We are not a parliamentary system

[terrell9584]

In a parliamentary system you are elected solely by virtue of the party and solely to advance the agenda of that party. In most democracies around the world this is how it's done. But our country was deliberately set up so that the will of the electing constitutency mattered more than the party line.


What do Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, the Democrats who opposed Roosevelt's court packing plan in 1937, the Chafees and the two women senators from Maine all have in common with each other? All of them have bucked party orthodoxy to stay true to their own beliefs and their own principles.

It was a thing we used to value in this country. It's what allowed both parties to have members across the ideological spectrum. Washington used to be a place where you could have principled disagreement and where you could go against your party from time to time, even on major issues, and still be a respected member of the party. The Democratic Party used to be the hallmark representation of this with its Southern wing and Northern wing.


We've lost that in this country. Take Dennis Kucinich. Why should Dennis Kucinich have to vote for something he believes is bad policy just because his party wants him to. Is he in Congress to serve the interests of the party or is he in Congress to serve the interests of the voters who elected them? I personally would not want to vote for anyone who might feel that a policy is bad but will go for it anyway out of party loyalty. I am a Democrat and I am the son of a union worker but I don't put my loyalty to the party over my loyalty to the country or the principles founded on.



You want to know why most politicians are such pricks? It's because guys like Kucinich and Paul who do actually stand up for what they believe in, who don't play the Washington game and who actually put what they feel is best for the country above political considerations often get driven out of the game by hacks on both sides.


Has anyone stopped to consider that if maybe there were more Kucinichs & Pauls willing to defy their party leadership on matters of principles rather than being whores to the Washington system that our country might not be as divided as it is and that we might not be in as much trouble as we now face?


I know if more Republicans had been possessed of courage to stand up to Bush and his insane budgetary policy we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. If more Democrats had defied Clinton on NAFTA we wouldn't have lost our manufacturing base as quickly as we did. Just something to think about.

[PeaceNikki]

1. Ron Paul is a nutbag of the highest order.

fuck him

[terrell9584]

5. Oh his ideas are horrible

He'd have us go back to the 19th century. But at least he stays true to his own beliefs, even if they are nutty, rather than being bullied in following the party line.


There was once a time in this country when people thought it was perfectly acceptable and normal to treat African-Americans as second class citizens. I am thankful that people were around to rock the boat and not go with the flow who were willing to pay a heavy price, some with their own lives, to make it happen.


I'm a son of a union worker. I know union history. We have unions now because men were willing to stand on principle, risking everything from blackballing to their death in order to secure those rights for America's workers


And if I'm attacked for expressing the view that elected officials ought to be true to their beliefs and not be so willing to be pushed around by whoever gives them more money well, it says more about those that attack my stance than I who hold it.


I'd never vote for Ron Paul. I think his supporters are primarily fringe fanatics. But he does bring up many points that mainstream political discourse and corporate media won't touch and the presence of someone who's actually honest does help the process.

[FrenchieCat]

2. oh boy!

Alert | Hide Thread | Recommend 0 votes Unrecommend

[Jennicut]

3. Defying your party does not mean you are always correct. Ron Paul is a anti choice, racist nutball.

[terrell9584]

8. Have you ever considered that might be true of his constituency?

I don't know if his district is racist but given where it is in Texas I'd imagine it has strong anti abortion sentiment. So you say he's anti-choice but in reality he is simply voting as his constituents want him to. Which is how you're supposed to vote.


And I did not use Ron Paul to endorse his ideas. Farthest thing from it. I used both him and Dennis Kucinich who are idealogical polar opposites but who have similar positions within their respective parties to make a point about a problem I have with how corrupt and inattentative to the wishes of the public the political process seems to have become.


I used them as a device to make a point. At no point did I ever express ideological agreement with either though I obviously have far more in common idealogically with Kucinich than Paul.


I'm originally from the part of Mississippi devastated by Katrina. It's represented by Gene Taylor. Gene Taylor is to the right of where I'd like him to be but he keeps getting re-elected even after the unions began dying and everyone became Republican for one reason and one reason alone. Because you can go to even staunch Republicans in that district who dislike many of his stances but no one in South Mississippi questions whether or not he is honest, whether or not he votes on principle or whether or not he always puts South Mississippi as his first concern. And he's been seen that way down here since he was in the State Senate where he also was a maverick.

[DrToast]

14. That is completely not true

As a representative you're entitled to your own vote and your constituents are entitled to judge your performance. You are not bound to vote how they want on any issue. That's the reason we don't have direct democracy.

[JVS]

13. Those also happen to be the areas where he conforms to his party.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Ron Paul is not anti-choice. He has a pure libertarian view of it--government out

His son Rand is another story.

[nemo137]

20. Sorry, no. "Leave it up to the states" (Rep. Paul's stated position)

is a dodge. He knows damn well what would happen if left up to the states. Manages to be both anti-choice and dishonest.

