Political Neutrality

[Godzilla2000]

I've just been thinking an awful lot about this lately, mostly because I'm very dissatisfied with the way American politics has evolved into something resembling selfish ambition and less about civic duty. I am confused about this whole presidential election stuff because I really don't know who to pick. I just cannot stand 100% behind either candidate because I am one to not put my faith in all the flowery words and rhetoric politicians like to use. I just don't truly believe either Romney or Obama can fix all the problems that have been the legacy of past presidents, both Republican and Democrat.

But is it a bad thing to be politically neutral and not side completely with either party? God knows politicians need a neutral Watch Dog type group to keep them both in check when they let bureaucracies and their political party passion interrupt rational thinking. Every divided side needs neutral mediation as a buffer between the two political parties.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You may be surprised to learn that many people are fairly apolitical. It's just that they don't talk about their apathy towards politics a lot.

Only a little over half of the United States votes in elections. That's people who can vote (i.e. people over 18).

And there are a lot of independents.

 

[chaseter]

Set congressional and senate term limits (2 terms each like the president) and enact campaign finance reform (each candidate running can only receive and spend x amount). Have their wages dependent upon the economy or unemployment figures.

Politics has become a life long job for a lot of these people. Hell, there are even political families...I don't know why the fug they think that is admirable. When it becomes your life blood, people get nasty. When you have the chance to remain in office for essentially until you die, you get cozy with big wig donors that fund your super pacs. American Democracy is a shell game...a two shell, shell game.

 

[SV Fan]

I think the key to changing political culture is vote in primaries. About 7-8% of people vote in primaries and generally vote more extreme candidates. If more people voted in primaries chances are you would get less polarizing candidates

 

[enterthemadness]

I've just been thinking an awful lot about this lately, mostly because I'm very dissatisfied with the way American politics has evolved into something resembling selfish ambition and less about civic duty. I am confused about this whole presidential election stuff because I really don't know who to pick. I just cannot stand 100% behind either candidate because I am one to not put my faith in all the flowery words and rhetoric politicians like to use. I just don't truly believe either Romney or Obama can fix all the problems that have been the legacy of past presidents, both Republican and Democrat.

But is it a bad thing to be politically neutral and not side completely with either party? God knows politicians need a neutral Watch Dog type group to keep them both in check when they let bureaucracies and their political party passion interrupt rational thinking. Every divided side needs neutral mediation as a buffer between the two political parties.

There are 3rd parties you know, right? The Biggest one is the Libertarian Party. They have a excellent nominee in Gary Johnson. He is polling at 4.3% now according to a JZ(Zogby) Poll. He will unleash a media buy by mid Sept, Radio ads are going out around then or sooner.

If you don't like the LP, there's Jill Stein of the Green Party. Doesn't have the record that Gary has, but she is a Doctor and I believe went to Harvard. She has unleashed tv ads in 3 states this past week.

 

[SV Fan]

There are 3rd parties you know, right? The Biggest one is the Libertarian Party. They have a excellent nominee in Gary Johnson. He is polling at 4.3% now according to a JZ(Zogby) Poll. He will unleash a media buy by mid Sept, Radio ads are going out around then or sooner.

If you don't like the LP, there's Jill Stein of the Green Party. Doesn't have the record that Gary has, but she is a Doctor and I believe went to Harvard. She has unleashed tv ads in 3 states this past week.

There is also Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party who is polling pretty good in Virginia(enough that he might win the State for Obama by taking a couple percent)

 

[enterthemadness]

There is also Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party who is polling pretty good in Virginia(enough that he might win the State for Obama by taking a couple percent)

Yes, but I only have harsh words for him...so I didn't mention him.

Curse/cuss words aside, I do not like his anti gay marriage and civil union views or his policy on immigration and the border. He is nothing more than a party flipper (Republican, Democrat, Independent), and is basically a GOP running 3rd party. You could almost say Johnson is a GOP running 3rd party, but even GOP'ers would say he was a Republican in name only, he ran New Mexico really as a Libertarian in the Republican Party.

good thing I'm not a moderator on the debates...I also would ask Romney and Obama fastball questions.

