Why hasn’t the revolution come?
The founding fathers of this country signed the Declaration of Independence and motivated a great number of people to collectively stand up and repel tyranny. They did this without loudspeakers, fax machines, the internet, or mass communications.
Currently, there are a growing number of Republicans who are disenchanted with what Republicans are doing in congress. There are also some Democrats who are becoming disenchanted with where their party is headed. There has been mention in the news and the blogosphere of the supposed libertarian (little L) revolution or Southpark Republicans who essentially have political views that take the perceived best of positions of the two parties. Granted, these groups of people are extremely over represented in the blogosphere.
The vast majority of voters will still vote party line ticket. Why is that? We live in an age where publishing to the people is free. You can reach a large audience with a webpage and a few gratuitous links from other webpages. Yet this supposed libertarian revolution is just not happening. Period. And I doubt it ever will. Despite overcoming the logistical nightmare the founding fathers had, no one can get the message out that Democrats and Republicans suck.
One reason I think is that Americans love the status quo. It’s always been Republicans vs. Democrats and Coke vs. Pepsi. And Americans are perfectly willing to let the two parties run amok despite the parties (particularly the Republicans) saying one thing and doing another. Republicans say they’re the party of smaller government. Now that they’re in control, they most definitely are not. Why do they put up with this? Den Beste wrote:
If you learn nothing else about America, learn this and imprint it on your brain in glowing colors: we will never surrender.
Sadly, that’s only true when the aggressor comes from outside our borders. When it’s inside the country, we let it go every time. We’re too busy watching The Simple Life and news about Michael Jackson allegedly diddling little boys while our government continues with some ridiculous stuff.
Why haven’t Americans put their foot down and voted these people out? And they won’t in 2004 either. It makes me want to give up.
December 3rd, 2003 at 2:22 pm
Two words, Pork Barrel
December 3rd, 2003 at 2:48 pm
Despite overcoming the logistical nightmare the founding fathers had, no one can get the message out that Democrats and Republicans suck.
I think you miss the point. I think the vast majority of Americans fully realize that Democrats and Republicans suck. But for them, it’s a matter of which group sucks less? Which group do I find less offensive?
In most elections, you’re not voting for somebody, you’re voting against someone else. In 1996, I voted against Clinton. In 2000, I voted against Bush.
The larger problem is, there’s no viable alternative. Name any third party that a large percentage of Americans could and would get behind even if they had a realistic shot at winning. Bueller? Bueller? There isn’t one. Not the Libertarian Party, not the Green Party, not the Reform Party.
If you’ve seen “Life of Brian,” you’ve seen a perfect example of why the third parties can never gain any foothold.
Another contributing factor is the polarization of politics. Let’s focus on highly divisive issues like abortion or assault weapons that divide everyone into two clear camps, and stake out sides, even though the issue only directly affects a relatively small portion of the population.
About the only way you could fix the problem is to abolish political parties entirely, and vote on the candidates solely based on their merits. You would have to couple this with single-statute reform, of course, so that accountability would be maximized.
Short of changes like that, expect to see more of the same. Even if, say, the Democratic Party completely disbanded, another, similar party would rise from its ashes and fill its place in the two-party system, and you’d still have the same problem.
December 3rd, 2003 at 2:54 pm
Rick: I don’t know what % of voters actually benefit from pork but that is a good point.
Tom: But it does seem to me that people are getting sick of voting for who sucks less. Yet nothing is done about it because that option isn’t out there.
December 3rd, 2003 at 4:19 pm
I live therefore I vote.
I voted for Jimmy Carter.
I voted for Bill Clinton (twice).
I voted for Al Gore.
We did have a revolution and it was fun! Bill Clinton was a start to a revolution but apparently there are many that did not like the revolt. We of the revolution are paying the price now but we will rise again!
December 3rd, 2003 at 4:23 pm
I was kid when carter was prez but i remember very specifically carter being the reason my dad is now absolute party line republican. Clinton and Gore weren’t part of the revolution either. The just continued the same problems while playing lip service to Dem constituencies.
Glad you’re still coming around Mrs. Bubba!
December 3rd, 2003 at 4:44 pm
You forget, there was a revolution just a decade ago. It was the Reform Party. They were victims of a lot of things: their own in-fighting, Ross Perot himself and Dem/Repub operatives inside Reform working to kill it.
You also forget that slightly more than half of Americans don’t vote, an all time high. There’s fertile ground to recruit new folks if you can get a serious platform to work from. The time is more right than its ever, ever been.
Big-L Libertarians have the best shot. (So do the Greens this election cycle. Dem disappointment is a real winner for them). But the Libs (again, Big-L) are all-or-nothing purists whose organisation is rigid and hide-bound, and whose leaders apparently are cronyists. Someone who essentially hijacked some of the palatable parts and went gradualist would have a chance at a future.
I think, if the Greens really go for it, we might see the Dems poll their lowest numbers ever. Even possibly enough to make them FEC minority-party status. It nearly happened in 1992; would be fun to see this time.
December 3rd, 2003 at 10:18 pm
I think what could make life easier for 3rd parties is instant runoff voting. Some Green supporters in 2000 didn’t want to hand the election to Bush by voting Nader. With instant run-off voting, you would have a ranked ballot. If one candidate doesn’t get 50% of the vote, you would look at the 2nd choice of the voters that didn’t vote for the top 2. As I see it, it’s the only way to break the two party system.
December 4th, 2003 at 1:15 am
Big-L Libertarians have the best shot.
I’m not so sure that’s the case. I think the average Jane Voter would have serious reservations about the LP stances on education, the environment, and probably even gun control.
Remember, valid or not, to a lot of Americans, “Libertarian” = “Somebody who thinks Republicans aren’t mean enough.”
December 4th, 2003 at 1:30 pm
The simple fact is that our system almost demands a two party system. the winner take all, first past the post approach is designed to have to competing parties. If you want more parties, then you are going to have to do things like runoffs, proportioanl representation instead of districts, change the way the elctoral college is handled, etc. In other wrods – failry significant changes to the system. I don’t see any of that happening anytime soon, as neither party would be willing to give up their privileged place.