|
Grex > Agora35 > #18: The 2000 presidential campaign item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 406 responses total. |
polygon
|
|
response 50 of 406:
| 
Sep 26 04:41 UTC 2000 |
I don't really agree with Richard that people ought to "respect the
tradition" of the two-party system. Rather, from a strictly pragmatic
standpoint, a democracy with the kind of structure we have is going to
have two major blocs competing for power, whether it's the Democrats and
Republicans, the Greens and the Whigs, or whatever.
Indeed, given the actual ideological and interest cleavages that exist, no
matter what the parties are called, I bet they would end up looking a
whole lot like the parties we have now, since they would end up with the
same people and the same voters.
If we somehow managed to actually kill off the Democratic or the
Republican parties, the displaced partisans would move into new party
structures which would then have practically the same views, the same
assets and liablities, as the old parties. A case of "meet the new boss
-- same as the old boss"!
|
gelinas
|
|
response 51 of 406:
|
Sep 26 04:45 UTC 2000 |
How much difference was there between the Whigs and the Republicans? It
seems to me that the first disappeared about the time the second arose.
|
janc
|
|
response 52 of 406:
|
Sep 26 05:22 UTC 2000 |
I like Larry's observation that in our system the compromising and
coalition building happens before the election, resulting in two main
parties and some loose bits, instead of after the election, as in a
parlimentary system. That's a cool observation that throws a lot of
light on the process.
I agree that the coalitions at any particular point in time are somewhat
inevitable. The coalitions do shift over time though. Promotion of the
rights of black minorities passed from the Republican party to the
Democratic party. The traditional south passed from the Democratic
party to the Republican. But the coalitions change because the issues
change. Blacks wanted different things in 1960 than they did in 1900.
Sometimes the coalitions lag behind the issues, until some smart
politican notices that he has can offer something major to an important
group of the opposing party's voters without alienating his own voters.
|
senna
|
|
response 53 of 406:
|
Sep 26 05:47 UTC 2000 |
Richard continues to claim that he is a genuine liberal at heart, but his
remarks betray a person who will wholeheartedly support his party no matter
what line is followed. This is chiefly observable in his use of certain
issues to argue for support of his party. Religion's involvement in the
country and the concept of restrained entertainment media, once spouted as
ulimate evils of the Republican party and proof of the democrats' superiority,
are little more than passing annoyances once adopted by his own beloved
candidates.
A more legitimate liberal dem supporter would recognize those weaknesses seen
in his or her own party, voice disagreement, and attempt to help reconcile
others with similar doubts. It is possible to support a party without
agreeing with every part of the platform. Richard's prefered method involves
much less thought, and appears to involve strongly stated arguments without
much substance concerning "tradition" and "loyalty" that convince no one and
alienate many. Larry at least has done well in his illustration of the
pragmatic necessity for voting for a candidate that one has some issues with.
Other select people, it seems, prefer to dismiss their high-wraught virtues
of open-mindedness and acceptance when it suits them to attack "the enemy"
with innaccurate stereotypical bigotry.
|
jazz
|
|
response 54 of 406:
|
Sep 26 14:21 UTC 2000 |
Voting for Nader, like voting for Perot in the previous election,
certainly does have one effect - it increases the viability of third- and
fourth-party candidates in the future.
|
richard
|
|
response 55 of 406:
|
Sep 26 14:36 UTC 2000 |
of course it possible to support a party without agreeing with every
part of the platform and I do. Thats what Ive been saying. Senna,
if you read my last post as closely as you read polygon's, I was talking
about governing. Governing is about making choices that arent governed
solely by idealism and advocacy. There are people here saying they wont
vote for Gore because either he or leiberman arent liberal enough. The
party system, and the primary system within the two major parties, is
there for a reason. It is there to clarify and distill the choices we
have so that it is possible for whoever wins ultimately to govern. one
cannot govern unless coalitions have been built along the way. Unless
whoever you elect has a foundation to build upon once in office. And yes,
this system is tradition now, its a tried and proven way of maintaining
our democracy and should be respected.
