Mr. Swim needs to get a clue. It's truly shocking that people of his caliber are
Directors at our Policy Institutes. I hope that no elected official considers
the policies supported by this institute to be worthy of any consideration. While it's true that the spirit of party isn't good for this country,
isn't found in the Constitution and is generally bad it's the conservatives led
by Alexander Hamilton who started it and all we can do is be thankful for men
like Thomas Jefferson who while opposed to parties decided to resist those who
would lead this country to its doom. We should be grateful that men like
Washington resisted this spirit because the conservatives would have started
this a lot sooner.We should all pray that we will find peace and
that the spirit of party will be dispelled but so long as there are
conservatives and Republicans intent on harming us and our families we will
fight back, we will resist their efforts and defend what we love from them.
Let's all pray that our families will be kept safe from Republican voters who
want to hurt us and harm us.
So, is the author suggesting a one-party system?No checks and balances?Isn't that fascism?
We don't have a two party system. We have one party with two factions. One
leans left, the other leans further to the left.
Instead maybe he's suggesting anarchy with everyone out for themselves.
"Republicans seek to harm families.." needs to reel in the hyperbole. Painting
with a brush that broad is ignorant of reality and inflamatory. All are entitled
to their opinion, but branding conservatism and "Republicans" as some great evil
and a threat to all families is plain absurd. Under the broad strokes used to
vilify conservatives herein, exactly the same tripe could be thrown at liberals
and the "fascist" left. (in case anyone wondered, fascism isn't the sole bastion
of the "neocons" and, forgive me, Limbaughites. It is merely thrown first to
deflect such underpinnings in thosethrowing out the mud.
Why not do away with political parties, and have all candidates be "independent"
instead? Elected officials would then not be beholden to a national party
agenda, but rather to their constituients, and conscience. Also, in order to
win election, a candidate would have to win more than 50 percent of the vote.
If not, then a run-off election between the two top candidates would be
mandated. This would be required for all elections, including President.
I commented poorly about the Sutherland Institute - but after reading people
comments I thought I would interject. The reality is the letter is correct.
There is NO mention of parties in the constitution. The federalist papers
warned of these factions being created and taking away from the voice of the
people. However parties quickly developed soon after the creation of the
country. Jefferson said there is no way to avoid factions - but we must just
control them from getting out of control.In Utah - one faction is
out of control. And the people refuse to control it.
As I see it, a candidate's loyalty to his party often is greater than his
loyalty to his constituents. When that happens, he no longer represents his
constituents. On the other hand, a lone independent voice may not be heard
above the clamor of the political parties. The war between the two
major parties has been so intense during this session of Congress that nothing
of substance has been accomplished. To cure that condition, irresponsible
legistators should be fired and responsible legistators should be elected. By
responsible, I mean legistators who represent their constituents, not their
party.A political party should not control the legistators, but
should provide information and services to enable the legistators to function
effectively without redundancy in each legistator's office.
"Let's all pray that our families will be kept safe from Republican voters who
want to hurt us and harm us."Let's all pray that we will be kept
safe from Democrats who want to raise taxes and give us socialized medicine.
In all this talk about parties, let's not forget: the political parties are
nothing more nor less than people (voters! constituents! citizens!) joining with
other people with similar values and goals. They are loose coalitions at best,
with a continuum of beliefs within them, but with enough internal consistency to
warrant their combination. Political parties are people! They do
not fall outside the system. If you want to affect parties, get involved!As for me, I'd really like to see how a three-party system would
"In Utah one faction is in control - and the people refuse to control it."I love statements like this because they both bely the ignorance of the
person making the statement and they belittle the american people. This implies
that everyone has been duped and no one is capable of rational thoughts - except
of course for the person who said this. This is the standard "why can't
everyone else see that i am the only one who is right?" argument. Of course if
you are not inclined to believe what the MAJORITY believe, you will feel they
are "running amok". It jsut means you are in the minority. Democratic
republics tend to work that way, as our representatives are voted in by the
majority.By the way, those are PEOPLE who are voting, so apparently
the people are controling it, just not the way YOU want them to.
I tend to agree with the opinion writer. Political parties and their control of
our politics is out of hand.I think the opinion writter was against
party-bondage in general... He didn't say we have the wrong NUMBER of parties
(which many commenters have fixated on).I don't agree with
"Anonymous" or "AMR" that lessening Party aligence means we must go to one of
the other extreems (1-party/facism or anarchy). There are some other less
extreem options... Like candidates being more independent (which isn't the same
as anarchy).I don't think keeping the status quo and just adding a
3rd party would be an improvement. It would just add more petty pickering and
impediments to progress.Currently 3rd party/independent candidates
are not viable candidates. Their contribution of ideas is very valuable, but
they have no chance of being elected or succeeding in implementing their ideas
if elected (because of party politics).Currently a 3rd party
candidate can only be a spoiler in varying degrees to the other candidates (not
a help to any candidate or the United States).More independence
accross the board would be an improvement. A move to 1 or 3 parties doesn't fix
Republicans seek to destroy needs to review his history. Having read excellent
biographies on Hamilton, Jefferson, and Washington (I still need to read the one
on Adams), I think he is painting the wrong person as the villain. Many
historians agree that Washington would have been considered a Federalist
(Hamiltons and Adams) party. Jefferson began his campaign of dirty tricks early
in the 1st Washington administration while he was Secretary of State. His
intent was to undermine the office of the president as he was opposed to the
office and the power therein. Was Hamilton guilty of responding? Absolutely,
but Jefferson also used minions, (Madison and Monroe) to attack both Hamilton
and Washington. Jefferson was anything but the loyal opposition. Washington, I
think, would have to have been considered among the conservatives of the era.
