The United States' two party system has become a distraction to the American people. People are too concerned about which party they connect themselves with. Most individuals that sit down and really contemplate all the issues find that they are actually somewhere between being conservative or liberal; what's classified as a 'moderate'. I feel that the nominees running in this presidential campaign are merely puppets that do as they are told to win votes. Once a Republican is determined, he will be 'supported' by the republican party and they will do and say anything to win the most votes as possible. All except Ron Paul has changed their platform to please the voters. He is the only one that has not budged on his views and how he wants government to perform. There are many others like Paul, but they will not receive the attention they deserve because the big two parties control politics. The only way Paul was able to receive the public recognition that he has, was because he ran as a 'Republican'. I just do not understand the party system. I do not understand how a man with completely different ideas can be 'a part of the same party' with these other guys running for the republican party. I believe that citizens should not choose a party to win an election, but instead elect the person that has the potential to change this nation into something great. We should do away with the two party system. I have hope that if Ron Paul is elected it could spark the beginning of what the U.S. should be.
"It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public
Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and
false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it
opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and
the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of
another."
- President George Washington
After surfing through all of the classmates' blog, I find this post of your is very interesting.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that our two-party system has its flaw.And it's been flawed for many many years. It gives too much control to a small group of leaders and those leaders tend to dictate what those parties stand for. The primary voting system in the US is a ridiculous race to garner attention to one’s own state and forces candidates to campaign earlier and earlier, tailoring views to those primary states that get the most media coverage.
By its very nature, it allows a basis for only a maximum of two ideological viewpoints. The huge spectrum of beliefs, opinions, ideas, and values that are found in the U.S. need much more specialized representation than the current system can provide. If we look at many of the European countries, such as Germany or Sweden, we can see concrete examples of just how beneficial a multi-party system can be, in terms of making sure there is adequate representation of the governed, and that minority viewpoints are taken into account.
But some recent discussions about voting have started to sway my thinking. First, Intelligence Squared debated the idea of the two-party system and whether or not the US was becoming ungovernable because of it. I was one of the people who was swayed by none other than P. J. O’Rourke into believing the two-party system is the way to go for now.
And more recently, Cheap Talk pointed me to an article about the flaws of other voting systems compared to what the US has today. The concern with other systems is the use of tactical voting. That is, voting for a candidate you don’t like as much to help eliminate another.
And yes, about Ron Paul. He's a Republican since he's in that particular party. As for his political views, he's actually a libertarian rather than a typical conservative Republican. Key elements is his hatred of the US military and wish to pretty much disband it. He repeats DNC lies such as the number of military bases we have in the world. The figure counts weather stations, envoys and even a couple unmanned facilities as military bases.
Here is a genius video Paul just did opposing our occupation of foreign countries. Not just about Afghanistan, but military bases elsewhere. The video asks us to imagine a Chinese base in Texas.
I'm not going to raise a topic about "Is Ron Paul the best choice for president?" , "Will ron paul win 2012 election? ". But there are a few things that just don't sit well with me concerning him.
Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens.Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. He also wants to cut funding in some departments. While I concede that current funding isn't wisely used, I think that move would be closer towards destroying America rather than helping it. Cutting the funds of the FDA, the CDC, and Homeland Security just don't sit well with me.
The 2012 election is coming near and we all will soon know who will be standing till the end.
THis is just a comment on a blog so some hyperlinks don't work. You can go to my blog and read the full commentary.
Deletehttp://mantunguyen.blogspot.com/2012/04/stay-away-with-two-party-system.html
After watching the republican primaries this election, I can’t help but think the same way. They make the primaries seem as though it is some reality TV show but in reality, it is just a bunch of people getting in front of the camera and saying what the people want to hear to win votes. It’s ridiculous to think back in 2008 when Obama ran for president, he fed the public nothing but false promises. It was like watching a parent feed a child candy to keep them happy. He promised to bring our troops home and nothing but change, but how many of those promises has he followed through on. Yes, it’s understandable that when you actually become president, the situation changes; you see the whole picture and all you can do is come up with a solution with the most compromises, but then it brings you back to the question, why have this whole exhibition of two sides if in the end it really doesn’t make a difference. The nominees do what they can to get in and when they are in, they have no responsibility but to keep the important people happy, which sadly isn’t us, the people.
ReplyDeleteI like your quote because it makes me think about Ron Paul’s message; he talks of nothing but falling back on the constitution, because really, that is what this country was formed upon; that is our foundation. Our forefathers did not write the constitution just so it could be adjusted at will; they were the creators, as a creator you don’t come up with rules if they were meant to be broken and ignored, especially if it has to do with the way of life for a whole nation.