• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Both parties in danger of splitting apart? (1 Viewer)

David G

Member
Joined
May 2, 2016
Messages
156
Reaction score
59
Location
Portland, OR
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The Bernie insurgency is highlighting some differences among Democrats, for sure. But probably the Republicans are closer to such a split - echoing the split back when the Whigs became two parties: Republicans; KnowNothings.

The issue in both cases is a populist movement. Brought on by the dysfunction that manifests when we let our economy swing toward the oligarchic excesses of too much laissez-faire. Whether they've done the full analysis or not - mainstream R's are realizing they're on a kamikaze course. And many D's are realizing that there's been entirely too much collusion in promoting that agenda, and too little resistance.


http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/12/gop-...adline|headline|story&par=yahoo&doc=103630468

" Blumenthal said the Whig Party broke up for the same reason divisions are emerging in the Republican Party. The party was riven apart by disagreements over race and immigration, he said.

The Southern U.S.-centered Know Nothing members were nativists who objected to a wave of immigration, while Abraham Lincoln was anti-nativist, he said. In order to set up a new party, Lincoln had to figure out how to deal with a movement of radical abolitionists, Blumenthal added.

"So you had to deal with the party people and the movement people, so it all sounds similar, not only on the Republican side, but also on the Democratic side today," he said."
 
When both ruling parties split it will be a good day for American and for the world.
 
The Bernie insurgency is highlighting some differences among Democrats, for sure. But probably the Republicans are closer to such a split - echoing the split back when the Whigs became two parties: Republicans; KnowNothings.

The issue in both cases is a populist movement. Brought on by the dysfunction that manifests when we let our economy swing toward the oligarchic excesses of too much laissez-faire. Whether they've done the full analysis or not - mainstream R's are realizing they're on a kamikaze course. And many D's are realizing that there's been entirely too much collusion in promoting that agenda, and too little resistance.


http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/12/gop-...adline|headline|story&par=yahoo&doc=103630468

" Blumenthal said the Whig Party broke up for the same reason divisions are emerging in the Republican Party. The party was riven apart by disagreements over race and immigration, he said.

The Southern U.S.-centered Know Nothing members were nativists who objected to a wave of immigration, while Abraham Lincoln was anti-nativist, he said. In order to set up a new party, Lincoln had to figure out how to deal with a movement of radical abolitionists, Blumenthal added.

"So you had to deal with the party people and the movement people, so it all sounds similar, not only on the Republican side, but also on the Democratic side today," he said."

If it were only true! There would be hope for America.

DOWN WITH POLITICAL PARTIES!
 
I don't see the democrats being that close to a split; just the usual bellyaching by supporters of the "also rans". At one point in the primaries in '08, something like a third of HRC supporters said they wouldn't vote for BO if he won the nomination, and you're seeing something very similar with BS supporters now. They'll dutifully pull the designated lever in November.

The republicans? Maybe. Somehow Trump has been able to harness the enthusiasm of the TEA party movement without any of the core principles. Quite astonishing, really, being able to paint Cruz of all people as establishment.
 
Somehow Trump has been able to harness the enthusiasm of the TEA party movement without any of the core principles.

Very different people, very different enthusiasms. If anything, Trumpism is an anti-Tea Party counterrevolution. Trump followers perceive the Tea Party slogans (constitutionalism, limited government, free markets, fiscal responsibility) as "elitist talk", and pro-immigration classical liberals who were leading the tea parties as traitors.
 
Very different people, very different enthusiasms. If anything, Trumpism is an anti-Tea Party counterrevolution. Trump followers perceive the Tea Party slogans (constitutionalism, limited government, free markets, fiscal responsibility) as "elitist talk", and pro-immigration classical liberals who were leading the tea parties as traitors.
Perhaps, but I don't think I've heard Trumpistas say anything about the Tea Party at all, but quite a bit about the establishment. I suppose that after '10 and '14, the Tea party could be argued as becoming establishment; Cruz certainly got painted that way.
 
Perhaps, but I don't think I've heard Trumpistas say anything about the Tea Party at all, but quite a bit about the establishment. I suppose that after '10 and '14, the Tea party could be argued as becoming establishment; Cruz certainly got painted that way.

Yes, exactly. After all, energized by the crisis, the tea parties simply popularized and promoted ideas that the libertarian and conservative intellectuals and, off and on again, politicians expressed for decades. From the Trumpian point of view, they are the part of the problem.
 
I'd love to see about 8-10 parties in Congress with shifting coalitions focused on specific issues.

The short list:
Social Conservative/Fiscal Conservative
Social Conservative/Fiscal Moderate
Social Conservative/Fiscal Liberal
Social Moderate/Fiscal Conservative
Social Moderate/Fiscal Moderate
Social Moderate/Fiscal Liberal
Social Liberal/Fiscal Conservative
Social Liberal/Fiscal Moderate
Social Liberal/Fiscal Liberal

I think that too mane of our congresscritters feel bound by the two parties and would vote differently on a lot of issues if they weren't tied to the Party.
 
Y'all are crazy. You're going to let all the nutters gain legitimacy with political parties. Let's just swap the party names - republicans become the democrats and vice versa. That'll drive everybody nuts for a while. After that fades, we'll dream up something else to confuse the electorate. Maybe air meters for those who hyperventilate over politics. If you start hyperventilating, the air gets cut off. Should clean things up a little.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom