US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Commentary :: Environment
Will America's Two Party Couple ever have a Child?
06 Sep 2004
Time is ripe for a new major Party. It could be argued that the new Neo-Conservative movement could absorb the more protectionist, nationalistic Republican and Democratic members, while the less conservative Republican and hard line Democratic members could join the ranks of the new more conservative Democratic Party.

Will America's Two Party Couple ever have a Child?

Texas billionaire Ross Perot spent $80 million to defeat President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1992. Perot took almost 20 percent of the vote, more than enough to dump Bush and allow a legendary sleaze politician from Little Rock, Arkansas to seize the White House with only 42.9 percent of the vote. Bill Clinton was America’s first President to be elected twice with less than the majority vote. He was reelected with 49 percent of the vote in 1996. Again, Ross Perot took away enough votes from Republican Presidential candidate Bob Dole to allow the Little Rock philanderer to remain in the White House and continue to destroy the great American Dream with his destruction of the Defense Department, CIA and FBI.

Clinton never had a majority “mandate” to govern America. Yet Clinton signed into law thousands of legislative bills and executive orders in a wild effort to change the course and face of America, somehow believing he had the majority of voters supporting him, which, of course, he did not. What the Clintons did was to set the stage for the terrorist acts on 9/11 by downsizing our country’s intelligence gathering operations throughout most of the 1990s.


None of this would have happened in America and to America had it not been for a vengeful billionaire committed to destroying the first President Bush – Perot’s arch-enemy since the Iranian Revolution. It had to do with Perot’s business in Iran and the fact that Bush, also a Texan with powerful positions in the White House, wouldn’t bail out Perot’s company during the turmoil in Iran. Today, Americans are faced with choosing between a spineless, self-serving Kerry whose main focus seems to be his puffed up non-service in Vietnam, and his "hard stance" against terrorism. The protests against the war could be leveled at EITHER camp for this election. So where is this going?

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party have been married for more than 150 years, both children of the old Whig Party. The Slavery issue, however, marked the death knell of the Whigs as a Major Party: the Compromise of 1850 (which first adapted the concept of "squatter sovereignty" to the problem of the extension of Slavery to the territories) was lost in the battle over the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 (which first extended this principle north of the northernmost limit of Slavery under the Missouri Compromise of 1820). In the wake of the resultant political fallout, Free Soilers and so-called "Conscience" Whigs joined forces with so-called "Free" Democrats and even denizens of the nativist American (known colloquially as the "Know-Nothing") Party to sow the seeds of a new Major Party: one soon enough to become more generally known as the Republicans, the name of this Major Party to this day. Meanwhile, other Whigs (primarily in the South) joined the Democrats, while a core of so-called "old" Whigs (principally in the Border South) vainly attempted to hold what was, by now, an "anti-Free Soil yet pro-Union" faction together as the winds of Secession and Civil War began to intensify and the end of the 1850s drew nigh (this last remnant of the Whigs would become the core of a short-lived Constitutional Union Party by the 1860 Presidential Election). The 34th Congress [1855-1857], thus, can be seen as a more or less transitional period in which the final decay and decline of the Whigs was becoming offset by the shifting sands of the contemporary antebellum political landscape swiftly producing a new "Democrats versus Republicans" Major Party alignment: one that, at least insofar as the Parties' names are concerned, continues to this very day.

Time is ripe for a new major Party. It could be argued that the new Neo-Conservative movement could absorb the more protectionist, nationalistic Republican and Democratic members, while the less conservative Republican and hard line Democratic members could join the ranks of the new more conservative Democratic Party. The trouble with this is, that the two party system has so thoroughly saturated America that a third party usually has the effect of undermining candidates of one or the other major parties. That is how Clinton took the White House. Apparently, enough support exists to put Bush in for another four years, while the third (and fourth and fifth) party candidates (for a list of official parties recognized and running candidates in 2004, click here: http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm) will only serve to undermine Kerry's position, which is already precarious.



This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Re: Will America's Two Party Couple ever have a Child?
07 Sep 2004
It is indeed true that Clinton won because of Perot, that Bush won because of Nader, and that Bush will most likely win because Kerry is an example of the dwindling size of the democratic candidate. In fact Gore's loss is part of the overall dwindling in size of the Democratic Relevance.

Not to mention the fact that Democrats have lost me as a voter.

If the Democrats lose this time, when the leftist heart bleeds out all ventricles for the little (little, little) man, then the strongest argument has been made for disbanding the Democratic Party altogether.

How do you define neoconservative? In my lexicon Neoconservative is Perle, Feith Wolfowitz, JINSA, permanent US presence on all major continents, and a US, UK, Israeli alliance.

If you mean radical centrism, keeping illegals out, obliterating those who attack us, but doing it truthfully, (eg we are going to obliterate Saddam Hussein because we want his oil, and he is a relic of the Cold War), I support that.

I do not support having the Knesset on the floor of Congress. (This is not based on a concern for Palestinians). I do support a strong forward projected United States assembling the world into a Confederation of states, with a later Madisonian Federalization.

I do not however believe I have seen men up to the task of bringing this about.
Im not sure that Israel is part of the neo-con movement
08 Sep 2004
You pretty much have it right:

"How do you define neoconservative? In my lexicon Neoconservative is Perle, Feith Wolfowitz, JINSA, permanent US presence on all major continents, and a US, UK, Israeli alliance. "

All except Israel being in the "alliance". I support them, but they are given over to supporting their own self-interests over supporting any alliance with another nation. They will not fight in a war with us if we pre-emptively attack North Korea, but they would be the first to join in an Iranian strike.

"If you mean radical centrism, keeping illegals out, obliterating those who attack us, but doing it truthfully, (eg we are going to obliterate Saddam Hussein because we want his oil, and he is a relic of the Cold War), I support that."

EXACTLY. That's what you see on our boards, and that's what we support. We are also against those who attack the American way of Life (e.g. Anarchists, Socialists, Communists, Racists, Para-military groups, The Religious Right). We are Americans first, anything else second.