I propose that if one views the political parties (Democratic and Republican) as charities, their behavior becomes logical and obvious. By seeing them as a charity, with their leadership as the beneficiary of the contributions, one can understand why they do things that from the point of view of a contributor are not consistent with the stated goal.
A charity must convince contributors that there is a problem and that contributions to this organization will alleviate the problem. They must also keep contributors aware of the fact that the problem has not been solved. If the contributor believes that the problem has been solved then the contributions will end.
This is not meant to be an attack on charities. The fact that we may never eliminate the need for animal shelters does not mean that we should give up on the effort. Rather this is a question of the blind support of charities that do not try to achieve the goal sold to the contributors.
The parties discovered, very early I suspect, that when the party is not in charge they find it easier to get contributions to the party. If your given group feels that the government is doing well then the contributions go down. So the parties have as a goal to convince people that the government is doing a bad job, and that it is the fault of the other party.
The parties like the 50-50 split that they have created. By doing this, they maximize the amount of money they make. Remember that the leading party is at a disadvantage in fundraising. By making sure that there is not a leading party, both parties can depict themselves as the one in need of help. This increases the urgency for the contributor to make a donation to make the swing in the party’s advantage. Remember, belief that the problem has been solved will end donations. For the leaders of the parties the greatest fear is that the people will believe in one ideology. We will all be in support of this ideology and will discontinue our support of the parties as adversarial entities. Think about the myriad of contradictions that the parties make. The Republicans are “pro-life” but support the death penalty. Democrats are the party of labor but support the illegal immigrants. These are only a few of the contradictions but are indicative of the problem. There is never a goal of solving the problems, only to depict the other as the cause. Remember they do not actually want to win by a mandate. That would give them culpability for the result and gives them no leverage to claim that the other party is to blame.
The solution is elusive. Can we really create a moderate party that will find a compromise between the two parties? The vast majority of contributions to the political parties come from the far “radicals” of each side, the individuals that ignore the illogical contradictions of the parties. The people that make up the middle ground have no party to contribute to. They simply split their vote to the 50-50 that the parties want and continue to complain about the fact that the government is corrupt.
I am unsure how to create a third party in this country. Parliamentary system may be required. The sad reality is the founding fathers gave us a system that allows us to have a third party. All it requires is for the American people to be able to analyze more than two choices. If you are not a diehard supporter of either of the parties the only way to regain control of government is to stop splitting your vote between the two parties that have never considered your desires. I believe if you want to save the American dream one must forsake whichever party you are supporting. The only revolution required in America is to solve the problem of the two party adversarial system and create a truly unbiased, central point in America. One that only has the best interests of America in mind, not the party’s best interest. To summarize; the Democrat and Republican parties are the problem, neither are the solution.
This blog post is an expansion on a forum post I made. I know it is repetative but I thought it was a good expansion and was responsive to the "You are all hypocrites" blog that I thought was excellent.
A charity must convince contributors that there is a problem and that contributions to this organization will alleviate the problem. They must also keep contributors aware of the fact that the problem has not been solved. If the contributor believes that the problem has been solved then the contributions will end.
This is not meant to be an attack on charities. The fact that we may never eliminate the need for animal shelters does not mean that we should give up on the effort. Rather this is a question of the blind support of charities that do not try to achieve the goal sold to the contributors.
The parties discovered, very early I suspect, that when the party is not in charge they find it easier to get contributions to the party. If your given group feels that the government is doing well then the contributions go down. So the parties have as a goal to convince people that the government is doing a bad job, and that it is the fault of the other party.
The parties like the 50-50 split that they have created. By doing this, they maximize the amount of money they make. Remember that the leading party is at a disadvantage in fundraising. By making sure that there is not a leading party, both parties can depict themselves as the one in need of help. This increases the urgency for the contributor to make a donation to make the swing in the party’s advantage. Remember, belief that the problem has been solved will end donations. For the leaders of the parties the greatest fear is that the people will believe in one ideology. We will all be in support of this ideology and will discontinue our support of the parties as adversarial entities. Think about the myriad of contradictions that the parties make. The Republicans are “pro-life” but support the death penalty. Democrats are the party of labor but support the illegal immigrants. These are only a few of the contradictions but are indicative of the problem. There is never a goal of solving the problems, only to depict the other as the cause. Remember they do not actually want to win by a mandate. That would give them culpability for the result and gives them no leverage to claim that the other party is to blame.
The solution is elusive. Can we really create a moderate party that will find a compromise between the two parties? The vast majority of contributions to the political parties come from the far “radicals” of each side, the individuals that ignore the illogical contradictions of the parties. The people that make up the middle ground have no party to contribute to. They simply split their vote to the 50-50 that the parties want and continue to complain about the fact that the government is corrupt.
I am unsure how to create a third party in this country. Parliamentary system may be required. The sad reality is the founding fathers gave us a system that allows us to have a third party. All it requires is for the American people to be able to analyze more than two choices. If you are not a diehard supporter of either of the parties the only way to regain control of government is to stop splitting your vote between the two parties that have never considered your desires. I believe if you want to save the American dream one must forsake whichever party you are supporting. The only revolution required in America is to solve the problem of the two party adversarial system and create a truly unbiased, central point in America. One that only has the best interests of America in mind, not the party’s best interest. To summarize; the Democrat and Republican parties are the problem, neither are the solution.
This blog post is an expansion on a forum post I made. I know it is repetative but I thought it was a good expansion and was responsive to the "You are all hypocrites" blog that I thought was excellent.