The only thing I can say is:
“Desperate Times, Calls for Desperate Measures.” - Andrew Ryan, Bioshock
Also, I could go for anyone at this moment OTHER THAN SARAH PALIN!
Wow! How did I miss this topic? Lots of great posts and opinions in here. Well…one must jump in somehere, so…
An elimination of the party system may not be the only logical step, but political parties are the root of many evils and could be eliminated. The “primary election” problem is not hard to sort out. Governing groups like school boards are voted in by winnowing large numbers of candidates down to a select few based on the votes candidates get. That general model can apply to any elected office, including the executive branch. It would be different, true, but far more difficult things have been sorted out before. The main barrier is inflexible thinking about new things.
In broad strokes, a better system would encourage true public service on the part of elected officials. In the States, the system is geared toward who spends the most money to acquire or maintain their own wealth, power, and ego gratification while in office. No one follows the model of Cincinnatus, arguably the wisest politician in human history…because he achieved total power and relinquished it after completing his service to his constituents.
The main problem with political parties is that they never disband after achieving specific goals. It’s human nature to form coalitions to solve problems, and there is much potential for great achievements when people work toward common aims. But after specific problems are solved, the coalitions should also give way so that new coalitions, with new stakeholders, can form based on what’s needed to solve new problems. Instead, what we have are political parties that dig in and look for ways to perpetuate themselves while seeming to serve the public good. Tommyrot!
The United States will likely not realize anything like its full potential until the Democratic and Republican parties are dead and gone, with no other major parties to take their place. There is no need for any political party. All candidates can be party-independent and work within a successful government, forming temporary coalitions as needed.
Hey, I’m not holding my breath waiting for it to happen, either! But there it is…
Cheers, though! Steve
I really agree with this statement, we’ve been struggling with political parties ever since the Founding Fathers, when it was Democratic-Republicans vs. The Federalists.
In fact, George Washington did not like political parties, and didn’t think they had any place in American politics. I should say so, afterall he had to listen to Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson and Federalist Alexander Hamilton bicker during Cabinet meetings, so I see where his dislike of parties began!
I know everyone here and in this country probably hates this idea. But this is me not caring and sharing my real feelings for a minute.
I think we need a dictator. Not a psycho, racist lunatic like Hitler or Stalin, but one more like FDR. Now, I realize that FDR was a president. But during WWII, he several times behaved like a dictator, doing things without consulting congress. Now, you can hate me or say I’m crazy, but either way, a dictatorship is the most efficient, effective form of government. In this country, nothing gets done. Why is this? Because it’s a BUREAUCRACY! You have to go through levels upon levels before anything happens, and then it’s not the result you wanted, anyway. We need someone who can make compromises, and do wat’s best for everyone, not just the majority. Because no matter how big and tough the majority gets, there will always be a minority. And they need things, too. Ignoring them won’t help you.
I think JustSteve’s points are pretty interesting. Having independents would be a very interesting idea - coming together instead for various goals rather than simply because they belong to the same group. Of course, the thing would be that people would have to be mature at the same time and not act like petty children. I mean, like, absolutely no trading on deals - I mean, to say, just because someone backed you up on one idea in the past doesn’t mean they should somehow expect the same in return for their own idea even if you don’t agree to it - people should only support each other in a particular policy if they genuinely agree to the goal in question. Other and past goals should only be an issue if say they conflict in some way (say in expenditure as an obvious example).
I think the problem with dicators is IGV, is that it’s different being a war-time leader as opposed to one in peace plus of course with dictators, things change (power can still corrupt after all) and they wouldn’t last forever anyway even if they were utterly perfect somehow. Plus, people in general just aren’t perfect. Sure, you get the odd person who can work in both peace and war but they’re a rarity. I think even Churchill, while hailed as a great man here, was perhaps more the type of man for a war-time leader than one in peace if I emember correctly! He was what was needed at the time, but I don’t think he’d fit now. Technical ‘peace’ time is a bit different to full blown world war time.