[Sebastian Doyle]

19. So is Bart Stupak

:shrug:

[Spazito]

4. Hmmmm...

:eyes: while :popcorn:

[IndianaGreen]

6. The so-called 'Washington game' and the Beltway political class are out of touch with America

No wonder politicians are held in such low esteem!

[eleny]

7. K&R for the merits of your last paragraph

I wouldn't want to see more of people like Ron Paul in Congress. But Nafta is surely killing off the working class of the United States.

[Cleita]

9. You are right. We have to remember that we are Americans first and

Democrats secondly. I remember Scott Ritter, a Republican, saying this (I'm an American first and a Republican second) when Bush was trying to get a war going with Iraq claiming Saddam had WMDs. He stood up to his party almost alone on principle because he knew there were no WMDs. I believe so did Colin Powell but Powell chose to lie in front of the UN instead to protect his cushy circumstances. I'm proud of any Democrat who will do the same when he is being cajoled and shamed into following the party agenda no matter how wrong it is. Go Kooch! We've got your back in spite of the DLC witch hunt.

[ProSense]

10. Wait

"What do Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, the Democrats who opposed Roosevelt's court packing plan in 1937, the Chafees and the two women senators from Maine all have in common with each other? All of them have bucked party orthodoxy to stay true to their own beliefs and their own principles."

You think Ron Paul, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are heroes?

First, Ron Paul is a kook. Now can you show me where Collins and Snowe are bucking their party on health care reform?


"Why should Dennis Kucinich have to vote for something he believes is bad policy..."

The question is why would you believe he's above criticism?

"Is he in Congress to serve the interests of the party or is he in Congress to serve the interests of the voters who elected them?"

When he voted against SCHIP, was he looking out for the interest of voters? It was criticism, including from his supporters, that led to him change his vote when the bill next came up.

[DrToast]

11. Strawman, table of one!

Why should Dennis Kucinich have to vote for something he believes is bad policy just because his party wants him to.

He doesn't have to and nobody is saying that. The problem is that his judgment of good/bad policy is sorely lacking in this case.

Has anyone stopped to consider that if maybe there were more Kucinichs & Pauls willing to defy their party leadership on matters of principles rather than being whores to the Washington system that our country might not be as divided as it is and that we might not be in as much trouble as we now face?

I suspect if we had more people like Ron Paul we'd be a third world country by now.

I know if more Republicans had been possessed of courage to stand up to Bush and his insane budgetary policy we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. If more Democrats had defied Clinton on NAFTA we wouldn't have lost our manufacturing base as quickly as we did. Just something to think about.

So you've got a boner for him just because he's opposing his party? Aren't you even concerned about whether or not he's doing the right thing? Because you didn't mention that once. Are you a fan of David Duke, too? He's pretty independent-minded.

[terrell9584]

15. I do believe he is doing the right thing

My main reason for opposing the current proposal is the individual mandate. I can't afford it and graduate school and I won't really qualify for subsidies for it but as a more substantial issue I just actually really do have a huge problem with the federal government telling citizens they must devote a portion of their income to a private company and I am shocked that there are a large number of people who don't take issue with it on a gut level.


It's quite possible Kucinich simply can't vote for anything that would bring in that mandate if that mandate is going to be solely for the purposes of being a boon to private insurers who will be facing a customer supply crisis as boomers start retiring and going on Medicare and the like.

[MaineDem]

12. "You want to know why most politicians are such pricks?"

I disagree with your premise.

[Oregone]

16. Parliamentary systems seem to actually represent the electing constitutency better

Minority or coalition governments must represent not just the center of the road or business interests, but the constituents of the smaller parties that prop them up on confidence votes. First past the post, two-party systems do a terrible job by shoving everyone in just two shitty tents, forcing them to pick the less shitty one and shutup.

[depakid]

18. Depending on how they're oreganized, smaller parties can also have an impact

but more importantly, a chance to grow (which can keep the major parties honest).

In Australia, there's preferential voting (IRV) which allows people to make their choices sequentially (and parties will barter for their support).

For example, you can vote The Greens- with your second preference Labor. In the event the Green Candidate doesn't win- the preference goes to Labor and so on until some candidate has 51%.

At the moment, The Greens hold a significant portion of the balance of power in the Senate- thus, the health care reforms Labor is proposing are subject to negotiating with The Green, expansion of Medicare to include universal dental care, and assurances that there won't be widespread cutbacks and closures of rural and regional health services.

This is exactly the opposite of the tendency in the US, where lobbyists draft the bills- and the pressure for the past 30 years to dilute whatever legislation comes down the pipeline to satisfy corrupt corporate interests.

(Of course, it also helps that comparatively speaking, Aussies deal with political corruption much more effectively -meaning that many of the "routine" practices in America would cost a poli their front bench status- or their seat- or land them right in gaol for a "healthy" stretch).