[VioletlightHeron]

I honestly think American democracy is as resilient as Canadian democracy, even if we don't have 3 or more major political parties. The key difference with regards to political parties here in the States is that there are major factions within the Dems and the Repubs that are constantly struggling over issues. Two good examples are the anti-war Left and KosKids trying to push their platform from within the Democratic Party and the eruption from within the conservative Republican base over the illegal immigration plan that Bush was trying to pass with the "bi-partisan" help of Ted Kennedy and some Democratic senators. I was opposed to Bush's plan right from the start because it gave illegal immigrants the right to jump to the head of the line to become legal citizens and in exchange they were only supposed to pay a nominal fine (something like 5 grand). One of the reasons I opposed it is my girlfriend is from the Philippines and her whole family had to wait 22 frickin years to have their application approved and even then they couldnt bring over the whole family because her older sister was past the legal age limit for becoming a legal resident alien and family dependent.

Ok, sorry, rant over

Anyway, I think Phil's post about Directive 51 is a bunch of hooey, but he's entitled to his opinion. I don't think our democratic system has been bought by the corporations; otherwise the Enron scandal and and the Halliburton/KRB contracting misdeeds in Iraq and Kuwait would never have been reported and Sarbanes-Oxley would have never made it into law. There are a bunch of independent lefy and righty blogs/media that keep a sharp eye on the government and report it, as well.

[j-monster]

Maybe... but I can't remember the last time I had a Prime Minister (or MP for that matter) with whom I was actually pleased. Maybe I'm just not a fan of politics in general.

I can say the same I guess... I personally think Harper has been OK in general but I was expecting more (and I'm sure some people will think I'm nuts for even showing this kind of lukewarm praise towards him). It's just so hard to please a majority of people when you're a Prime Minister (or President), never mind everyone; that can never be done. No wonder so many people don't want to go into politics, how much fun of a job can it be when on average anywhere from 50-75% (if not more) of the population think you are absolutely useless? hock:

VLH, given these factions within the Dems and Repubs, do you not think it would be better if they formally split into different parties to give Americans more real choices? Just curious what you have to say, I don't profess to be immensely knowledgeable about American politics and I respect your knowledge and viewpoints in those areas.

[VioletlightHeron]

VLH, given these factions within the Dems and Repubs, do you not think it would be better if they formally split into different parties to give Americans more real choices? Just curious what you have to say, I don't profess to be immensely knowledgeable about American politics and I respect your knowledge and viewpoints in those areas.

Actually, I don't think it would be good for the political parties or for the country at large. One reason is the fact that most voters are not one issue voters or completely sold on one faction's domestic/foreign policy platformsand I believe it would be immensely difficult for a splinter faction of the Repubs or the Dems to gain long term political power. For instance, there was alot of Republican conservative base anger over President Bush's immigration plan, but I don't think that would translate into a viable political party. I would agree with a strong anti-illegal immigration policy, but what else could they offer me? Having just that and little else would not make me vote for them. Ultimately, I think the factions make both parties a little healthier in a political sense because there are policy and platform fights that dictate how the party presents itself to the voters. In addition, splitting off into factional parties could conceivably create and exasperate regional tensions among the states. If U.S. voters are frustrated about how little Congress gets done with all the political fighting between the Democrats and Republicans, imagine the political morass if there were three, four or even five political parties in Congress!

Edit: to actually coherently answer your question, J-Monster (sorry its late and my nurse muse is calling me to bed :lol: ), I think the internal factional fighting makes the parties healthier. I'll give you a real good example; the Christian conservative wing of the Repub party won big time in 1992 and it was a big disaster for the Repubs because people were turned off from the excessive denunciation of a "culture war". Same thing with Newt Gingrich and his shutdown of Congress in 1998. My take on this is that these factions (I'm sympathetic to the less government wing of the party) is that they overreached or did not present their ideas to the public in a rational way and the voters creamed them. This creaming made them rethink how they worked their ideas and how they presented them. They tempered some of their ideas (i.e. shutting down the Department of Education entirely cratch: ) or better leaders came forward to present the ideas of the faction and work with the other factions of the party. This helps makes the parties stronger.

[laliber]

Maybe... but I can't remember the last time I had a Prime Minister (or MP for that matter) with whom I was actually pleased.

Louis St. Laurent :lol:
(in the 1957 election he played the role of Gore to Diefenbaker's Bush...)