I agree, however, that minorities shouldn’t be ignored. They deserve the same rights as people in the majority overall. Even if the majority doesn’t like them for whatever reason. People are people, and not letting them have the same rights as other people, just because they’re in a smaller, unpopular group doesn’t mean they should say be stripped of normal human rights and dignity.
To quote Founding Father, James Madison:
“The accumulation of all powers; legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny”
FDR was never at once a dictator. Sure he served twice as long as most presidents, but never once was he a dictator. Even when Abraham Lincoln suspended the right to Habeus Corrpus, that wasn’t a dictorial move, because it was supported by the US Constitution. It may of seemed like something a dictator would of done, but it wasn’t within unrestriced control.
The definition of a dictator is an absolute ruler who’s rule is based on tranny and unrestricted control.
None of that sentence applies to any US President, inclduing FDR (Thank God).
I’d do anything in my power to make sure this doesn’t happen in this country. I would never want an absolute ruler who’d make any decision he’d want, without the consult of the US Constitution or the Senate and House.
There’s a reason that the United States is built on a system of Checks and Balences, it’s so we can NEVER have a dictator.
I said he wasn’t a dictator. But, when something had to be done right then, he took on the imperial presidency. He did things without consulting congress. I think this was the best overall for the country, because, well, we won the war and liberated much of Europe.
I know what I believe is wrong. I know. It’s just the most logical, efficient way to get things done, and I’ll always desire a similar scenario. Or a king/queen would be fine with me. Sadly, I don’t think that exists anywhere save for constitutional monarchies, where the power still lies with the prime minister or president. So, I’m pretty much stuck in a democracy. 
I know most people like it, but people in general, especially in the USA are way too ignorant to govern a country. I hate out government, because it is comprised of average, ignorant, uneducated beings. These people deserve rights just the same, but not government of the country. I hate the idea of a representative or direct Democracy.
But, then again, no system of government is evil. Only the people behind it can become corrupt. A dictatorship or monarchy is the most efficient and inexpensive, but 99% of people here would protest anything non-Democratic. I hate close-mindedness almost as this place…almost.
It wasn’t only America, you know. 
But, yes, you helped, too! Without both America and the Russians, well…
Yeah.
I think the thing is IGV that while quicker, that isn’t necessarily what is best all the time. Plus, as mentioned before war-time and peace-time decisions are different. Not everyone who is a good war leader would be good in peace time, either. Sometimes people need people to answer to. The thing is in a monarchy for instance - people inherit on the basis of merely blood for instance. That’s the only criteria there, and being born accidentally into a family isn’t I think the best qualifier for true leadership.
Dictators are also only answerable to themselves. Which means corruption can occur even in the odd case where say one might have started with good intentions. People are extremely falliable after all, too. Having one life-long ruler or party just doesn’t seem to work very well.
Quicker decision making doesn’t necessarily mean better decisions.
Even Britain eventually decided that simply did not work (full on monarchy), even though the monarchs are still around in some form. Granted in a weird way the Queen still has power - in new laws for instance the government makes the decisions, but she signs them herself afterwards in documents and then they get passed.
Of course, if she said ‘no’ then that could mean she is forced to abdicate in any case later on, because people would think she’d gone mad or something. Same if say she’d decided to declare war on any country (another power she technically has), also to free all the prisoners in jail in Britain (because… they’re in the monarch’s name)/ Also knight who she wants etc etc. And I think she has other powers technically, but she’d never be crazy enough to use them on her own whims. Because in the end she’d eventually be dismissed and we’d become a full republic (probably) with no kings or queens.
So, now she’s merely there to meet people from other countries and so on. Sort of almost like an ambassador only for the public I guess rather than anything politically serious. There’s really little point to having her sign the laws I think, just like having her there when they open parliament - but it’s traditional it seems dating back to the days when monarchs still had considerable power, even if it’s kind of meaningless now considering the circumstances.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, what? I hope you misworded because from what you just said it seems like you’re saying that all 307,006,550 people of the USA are too ignorant to govern ourselves? Everyone? It seems like you’re sticking to the stereotypical 'dumb American steryotype. Stereotype.
