 |
| 
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/5/2003 11:00 AM (GMT -6) |   | The below outline takes as given an open view of whose interests gov't should serve and treats the categories commonly used regarding politics(right, left, center; conservative, liberal and moderate) as having no stable meaning.
Please, any comments about how this could be rewritten better are very much appreciated.
Summary of Third-Party Political Economy.
1. Long run reform of government in US will require a political conversion of many Americans where they will come to value the importance of following and participating in the political process.
2. There are no single right/left or conservative/liberal categories in politics (e.g. social vs. economic conservatism/liberalism). These categories serve to justify a two party system since they hypothesize the existence of a unique center that the parties can position themselves around.
3. Govt is the place where things get decided. Whose interests are given the status of property and protected as such. In most cases, there is no strong social consensus as to what property rights should be, other than maintenance of large portions of the status-quo.
4. There are three basic ways to decide things in government, by force (or its threat), democracy of the dollar (often referred to naively as corruption) and popular democracy. All three are generally necessary for a modern liberal democracy and most reforms of government seek to change the composition at the margin or the incidence of what sort of decision-making decides what issues.
5. A two-party system allows the democracy of the dollar to have more influence than popular democracy in government decisions by making it easier to predict the outcome of elections and narrowing the issues brought up in elections, and, thus, influenced by popular democracy.
6. Yet the fact the US has a two-party system is because of a number of historical divisions that have taken place between geographical, religious, and ideological groups. I.e., the Republicans have traditionally dominated the North and the Democrats the South, with the West being a more politically contested region. Similarly, Catholics and Liberal Protestants have traditionally been Democrats, while Conservative Protestants have been Republicans, while Jews were more politically independent. Also of importance was how the Red Scare during the Cold War made it easier to squeeze out potential third parties that were more viable in Europe. All these factors have served to strengthen the two-party system by limiting the extent of political competition in the USA.
7. Hence, given the two-party system in the US is a historical artifact; one way to increase the influence of popular democracy is the formation of a viable three-party system.
8. This will be opposed by the leaders of the two-party-system. However, their hegemony must be removed in order for campaign finance reform to be enforced and regularly renewed. One could make a constitutional amendment requiring campaign finance reform every six years, since parties are adept at developing new ways to get around existing rules.
9. Popular supervision will be inadequate because of the complexity of the campaign finance, rational ignorance of voters and the ability of party leaders to spin “reforms” as being more substantial than they really are.
10. Yet, the formation of a viable third party who could check the power of the two parties, would require that the ideological tensions that have traditionally polarized our politics, as best exemplified by abortion, needs to be reduced.
11. This is because a viable third-party, in order to get its candidates elected, will need to pull from both traditional republican/democrat constituencies to survive and not just spoil an election for one of the two main parties; e.g. as the Green Party partially spoiled the presidential election for the Democrats in 2000 and the Reform Party spoiled the election for Republicans in 1992.
12. However, by having three candidates who have a reasonable chance of being elected and are willing to compete for votes, it becomes more difficult to buy an election and the influence of the democracy of the dollar relative to popular democracy on politics can be reduced and negative-campaigning curtailed.
13. The latter impact (which could be called the Ventura effect, since it happened in the race for governor of Minnesota) is because voters are in a better position to punish the two main candidates for engaging in a negative campaign when there is another viable option besides not voting.
14. In advocating a three-party, less ideologically divided political system, the existential tradeoff is between reducing the predictability of government decisions in the future and extending the range of interests that it can potentially serve. This is a real tradeoff but one that is worth making.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 05/13/2003 6:44:07 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/12/2003 11:32 AM (GMT -6) | | I am surprised I have not gotten any comments on this post yet.
I think it is quite controversial, while it does apply the concept of openness...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 5/13/2003 1:10 PM (GMT -6) | | DLW,
I believe the reason for lack of replies is that
A) Lack of proper spacing makes the script difficult to read
B) In being too verbose, you can "lose" the reader
C) The argument for a 3rd party is not sufficiently motivated
With regards to the C), I'm not sure what you are trying to say. You mention the woes of our government system (corruption, lack of consensus, etc) but fail to argue successfully why it's because we have a de facto 2 party system, or how a 3 party system would aleviate the problems.
