Republicans versus Democrats versus other Democrats versus...

We've been discussing the president an awful lot lately, but face it, there's a limit to what he can actually do. He can veto stuff, and he can declare war. Thats... not a whole lot of power, though he could certainly have stopped any Republican bills being passed had he been so inclined... a power he has yet to use in a significant manner, I note. Or if he has used it, I've yet to hear about it.

So, this is, quite simply, a place to discuss the two major American parties, and more specifically, the divisions and inter-rivalries plaguing both parties. And maybe get to the bottom of the mess the American political establishment appears to be in right now.

he hasnt had to use it much. Republican backed buills tend to be crazy enough to satisfy the Tea party in the House and therefore fail absolutely miserably in the senate.

He can also issue pardons.

Not that important for running a country on a day to day basis, though.

It's worth noting that while he's not connected to the party in the same way UK's PM's are, he is technicly in charge of his party and can lay down the gameplan. No official power in that regard, but he usually gives Dems in the Houses their marching orders.

Sounds like he lacks authority amongst his own members. I'm normally against the party whip system, but given the way the republicans have formed ranks and charged, the Democrats need to do the same if they're going to be left standing at the end of the battle.

Oh, not if you can imagine what havoc would occur with a few well-placed pardons:

"I hereby pardon all persons convicted of drug possession and no other violent crime"

"I hereby pardon all persons who are in this country without documentation and have committed no other federal crime."

Ok, so those are just off-the-cuff examples with a lot of flaws, and a more specific document would have to be issued, but it'd really knock over the house of cards.

He would have to be insane to have to do it, but hey, it's not like I've been elected. I can propose crazy BS.

it'd be a hilarious troll on the last day of his presidency before a republican president came in, thats for sure.

Ah, but the Republicans are far more divided at the moment, despite their dominance.

It's like a firebrand commander took a charge that did in fact smash the enemy, but has left his forces in disarray.

The Republicans will have a hard time consolidating their positions, especially once people wake up to some of the crap their pulling.

I've spent some time lately wondering if the Democrats could ever achieve the kind of unity the Republicans have. And, if they could, whether that would be a good thing or not. The right is made up of traditional power bases, the left is made up of the leftovers, and thus, is inherently disorganized. Under what conceivable scenario could the left unite? What banner, what left-compatible symbolism or ideology could possibly exert that power over voters and politicians, given the failure of existing symbolism and ideology to do so?

This would require, of course, casting out members of the party who refused to unite under a given set of ideals and a plan to achieve them. Would that then swell the Republican base and make the Democratic unification a self-destructive process? I honestly can't picture any compromise that would avert this while still getting to the end result of organized Democrats. There's the argument that the Democrats' strength is its diversity, but we've also been seeing a downside to that lately. Yet I see no alternative that does not also have its fair share of drawbacks.

I can stand a certain amount of disorganization, but only when it's equally distributed. Having stray cats fighting against a pack of dogs for control of the government is not a pleasant sight or a fair fight. Nor does my heart rejoice at seeing Democrats using self-destructive rhetoric against their own party as a matter of course.

Edit....

"The Republicans will have a hard time consolidating their positions, especially once people wake up to some of the crap their pulling."

If we've learned anything from Canada lately, it's that you can't count on people to just passively 'wake up' and fight what you consider abuse of power. You have to go out there and rattle the cages with sticks or otherwise personally inconvenience people for them to care about what happens in a nebulous bureaucracy that they take for granted.

edited 13th May '11 1:16:57 PM by Karkadinn

There's too damned many cages, that's the problem.

Eh part of the problem with Canada is our voting system. If we had more proportional representation, the conservatives wouldn't have nearly as much power as they do now.

And some people did wake up, the problem is we have 3 left wing parties so they end up squabbling with each-other over the left vote, and the conservatives have no competition so they get the whole right wing vote to themselves. It's basically the same situation as the states, the right-wing is unified (mostly) and the left-wing is fighting amongst themselves and have various conflicting ideas, the only real difference is the US's fighting is in one party and ours is spread throughout three.

We might as well have 2 left wing parties now (unless you meant the green party).

I think the US needs a 3rd, moderate party to force Republicans and Democrats to work for votes more and to encourage voting and sanity.

I wonder what would happen if the Democrats shifted rightwards to attract people like Barkey? (Of course, there's probably some reason why this would never, ever happen, but I'm not politically aware enough to know it.)

@Erock: Take a look at Kadima, in Israel, and tell us if you still want a centrist third party.

^^ They'd lose their liberal base. The hippies, eco-nuts, paranoid folks who detest guns and the anti-war-even-when-its-justified crowd. Those kinds of folks.

Basically they get the same problem the Republicans had in 2006 and 2008 by being "Democrat-lite" that is, they alienate their base and fail to gain moderates.

^ I was going to cite the precedent of ditching the Dixiecrats, but if Wikipedia is to be believed, their loss was a permanent penalty to the Democrats' ability to win southern states in presidential elections. Damnit.

No he can't. He's Commander In Chief, meaning he's in charge of the military, but he can't declare war. He can order certain military actions, but not declare war.

personally I want a credible party thats more left wing than the democrats. The Dems are too damned conservative sometimes.

I think the problem is (and correct me if I am wrong; I usually stay away from politics] that the parties sort of railroad their member's beliefs. When I read the newspaper, I read that very few politician oppose their parties general opinion in the Senate/House.

For example, the repelling of don't ask, don't tell:

Both parties do it (though republicans are way better at it) mostly because when an entire party votes in lockstep, they can brute force their talking points into law. Case in point. wisconsin.

I want to write a song about Wisconsin. Put it on the Country stations.

Not that important? The power to use pardons might be used to effectively nullify laws he doesn't like.

Let's imagine that a Prez wants to do away with, say, drug prohibition. If he systemmatically pardons each and every person convicted of drug use, he nullifies the law.

It only applies to Federal offenses, so if somebody is awry of a state specific law, it won't help. Or drinking in a dry county. So he can't pardon everybody who's in jail on marijuana offenses, just the ones who's offenses involved multiple states, and those are likely dealers.

And the day to day utility of the power is minimal, and most of the problems facing the country can't be fixed

A president can de facto nullify any federal criminal law if he so fancies. Presumably a libertarian prez would nullify the Controlled Substances Act and the Gun Control act that way.

You need a libertarian governor to neuter State drug and gun control laws.

edited 15th May '11 9:46:08 AM by SavageHeathen

That means everytime somebody got arrested on one of those charges he'd need to write a pardon. It would leach his time.

Plus all the states could then just be ready to charge them with those exact same offenses by puttting them on the books, meaning the law would be around, just enforced at the state level.

And trust me, each state putting the exact same law on the books is a lot more likely than liberterians picking up a single important position.