Partisan politics

[flaja]

According to the U.S. Constitution members of Congress cannot be sued for libel for anything they say on the floor (or committee rooms) of the houses of Congress.

Does this immunity contribute to the poisonous partisan atmosphere of American politics? Is there anything we can do reduce the partisan nature of politics?

[TheMercenary]

Sure, remove them from office. Start over. Prevent lobbyist's on Federal property. Remove all external forms of campaign finance other than government funding. Term limits. Allow more than 2 parties to dominate the political arena.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Sure, remove them from office. Start over. Prevent lobbyist's on Federal property. Remove all external forms of campaign finance other than government funding. Term limits. Allow more than 2 parties to dominate the political arena.

Would you give taxpayer money to any of these organizations:

American Nazi Party: http://www.americannaziparty.com/

Christian Falangist Party of America: http://www.falange1.com/

Communist Party USA: http://www.cpusa.org/

Democratic Socialists of America: http://www.dsausa.org/

Family Values Party: http://members.aol.com/fvparty/fvparty1/ ?


If you are going to use taxpayer money to facilitate political campaigns, could you legally or morally exclude any party or candidate from getting taxpayer money? And if you give taxpayer money equally to all parties and all candidates, can you legally or morally compel any tax payer to give financial support to a party or candidate that is anathema to the taxpayer?

And just how does money contribute to the partisan nature of American politics? How does money enable a Democrat to call conservatives/Republicans Nazis or allow a Republican to call liberals/Democrats un-American?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by flaja

Would you give taxpayer money to any of these organizations:

American Nazi Party: http://www.americannaziparty.com/

Christian Falangist Party of America: http://www.falange1.com/

Communist Party USA: http://www.cpusa.org/

Democratic Socialists of America: http://www.dsausa.org/

Family Values Party: http://members.aol.com/fvparty/fvparty1/ ?


If you are going to use taxpayer money to facilitate political campaigns, could you legally or morally exclude any party or candidate from getting taxpayer money? And if you give taxpayer money equally to all parties and all candidates, can you legally or morally compel any tax payer to give financial support to a party or candidate that is anathema to the taxpayer?

And just how does money contribute to the partisan nature of American politics? How does money enable a Democrat to call conservatives/Republicans Nazis or allow a Republican to call liberals/Democrats un-American?

No, I would discriminate against them and they would not get squat.

We already give taxpayer money to political parties and canidates. It is not a question of morality. If you do not understand how money contributes to the partisan nature of American politics I would suggest some basic civics and political science lessons at your local college.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

We already give taxpayer money to political parties and canidates.

How so? If you are referring to the federal money that presidential candidates get, it is money that comes from voluntary contributions that federal income tax payers make to a special fund. Money that is paid into this fund is not tax money. As far as I know giving money to this fund does not alter what you otherwise have to pay in taxes.

If you do not understand how money contributes to the partisan nature of American politics I would suggest some basic civics and political science lessons at your local college.

You condescending attitude is uncalled for considering that 1. I have been studying history and politics for over 30 years; 2. I have 40 credit hours in college history courses (to go with my bachelor’s degree in biology) and 3. I have actually been a candidate for public office.

Furthermore, you are the one making the claim that money causes partisan politics, so it is incumbent upon you to explain how. Expecting me to do the research to back up your claim tells me that your claim is bogus.

[TheMercenary]

Expecting me to defend your petty positions is just as stupid. You present me with parties as indicated in your links and then turn right around and state, "Democrat to call conservatives/Republicans Nazis or allow a Republican to call liberals/Democrats un-American". When and where did I state such a thing. You expect some kind of high respect because you have a biology degree? and because you ran for some petty office on the left coast?

I believe Radar has been reborn.

Ignored.

[Ibby]

I think i actually agree with all of that, merc, except government funding.

on one hand, it would level the playing field

on the other, it prevents private non-lobbyist small-cash donations that, for example, Obama has built his campaign on.

those small, personal donations, i think, are a good thing
massive corporate/lobbyist/special interest kinds of donations are a bad thing.

[TheMercenary]

I see my responses and blanks. Amazing this thing works!

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by flaja

... the poisonous partisan atmosphere of American politics? Is there anything we can do reduce the partisan nature of politics?

I reject the premise. I don't think "partisan politics" is a bad thing.

Take the issue of taxation. I vote for representatives who share my view on taxation. I think it is in the best interest of everyone to have a minimally intrusive government in the economic workings of society.

There are other people who believe that it is in the best interest of everyone to have a government that actively redistributes the wealth of its citizens.

I want my representative to be partisan on this issue. I expect it of them. I consider the good faith of my vote for them to have been violated if they choose the false value of "reaching across the aisle" over honoring the integrity of my vote for them.

I expect my representative to be an advocate for the principles that I value. I expect them to be contentious for those issues. If politics are not partisan, then we have either ceased to be people who rationally disagree on critical issues, or our representatives have ceased to represent.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Expecting me to defend your petty positions is just as stupid. You present me with parties as indicated in your links and then turn right around and state, "Democrat to call conservatives/Republicans Nazis or allow a Republican to call liberals/Democrats un-American". When and where did I state such a thing. You expect some kind of high respect because you have a biology degree? and because you ran for some petty office on the left coast?

I believe Radar has been reborn.

Ignored.

I haven’t said that you’ve personally called anyone a Nazi or un-American. But such tactics are part and parcel American politics.

So not only are you obtuse, but you apparently cannot read either.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by Ibram

I think i actually agree with all of that, merc, except government funding.

on one hand, it would level the playing field

on the other, it prevents private non-lobbyist small-cash donations that, for example, Obama has built his campaign on.

those small, personal donations, i think, are a good thing
massive corporate/lobbyist/special interest kinds of donations are a bad thing.

I wouldn’t necessarily support limits on the amount of money that can be donated to a campaign, but I would support limiting campaign contributions to individual voters who can vote for a candidate. But either way this would have to be done with a constitutional amendment, since any law to limit campaign funding would violate the 1st Amendment.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

I reject the premise. I don't think "partisan politics" is a bad thing.

Take the issue of taxation. I vote for representatives who share my view on taxation. I think it is in the best interest of everyone to have a minimally intrusive government in the economic workings of society.

Would you like to return to the days of snake oil salesmen and rats being ground up along with hamburger to be sold as food?

There are other people who believe that it is in the best interest of everyone to have a government that actively redistributes the wealth of its citizens.

I am not in favor of government re-distribution of wealth. But as a conservative I am opposed to the mass concentration of wealth and poverty since either one can threaten societal cohesion.

I want my representative to be partisan on this issue. I expect it of them. I consider the good faith of my vote for them to have been violated if they choose the false value of "reaching across the aisle" over honoring the integrity of my vote for them.

What happens if partisanship leads to things like gerrymandering and you end up living in a district where people with your political views are in the minority?

What happens if partisanship prevents the government from dealing with problems that individuals and private enterprise cannot or will not deal with?

[DanaC]

Rather than limit the amount that can be donated, perhaps it would be useful to limit what can be spent on an election campaign. If a sensible spending limit is set, then it removes much of the impetus for political parties to rely so heavily on large-scale donations.

In terms of the partisan nature of politics: I want my politicians to be partisan. I am partisan. I don't know that much about the American political system, but the rules on what can be said on the floor of the house and the immunity from libel suits are very similar to the British system. I think it's a necessary evil. It would, in my opinion, damage debate if politicians were having to second guess themselves and watch out for whatever makes them vulnerable to litigation during those debates. I also think that removing that immunity, far from reducing the partisan elements of politics would actually make it more partisan. The potential for libel suits to become a common weapon in politics is something to be wary of.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by flaja

What happens if partisanship leads to things like gerrymandering and you end up living in a district where people with your political views are in the minority?

Well, I live in California. My vote has never counted for anything, ever. I'm always in the political minority.

What happens if partisanship prevents the government from dealing with problems that individuals and private enterprise cannot or will not deal with?

If the majority agrees on the nature of the problem and the solution, then government will move forward. If a majority does not agree, then partisan politics should prevent government action. Like "partisan politics", I reject the notion that government inaction is always a bad thing. Sometimes the best thing a representative can do is allow their contentiousness to prevent the government from "getting things done."

[flaja]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Rather than limit the amount that can be donated, perhaps it would be useful to limit what can be spent on an election campaign. If a sensible spending limit is set, then it removes much of the impetus for political parties to rely so heavily on large-scale donations.

What would the limit be? How would it be set? What would you do about the relative costs of running for the same office in different places? It doesn’t cost as much to air a TV ad where I live as it would in places like New York City. Would candidates in both places be limited to spending the same amount?

And again, how does money lead to the partisan nature of American politics? Ron Paul didn’t have nearly as much money to spend as John McCain or Barak Obama, but is Ron Paul any less partisan as a consequence?

It would, in my opinion, damage debate if politicians were having to second guess themselves and watch out for whatever makes them vulnerable to litigation during those debates.

But isn’t there a time when debate has to give way to either compromise or civil war?

I also think that removing that immunity, far from reducing the partisan elements of politics would actually make it more partisan. The potential for libel suits to become a common weapon in politics is something to be wary of.

But wouldn’t libel judgments make politicians think twice before they toss out any rhetorical bombs? If politicians knew that they could be sued into bankruptcy for telling lies and half-truths about their opponents, wouldn’t they go out of their way to avoid telling lies and half-truths?

BTW: I was once told on another board that British politicians in Parliament don’t libel one another because dueling is essentially still legal for politicians.