There is one choice, 1 vote for SPAMkid's debate

Bipartisan politics, what do you think? (IE respond to the following)

• Bipartisan politics rock!

  Ever since eighth grade, I’ve been loyal to the grand old Republican party. Now you the reader are probably wondering why I have titled this opinionated piece “Why I Love Democrats” and started it off by labeling myself as a member of the GOP. Surely this is a typo, or a cruel ploy designed to draw one’s eye towards a misleading article. Well, to the latter I admit a small share of guilt, but the fact of the matter is that, while I do not agree with the majority of their political platforms, I love the Democratic Party. Not following me? Well, a few years ago I wouldn’t have been able to understand what I just said either, this potentially oxymoronic view of mine formed about a year before the last presidential election when my father and I were talking together during one of our monthly lunches. We were talking about the Democratic primaries when my dad brought up an on-line discussion he had with someone from France, who couldn’t understand how Americans could reelect a president as internationally unpopular as George W. Bush. Many people in his discussion group said that it wasn’t going to happen again, my dad being the diplomatic Republican he is took a different approach and explained the American political system. The following is a slightly abridged summary of his response: The American political system is based on two fundamental, yet conflicting beliefs: Freedom and Equality. Republicans favor freedom and express it in the form of deregulation, tax cuts, and reduced restrictions (environmental, business, ect.). Democrats favor equality, which they express in the form of affirmative action, increased regulations, and additional social programs. While both ideals are basic American political values, they are also in conflict. When freedom dominates, people are left more to their own devices, and social classes typically become more segregated. When equality dominates, social classes are less segregated, but at the cost of the freedom of the individual. A typical American will place a higher priority on one value, and vote accordingly without much regard towards the individual for or his/her international standing. So now I am sure you are really confused, what does a conversation with my dad about a talk with some guy from France have to do with my supposed love of Democrats? Well, that conversation led me to a lot of deep political thought about the two-party system and why this country is so great. What I came up with surprised me a bit: it was the very force that I was politically opposed to, in other words Democrats. Well, not just Democrats, Republicans as well, really just our American system of politics: it works. The checks and balances system doesn’t just affect our system of government it affects our party system, a kind of yin-yang system of opposing yet harmonized systems of government. It’s perfect, when one takes too much the other comes forward. This is why I love Democrats, they complete me, they are the yin to my yang, the Malone (the second place all-time career points leader) to my Stockton (the NBA all-time career assists leader). That may sound corny or stupid, but it’s the truth, maybe that’s why so many of my friends are Democrats. I need to experience viewpoints that conflict with my own so that my own political ideals are not warped by personal bias, and it, with the exception of an art room battle involving the incumbent president’s reelection and a t-square, has rarely led to altercations. My friends respect my ideals and I return the favor: bipartisan politics at its finest. So ultimately I guess my title was a bit misleading, but only a little, hopefully this has opened your eyes, at least in some small part to the merits of the other side. The two party system works, Democrats and Republicans can be friends, and yes I do love all you crazy Democrats.

  Voted for by SPAMkid.

  View 4 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • 
    petethemeat
    February 22, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    You know its funny you should mention that, in Britain many years ago there was a party known as the liberal conservatives which just goes to show how liberalism and conservatism are not mutually exclusive.
  • UpsideDownFrown
    May 2, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    I enjoy your intentions but feel they're an oversimplification of political necessity. You make the acute observation that freedom and equality are often in contradiction (Proudhon and Kropotkin my disagree,thats' not the point of my comment), but the question comes when the assertion is made that this debate is best settled in the two-party system. Lets' say I believe in equality, but don't think that something like "affirmative action" is the best way to do it. Well, the Democrats support affirmative action, so I wouldn't vote for them, except the only other viable option presents even fewer options. Lets' also say I feel that economic de-regulation actually hurts economic freedom because it enables large corporations to buy out the market from underneath potential new businesses; now I don't agree with the Democrats on most of their issues, but the Republicans obviously disagree with me, so I don't have any satisfying options. Now if there was a party that supported equality by ANOTHER means (say, a graduated income tax that the Democrats have yet to support, or lowering military spending to improve infrastructure at home), or economic equality by another means (lowering taxes on corporations while raising minimum wages and labor standards to promote improved quality of living), I could vote for them. Trouble is, those parties don't exist yet! You are absolutely correct that democratic debate is a necessity to Western, liberal society (the old kind of liberal, not the incorrect TV version of today). However, consider the necessity of multiple voices representing different means to the same goal, not just one on each side.
  • SPAMkid
    May 2, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    Your point is, of course, quite valid, but I still believe two parties is the way to go. The US party system, while dual in form, is varied in nature. Our elected officials are all affected by more then just party preference. Things such as morality, race, ideals, and their constituents all affect their decision making process, and will often cause these people to lean further away from one side of the fence or closer to it based on specific issues. This is part of the reason why we have a primary system, so that the voters can better specify where they want their leaders to lean. I know that the system isn't perfect, but in my opinion, having too many different voices often muddies the waters and makes decision making much more difficult. Also, over-specification of party decisions on specific issues makes the winner of an election much less of a representative of the majority and much more of a voice for the minority. In addition, my summary of the political system was definitely very, very, simplified. Though I believe that it still remains accurate, and not necessarily over simplified.
  • PunkMonkey05
    November 5, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    Third Party..

    Although there is virtually no way for a third party candidate to secure a victory over Democratic or Republican candidates, the third party and special interest group roles are really what make politics. They bring the real issues to the forefront that the two other parties are afraid to address, and if the cards are played right, the Democratic or Republican party can use this to their advantage by splitting the votes of the third party for themselves.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: