"On the other hand, the party alternatives and structures available at the moment all disgust me so much, I couldn't imagine getting personally involved - yeeuuch!"
My sentiments exactly. Not to mention the cesspool the press will drag your family through. I suppose if you're already rich and famous you're used to it but no one as anonymous as you and me would be stupid enough to do it. It's just insane. Maybe it's time to read Federalist No. 10 again. Revisit what James Madison wanted for the young republic. It's amazing how much things stay the same. The issues Hamilton and Jefferson struggled with are alive and well in today's politics as well. Fascinating. dj On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:46 AM, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Parties - one of the most important components of modern > representative democracies, and one of the most difficult. Their role > has developed historically over centuries to the stage where many more > modern constitutions actually accord them a formal role. Yet there is > something basically undemocratic about them. The basic idea behind > representative democracies is that citizens elect a representative, or > representatives to the legislative assemply to represent them. > Ultimately, the representative is responsible to his/her constituents > and must return to them regularly to have his/her madate renewed. End > results of this tendency include pork-barrel politics, sectionalism, > corruption and chaos. > > In the original British and US systems, elected representatives made > common cause with others of similar views within the assemblies and > the roots of parliamentary parties were born - Tories and Whigs > (although the tendency is much older, going back to medieval Italian > Guelphs and Ghibbelines or republican Roman boni and viri novi - > probably a deep-seated geneto-cultural grouping tendency). Today, > parties have - in many cases - a stranglehold on politics; many > European countries work with a "list" electoral system, which allows > for a proportion of representatives being elected on the basis of > party lists. There are positive aspects to this - proportional > representation is guaranteed (unlike in the British [or US] system > where, given three parties a party which obtained an [admittedly > unlikely] even geographical constituency spread of 34% of the vote > could obtain 100% of assembly seats) and legislators are protected > from narrow constituency pressures to concentrate on their real job - > legislating. Such systems also offer stabilising mechanisms, such as > minimal levels of votes necessary for party representation so as to > avoid the chaos caused by profligate party splintering, which can also > result in minor parties exerting undue influence in the negotiation of > coalitions (Israel is a cautionary example here - in Germany, on the > other hand, a party has to have 5% of the vote before it gets > representation in parliament). > > Of course, the down side is that elected representatives become mere > ciphers, cloned nonentities, whose only function is to vote according > to party policy. Literally, toeing the party line. Many western party > systems (and there is no significant difference across the political > spectrum) allow their parliamentary representatives less freedom of > conscience than Stalin's CPSU. You can buck the party whip all right, > but then, you'd better start looking for a new job after the next > election. And then the questions arise as to where the control within > the parties really lies, who is responsible for the formulation of > party policy, and whether these processes have anything to do with > democracy. > > I won't even go into one-party systems here - although they are not > always as un- or anti-democratic as one might think. > > As Neil says, it takes more than just a few bleats about transparency. > We have become cynical and resigned about politics and increasingly > disengaged in the representative democracies. Those who really profit > from this process are those interested in manipulating power for their > own ends. > > On the other hand, the party alternatives and structures available at > the moment all disgust me so much, I couldn't imagine getting > personally involved - yeeuuch! > > Francis > > On 1 Mrz., 08:30, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> Getting to the meat is key. Access to justice is still poor in the >> West and I suspect lawyers don't help this because of the money >> system. We need to be able to say boo to various gooses and I suspect >> we need a kind of constitutional reform pretty much not discussed. >> This isn't proportional representation or whatever, but about >> recognising how rotten power becomes. That senile old bastard Mugabe >> is a current classic - we need to be able to call him this, not 'Mr. >> President'. I remember being inspired by his intellect and rhetoric >> as a young man. New Labour in the UK look nearly as bad - maybe all >> that stops them giving us starvation and cholera is that we could rise >> up? Party politics, whether of the one-party state or multi-party is >> a major