12 Jun 09
Originally posted by scherzoActually, I hadn't heard of that. It's interesting and I'm wondering what the political mood was to enable it - which is essentially the question.
Have you ever heard of the Era of Good Feelings? There was a reason it was called that.
I'm wondering if we could even get to that point at this time or what it would take.
Unfortunately the era didn't last all that long in the scheme of things so I still don't know about the sustainability of the good times.
12 Jun 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawnWell, after the Era of Good Feelings was the antebellum political period.
Actually, I hadn't heard of that. It's interesting and I'm wondering what the political mood was to enable it - which is essentially the question.
I'm wondering if we could even get to that point at this time or what it would take.
Unfortunately the era didn't last all that long in the scheme of things so I still don't know about the sustainability of the good times.
12 Jun 09
Originally posted by quackquackWell, that's the point, if you read my first post.
What could possibly be worse than having no choice? It certainly would not be democracy. There would be no accountability, no exchange of ideas. If you thought you should governed differently your only option is to move.
12 Jun 09
Originally posted by scherzothen the people who agreed with the platforms could go to live in the countries with the parties that best suited them?
Advantages: Efficiency; little if any controversy in the country/region; no election years or mud-throwing; no filibustering
Disadvantages: Quelling of dissent; usually a lack of personal freedoms and democratic elections; not always truly governed by the people
Seems to me the scales are pretty balanced! What if we had several one-party states, with e ...[text shortened]... eed with the platforms could go to live in the countries with the parties that best suited them?
I guess we could give this question the title of "most surreal question of the year 2009".
12 Jun 09
Originally posted by generalissimoWoo! I'd like to thank the RHP team for this honor!
[b]then the people who agreed with the platforms could go to live in the countries with the parties that best suited them?
I guess we could give this question the title of "most surreal question of the year 2009".[/b]
12 Jun 09
Originally posted by scherzoyou should try coming up with more questions like that.
Woo! I'd like to thank the RHP team for this honor!
what about "what if we get rid of Israel so that we can live happily ever after?", or "How to get Obama to back us up, when we invade?", or even "What if we have a one-party state but pretend it is democratic?"
12 Jun 09
Originally posted by generalissimoThe first question doesn't work. The others are just surreal and idiotic enough to pass.
you should try coming up with more questions like that.
what about "what if we get rid of Israel so that we can live happily ever after?", or "How to get Obama to back us up, when we invade?", or even "What if we have a one-party state but pretend it is democratic?"
12 Jun 09
Originally posted by scherzoA novel idea, but I doubt it would change much. The political leaders would be just as dishonest as they ever were, and peoples political ideas would just have different labels. 😏
Advantages: Efficiency; little if any controversy in the country/region; no election years or mud-throwing; no filibustering
Disadvantages: Quelling of dissent; usually a lack of personal freedoms and democratic elections; not always truly governed by the people
Seems to me the scales are pretty balanced! What if we had several one-party states, with e ...[text shortened]... eed with the platforms could go to live in the countries with the parties that best suited them?
13 Jun 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesYes indeed - it does happen already - it's one of the less fortunate consequences of mobility. G.K. Chesterton commented 100 years ago on the dangers of the situation, which I think would be grimly exacerbated if the world consisted of hundreds of one-party states and everyone chose one according to their inclinations.
Isn't this what people do now? People with "blue state" views move to blue states or the blue parts within a red state -- and people with "red state" views do the opposite. And people with a very specific, intense interest in one thing usually hang out with others that share that interest.
And you end up with the political version of "wars" -- culture ...[text shortened]... es -- where each side has this exagerrated, distorted view of what their opponents think.
"The man who lives in a small community lives in a much larger world. He knows much more of the fierce varieties and uncompromising divergences of men. The reason is obvious. In a large community we can choose our companions. In a small community our companions are chosen for us. Thus in all extensive and highly civilized societies groups come into existence founded upon what is called sympathy, and shut out the real world more sharply than the gates of a monastery. There is nothing really narrow about the clan; the thing which is really narrow is the clique. The men of the clan live together because they all wear the same tartan or are all descended from the same sacred cow; but in their souls, by the divine luck of things, there will always be more colours than in any tartan. But the men of the clique live together because they have the same kind of soul, and their narrowness is a narrowness of spiritual coherence and contentment."
13 Jun 09
I think a ONE party system would really = a no party system, which I think is ideal.
I'm sick of people drawing party lines and having to defend their "team". Of course I say that but I, myself, am a Democrat. But that's only because I agree with Democratic ideals on most issues. I still would prefer that it was every man and woman for themselves (politically) and everyone could be held equally accountable. If someone screws up [meaning for real screws up] they will be held to account by their fellow public servants and the American people. If something is really a non-issue then you're not going to have manufactured crap just for the sake of blasting the "other" party.
Of course, this will never happen.
13 Jun 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperDemocratic ideals are impractical in today's world. "Democracy" leaves a government ripe for oligarchy.
I think a ONE party system would really = a no party system, which I think is ideal.
I'm sick of people drawing party lines and having to defend their "team". Of course I say that but I, myself, am a Democrat. But that's only because I agree with Democratic ideals on most issues. I still would prefer that it was every man and woman for themselv ...[text shortened]... p just for the sake of blasting the "other" party.
Of course, this will never happen.