To BRIEFLY comment, our government is a Republic, meaning a representative government (not trying to insult your intelligence here). This means that we choose leaders based on those which seem to "match best" with our values and desires. Rarely is anyone ideal, and a possible explanation of why our system only has 2 dominant parties is the "lesser of evils" factor. "Sure, I don't like some of what party X tends to support, but I as sure as hell am not going to let party Y be in control". It's why that with fragmented powers they will set aside differences against a common foe, leading ultimately to a bi-polar conflict (WWI, WWII, Cold War, etc.)
In conclusion, if your goal is to get more "active" democratic participation from the masses, you will either need gross deviation from mainstream idealogies within the 2 parties and a leader emerging (like the Ventura effect as you said), or give people some tangible incentive for voting (tax credit, etc.)
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/13/2003 1:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the comments..
quote:
With regards to the C), I'm not sure what you are trying to say. You mention the woes of our government system (corruption, lack of consensus, etc) but fail to argue successfully why it's because we have a de facto 2 party system, or how a 3 party system would aleviate the problems.
To BRIEFLY comment, our government is a Republic, meaning a representative government (not trying to insult your intelligence here). This means that we choose leaders based on those which seem to "match best" with our values and desires. Rarely is anyone ideal, and a possible explanation of why our system only has 2 dominant parties is the "lesser of evils" factor. "Sure, I don't like some of what party X tends to support, but I as sure as hell am not going to let party Y be in control". It's why that with fragmented powers they will set aside differences against a common foe, leading ultimately to a bi-polar conflict (WWI, WWII, Cold War, etc.)
My point was that having a two-party system, does make who is in control more stable and predictable. This is a good thing if you are trying to ensure that the gov't will serve your interests through a participation in the democracy of the dollar.
However, it limits the scope for the influence of popular democracy. As a social conservative, one will likely vote for an economic conservative because they say they will support you on the issues you think are important(i.e., socially conservative issues like abortion.). However, in many ways, economic conservatism does conflict with social conservatism. What can help someone make money, like through advertising, will not necessarily inculcate the importance of responsible behavior. Also, many economic actions(like mass lay-offs, rather low wages) may harm families.
quote:
In conclusion, if your goal is to get more "active" democratic participation from the masses, you will either need gross deviation from mainstream idealogies within the 2 parties and a leader emerging (like the Ventura effect as you said), or give people some tangible incentive for voting (tax credit, etc.)
I think there are reasons why participation in politics can be justified. The thing is that for much of the US we don't have habits of following and reflecting on politics. It is because of these habits that we often use as shortcuts, voting for a particular party or no party at all. When people don't vote at all or can, more or less, be guaranteed to vote for a particular party, this reduces the competition between parties. It makes it harder for other parties to gain ground and easier for the existing parties to crowd out any new-comers.
I come to this with a focus on the idea of the autonomy of church and state. In fact, different religious groups have become too closely aligned with certain parties. This tends to lead to a manicheistic language regarding the party.
The idea of the above was to step away from that and treat parties as fallen institutions more concerned with maintaining their own power than any particular vision of what is "best" for our country.
So my point would be to consider how if we modify and moderate our expectations/goals for what political laws can be passed on "social issues" then we could play the parties off of each other to ensure that some important legal changes are made.
Our autonomy and improved habits of political reflection would guarantee that a president is elected not because we are sure he is not Bill Clinton when we are not-so-sure about the other candidate.
Our failure in this regard for how we steward our political capital does send a message to the world, who is paying attention to how Christianity manifests itself in the US.
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.
Edited by - DLW on 05/13/2003 6:47:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 5/17/2003 12:31 PM (GMT -6) | | This strikes me as an important article that details the extent to which the democracy of the dollar has prevailed in our political system.
dlw
To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1247-2003May16.html?referrer=emailarticle
Old Memos Detail Link of Money to Influence
By Juliet Eilperin
Bill Clinton was in the White House, and Eli Lilly and Co. executives were worried. After receiving publicity for giving tens of thousands of dollars to Republican campaigns, they decided they needed to cozy up to Democrats, fast.
"Dems are upset," an executive scribbled in an Aug. 20, 1996, note. "[If] White House stays Dem we are in trouble."
So, after consulting with the administration, the Eli Lilly official wrote this recommendation to colleagues: "Jay has talked to the White House and we can get back into this by giving $50[,000]-100,000 to the [Democratic National Committee] -- says they would be pleased with this."
These internal memos -- with names and dates sometimes deleted -- are among the piles of documents unearthed in the ongoing lawsuit over the nation's campaign finance law, widely known as McCain-Feingold because its chief sponsors were Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). These revelations are hardly the kind that get people booted from office or sent to jail. But the documents, many of which were subpoenaed over the past year and made public for the first time this month, provide an unusually detailed look at how the Washington money culture operates.
