Lam : The original system of government of the USA was non-partisan. There were no provisions for political parties. It turned out that this system was unrealistic, it didn't work, parties developed and have proven to be powerful and enduring. Still, your argument about the need to move beyond partisanship is well taken. Look up "Quivira Coalition" for a Radical Centrst group that is actually doing things in the real world in a post-partisan way. Quivira is a movement now found in about 20 states of the USA and is mostly conceerned with ranching, local business, and the environment. This can work when the kind of politics is limited in scope to common interest goals which do not involve election to office. When no-one has a stake in becomming a senator or governor there is plenty of opportunity for post-partisan politics. Quivira defines itself even more narrowly, though, and tries not to beome involved in legislation. I have mixed feelings about that approach and can see its usefulness in some circumstances ---but prefer to think about desired new laws as necessary, or necessary evils. Anyway, you pose a worthwhile problem. What are the possibilities for post-partisan politics ? Billy ------------------------------------------------------------ In a message dated 12/25/2009 7:23:48 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
I've met enough politicians to know that they really aren't any more evil or selfish that 'ordinary citizens', and that most of them not only want to help serve the public, they sincerely believe they are doing so (even if they are generally wrong :-P). ( _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:111USHouseStructure.svg_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:111USHouseStructure.svg) ) Democrat Republican Ordinary? I do believe that everyone of us are born good. Though after joining a group, tendency is that people will fall into group-think and their opinion become marginalized. In theory, this doesn't matter since: A group owe it's existence to it's member and therefore exhibit their characteristics. Unfortunately in reality, especially in political organisations, members exhibit the characteristics of the group. This is because instead of the group owing existence to them, now they need the group. In this case, politicians needs the resources from political parties to enter the house. What happen after that? The group now decides what majority of their member will do. Members may sometimes disagree with the group, and could leave the group out of personal conscience, but only if they are willing to lose everything. It is easy to blame one's situation on the group and simultaneously hoping that her/she could have done more. Isn't that what everyone are doing? I'm not saying we put all the blame on "the bums" and replacing them with "decent people" who'll magically do a much better job. I'm saying we do away with partisanship, and the strings attached to it. I agree with you we need a root change in how we go about politics. For that to become widespread, people must understand the flaw of embracing political identity over effective governance. Or another way, where something disastrous happen in the government causing it to crumble altogether. Whichever come first. _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
