gbasden wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:47 am
Ugh. I do see where Fitzy is coming from. There are strains in the American left that would love to start running roughshod over others. Of course we need to look at our leaders with a skeptical eye. It's just hard to keep that in mind when every day is just another new mass of horrible.
I do have a question about this, though:
The other option I see is what I've seen bounced around here, Parliamentary government in which the majority, whoever that might be, crushes the minority under an authoritarian democracy.
I find this mildly surprising. You look at a country like Switzerland with multiple languages and ethnic groups and I don't see their Parliamentary system squashing minorities with an iron fist. Most of the evidence I've seen is that with multiple parties in play gaining seats, creating a coalition requires compromise - something we are in short supply of here.
I know nothing about Switzerland beyond it’s location so I can’t say. It’s also
probable I was annoyed when I posted this and over exaggerated. I do love our free speech, even knowing it causes problems, and I have observed, possibly unfairly, most European based systems have a tendency towards limiting free speech in some circumstances. However, I will take back the crushing minorities, especially since I meant minority polical parties and not minorities in the sense we use it, and even that was wrong. Plus the authoritarian democracy comment was maybe just a little over the top. Or flat out wrong, one or the other.
I would agree that more parties would help a lot, though I don’t think we need a parliamentary system to accomplish that. I heavily support the effort to get a few moderate Senators elected, enough to deny either party the majority. Though I am skeptical that it could happen or that it would work. If it did force compromise that would be worth the effort. But I don’t know.
Holman wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:48 am
So, Fitzy, since you singled me out, I feel I owe you a reply. (This weekend we were away at a beach house where internet coverage was too spotty to be worthwhile. It was heavenly.)
Thanks for the long posts. I mean that sincerely: you wrote a serious and full reply, and even though I believe you mis-characterized what I was saying, I do see the point you were making from your perspective.
What I think you have wrong (and others have pointed this out already) is the idea that anyone here is under the illusion that Dems are perfect or saints or immune to corruption. But the plain fact is that Trump's extremes are real and serious and threatening to our institutions far beyond anything Obama ever dreamed of doing (even taking your long list into account), and it's plainly obvious that only the Dems are both willing and capable of standing against them. Since standing against them is only possible with legislative power, that means we need more such Dems in the legislature. It's that simple, and that was literally my only point.
I wrote a bunch more, but I'll snip it. I hope and believe we understand each other's positions anyway.
Yeah, I apologize. All I believe is that we should simultaneously elect Democrats (though i admit to holding out hope for some independent moderates who would not support Trump) and we should hold them responsible. It was the second part I felt was being ignored in the discussion, so I chimed in. I thought I was expressing a simple hope we could hold Democrats to a higher standard and that it wasn’t a radical position.
Looking back I can see I did not express my viewpoint well, based on the responses and instead of trying to clarify I got irritated, beyond irritated actually, at feeling like I was being dumped on as a Trump supporter and the feeling that I was being told to be quiet for expressing what I thought was a minor variation.
That’s an excuse and I shouldn’t have done the same thing I felt people were doing to me, shutting down discussion by painting others viewpoints more extreme than they are is not right and I should not have done it. Nor should I have responded while angry, instead I should have waited until the anger cleared and I could see what people were actually arguing and not just how I interpreted it in the heat of the moment.
And yeah, i do agree with most of what is said. Remove Trump, remove the GOP support. I have no clue what happened to the GOP, but they do need a serious voter smackdown.
I can empathize with the idea of people not thinking this is the time to experiment with third parties or independent candidates.