problem, not a cure. We have been taken into an unjust war >> and killed thousands in a manner as evil as anything Mugabe has done, >> and could not stop this by street protest or voting. I see a >> corruption of reason everywhere and am pretty damned sure I'm not >> paranoid. I believe we could find structural ways to prevent the >> corruption, but we need more than a few bleats about transparency. >> >> On 28 Feb, 14:58, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I guess one could say the same >> > about the worst of any group and perhaps the woman might be a bit >> > uniformed in that light. She seems to have partitioned a single >> > group. The chosen people concept surely would not bring about much >> > more that condemnation of the unchosen. I would welcome a similar >> > tirade against western ideologies as a whole. There have been some >> > strides in identifying the inconsistencies as of late but I don't >> > think it delves into the meat. Avoidance of exposure in political >> > circles may keep a quietus on such matters for quite some time. At >> > least we have the freedoms to carry out our tirades and diatribes >> > against anyone, with slight exceptions alluding to illegal >> > incitements. Wafa at least opens the door for this examination style >> > of Muslim terrorist tactic in a comparative sense. There are always >> > extremist views and overly zealous movements that initiate radical >> > communication methods. It actually happens on the local level in the >> > form of community outbursts stemming from disproportionate >> > distribution of resource. The Watts riots of 1965 Los Angeles may be >> > an example of such extremist tactic as it was a result of too many >> > requests falling on too many deaf ears. In the end I don't think >> > there was much justification or accomplishment in the destruction, >> > equally so with terrorist bombings. Making the right argument >> > definitely may effect the end result if the argument overcomes >> > cultural barriers. There is much to be debated. >> >> > On Feb 28, 5:14 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > We have our own fundamentalists of course. One could say much the >> > > same as Wafa Sultan against the worst of the Xtians and Jews. Chosen >> > > people mentalities are always bad. What might such a sensible tirade >> > > against Western foreign policy look like? In it all, how do we put >> > > forward reason without ditching the passion in which we hold it? Can >> > > anyone imagine our own politicians facing the concerns most of us in >> > > here share? Or even anything like this Al-jazeera debate? >> > > Thinking small, we have a massive problem in the West with an >> > > underclass we have created. Our 'answers' have been to create ghetto >> > > situations and hapless rhetoric that doesn't suit or even identify the >> > > real problems. If our bwankers have been little more than self- >> > > satisfied thieves running Ponzi schemes, our local authorities have >> > > also been run by people on fat salaries living away from the problems >> > > and making sure their own cozy lives are kept well away. We can't >> > > even get a review of how we were plunged into wars that make no sense >> > > - it may even be that we have not fought the right one. What have we >> > > done about our own medieval - the Undead? >> > > My general sense is that we can't make the right arguments. Racism >> > > has often seemed a good example. It's disgusting, yet partly genetic >> > > and common to us all. To have made this into a white man's burden and >> > > subject to political correctness has been to bury most of the >> > > problem. Our own general system has been shown to be disgustingly >> > > corrupt and even now we seem incapable of fixing it on the basis of >> > > discovering what was good in it and how we might move away from the >> > > inducements of massive (libidinal) riches as reward - perhaps our own >> > > virginal paradise? >> >> > > On 28 Feb, 05:40, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > One just as to say the woman is right. Towards the end she is given a >> > > > massively patronising look by some hatted votary, which says it all. >> > > > I know there is more to the story in history, but she is right in the >> > > > passion. >> >> > > > On 28 Feb, 03:58, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > Kudos, she says pretty much what I would say to the Arabs, Taliban, >> > > > > Al >> > > > > Quaida, the Pakistani ISI, the Chinese Communist Party and all other >> > > > > extremists who have taken recourse to violent and repressive means to >> > > > > up themselves and their beliefs. >> >> > > > > On 27 Feb, 17:33, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > I don't know how long this link will be active or if it can be >> > > > > > saved >> > > > > > but I thought it was worth acknowledgment. >> > > > > > The woman probably has a price on her head, but I do agree with >> > > > > > much >> > > > > > of what she is saying. >> >> > > > > >http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak >> >> > > > > > What do you think? > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