Sure, we’ve made mistakes. What countries haven’t? I’d rather be living here than in some other countries. Just talk to Spirit of Adventure, he’s made it clear what type of country he lives in! I have friends in China that have to be careful when IMing me because they are watched. I have friends who immigrated here from Mexico, and have done so, because they were oppressed.
The US isn’t perfect, believe me! We’re in a war we shouldn’t be in, and are spending way too much money on the military. But I never ,never, take for granted what we have!
Britain isn’t perfect, either, but we’re also luckier than many other countries and so is America to others - it’s what comes with being in a democratic first world country. Democracy isn’t perfect, but it’s better than the other solutions and what can and could happen. And then there’s the things with politions in general - none of them are perfect, so people choose them. No perfect person exists in any case, which is a reason why I wouldn’t like to see someone have a life time position as leader of a country. They need to be answerable to someone.
Of course, a problem is when politions try for short term goals and just try to earn votes rather than do what is right in the long-term. But I wouldn’t really do away with democracy. The consequences which could result in utter disaster are even greater there.
I see what you’re saying, MG. And I meant the allies, not just us. Sorry. 
Like I said, I know my ideas aren’t politically correct. They’re just my ideas. I don’t think common people should decide the country’s fate. 
I realize anyone is completely open to failure, even the smartest, most open-minded being. I would just much prefer that fallible being to 50,000000000000 fallible beings, or however many live here. I hate our government. I hate it so bad it makes my blood boil.
One example I like to use is Ivan the Terrible. Now, don’t kill me, hear me out. Ivan the Terrible was born into the Grozny family, so was not a dictator. He was a Czar, the Russian form of Caesar.He was loved by his people because he brought in more and more war wins and glory for Russia. He was even named Ivan the Terrible by his people, in love. To them, Terrible meant fierce and bad—for their enemies. Weird how that works; you’d think they meant he was cruel. Later in life, he became hard, even evil to his people. This was due to mental illness brought on by Mercury poisoning.
He did become corrupt near the end of his life, but until someone poisoned him, causing strokes of violence and rage, he was loved and respected by everyone around him, save for the Bouyars, who were only jealous of his power.
But, AGAIN, no system of government is evil. It’s the people behind it who determine the outcome.
MentalGuru: Your post is very true, I like what you said. No country on Earth is perfect. Whether it’s Communist run China, Constiutional Monarchy Britian, or Democracy United States. No system is perfect, because there’s nothing to make everyone happy.
I’m sorry if I sounded upset, Virginia. I just can’t stand that “dumb ignorant American” stereotype. There are a lot out there who know more about American Idol contestants than our Presidents. But not all of us are “too ignorant to govern ourselves”.
Also, if the US WAS a dictatorship, you might not even have the right to discuss politics or other forms of government! That’s the beauty of it, Virgnia, you can discuss having a dictator in a democracy and not be thrown in jail for it!
I just get defensive about it because America isn’t that bad, I see no reason to complain. There was a foreign exchange student from Egypt in my school during my junior year. She is a born Christian. It is legal for her to convert to Islam. However, if a Muslim born converts to Christianity, that is ILLEGAL. And people say we are not free here? Ridiculous. I would never give up my Democracy.
There are things American politicans have done I am ashamed of. We are spending money “fixing” the Middle East, when we have NEW ORLEANS. You can’t believe it until you’ve seen it with your own eyes, I didn’t know we had poverty like that in the US, but we do.
Okay, I’m done arguing my case. I knew it would be the losing idea. I don’t have it to win; I have it because I believe it. And I didn’t say politicians are evil. Most aren’t. Most are just people with college degrees. I just think our government is way too big, and one person could fix that.
Either way, I’m done here. Have fun. 
Okay, I’m locking this. It’s caused way too much trouble than it’s worth.