I’m sure there have been books written on the subject. Hell, maybe somebody here has read one.
I’m wondering, in the land of plenty, where variety is the spice of life when it comes to damn near everything (food, electronics, services, etc.), why are people satisfied with having only two political parties to choose from?
Why don’t people demand more options?
Is it because it’s easier to buy a beer than learn policy?
There are more options out there There are a number of other candidates besides these two bozos., Its the media that controls who is seen. Dems and republicans spend the most money on TV so that is what we see. So since the media fails to honestly report the candidates that are running, people vote for the idiot that looks the least idiotic to them and the one that they are most familiar with. If the media gave equal air time to the other candidates, we would not end up with a Rep or a Dem, probably.
Beer is actually a very apt metaphor. Almost all of the beer sold in the US is from one of two companies, either InBev (who recently bough AB, but also own beers such as Stella Artois, Hoegaarden, Guinness, and many others) or SABMillerCoors (who own Miller, Coors, and a whole bunch of other breweries). There are plenty of other beers out there, but they really don’t get the exposure of ‘the big three’ (Bud, Miller, and Coors) and even those that get some exposure but aren’t an American macro lager are, in fact, owned by one of those companies. Now, there are plenty of microbreweries as well, but they have a more limited audience and tend to fair best either in local circumstances (Progressive Dane is a good example of a local political party that has a fair amount of clout in its location. This would be akin to your local brewpub), others have a broad but shallow support base with occasional successes (The Greens are a good example of this. They would be akin to something like Stone, Bell’s, or Allagash). And then there are the odd-ball superstars out there that inspire an absurd amount of passion for those who care about the subject (Ron Paul would be a good example of this. I’d say he’s a lot like Dark Lord by Three Floyd’s and its associated “Dark Lord Day” which has become a huge event on any serious beer drinker’s calender).
But for the most part, it is business as usual.
I guess it could be that, to continue the metaphor, some beers simply “taste” better to people. I’ll use Richard Dawkins memes. Perhaps the Democratic and Republican memes are simply more potent than independent ideas. Perhaps it is because of their simplicity, compared to other political parties?
I think you’re on to something too, Kris. Obviously the dems and GOP get tons more airtime than other parties. But isn’t that because that’s what people want to see?
That might be true if the media were a truly competitive market. However, media power is limited to a few concentrated areas, creating a situation that is better modeled by an oligarchy as opposed to a free market. And the oligarchs have vested interests, in both of the major parties.
There is only one true political party: the republicans. Since that group is one group it is only natural for them to be united in a political party. The democrats are all the loose ends and victims of the republicans. There is no natural unity to them. They might eight or twelve natural groups all tied losely together for all I know. When third parties have formed it is the democrats who have mostly paid the price in defeat. But in a sense, your question is wrong. People do not need parties, and parties injure the country worse than any corporation. The people need representatives who are commited solely to them, and not to any national group. Very few of my interests will ever be national interests, but if they present a problem to me it is wrong that I should have to make the whole of one party and part of another admit the problem and work to resolve it. Rather; they should stay out of the way of my representative and all affected representatives finding a solution. National parties make national problems because they do not resolve local and sectional problems until their solution become necessary to win national elections. Do you get my drift here? No parties is what we need.
I think that is a rather naive view of the political parties. For one thing, the Republicans are a very divided party, with both paleo- and neo-cons, libertarians, and religious fundamentalists, etc. Plenty of division there and plenty of tension. On top of that, Ross Perot is a recent example of a third-party candidate that split the Republican vote helping Clinton in both his election and re-election. I don’t think your thesis really holds. The Republicans have a large section of people who hold authoritarian values so the party tends to fall into lock-step more easily than the Democrats, as well as having blocks that are willing to sacrifice one of the axes on the political compass (while libertarians claim to support both economic and personal freedom, if they have to choose they will vote in line with their pocket-books and not their civil rights).
Well, I agree with some of wht you say, but compared to the varied interests in the democratic party they are not divided, and as you say, willing to fall into lock step. Look at their primaries: Winner take all, just as their theory of government. They want it all, and they don’t care what they have to say or who they hurt to have it. Because they play to win rather than playing to play like the democrats, they manipulate government even when they are out of it. Kennedy stayed in Vietnam even when he wanted out because he could not face election hearing he was soft on the communists. There was nothing soft about LBJ and communism. He has spent too much quality time with his neighbor, J.E. Hoover. But the howls of the republicans were a constant threat. Were Vietnam or Korea necessary? Well, no; but if your ideologies run you, and if you can be bated by questions like: Who lost China, which are really criminally irresponsible when they push America into unnecessary war, then you are not a party, but a school of bait fish. If the republicans were not strongly united in ideology they would not be such a threat, or rather, the bald faced lies their candidates push would get some scrutiny, and their candidates would lose support. I don’t think the republican party has been good for most of the people who vote for it. It is just that there is no natural affinity between the traditional democrat and the traditional republican. Which is one reason the republicans rule rather than govern. They do not want the government to serve all the people. They don’t want to ask all the people what they might need. They want to take all they can get for theirs, and get the government to make good the investment made in their election, and f the other guy. I think they are rotten, and as I said irresponsible, if not criminal. I would love to see any candidate for the democrats tell the republicans to go to hell, or at least have the courage to call a spade a spade. They want a republican vote they will never get being nice, but they should be playing the game in the same fashion. Tell the world how much the republicans have ruined government, and how they have run us into war for no purpose. Tell the truth. Instead, it is all polite, like they want to eat with somone they should rather spit at. I am not running for office, but I don’t have any problem seeing through their republican shit. I don’t know why the democrats fight so blind.
Now that I can agree with!