In them, political operatives privately worried that their political attack ads might skirt the edge of legality. Senators shamelessly courted campaign contributors. And corporate executives plotted how to pursue their legislative goals by answering the parties' never-ending call for campaign funds.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly used dozens of such documents in her 706-page opinion supporting most elements of the McCain-Feingold law, which took effect in November. She was part of a three-judge panel that struck down some elements of the law and upheld others. The Supreme Court will be the final arbiter.
Kollar-Kotelly outlined how, over the past several years, both parties poured unlimited contributions from individuals, business and labor -- known as "soft money" -- into issue ads that either boosted or damaged the political fortunes of candidates. Before McCain-Feingold took effect, such ads were permitted at any time, so long as they did not explicitly call for someone's election or defeat.
In one document, a Republican National Committee (RNC) official wrote that a glowing ad about 1996 GOP presidential nominee Robert J. Dole's biography may be stretching campaign finance rules. Campaign research "strongly suggests that this spot needs to run," the official wrote. "Making this spot pass the issue advocacy test may take some doing."
State political parties ostensibly were responsible for creating such ads. But national Democratic officials testified as part of the suit that they carefully monitored the use of the soft money they sent to state parties. Jim Jordan, who was executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2002, testified that his committee "does not permit issue advocacy communications it supports to be recorded or produced until they have been approved by DSCC counsel and DSCC senior employees."
National party officials also gave specific directions to wealthy donors willing to contribute soft money to state parties. Billionaire Steve Kirsch, who funneled $2.1 million to state Democratic parties just before the 2000 presidential election, testified that Democrats in Washington played "an important role" in determining how he distributed those funds.
"They said, essentially, if you want to help us out with the presidential election, these particular state parties are hurting, they need money for get-out-the-vote and other last minute campaign activities," Kirsch said under oath.
Other documents and testimony provide unflattering portraits of some lawmakers and corporate executives who jockeyed for money and influence, respectively.
Former senator Paul Simon (D-Ill.) testified that fellow senators rebuffed him in 1995 when he suggested they block an effort by Federal Express -- a major campaign contributor -- to have truck drivers covered by the federal Railway Act instead of the National Labor Relations Act. According to Simon, a colleague said: "I'm tired of Paul always talking about special interests. We've got to pay attention to who is buttering our bread." Simon added: "I will never forget that."
Elsewhere, a March 1999 memo from a lobbyist for an unidentified Fortune 100 company explained to his superiors why they should make large soft money donations to both major parties. "As the parties compete more vigorously for soft money dollars, the number and quality of events for interacting with both the [congressional] leadership and rank-and-file Members has greatly increased," the lobbyist wrote. He added that both Democrats and Republicans were particularly focused on the House redistricting process that follows each census. "Redistricting is a key, once-in-a-decade effort that both parties have very high on their priority lists. Given the priority of the redistricting efforts, relatively small money contributions in this area could result in disproportionate benefits."
A sizable portion of Kollar-Kotelly's opinion focused on four-term Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who once headed the National Republican Senatorial Committee and emerged as the most outspoken opponent of McCain-Feingold. In a handwritten note to a supporter, for example, McConnell wrote: "Your commitment for $2,000 each from you and your lady will be very helpful in my reelection next year. Thanks again and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Mitch."
Donors appeared eager to oblige McConnell. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing Association executive Barry Caldwell, for example, briefed association President Alan F. Holmer about an upcoming meeting with the senator. His memo said the meeting's objectives included "apprising him of industry's concern with attention on pharmaceutical costs and efforts by Democrats to demagogue the issue at Republican expense," and "expressing PhRMA's willingness to be a resource, substantively and politically, to assist in maintaining a Republican majority [in Congress] in 2000."
McConnell declined to comment on the documents connected to the lawsuit.
While RNC officials testified that they had no formal policy of connecting donors with lawmakers, several documents suggest that they tried to do so. On Oct. 27, 1995, then-RNC Chairman Haley Barbour sent a letter to Dole, who was the Senate majority leader, asking him to meet with then-Pfizer chief executive William C. Steere Jr. The pharmaceutical company had given $100,000 to the GOP committee.
"He is extremely loyal and generous," Barbour wrote of Steere. "He is also not longwinded. I'd appreciate if you'd see Bill."