 

[SV Fan]

Yes, but I only have harsh words for him...so I didn't mention him.

Curse/cuss words aside, I do not like his anti gay marriage and civil union views or his policy on immigration and the border. He is nothing more than a party flipper (Republican, Democrat, Independent), and is basically a GOP running 3rd party. You could almost say Johnson is a GOP running 3rd party, but even GOP'ers would say he was a Republican in name only, he ran New Mexico really as a Libertarian in the Republican Party.

The Constitution Party seem to be libertarians fiscally, but republicans socially(to an extreme)

While I am no fan of the party myself, I don't like how the Republicans are doing everything they can to try keep them off the ballet in Virginia(grant you I would love nothing more then see them get more votes then the difference between the Dems beating the Republicans. lol)

In all honesty if I am the Democrats I funnel some money for them to campaign hard in Virginia.

 

[AlexDenver]

I agreed with what you're really trying to say.I know that you were able to watch the presidential debates of Election 2012.If you think those arguments gave you a good picture of who the very best person to lead the nation is, you are wrong. The televised presidential debates locked out 14 other viable prospects - and the Democrats and Republicans consent to lock them out because they're afraid of opposition. Source of article: presidential debates

 

[Godzilla2000]

It's like I said, the Republicans and the Democrats need to have their abuses reigned in by a politically neutral group of people so that we can have the fair, civil government our founding fathers wanted for this country. Seriously have we traded in one sovereign monarchy for another in this country?

 

[Paradoxium]

Don't vote with your ballot, vote with your feet and money. If it stinks, work on a second passport, and another language.

 

[Destructus86]

It's like I said, the Republicans and the Democrats need to have their abuses reigned in by a politically neutral group of people so that we can have the fair, civil government our founding fathers wanted for this country. Seriously have we traded in one sovereign monarchy for another in this country?

Short answer...yes. And that kind of change won't happen. Between the two groups there is WAY too much power and money in control.

 

[wiegeabo]

Until people realize that they're supposed to have the power, and start forcing change and forcing politicians to listen to them, or be ousted, this general apathy is not going to go anywhere.

It's a viscous cycle.
-People see bad politicians get reelected because so many voters either just blindly vote party, or don't do any research. (Or use some fancy cognitive dissonance to ignore the research.)
-Since they don't feel their vote is making a difference, they don't vote next time
-Which just gives the 'blind' voters more influence
-Which means bad politicians keep getting reelected
-Which means more voters don't vote
-Rinse, repeat...

And add to that the fear that voting for a third party is somehow a spoiler vote, or wasted vote, that guarantees 'the other side' will win, and you'll only ever have two parties in power. Which further makes people feel their vote doesn't make a difference.


This is also why I see term limits as a necessary evil. I really don't support them. If a good politician gets into office, they deserve to remain there as long as they wish (there are a few out there, they're not a myth).

But since people who do vote tend to vote blindly or out of fear, and those that want change don't vote because they're disenfranchised, the bad politicians never go away.



In all honesty, I think the majority of people in the country just want a government that'll leave them alone. They want one that's relatively socially liberal (everyone is equal), and that's fiscally conservative (only tax/spend when absolutely necessary). And neither of the two main parties fit this description. But people are too afraid to vote for anyone else because they think they'll be the only ones voting for someone else, when in reality, it's what most people really want.

I can't remember what it's called in Game Theory, but this is a heavily studied phenomenon.

 

[Baramos]

Didn't Howard Zinn say this succintly? "You can't be neutral on a moving train."

Heck I think there's an Aesop's fable about this one.

It's like I said, the Republicans and the Democrats need to have their abuses reigned in by a politically neutral group of people so that we can have the fair, civil government our founding fathers wanted for this country. Seriously have we traded in one sovereign monarchy for another in this country?

I think more what you're looking for is moderates, not really neutral. Neutral would be to do nothing politically, in my opinion. What you want is someone in the middle of the political spectrum to rein in the extremists. At least that's what I'm getting from this. The fact that they are actively doing something to both parties would imply they are not so much neutral as moderate.

 

[simsjackop]

I think the key to changing political culture is vote in primaries.