View Full Version : One Party Rule

Thoughtful Monk
02-05-2014, 04:29 PM
There is lots of talk about the "other" party should go away so "my" party can do what it wants. But I think that one party rule is worse than active democracy.

I live in NY. At the state level, there is no significant Republican party presence. They barely hold on to the state Senate and that will probably go soon. So the Democrat party essentially run the state.

On the other hand, the county I live in has a Republican executive and a Republican super majority in the legislator. They've pretty much run the county as they want and the corruption is beginning to show.

But the major city in the county is Democratic. In the last mayor election, the opposition party was the Green party - no Republican candidate.

I've gone voted in too many elections where the result was already known. I know my elected leaders really don't care because they're pretty much guaranted relection. So the result is the strange extreme policies (like the Safe act, being told being pro-life is not welcome in the state anymore.)

So I say, the best for the country is balance between the parties so they have to earn their reelection.

02-05-2014, 04:37 PM
I certainly agree with your general thrust. The American political system needs strong representation from people with differing points of view so that healthy debate may occur.

The situation in my state is somewhat different. The Republican party has become so dominant that the real battle has become between moderate and conservative factions in the Republican party. I expect that to change this year as moderate Republicans have gotten so fed up with the incumbent governor that they're lining up to support the Democrat running against him.

02-05-2014, 04:39 PM
I thought we had one party rule. The fights are just theatrical on a political level, and wishful thinking on a civilian level. For example, abortion is still legal in the US in spite a party that identifies as conservative/republican. We're still a warmongering country with a huge defense budget and now have a NSA spy monstrosity in spite of a party that identifies as liberal/democrat. Another example is that we had a federal reserve that dished out trillions of free money to transnational corporations under Congress and a president that identified as conservative/republican. And now we still have a federal reserve that dishes out trillions to the same institutions under a liberal/democrat. In the big picture, I see no differences :shrug:

02-05-2014, 04:44 PM
For the most part, I agree that the national level Republican party doesn't really care much about abortion at all beyond paying lip service, but at the state level, a number of individual state Republicans are trying to do something about it (though generally whenever they do get something done it runs right into the buzzsaw that is the judicial system).

Cow Poke
02-05-2014, 07:10 PM
We have one party rule already. The "I'll do or say whatever it takes to keep my sorry butt in office" party is in power, regardless of the labels they wear.

Thoughtful Monk
02-07-2014, 04:19 PM
We have one party rule already. The "I'll do or say whatever it takes to keep my sorry butt in office" party is in power, regardless of the labels they wear.

Sounds about right. :sigh:

02-07-2014, 09:55 PM
Nah, the Democrats are actually the Government party, and will make actual power plays in between the saying and doing in order to effect whatever hairbrained policies they believe in.

Republicans are more the "I'll say and do whatever's within the bounds of the strictest bipartisan politeness so I can claim technical opposition to whatever power plays the Democrats made, unless another Republican is too conservative."

Tail of the dog, Outer Party to the Inner Party, fake opposition soaking up cash, time, emotion and personnel better spent on a real opposition, which they fear more than anything the Democrats do, etc.