can someone explain to me the benefit of the GOP surviving as a "viable" party.

[T Wolf]

I cannot wrap my mind around the concept that we must have them strong enough to counter any attempts to make real "progress" in this country.

What would be bad about a Democratic majority so dominant that it is able to enact any legislation it (and maybe even we) want(s)?

Marriage equality, environmental protection, a fair "justice" system, end to corporate domination of our society, universal health CARE, etc., etc., etc. Why do so many espouse the idea that a dominant (Democratic) party, pushing these policies, would be a bad thing?

Granted - there is no assurance that "our" party would actually promote these policies, But there would be a goddamned better chance of getting something positive out of "our" government without the pukes fucking things up.

So, what is the benefit of the thugs' continued existence?

[LakeSamish706]

1. Checks and Balances... Don't ya know.... At least that is what the Repugs. will tell ya. n/t

[Happyhippychick]

2. Pure entertainment based on their perpetual asshatedness?

:rofl:

[DJ13]

3. The performance art known as the two party system needs villains

Good villains are needed so we dont notice that the good guys are screwing us.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

4. Absolute power corrupts absolutely? nt

On edit...
Perhaps you've heard of Chicago? ;-)

[stopbush]

5. So bigots and racists will have a place to call home?

[Old and In the Way]

6. Not much good.

The Party is taking hits internally and externally. I envision a day when Blue Dog Dems start aligning with the remaining of fragments of Republican moderates splinter and conservative Independents to create the future opposition to Progressive Democrats. They'll reformulate under a new Party that's not beholden to the religous extremists or talk-show haters, but will still push their conservative, 'status quo' agenda.

[tridim]

7. And they'll come up with an Orwellian name that indicates the opposite of what they stand for.

[question everything]

8. 1994

Gingrich took over Congress because, for one thing, we got so arrogant and bloated. We had one member of Congress after another being indicted.

And I think that it took all those years in the back, without even a courtesy call to participate in any discussion for us to decide that we needed to do something about taking control which include - gulp - electing representatives who do not support a woman's right to choose, or labor, or other items that are important to us.

Without a viable opposition to keep us on guard, we will start slacking and eventually will be thrown out.

This does not mean that they should start winning elections as to take control of the White House and Congress and the Supreme Court. It only means that we cannot let our guard fall.

[T Wolf]

11. The failure of the Dems in 1994 was due to too many selling out for their own gain, the fact that

a republicrat was in the White House, and that Dems have historically not been comfortable governing from a position of strength.

If you have good, real liberals in charge, without opposition, just think what could be accomplished. I just don't buy that we need "them"to keep us "honest."

[hyphenate]

9. It's not about why or how the Republican party

should continue to exist, it's about having more than a one-party system which quickly could turn into a totalitarian regime if there aren't checks and balances in place.

We've seen how this works already--before the election this past November, the Repubs were "in charge." Not only were they in charge, but they had already set up enough ways for themselves to continue to influence the country's politics long after they were out of office. It was just short of being a dictatorship in some ways, though you won't hear them say that, obviously.

A single party dominance, as we've seen for the past eight years, makes sure that their agenda is the one to be passed, and that any and all of their ideals are pushed through. In this past regime of the last 8 years, the incompetency of the president brought other members of the administration to the fore, and each soaked the country for their own personal gain.

I realize that some here like Hugo Chavez, but he is currently one of the dictators in the world that shows what happens when someone charismatic can do once they have their foot in the door. Making himself the "elected" president for life, he has managed to take over his country with sneak thief style, and while many might have wanted differently, he had the backing of too many people looking for simple solutions in their lives. They decided to forgo a system filled with those checks and balances, which actually protect everyone in the long run.

A democratically run country such as the U.S. needs to maintain two (or more) parties in order to show perspective of the entire populace. There are some ideals offered by the right that are actually admirable, if you take away the taint of the religious right from the party. The "old" republican party wanted smaller federal government, wherein the states themselves would have more power. The "old" republicans actually wanted to spend less, and rely on the people themselves to bring changes to the country. The old "pioneer" outlook was crucial in this country for many many years, and even when it was often cruel--killing Native Americans in order to move west, for an example--it brought the country from one coast to the other. The old republican party was interested in making the U.S. formidable and self-relying. They wanted to see the country succeed in every endeavor it made. And until the World Wars, the United States was relatively equal to the other countries, especially the European countries. I don't believe the concept of a "superpower" came until after the wars, but after all was said and done, the U.S. was crowned with that title, and it's been what we've been trying to keep up with since.

A single party system would defeat a lot of admirable traits that the real republicans hold. A multiple party system ensures that all the citizens voices are heard, and not just those on one side. It also makes sure that not one sector in the country is left out when decisions and choices are made. It is true that urban states have more liberal leanings, but at the same time, the rural communities in the country need a voice too. And republicans are largely from those rural settings, and represent those folks who otherwise wouldn't be able to influence decisions made.

The problem, unfortunately, is that real republicans have made some decisions over the past thirty or so years that have helped weaken the party. They have allowed neo-cons to flourish, and they have allowed the religious right to infiltrate them and demand decisions based on their sole criteria. As we have seen, now it is very difficult to remove the RRs influence--it's like a cancer which is so interwoven itself into the party, that to separate them is now impossible.

