T Nation

Bipartisanship

Why does it seem as if every Republican and every Democrat vote according to their party? It’s not against the law to be both Pro-life and against the death penalty (just an example). It seems as if people believe exactly what their party tells them to believe. Has everyones ego’s become that big? Are we all too afraid to disagree with what our church says is right or what our family says it the right thing?

Doesn’t anyone think it’s a little ridiculous when we begin to place steroid allegations and whether a woman needs a feeding tube before our economy, homeland security, or the war on terror? Can we try to keep verbal attacks to a minimum please? Zeb, don’t crucify(ironic) me because religion is not my top priority.

Your thoughts…

What you are asking people to do would require that they think for themselves and form their own opinions.

Good luck!

Cooper,

“Why does it seem as if every Republican and every Democrat vote according to their party?”

I don’t think it cleaves this way as much as it seems. But right now, stakes are high on a lot of hotbutton partisan issues in the Congress, and that lends itself to closing ranks. I hate it too - no matter how strong one’s belief is, you should be able to work with the other side.

Don’t forget the media’s role in all this. Forget any political bent of the media for a second, the media doesn’t thrive on reporting about stories of dull compromises and uninteresting partnerships - the media wants sniping, bickering ideologues and high drama on legislation votes. So there may be a lot more bipartisanship going on - but it will never make it to the news.

“It’s not against the law to be both Pro-life and against the death penalty (just an example).”

I agree - and I think alot more people have mixed up politics. I know I do - I don’t toe the party line.

Crucify you?

If “religion” is not your top political priority then we have something in common my friend! People who have actually studied the Bible (which excludes the famous atheists on this forum) know that when Christ walked the earth he never (not once) got involved in politics. While I am a Christian, I understand and respect the separation of church and state.

In an age of relativism it seems that those (like me) who stand up for traditional values are labeled as “religious.” Compared to the twenty something liberal free thinkers who pound the keyboard on this forum, but who have never had a family or perhaps even a real job, I guess I am pretty conservative. However, no more conservative than most of Middle America, and as I have predicted on many occasions, many of those younger than I who espouse more liberal beliefs will have a sudden change of heart in 10 or so years.

As to the main point of your post: First of all I think that people are attracted to a certain party because they share those same beliefs, not the other way around as you have stated it.

You have actually given an example to which I can personally relate. I am indeed against the death penalty but pro life! This would indicate that I disagree with the Republican Party on this particular issue. However, one is attracted to a particular political party for many reasons.

As I have posted before, the Republican Party seems to encourage that independence that made America great to begin with. Entrepreneurship, low taxes, smaller government, etc. These are the things that will keep the USA economically strong.

Furthermore, I think that President Bush is on the right track with the war on terrorism. I also think that five or ten years from now he will be proven right! Should I then not defend him when those on the other side attack?

There are other issues which I do not agree with the Republican Party. However, over all the views of that particular party pretty much line up with my own. Should I take them to task for the few differences that we have on this board? No, there are others who perform that role far better than I ever could!

Nice post Zeb: I was under the impression from reading some of your previous replies, that you had not one left view.

Copper,

I like your tone and your ideas.

Please go to the thread “Am I a lunatic liberal?”

This issue has been discussed in detail.

Thanks for your moderate tone.

JeffR

[quote]vroom wrote:
What you are asking people to do would require that they think for themselves and form their own opinions.

Good luck![/quote]

How predicatable of you vroom, making a sniping comment from atop your intellectual tower. It is so clear to the rest of us that you love stroking yourself off like this but do you really need to do it in every thread?

I mean honestly, I don’t think anyone disagrees with the message you so desperatly try to convey. But you spout it off and take stabs at us with it as if you are the sole authority on weilding the tool of rational thought. It’s getting old.

V

Hahahahaha. You nitwit. Why oh why would you step up and take a generic comment so personally? Here I am whining about the state of society and you think I’m busting your nuts?

Get over yourself. You weren’t on my mind at all.

[quote]vroom wrote:
But you spout it off and take stabs at us with it as if you are the sole authority on weilding the tool of rational thought. It’s getting old.

Hahahahaha. You nitwit. Why oh why would you step up and take a generic comment so personally? Here I am whining about the state of society and you think I’m busting your nuts?

Get over yourself. You weren’t on my mind at all.[/quote]

I didn’t take it personally, I took it as an insult to the entire group of people who generally post in the political forum, to which the question was directed. If you think you are high and mighty over me, one person, I hardly can view that as an elitist attitude. But to spout off as if you are higher than a whole group of people, or against a whole society as you have indicated, sounds like ivory tower bullshit.

Vroom, lets be honest for a minute, I know you were playing here, I know you were trying to get a little chuckle, and you know what, at one point it was a little funny. But this is your only message, we hear it over and over and over, and to a person like me who does look at many sides of an issue, changes thier minds when appropriate and actually makes a stance on something, this shit gets annoying real fast.

Why don’t you take a little break from your attempt tto convert us all into intellectuals and tell us some of your positions and why you have them instead of just throwing out random sides to an argument and then plead the fifth when asked if that is what you believe.

V

[quote]vroom wrote:
But you spout it off and take stabs at us with it as if you are the sole authority on weilding the tool of rational thought. It’s getting old.

Hahahahaha. You nitwit. Why oh why would you step up and take a generic comment so personally? Here I am whining about the state of society and you think I’m busting your nuts?

Get over yourself. You weren’t on my mind at all.[/quote]

And congratulations on being the first to call names in this thread. Way to keep the conversation intelligent.

V

vroom

Do yourself a favor and go on a vacation and get laid. You honestly believe you are the only one with anoriginal thought. The only one to see behind all the smoke and mirrors and know what the true story is.

