Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Which party deserves to be saved? - if any

Rate this topic


volco
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know this topic has arised multiple times in the past, sorry if the post should be relocated.

The most principled answer to the topic question is of course: none

Some societies get away with compromise if they have the strongest cotract tradition as leverage, like Switzerland or Socialist yet Free Sweden. (I'm not saying it could be the case of a new world society). but let's explore the corruption of pragmatism a little bit, just for the fun of it.

Yesterday I watched the last South Park episode in which Abraham Lincoln explains Kyle the supremacy of moral character and its long-term thinking requisite.

I know you'll say to re-read Conservatism: an obituary as well as that there're both good and bad things in both parties.

But the - if philosophically justified - concept of American exceptionalism links well with the fact that there's only one succesfull party on Earth that has smaller government and personal responsibility as its principles.

If the congenital crisis of Christianity was put back indoors, non-fundamentalist "individualist" Republicans could begin to redefine it. Just as there's a "log cabin" for some who still resist being forced to votinig Democrat, there could be an Oist faction for people who disagree with Peikoff on the issue.

If christian mysticism faced out (after the sacrificial bonfire burns and gets put off), will it be replaced by a new Ecoglobalism mysticism or could the one traditionally individualist party regenerate itsef and stop it to happen politically in America?

The sovereignty of America is at stake. We have three huge Federal Empires in Europe, Russia and China. And when the Moslem world completes its equivalent of II World war and islamofascism is finally defeated, we'll have the MEditerranean expansion of the EU, and the biggest continent and the majority of the world population will be "prospering" in their neofascist suprastates. America is being sold to foreign capitals and is in debt with them.

But America is the best place for the IT Revolution to happen and continue. If one believes in the exponentially accelerating pace of technology one can see the USA as outcompeting the eastern princes just as it did in the XIX century. Now there's a different, perhaps limitless, frontier, and Americans are the pioneers.

In today's scenario what political expresion should this phenomenum have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Volco, it's a somewhat interesting question you pose in your title, but I've got to be clear here. When I read your post I have absolutely no idea what you're asking.

As to which party deserves to be saved, this seems like an odd question since as a practical matter, its not as though one party will be destroyed or not. Given the US's particular system, it can safely be expected that there will always be two dominant parties, and there is ample history that shows that over the long term, BOTH parties morph from their original traditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes i dilluted sorry.

If the alternative is a proper republic versus the restless empire as someone put it, what political force could possibly drive it.

Libertarians are a third party. A Schism in the Republican party could occur.

What about the Rep Party Liberty Caucus? The Ron Paul phenomena?

i don't think this thread necessarilly goes anywhere though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the alternative is a proper republic versus the restless empire as someone put it, what political force could possibly drive it.

Libertarians are a third party. A Schism in the Republican party could occur.

There are lots of alternatives, not just two. Right now, the question of interest in the shortest term is "Which of the possible future presidents of the US would be the best choice, worth supporting". The intermediate-range question is whether the Republicans or the Democrates are, on the whole and in the near future, more worthy of support (less needing opposition). There is no viable third party, so no point in talking about LP or Greens or SWP or anything like that.

The main issue is that the donkeys used to be the socialist party, but the GOP has assimilated a lot of the bad properties of the asses, and the GOP has in addition become the party of Christian fundamentalism. On the third hand, the mules have started to assimilate the ideas of the religious left, neutralizing the advantage that they potentially had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I hate to put people in groups but a lot of black people don't vote for republicans because they view republicans as a "racist" party. They see them helpful to the rich white families but destructive to the people whose kids grow up in sh*tty schools, and whose parents just expect them to get out of high school because the parents never graduated high school and the generation before the parents didn't even go to school. They don't really have any family members or friends to look up too. It's hard to understand something unless you have been through it yourself.

Many of you all have republican parents so naturally you are going to gravitate towards them and see the other side as evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can any of you see any of the current candidates for President actually reversing any of the Government control and role in the community? This has been building up steadily over the last 50 years. Not even Nixon or Reagan made any more than token efforts to reverse this distressing trend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can any of you see any of the current candidates for President actually reversing any of the Government control and role in the community? This has been building up steadily over the last 50 years. Not even Nixon or Reagan made any more than token efforts to reverse this distressing trend.

Fifty years? How about seventy five years (at least). FDR was elected in 1932. And even before that the government was regulating business. During Woodrow Wilson's administration the railroads were nationalized for the duration of the Great War and were not returned to fully private operation until 1920. The Federal system was finally laid to rest with the seventeenth amendment which made the Senate directly elected by the people. Prior to that Senators were appointed by the governors of the several States. The last State hold over the Central Government was liquidated and the States become mere departs, similar to the system in France.

Check this out. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59/

Congress has had the public by the short hairs by a perverse interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree. Let's go back to the Sherman Act. But I'd settle for the moment with a reversal of all the damage done under Clinton and Bush. There's plenty of work to be getting on with.

Fifty years? How about seventy five years (at least). FDR was elected in 1932. And even before that the government was regulating business. During Woodrow Wilson's administration the railroads were nationalized for the duration of the Great War and were not returned to fully private operation until 1920. The Federal system was finally laid to rest with the seventeenth amendment which made the Senate directly elected by the people. Prior to that Senators were appointed by the governors of the several States. The last State hold over the Central Government was liquidated and the States become mere departs, similar to the system in France.

Check this out. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59/

Congress has had the public by the short hairs by a perverse interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In many cases Richard Nixon accelerated the increased involvement of government in economics. If I am not mistaken, his administration oversaw drastic increases in controls in both energy markets (mainly in response to the 1973 oil crisis) and agricultural markets.

Correct, Nixon also gave the final death blow to the Gold Standard in this country, and he gave the health insurance companies state-backed monopolies furthering government intervention into the medical industry as well.

Come to think of it, I don't know who is the worst president we've ever had -- Nixon, or FDR?

Edit: I want to comment on the direction of the two parties in America, but I have to run to class. I'm just writing this as a reminder to myself.

Edited by Mammon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...