Theoretical Politics

[madbaker]

Align yourself with either the U.S. Democratic or Republican party, as you are registered and/or more philosophically aligned. Think about the values and policies they profess.

Ready? Good. Now do the same for the other party.
Assume that the Presidential election was held tomorrow.
[Poll #762525]
My suspicion is that most people will answer no to the first, and yes to the second.
My further suspicion is that most people, if completely honest with themselves, would answer no to both.

Politics these days, much like religion, operate off labels rather than issues. This isn't a new thing - for example, Yellow Dog Democrats date back over a hundred years.

I don't think it's healthy for our country, although I can't see any way to realistically change it.

Comments

[goldenstag.livejournal.com]

Politics these days, much like religion, operate off labels rather than issues.

You may be right. I am not actually a member of any party, but have leanings (as I am sure you're aware) toward the democrats. However, I agree that the labels are a bad thing. I don't vote a party ticket, haven't for years, after I realized that on some ballets, if you're registered as a democrat you don't see all the options (and I assume the same for any party), and you therefore can't choose from all the options.

The country is more split (as far as I can see) in the last ... oh, 10+ years, over party lines, than before.

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

Although, reading some of the political histories, the U.S. used to be far more rancorous - to the point of brawls in the Senate chamber. Lincoln and Douglas explicitly accused each other of treason in their debates. Generally that doesn't happen today.

[goldenstag.livejournal.com]

I will admit to being a not-very-good historian, but I guess the question would be more about whether the populace as a whole is as divided now as they were back then, or if the populace now is more divided -- something I believe is happening. I blame this on the changes in media -- by the time an issue was decided in the Senate "way back when" the populace may not have even known it was an issue, for example ... these days we know what's going on in the senate the same day, sometimes at the time it's happening.

(And the word "treason" does get bandied about these days, way more than it ought to, usually from hard-right republicans aimed at anyone who doesn't agree with their stance on how to protect the country ... I think it now falls into the category of "I don't think that word means what you think it means ...")

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

I'm not referring to nuts like Ann Coulter. The equivalent would be Joe Lieberman accusing Bill Frist of treason on the Senate floor.

[goldenstag.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about nuts like Coulter, either. There have been accusations since 9/11, from senators and congressmen of other senators and congressmen being traitors, because they don't "support the troupes" or "support the president's efforts" or ... I do watch the news ... at least sometimes, and I do read the papers.

[ermine-rat.livejournal.com]

I voted no to both. Both parties are so embroiled in fingerpointing that they can't get anything done or even propose candidates that aren't deeply indebted to many special interests before they can attain any influence. I will vote for anyone with good ideas, but I feel like I never get a chance. Too much money and poll-driven data drive their positions.

Good people won't actually participate in that cesspool anymore. Too bad. It leaves us with a collection of jackasses running things.

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

I'm registered "Decline to State", and what may surprise some of my friends is that I have never voted for either of the two mentioned parties in a Presidential election.

I would vote for either party if I liked the candidate. The cynical - but perhaps realistic - view is that the nominating process would never produce a candidate for whom I would voluntarily vote.

One of the benefits of being in a state like CA is that the Presidential elections aren't realistically contested, so I can vote for whomever I want without affecting the outcome.

[ermine-rat.livejournal.com]

The "winner takes all" electoral process in California has made one party take California for granted, and as a result they don't campaign here, or address our issues. They just come here to milk the donor groups so they can buy TV time in other states. Funny how it disenfranchises 40-45% of the voters here.

That rule was meant to keep the California voting bock together whe we were a small state, but now it makes California look like an expensive place to campaign, and unwilling to vote for anything that isn't part of the Democratic party platform, even though it changes widely state to state. What hypocracy.

[tsgeisel.livejournal.com]

A few years back I had the wonderful, difficult decision between voting for Mike Honda or Tom Campbell, for US Rep. I think even they would have told you that was truly a no-lose situation. Sadly, the situation hasn't really come up since.

[aastg.livejournal.com]

I said no to both, but I should qualify that:
1. Currently none, but there have been a few in the past. None of them ran in California, though.
2. Not in the foreseeable future.

Funny, I was thinking recently that our current national political dialogue had developed a bad case of 19th century nostalgia. I can only hope I will care who wins and who loses the next knife fight on the senate floor.

[loup_noir]

My cynicism must be in the shop as I voted "yes" to both.

Honest with myself? You bet. Brutally so.

I'd vote for McCaine. Yup. I would. And I'm not a Republocrat. Depending on a number of factors, I'd probably vote for Clinton. I'd vote for Gore. I'd vote for Dean.

I don't think our country's politics are healthy at all right now. There's a decidedly early twentieth century feel to our current situation.

[cryptocosm.livejournal.com]

I vote on the issues, but on the issues I care about most the other party has been so thoroughly and consistently wrong over the last two decades that I no longer hold out any real hope they will offer any reasonable candidates. I'm not always thrilled with the candidates "my" party puts up, but if the lesser of two evils has an actual chance of winning I'm reluctant to stand too much on principle - the Nader effect is real.

No, it's not healthy for the country. Unfortunately, those in the best position to change the system are also the ones with the most invested in not changing it.

Some day perhaps the apathetic masses will wake up. I shudder to think what they might do then.

[blkeagl.livejournal.com]

I took it at theoretical face value and answered yes to both. I'm a decline to state myself and always select my politicians based on what I believe they truly intend to accomplish, not based on whether they are likely to win or are the lesser of two evils.