Mingle2 apple store icon
Try Mingle2 app for better experience
Community Recent My Topics
Community > Politics, Current News & Events
Topic: The "Independent" Vote
Reply
actionlynx's photo

actionlynx

Mon 09/17/18 12:49 PM

FWIW, I've never registered with a political party. I have always chosen to be an independent. That's because I strive to be a moderate.

I feel that both the Dems and the Reps have become stale as political entities. Historically, policy change in the political parties has always resulted from a third group shaking up the status quo. The Federalists were replaced by the Whigs who were replaced by the Republicans. The Democrats were divided between followers of Jefferson and Jackson....and then came Stephen Douglas who nearly destroyed the party altogether. Democrat votes became splintered as several new, but short-lived, parties sprung into being. The next real shake-up came when Teddy Roosevelt ran under his own party. But what has happened since then?

Sure, Perot made a run in 1992. That fizzled. Jesse Ventura tried to keep the Reform Party alive, but his personality eventually did more harm than good. Schwarzenegger won in California, but his success was short-lived. Then there was the Tea Party... Point is, while it's obvious that many Americans seek meaningful change in the political parties, not enough of them are willing to make an earnest commitment to sustain any kind of political reform movement.

We should be wondering why that is. Is it really due to a social divide? Are we really just gullible robots? Are too many of us undereducated? Or can it be that too many of us are simply apathetic?

Whatever the case may be, ultimately we, the people, must hold only ourselves to blame. If we want politics to change - be it the parties, the government, or the politicians - then we are the ones who really need to change first. We have to become willing to notice embrace change. We have to commit to making change happen. We must create common bonds that generate the support and momentum that force the politics to adapt to a changing atmosphere.

Simply put, I believe we need a viable third party.

Historically, a third party lasts only 20 - 30 years. Either one of the three withers away by failing to adapt, or one of the parties merges with another to bolster its appeal to voters. A third party (with numerous seats in Congress) force both of the old parties to court the newer party for votes in the House and Senate in order to get a majority vote. The new party tends to have the political leverage. That's how political change happens.
Edited by actionlynx on Mon 09/17/18 12:49 PM
no photo

tombraider

Mon 09/17/18 02:09 PM



Political parties are just the beginning of divisiveness..it's all part of the grand illusion the MATRIX..You form two sides you play both ends against the middle and while they are occupied with each other you rob them BLIND..lesson 1 in the DEEP STATE government handbook..smokin
no photo

Redrider1500

Mon 09/17/18 03:14 PM


FWIW, I've never registered with a political party. I have always chosen to be an independent. That's because I strive to be a moderate.

I feel that both the Dems and the Reps have become stale as political entities. Historically, policy change in the political parties has always resulted from a third group shaking up the status quo. The Federalists were replaced by the Whigs who were replaced by the Republicans. The Democrats were divided between followers of Jefferson and Jackson....and then came Stephen Douglas who nearly destroyed the party altogether. Democrat votes became splintered as several new, but short-lived, parties sprung into being. The next real shake-up came when Teddy Roosevelt ran under his own party. But what has happened since then?

Sure, Perot made a run in 1992. That fizzled. Jesse Ventura tried to keep the Reform Party alive, but his personality eventually did more harm than good. Schwarzenegger won in California, but his success was short-lived. Then there was the Tea Party... Point is, while it's obvious that many Americans seek meaningful change in the political parties, not enough of them are willing to make an earnest commitment to sustain any kind of political reform movement.

We should be wondering why that is. Is it really due to a social divide? Are we really just gullible robots? Are too many of us undereducated? Or can it be that too many of us are simply apathetic?

Whatever the case may be, ultimately we, the people, must hold only ourselves to blame. If we want politics to change - be it the parties, the government, or the politicians - then we are the ones who really need to change first. We have to become willing to notice embrace change. We have to commit to making change happen. We must create common bonds that generate the support and momentum that force the politics to adapt to a changing atmosphere.

Simply put, I believe we need a viable third party.

Historically, a third party lasts only 20 - 30 years. Either one of the three withers away by failing to adapt, or one of the parties merges with another to bolster its appeal to voters. A third party (with numerous seats in Congress) force both of the old parties to court the newer party for votes in the House and Senate in order to get a majority vote. The new party tends to have the political leverage. That's how political change happens.


Interesting view. Each party has had it's radicals, both wanting to drive the leadership over to their position. If I said that the dems were never this violent before now, I'd be wrong. The anarchists back during the turn of the last century managed to kill McKinley. That was also during the era of monopolies. It could be said that the real question during that time, was who was in charge? Government, or big business?

I've also heard that our economy goes through cycles, of good and bad times. We saw it during the Carter/Reagan years. And I think we're seeing it happen now. At some point, we will see the economy peak out, and go into a neutral state of prosperity. History has shown us that it does happen.

What I'm beginning to question, was obama and the dems trying to lull us into believing that we would do no better than where we were four years ago? Things at that time were stagnant. We were slowly getting bled to death. Costs were going up, and more were living paycheck to paycheck. obama was busy telling us we would no longer see our children have it better than us. It was also at that time that the expected average lifespan of people went down. We were also very fed up with obama's politics.

We fortunately had enough of dem politics, and were ousting them since 2008.They have lost a thousand seats since, in local, state and national politics. Has that trend stopped yet? We're getting a taste of prosperity. We like it, and I'll bet we're not done yet. They haven't quite hit bottom yet.
actionlynx's photo

actionlynx

Tue 09/18/18 06:38 AM

As far as the economy goes, I'm not convinced. We experienced a boom under Clinton, so we can't just point the finger at Dems. When Bush came into office, we were due for a recession ( roughly every 10 years), so I've always thought it was unfair to blame him. The main problem I see economically is that we've swung too far in favor of macroeconomics. If we want to improve local economies and tax bases, we need to focus on building small businesses who have a vested interest in the community.