Partisan politics

[flaja]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Rather than limit the amount that can be donated, perhaps it would be useful to limit what can be spent on an election campaign. If a sensible spending limit is set, then it removes much of the impetus for political parties to rely so heavily on large-scale donations.

What would the limit be? How would it be set? What would you do about the relative costs of running for the same office in different places? It doesn’t cost as much to air a TV ad where I live as it would in places like New York City. Would candidates in both places be limited to spending the same amount?

And again, how does money lead to the partisan nature of American politics? Ron Paul didn’t have nearly as much money to spend as John McCain or Barak Obama, but is Ron Paul any less partisan as a consequence?

It would, in my opinion, damage debate if politicians were having to second guess themselves and watch out for whatever makes them vulnerable to litigation during those debates.

But isn’t there a time when debate has to give way to either compromise or civil war?

I also think that removing that immunity, far from reducing the partisan elements of politics would actually make it more partisan. The potential for libel suits to become a common weapon in politics is something to be wary of.

But wouldn’t libel judgments make politicians think twice before they toss out any rhetorical bombs? If politicians knew that they could be sued into bankruptcy for telling lies and half-truths about their opponents, wouldn’t they go out of their way to avoid telling lies and half-truths?

BTW: I was once told on another board that British politicians in Parliament don’t libel one another because dueling is essentially still legal for politicians.

[tw]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

I want my representative to be partisan on this issue. I expect it of them. I consider the good faith of my vote for them to have been violated if they choose the false value of "reaching across the aisle" over honoring the integrity of my vote for them.

Post WWI American politics has never been so partisan as it is today. Take Vietnam as a perfect example. The minority calling for a Vietnam solution were from both parties. During both a Democratic and a Republican administration, support for that war was never by party lines.

Gerrymandering is a new phenomena (a refined tool) resulting in a Congress of party extremists rather than two parties with numerous moderates. Better government means constantly crossing the aisle to create legislation. Take Hilary as an example. Her first legislation was a cooperative effort with John McCain - both moderates. But moderates have become rare in Washington which also explains the recent contentious atmosphere in Washington.

Gerrymandering has created a Congress so entrenched that the conservatives Bob Dole, Brent Scowcroft, Alan Simpson, or Pat Buchanan are now considered so moderate.

I expect my representatives to work first for America - not for the party. That is the difference between a good politician and a bad one. The bad politician simply totes the party line. You cannot work both for America and the party simultaneously. When the choice arises - as it often does - I expect my representatives to buck party politics and work for the nation. Otherwise he has been corrupted. Obviously, that means working across the aisle often is necessary when Congressmen work for America.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

...when Congressmen work for America.

Yeh - lemme know when thats gonna start.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by tw

Post WWI American politics has never been so partisan as it is today.

True, perhaps, but American politics today are likely not as hostile as in the past. Abraham Lincoln was called an ape and the original gorilla and this was by members of his own party. But this hostility didn’t prevent Lincoln from putting his most bitter rivals in his cabinet, and for the most part his rivals served him well for the good of the country. The good of the country is most often lost in today’s politics.

Gerrymandering is a new phenomena (a refined tool) resulting in a Congress of party extremists rather than two parties with numerous moderates. Better government means constantly crossing the aisle to create legislation.

Gerrymandering goes back to the early 19th century when Elbridge Gerry, as governor of Massachusetts(?), had a legislative district drawn to help elect someone from his party. But with today’s computer technology gerrymandering has essentially become an effortless task.

Take Hilary as an example. Her first legislation was a cooperative effort with John McCain - both moderates. But moderates have become rare in Washington which also explains the recent contentious atmosphere in Washington.

I don’t consider either Hilary or McCain to be moderates. Hilary is pro-abortion and wants socialized medicine; McCain supports high taxes and he went out of his way to keep many of GWB’s judicial appointees (at least some of whom may have been conservatives) off the federal bench.

I expect my representatives to work first for America - not for the party. That is the difference between a good politician and a bad one. The bad politician simply totes the party line. You cannot work both for America and the party simultaneously. When the choice arises - as it often does - I expect my representatives to buck party politics and work for the nation. Otherwise he has been corrupted. Obviously, that means working across the aisle often is necessary when Congressmen work for America.

I am not saying that only moderates should be elected to public office. Neither am I saying that politicians should not be partisan. What I am saying is that I am sick and tired of the constant bickering between the left and the right. I am sick and tired of politicians that won’t work together because they know that if they find a political solution to a political problem they will forfeit a campaign issue for the next election.

I think the best way to end the bickering is to implement term limits, give equal and un-hindered ballot access to all candidates and all parties and chose representatives by some form of proportional representation.

I would also support something comparable to what is used in the U.K. where the executive (prime minister) and the legislature (parliament) can force each other to stand for re-election when they are unable to get along with each other.