So I think it irresponsible if you are voting third party for no other
reason than neither major candidate represents 100% of your views.
|
jazz
|
|
response 56 of 406:
|
Sep 26 14:46 UTC 2000 |
Richard has a point that, for the next four years, a vote for a *more*
liberal candidate than Gore hurts the liberal agendas, but it remains that
a vote for a more liberal candidate may help in future elections.
|
senna
|
|
response 57 of 406:
|
Sep 26 16:12 UTC 2000 |
You still aren't addressing what I said. :) I wasn't just referring to your
last response, by the way.
|
tod
|
|
response 58 of 406:
|
Sep 26 17:46 UTC 2000 |
I'd like to repeat that evolution is a theory just like creationism.
Calling evolution and science the same is insulting.
(re #41)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 59 of 406:
|
Sep 26 18:00 UTC 2000 |
I see you have been brainwashed by the creationists. Evolution, to
science, is a fact. The theories being debated concern mechanisms.
There is overwhelming evidence for the fact of evolution; there is
not evidence for the assertions of creationism, which is just biblical
mythologies.
|
tod
|
|
response 60 of 406:
|
Sep 26 18:21 UTC 2000 |
I said BOTH are theory. My disagreement with you is hardly enough
reason for you to label me as a creationist. I would think that anyone
with a 'scientific' mind would question ALL and never ASSUME.
There is evidence on both counts, but the truth is that both are
just theories.
|
jazz
|
|
response 61 of 406:
|
Sep 26 18:52 UTC 2000 |
(although this is the 2000 campaign item)
It's deceptive in the extreme to say that "evolution is just a theory"
and to say that "there is evidence on both counts". Gravity, by that
standard of presentation, is just a theory, and there is evidence that you
could fly by sheer willpower, but I wouldn't go walking off of a cliff any
time soon.
|
md
|
|
response 62 of 406:
|
Sep 26 19:29 UTC 2000 |
I agree with Rane. [clutches throat and falls to floor]
|
polygon
|
|
response 63 of 406:
|
Sep 26 19:34 UTC 2000 |
Re 51. Yes, the Whig party was pretty much replaced by the Republican
Party; the large majority of the early Republican candidates and voters
were former Whigs.
In the South, the picture is more complicated; though most ex-Whigs became
Democrats, a lot of the Southern Republican leaders of the 1877-1963
period (between Reconstruction and Civil Rights) came from former Whig
families. Not that being a Republican leader in the Deep South was worth
much in that era.
Re 52. That observation is not original with me; I got it from Garry
Wills.
Yup, the coalitions change over time, partly because of political
opportunities, but partly because the country changes, too.
Re 53. I didn't really mean it was strictly "necessary" to vote for
candidates of the two major parties; it is only necessary if you want to
have an impact on immediate-term policies.
I like to say that many political and social issues are conflicts between
what is "necessary" and what is "important". "Necessary" refers to
claims about practical reality; "important" refers to claims about
basic values.
Building a freeway is necessary; protecting a historic building in its
path is important. Raising taxes is necessary; reducing taxes is
important. Jobs (even in polluting industries) are necessary; the
environment (even at economic cost) is important. Regulating guns is
necessary; protecting gun freedom is important. Legal abortion (or the
death penalty) is necessary; preserving life (even unborn or criminals) is
important. [Yeah, yeah, you can quibble with all of those.]
What usually happens is that "necessary" wins all the battles, and
"important" wins the war.
For a politically liberal person, voting for Gore is necessary, but voting
for Nader is important.
|
flem
|
|
response 64 of 406:
|
Sep 26 19:45 UTC 2000 |
On the subject of politics.... Ever since the conclusion of the
Republican primary, I had been planning on voting for Gore. I'm
not really impressed by Gore, and I'd have liked to have the luxury
of voting for Nader or Choate or Mary Remmers, but the notion of
Bush on the presidential throne offended me in so many ways
that I was ready to throw myself on the grenade of voting for
Gore.
I still lean in that direction. It still boggles my mind that
someone who has demonstrated such complete lack of personal
ability as Bush is seriously being considered as our national
leader, but I'm less *afraid* of the notion than I used to be.
From the looks of this campaign, it seems unlikely that the
Republican party leaders are likely to loosen their grip on Bush
enough to allow him to make many actual *mistakes*. (Assuming,
for the moment, that one doesn't consider the actual policies of
the Republican party to be mistakes, which is clearly a poor
assumption indeed...) But it still seems that it would be
embarrassing for the United States, self-proclaimed leader of the
Free World, to have such an obvious puppet president.
On the other hand, Gore's conduct in this campaign has been depressing
enough to make me seriously reconsider whether it would not be
just as much of an embarrassment and a disaster for him to be
elected as Bush. I'm not quite convinced of that yet, but if he
keeps spouting this much crap about how immoral the entertainment
industry is, mary may yet get my vote.
|
md
|
|
response 65 of 406:
|
Sep 26 19:50 UTC 2000 |
If Nader draws away enough of the liberal (environmentalist,
consumerist, and all the rest) vote to cost Gore the election, then
that will have a huge near- and long-term effect on Democrat party
politics. For one thing, you'll see the party's drift to the right
come to a screeching halt. Would it be worth having a Bush
administration for four years? Fuckin' A, as they say on mnet.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 66 of 406:
|
Sep 26 19:53 UTC 2000 |
Some "theories" have more evidence than others. The "theory" of
gravitation was mentioned, for which there is overwhelming evidence (one
can navigate to Jupiter and take pictures, based upon the theory of
graviation, though a little relativity correction is necessary if you want
to be very accurate). Quantum "theory" in some cases agrees with
observation to 10 significant figures. (Interestingly, exactly *why*
these theories are so good is not known - we have only crude theories of
what the *causes* of gravity and quantum effects are, but they are great
theories for applications.)
Now, what "theory" in creationism agrees with anything and is useful for
predicting anything?
"They are both just theories" is a favorite rallying cry of creationists,
who have no idea what a theory is in science, but it appeals to a few of
the unthinking lay public. A theory is a mental construction, which covers
everything from quantum mechanics to astrology. But is it a "good" or
useful theory? Evolution is a good theory because the observed progress
of life over the millenia is consistent with it and every test of it has
been supportive. Creationism is a bad theory because it agrees with
nothing and there has never been a successful test of it.
|
md
|
|
response 67 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:01 UTC 2000 |
I agree with Rane again. [starts to turn slightly blue around the lips]
|
tod
|
|
response 68 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:07 UTC 2000 |
Then we agree that evolution is not a fact, thus calling it only a theory
does not make one anti-science.
It's sad to see the disapproval of evolution as fact being chastised
as a creationist attempt rather than just a truthful stance.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 69 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:07 UTC 2000 |
Aw, I think we could find instances if we searched the past half dozen
agoras where you have agreed with me, and it wasn't fatal. I think
there was even an instance, or two, when I agreed with you, and I'm
still alive and kicking and thinking.
|
tod
|
|
response 70 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:15 UTC 2000 |
See, if you asked nicely, you'd realize that my believe on the origin
of the human species is not aligned with either evolution or creationism. It
involves felines.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 71 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:15 UTC 2000 |
Agreed: evolution is a much better theory than creationism.
But when Todd baited you with the "they're both just theories" line,
(I'm pretty sure he knows the relative merits of each theory and was
simply trolling..) you panicked and declared "Evolution, to science,
is a fact." On the face of it that statement is almost as ridiculous
as a creationist declaring that creationism is fact according to their
god's revealed and infallible word and it's far less excusable in your
case -- we expect you to know better..
|
rcurl
|
|
response 72 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:16 UTC 2000 |
Scientists call theories for which there is no contrary evidence "facts".
Scientists are also aware that new information may arise that contradicts
such a "fact", in which case they quite readily "go back to the drawing
board". No creationist has ever done that. They just hold rigidly forever
to their discredited "theories".
What calling such well established ideas "only a theory" does is create an
illusion in the listeners uninformed mind that said theory is not an
excellent description or explanation. By saying that scientific
explanations are *also* just theories, they attempt to divert scrutiny
from their own hopelessly inadequate ideas. It is just a rhetorical ploy,
not a critical evaluation.
|
jazz
|
|
response 73 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:18 UTC 2000 |
It's the rhetorical analogy of asking someone if they've stopped
beating their wife recently.
|
md
|
|
response 74 of 406:
|
Sep 26 20:20 UTC 2000 |
[eyes roll back in head, breathing becomes shallow and irregular]
|