. I know you will not believe a word I say, but I put it out there anyway to set things straight in my own mind.

Clearly.

because he is "black"

Umm, news flash - he is just as much white as he is black.

Pretty good article, John. I've lost all hope for the GOP, like you say, they failed. They could and probably should merge with their brethren the Democrats. Ideas are what counts, and America needs to have some real discussion on that aspect, rather than focusing on parties and politicians (one of the purposes of my group, Striking at the Root).

Agreed 100% Matt. I'd like to join your group.

I think the answer to changing the dynamic to issues over parties is by instituting a ranked voting system. You may be aware of it, where is some information:

http://fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm

Take care,
John

I wasn't too familiar with it, though at first glance it sounds like an improvement.

Thanks for joining the group.

It seems that ranked voting seems to be one thing we agree on, John. I'm all for it. I've used both, and I think it's clearly the better system.

Having said that, however, if you look at countries like Ireland and Australia that use ranked voting, it's clear that political parties (and generally a small number of "major" parties) still dominate the political landscape.

True, but that speaks to their culture more than anything. There is still an element of American-ism in our country, I am still hopeful it will prevail.

American-ism is very subjective, to the Right it amounts to "Love it or leave it" ... to the Left it amounts to "Can't we all get along"? ...

No, it is not relative. It is what our founders defined it to be in the Declaration of Independence Jerry.

Let's vote the Republicans out and hold the Democrats responsible. The Dems dId a poor job with health care, but most of the Dems who watered the bIll down and wouldn't vote for it are gone. They were voted out.

WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND RESPONSBILTY IN GOVERNMENT.

Well, by definition the Democrats (if one interprets Democrat as a believer in democracy) are un-American. The majority does not rule by principle in our country. Our government is a constitutional republic, meaning the power of government does not come from the majority but from the Constitution.

This is why it takes a super majority in congress to change the Constitution.

I do not think the solution is to vote out the Republicans and hold the Democrats responsible. The solution is to vote them both out and find a candidate the actually believes in American principles, which is not true for either major party.

There is such a candidate John. His name is Ron Paul

:-) Very, very true George.

Or you can work within the Republican party to change it.

You are right Marilyn and underscores the point of this article. People read the title and scan the article and assume it is pro-Democrat, but what it is, in fact, is proof that Democrats are by default wrong and (those that are committed) not saveable. Republicans (those I describe in the article) need to be smacked on the nose and shown that they are really only different by degree but not by principle, which if they are true to their roots they will change.

Hopfully people like you and me can do this Marilyn. Keep fighting the good fight.

You bet, John. What the TEA party has shown us is that local elections are much more important than we ever realized. And that having conservative and/or libertarian poll watchers is mandatory. And, of course, that in many places we need to pass voter ID bills so that voter fraud is halted.

Right on Marilyn!

Yay John. I like the way you roar :)