I put a little time into replying to this Dave Helling article, and Ill post it here for you to read. I think the guy means well, but doesnt realize just how much he views the world through his own Big Government glasses: Im going to label this a partisan complaint, pretending to be a cry for fairness. I just dont think Helling would be writing this article if this were 2006, when Democrats had a great year. Remember, this is the same Dave Helling (correct me if Im wrong if its a different one) who wants very few choices when it comes to the media (what do pesky bloggers know?), and schools ($13,000/student monopolies are awesome, and Republicans who want to give parents competitive choices clearly oppose strong schools)... but now we are led to believe that its inherently bad that 2 major parties exist (hey, two is one more than with public schools!). Short version: It makes little sense to base this article (about the supposed impenetrable strengths of the parties) on Greg Orman, when Ormans entire electoral promise was predicated on an amazingly weak Democratic Party that could not draft a viable candidate in Kansas. Also, this article is easily challenged by the existence of UKIP, and by the 2010 elections that resulted in non-US Senators Charlie Crist, David Dewhurst, Trey Grayson, Bob Bennett, and Martha Coakley. Longer reply: This article assumes a lot, and ignores a lot. It assumes voters are relatively stupid and cant think for themselves, outside what the two parties tell them. It assumes Kansas voters thought Orman was a man of integrity - regardless of whether he is honest, Orman made the choice to refuse to take a stand on anything and paid the price for appearing available for purchase at the highest bidder once in the Senate. It assumes voters found Orman to be independent - regardless of whether he is politically independent, its a simple fact that he didnt look independent, given that Claire McCaskill drafted him and that Claire McCaskill somehow convinced a fairly big-time District Attorney Chad Taylor to declare himself incompetent (literally). It assumes this 2-party system to be a problem; but one could just as easily say that Dave Helling doesnt like it, hasnt been able to change it, and therefore is merely complaining. Why not write this article from a glass is half full approach, and look at it from the view that Americans prefer to agree as much as possible (and, as a result, form coalitions with people who mostly agree)? Interestingly, Hellings entire premise also assumes that the old-guard mainstream press has done a really, really, REALLY bad job over the last, oh, 200 years in telling readers about the hidden wonders to which they are blind. After all, if this IS a grave problem, and the problem has existed for as long as the US has existed, then the mainstream media mouthpieces are just absurdly bad at communicating the problem to the masses. Yes, the 2-party system is entrenched, and the codified benefits given to major parties do give them a boost, and the small hurdles for new/minor parties are indeed a hindrance, but the hurdles are certainly not insurmountable. The two-party system seems more firmly cemented than ever in American politics. - on the contrary, the cement has never been weaker, because the strengths of the official parties have never been weaker. This is not all that debatable, that the official party structures have never been weaker, largely due to 1) the Internet and 2) a slow return to pre-Watergate levels of free speech with campaign dollars (where official parties could raise more money than citizens and candidates). Granted, we have no seen a great number of independent candidates... yet. But you do ignore Maine, Vermont, Hawaii, and probably other states that Im forgetting, with recent elections with viable independent candidates (who won in Maine and Vermont). You also ignore the wisdom among the masses, in terms of their right to be skeptical -- look at independent Charlie Crist, in Florida. Pro-life and pro-choice; pro-and-against gay marriage; Republican-turned-independent-turned-Democrat. Or Michael Bloomberg, who probably would be far more effective at his anti-gun crusades if he didnt alienate Republicans (by being so independent) and alienate Independents (by being so Republican when it suited him). I dont see how you can know about the recent victories of UKIP and write this article. Neither major US party is guaranteed to be around in 20 years. Again, to use Greg Orman as your main example... its the elephant in the room, after all, that if the 2 parties were as strong as you claim they are, Orman would have never stood a chance. kansascity/news/local/news-columns-blogs/local-columnists/article4498706.html
Posted on: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 18:10:02 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015