Hope this helps. :)

[T Wolf]

10. Sorry. But I cannot see the benefit. You seem to be saying that committing genocide against

the indigenous population was simply a cost of expanding "the country from one coast to the other" whcih you count as a positive thing.

If the dominant (OK - monopoly) government is doing good things, what is the problem?

Are you saying that there are always two sides to any issue and that it is necessary to accommodate opposing views in the final decision?

The key for me is that the rethugs have no sense of a social contract - that being that we all share this country/planet and that all people must be cared for a society to be considered a success (in my mind).

Sure, there is the possibility/probability of corruption. We are human, after all. But thinking that corruption on the part of Dems would be held in check by slimy repukes who hold views and values diametrically opposed to "liberal" positions is mixing apples and oranges. That corruption issue needs to be dealt with, but not at the cost of compromising what a liberal Democratic party should be trying to achieve.

As far as hearing all voices - are you saying that because most of the country currently is (may be) opposed to marriage equality, we should accommodate that bigotry?

[hyphenate]

13. Some misinterpretations here.

>>>>>the indigenous population was simply a cost of expanding "the country from one coast to the other" whcih you count as a positive thing.>>>>>

No, not what I was saying. I was attempting to put the action in a neutral position--I do not, nor have I ever, condoned these actions. As we are all well aware, the victors write history, and up until fairly recently, history books have glossed over the atrocities perpetrated on Native Americans by colonists country-wide. My intent was to show that one way or another, the U.S. was determined to take the whole of the country, even if those who pioneered it were killing the native population as it did so.



>>>>>If the dominant (OK - monopoly) government is doing good things, what is the problem? <<<<<

The problem is inherent in any situation where there is only one side in charge. Not everyone wants to live in a "benevolent" dictatorship. That was how the colonists saw England, as being a dictatorship that didn't represent them in the United States. We always have to consider that a significant part of the country doesn't agree with liberals on a whole bunch of things. So "what if" the sole ruling party was Republican, and not Democratic? What if the South had won the Civil War? Would everyone in the country agree with that outcome? Hardly likely.

>>>>>Are you saying that .....it is necessary to accommodate opposing views in the final decision?<<<<<

Yes. We must always keep in mind that depending on their background, every single person in the country has their own, unique way of looking at things. Many might believe in the same things you do, but there might be an equal amount of people who don't. If we had a single political party, there is an extremely good chance that up to 1/2 the country would be left out of the decision making. And there would be just as many people(and maybe not even the same 1/2 population) who were bothered enough to perhaps mull over the thought of resisting the government.

>>>>The key for me is that the rethugs have no sense of a social contract - that being that we all share this country/planet and that all people must be cared for a society to be considered a success (in my mind).<<<<<

You might be surprised at how many people, even on the right, feel the same way. However, the majority opinion within a state district, or rural enclave, might dictate that a representative go against their own best wishes and represent the constituency. It doesn't have to be logical, and it doesn't have to mean against or for something. It just has to be what the majority of the population in that area wants.

Socially, Americans are already behind in accepting a position that confronts global needs. Americans to a large degree are greedy, selfish, and disrespectful of other populations in the world, and that makes us look pretty messed up. Obama seems to be making an attempt to change that, and while liberals are in agreement with him, there are a great many who don't agree. The pejoratives liberals have been called over the years have often referred to the propensity for Democrats to spend money and tax higher.



>>>>>Sure, there is the possibility/probability of corruption. We are human, after all. But thinking that corruption on the part of Dems would be held in check by slimy repukes who hold views and values diametrically opposed to "liberal" positions is mixing apples and oranges. That corruption issue needs to be dealt with, but not at the cost of compromising what a liberal Democratic party should be trying to achieve.<<<<

No side is completely right or wrong. For those on the extreme side of either of the two parties, there are many issues which are not necessarily a "good thing." And yes, that's true even of the liberals. Corruption has little to nothing to do with it. Sometimes, it's the compromise, as both sides meet in the middle, that is the best answer of all. Neither side has a monopoly on the best answer.



>>>>As far as hearing all voices - are you saying that because most of the country currently is (may be) opposed to marriage equality, we should accommodate that bigotry?<<<<

Your extrapolation to this kind of a scenario is a little bizarre. As I already pointed out, some of the morals issues are traceable right straight to the influence of the religious right, and the religious right is hardly the faction of tolerance and morals. While Bush held the religious right in such high favor, it was inevitable that they were able to exert their hypocritical opinions on the government, but never for one second believe that most republicans agree with them most of the time. Currying favor with the religious right was/is strictly their current power play. If the republicans REALLY agreed with the holy rollers on much of anything, we'd already be a country where the repression and high "morals" of the Puritans would like like a roman orgy.

[Fresh_Start]

12. it always helps to have a concrete bad example

to scare the kiddies with

:evilgrin:

[quiller4]

14. A two-party system really requires two viable parties

One super-strong party unchallenged usually devolves and doesn't serve public interest.