He wrote a letter to a friend talking about the different directions the
industrial north and agricultural south were heading, and said if the different
directions ever resulted in a conflict, he would have to side with the north.
Jefferson definitely preferred the southern agricultural lifestyle, though it
depended on slave labor to be sustained. Remember, the liberals supported
slavery, the conservatives opposed it.
Republicans seek to destroy also needs to review his understanding of Jefferson
and political parties. Jefferson started the Democratic Party (though it was
known as the Republican Party then, Lincoln was among the first members of the
current Republican Party). Some may question whether Washington would be
considered a conservative, since he led the continental army. Hamilton also
served under Washington and led a charge overrunning a British position at
Yorktown, and Hamilton definitely was a conservative. Jefferson, on the other
hand, failed to mobilize the militia or take other reasonable and prudent
actions to protect the colonial capital of Williamsburg when the British
invaded, he ran away.
Lost in DC, It's so wonderful that you know so much because you read a few
books. I'm not painting any person as the villian but am pointing out Hamilton
started it. This is a historical fact. The election of 1800 was a turning point
in our country. It was in this election that Jefferson defeated Adams who was
fool. Jefferson was correct in resisting the power of the Presidency
and should be commended for setting a precedent. But of course you feel that
Hamilton who thought the British form of government was the best in the world
was only "guilty of responding." It's a given reality that Hamilton was a
monarchist who sought the Presidency. Furthermore, Jefferson was
opposed to slavery and spoke out against it and attempted to include it in the
Declaration of Independence. I suggest you read the original draft of the
Declaration because you accept revisionist history. It was the liberals who
opposed it. In addition they were the ones who fought for the Bill of Rights
while the likes of Madison stated that the role "of government is to protect the
opulent from the majority." Washington wasn't much better either.
Maybe George W. Bush is right after all.Maybe the Constitution is "just a
piece of paper."
Go ahead and rewrite history: read the first comment where the author paints
conservatives as villains. Jefferson would not have been elected but
for the political compromise that gave southern states an electoral advantage.
Slaves were property, not people, yet they were counted as population when
electoral votes were allotted. Without the electoral votes given by the
inclusion of slaves in the population, he wouldn't have been elected president.
Jefferson never freed his slaves; his opposition was in word only, not in deed.
Hamilton did not support a monarchy; the charge is left from
Jeffersons attacks. He favored an ordered society, seeing the danger that
exists with anarchy; Jefferson never did. Jefferson refused to see the excesses
of the French revolution. Jefferson was nave to the depths of depravity to
which people could descend. Hamilton sought the presidency, so did Jefferson,
so whats so criminal about that? Jefferson opposed the power of the presidency,
but lusted after and actively sought it. If he truly opposed it, why would he
seek it?Jefferson also had a knack for ignoring laws that were not
to his advantage. He smuggled material out of Italy; had he been caught, the
penalty was death.
I don't think anyone is "painting conservatives as villains" as "lost in DC"
would like us to believe.That sort of thing is what the Limbaughites like
to do - make villains of ... well, EVERYBODY that disagrees with conservatives.
I really do not have the slightest notion as to just what it is that our
so-proclaimed conservatives are trying to conserve? All I see happening is a
widening gap between Americans.
Maybe Mr. Swim is worried that his pawns in the legislature are going to get
cleaned out. He wants to be governed by principles? How about the principle that
elected leaders actually represent what the people want rather than what some
"institute" wants? How about spending legislative time on things that the people
care about? How about making sure that district boundaries work to ensure people
have a chance to be represented by one with similar interests? The Sutherland
Institute is a group of Pharisiacal nincompoops.
Anon 5:34 -- Try these on for size:1. A culture whose default
setting isn't calibrated to produce a nation of Britney Spears clones.2. An economic system that maximizes individual freedom. (Unfortunately,
there are about six self-proclaimed conservative politicians who are really
consistent on this, including Jeff Flake; the rest are standard-issue
porkbarrelers once in office.)3. Individual freedom generally. The
old saying is that Republicans want to regulate the bedroom (and even that isn't
true anymore), while Democrats want to regulate everything else. (Save the
apoplexy about FISA, etc. for another space; short version -- you're straining
at a gnat and swallowing a camel; counterterrorist powers don't hold a candle to
the power the government already seized, with bipartisan assent, via the "drug
war.")4. Civilizational confidence. While it's useful to have a
loyal opposition to keep confidence from becoming arrogance, it's useful for the
people ostensibly in charge to know what side they're supposed to be on. Robert
Frost once defined a liberal as someone so fair-minded he was incapable of
taking his own side in a fight; the old boy wasn't too far off.
Utah has a three party system, and GOP chair Stan Lockhart is chairman of two of