Barbour's nephew, Henry, who directed the committee's program for donors who gave $100,000, wrote Kim White of the money management firm Moore Capital Management in 1995 to check on whether her firm had connected with Dole and then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).
"Let me know how the Dole and Gingrich contacts are working -- or if there are some others you want to hook up with," he wrote.
Republicans were not alone in parlaying connections with their senior officials into campaign dollars. Democrats did the same with Clinton. In a "call sheet" for then-DNC Chairman Donald Fowler, for example, a committee official suggested that Fowler ask veteran contributor Denise Rich to give $80,000, on top of the $20,000 she had already contributed, "for lunch with Potus on Oct. 27th." POTUS is an abbreviation for president of the United States.
And DNC staffers cited Clinton's support for oil drilling in some areas when they angled for industry dollars. Fowler received a phone-call sheet on Nov. 14, 1995, suggesting that he seek money from either Dennis R. Hendrix or George L. Mazanec -- then the chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of Panhandle Eastern Corp. "Mazanec was at the meeting with President Clinton dealing with deep water drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico," the note said. "The Clinton Administration was instrumental in getting this issue through Congress."
Four days earlier, Fowler received a similar call sheet suggesting he get $35,000 from Jim Groninger, a senior lobbyist for Texaco. "The President helped out the Oil Industry by supporting them on drilling issues in the Gulf of Mexico," DNC staffer David Dunphy wrote. "The bill passed the House on Tuesday."
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/23/2003 8:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Thought I'd bring this one up again.
I'm just a Pow-wannabe.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/24/2003 9:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Note:these are the sorts of things that we miss when we spend all our time talking about what hell is like.
FEC Permits Corporate, Union Donations for Political Party Conventions
By Sharon Theimer
The Associated Press
Thursday, July 24, 2003; 3:06 PM
Federal election regulators decided Thursday to allow corporations and unions to continue making large contributions to finance the two political parties' presidential nominating conventions despite a new law outlawing such donations in elections.
The Federal Election Commission unanimously ruled that the law passed by Congress last year did not apply to fund raising by the local committees in the host cities that help the parties stage the nominating conventions.
Democrats are meeting in Boston next July; Republicans are holding their convention in August 2004 in New York City.
FEC Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub said Congress did not mention the conventions in the campaign finance law it sent to President Bush for his signature. She likened corporate contributions to the conventions to corporate sponsorships of sporting events such as the Super Bowl.
"Businesses contribute because they want the promotional benefit," Weintraub said, adding she didn't view the convention fund raising as partisan.
She noted that the congressional sponsors of the law imposing strict limits on political donations chose not to weigh in with the FEC before it made the decision.
The FEC action not only permitted the continued flow of millions every four years from companies, wealthy business executives and unions to the two party conventions to pay for the hoopla, bunting, entertainment and food, it also expanded the number of companies that could potentially contribute.
The commission eliminated a rule under the old law that permitted companies and unions to contribute to the conventions only if they had a local connection to the host city.
Paul Sanford of the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign finance watchdog group, opposed the ruling, saying it was "another example of the commission being completely captive to the party committees and letting them do whatever they want."
Sanford said the FEC wrongly created a loophole to the new law, arguing that the donations to the convention host committees should have been considered "soft money" covered under the new legal ban on big donations.
He said he feared the commission's rationale -- that the publicity corporate donors get is of equal value to the money they give -- could be used to justify other exemptions to the soft money ban.
Democratic National Committee lawyer Joe Sandler applauded the decision. Had the commission banned soft money for party conventions "the national conventions would not have operated as they do," he said.
The host committees had requested the exemption from the soft-money ban, saying they faced tough economic times and a hefty price tag for throwing next year's events.
Cheryl Cronin, an attorney for the Boston Host Committee, had told the FEC that companies, unions and other national groups needed to contribute to their organization to help meet a goal of $49.5 million for the Democratic Convention.
The Boston committee has raised about $20 million, according to the group's executive director, Julie Burns, but with Massachusetts facing a budget deficit, the group cannot expect any financial help from the state or local government.
The Boston group's biggest donor is John Hancock Financial Services, which has donated more than $1 million, Burns said. She declined to provide specifics.
Kenneth Gross, an attorney representing the New York committee, also asked the FEC to lift its rule allowing only local individuals, companies, unions and others to give to the host committees.
The New York group, led by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is raising money to help the Republicans hold their presidential convention. The committee's goal is $60 million, according to Gross, who declined to say how much it has collected so far.
© 2003 The Associated Press
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:49 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|