I’m genuinely sorry that I seem to be busting your balls alot here recently, but you are in need of a break.

V stated something that came to my mind as soon as I first now read this thread. There’s your holier than thou quip, right on target.

I believe it’s you who needs to get over himself and realize other peoples opinions are just as valid as yours, though they may not agree

[quote]copper0521 wrote:
Nice post Zeb: I was under the impression from reading some of your previous replies, that you had not one left view.[/quote]

The problem with ‘bi-partisanship’ is that it is a term co-opted by the left since 1994 to mean “you must agree with us”.

True bi-partisanship would be to quit playing games with judicial nominees, and give them a vote.

True bi-partisanship would be to support the COC in times of war.

True bipartisanship would be to fucking work together to save Soc-Sec.

But you see none of that. Maybe when the left-wing asshole move a little to the right, the right might be willing to move a little to the left, occasionally.

Veg, Sasquatch,

Excuse me for reading the following sentence to be an indictment on society:

Now, if you two clowns want to get your panties in a knot because you don’t like my attitude, that is fine and dandy. However, the day that the every Republican and every Democrat is active in the forums, you just send me a PM.

This is the political forum, and as Rainjack has stated recently, it’s where I am and where I post. Whine all you want.

Interesting thought RJ wrt sides moving in to meet one another

Interesting what’s going on with Social Sec. Bush has now made some concessions towards reevaluating benefits and allocating funds more towards those off need. This would be in more alignment with some propasols from the Dems.

Their response today in the paper–
Now the President want to cut benefits to the middle-class elderly.

There seems to be no middle ground. As the sides try to work together, the middle just moves left or right.

And I also realize this goes both ways.
Why someone can’t be a Democrat and believe in Pro-life or privatized benefits or gun ownership is beyond me.
Why a Republican can’t agree with a bill put forth by a Dem senator is mind boggling. Let’s get rid of the rhetoric, and get down to helping America.

Let’s make a stand for ourselves, and focus on home for a few years. We’d all be better off.

[quote]copper0521 wrote:
Why does it seem as if every Republican and every Democrat vote according to their party? It’s not against the law to be both Pro-life and against the death penalty (just an example). It seems as if people believe exactly what their party tells them to believe. Has everyones ego’s become that big? Are we all too afraid to disagree with what our church says is right or what our family says it the right thing?

Doesn’t anyone think it’s a little ridiculous when we begin to place steroid allegations and whether a woman needs a feeding tube before our economy, homeland security, or the war on terror? Can we try to keep verbal attacks to a minimum please? Zeb, don’t crucify(ironic) me because religion is not my top priority.

Your thoughts…[/quote]

Actually, voting on a party-line ticket can be quite rational, especially if you are talking about Congress.

In Congress, the majority party is going to have a lot more power to enact its agenda and priorities than the minority party. Additionally, the majority party will control the committees and appointments, and the bigger the majority, the more control they will have.

Thus, if you have a key issue or several key issues that mean more to you than do others, and those are reflected in national party platforms or stances that can be very much affected by which party is in the majority, then it absolutely makes sense to vote according to your preferred party, assuming: 1) The candidate from your preferred party doesn’t cause more harm to your issues as an individual than increasing the party’s majority would help your issue; and 2) You don’t have another, stronger reason for preferring one individual candidate to another.

BB

It’s not that it can’t be rational at times or even good politicing, it’s when it happens EVERY time, that the issue needs to be looked at.

Same, but different, the State of the Union address. If you were only to watch the rebuttle, you’d swear he gave two different speeches.

I hear the question as why do they vote and talk directly down party lines almost always. And their comments are night/day on the same subject. If your only voting to appease leaders of your party something has gone drastically wrong with the system.

Are you telling me that not even one Dem senator likes the idea of privitization? Can every Republican be against abortion? This is where it gets hazy to me. You can be one or the other, but what happened to voting your conscience and for your constituents.

It seems like every vote is Rep v Dem, and that is not rational or good for the country as a whole. Congress has stopped being a think tank where rational people could discuss ideas on how to progress our national agenda, and more about who’s winning the pissing match

Nice post sasquatch. I think it comes down to the fact that an organized group has more power – so the incentive is to work towards party lines, even though informed voters might like a more cooperative environment.

When voters oust the most demonstrative party politicians, that is when you may find the others find incentive to work together. Honestly, until the public sheeple take enough interest to detect and call bullshit, you are stuck with my ivory tower opinining assessment of society, like it or not.

Care to start a bipartisan citizens action group?

The vast majority of people stopped voting for candidates along time ago. The main thrust at this point is to get ‘your’ party in power so then you cantry to get your agenda through.

It makes one wonder how a Ross Perot or a Nader would do in the Hot seat. No ties to other leadership seats. Just someone trying to improve the America he lives in. I know the going would be tough with parties in power everywhere else, but it would be nice to see someone come in without a party agenda all ready for him.

Or maybe we saw that with "The Body’ in MInnesota. Just a little to rough around the edges, couldn’t schmooze the powers that be and nothing really got accomplished.

It doesn’t really matter what the people want. The parties and powers are so entrenched in Washington, the overhaul would have to be on such a grand scale, that nothing would get done anyways.

I live in a political dreamworld. One where I could be an elected gov’t official and vote for what is best for the people I represent, not the people who I work with.

I thought the question was relating to voters voting party line for candidates. If it referenced politicians voting party line on issues, then it’s another matter entirely.

Pols in “safe” districts are, I think, more likely than others to vote their consciences – or, on the other hand, to vote in their own interests (which generally involves supporting their own party so as to open up mutual backscratching, like big government-funded projects in such representative’s district).

Bush lied, bi-partisanship died!