Partisan politics

[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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

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.

Post WWI American politics has never been so partisan as it is today. Take Vietnam as a perfect example. The minority calling for a Vietnam solution were from both parties. During both a Democratic and a Republican administration, support for that war was never by party lines.

Gerrymandering is a new phenomena (a refined tool) resulting in a Congress of party extremists rather than two parties with numerous moderates. Better government means constantly crossing the aisle to create legislation. Take Hilary as an example. Her first legislation was a cooperative effort with John McCain - both moderates. But moderates have become rare in Washington which also explains the recent contentious atmosphere in Washington.

Gerrymandering has created a Congress so entrenched that the conservatives Bob Dole, Brent Scowcroft, Alan Simpson, or Pat Buchanan are now considered so moderate.

I expect my representatives to work first for America - not for the party. That is the difference between a good politician and a bad one. The bad politician simply totes the party line. You cannot work both for America and the party simultaneously. When the choice arises - as it often does - I expect my representatives to buck party politics and work for the nation. Otherwise he has been corrupted. Obviously, that means working across the aisle often is necessary when Congressmen work for America.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

...when Congressmen work for America.

Yeh - lemme know when thats gonna start.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by tw

Post WWI American politics has never been so partisan as it is today.

True, perhaps, but American politics today are likely not as hostile as in the past. Abraham Lincoln was called an ape and the original gorilla and this was by members of his own party. But this hostility didn’t prevent Lincoln from putting his most bitter rivals in his cabinet, and for the most part his rivals served him well for the good of the country. The good of the country is most often lost in today’s politics.

Gerrymandering is a new phenomena (a refined tool) resulting in a Congress of party extremists rather than two parties with numerous moderates. Better government means constantly crossing the aisle to create legislation.

Gerrymandering goes back to the early 19th century when Elbridge Gerry, as governor of Massachusetts(?), had a legislative district drawn to help elect someone from his party. But with today’s computer technology gerrymandering has essentially become an effortless task.

Take Hilary as an example. Her first legislation was a cooperative effort with John McCain - both moderates. But moderates have become rare in Washington which also explains the recent contentious atmosphere in Washington.

I don’t consider either Hilary or McCain to be moderates. Hilary is pro-abortion and wants socialized medicine; McCain supports high taxes and he went out of his way to keep many of GWB’s judicial appointees (at least some of whom may have been conservatives) off the federal bench.

I expect my representatives to work first for America - not for the party. That is the difference between a good politician and a bad one. The bad politician simply totes the party line. You cannot work both for America and the party simultaneously. When the choice arises - as it often does - I expect my representatives to buck party politics and work for the nation. Otherwise he has been corrupted. Obviously, that means working across the aisle often is necessary when Congressmen work for America.

I am not saying that only moderates should be elected to public office. Neither am I saying that politicians should not be partisan. What I am saying is that I am sick and tired of the constant bickering between the left and the right. I am sick and tired of politicians that won’t work together because they know that if they find a political solution to a political problem they will forfeit a campaign issue for the next election.

I think the best way to end the bickering is to implement term limits, give equal and un-hindered ballot access to all candidates and all parties and chose representatives by some form of proportional representation.

I would also support something comparable to what is used in the U.K. where the executive (prime minister) and the legislature (parliament) can force each other to stand for re-election when they are unable to get along with each other.

[smoothmoniker]

I suspect that you and I would have vastly different ideas of what that phrase "Working for America" means, and when a particular politician is stepping outside of their party to do so.

I should say that I'm referring to partisan politics as something separate than party politics. Many of the politicians in my party are not nearly partisan enough when it comes to principles; if the party decides to slip loose from its philosophical moorings and drift about, these politicians go right with them, in the interest of party unity.

Maybe we're actually talking about party politics?

[DanaC]

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.

Is that so? *chuckles* It's entirely possible that the origin of the rule lay in the right to duel and that has somehow survived on the statute books. I don't know though. The two sides of the house are separated by a gap of two sword lengths :P

[flaja]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Is that so? *chuckles* It's entirely possible that the origin of the rule lay in the right to duel and that has somehow survived on the statute books. I don't know though. The two sides of the house are separated by a gap of two sword lengths :P

My understanding is that if an MP says something that another MP finds personally insulting the offended can invite the offender to repeat what was said someplace outside of the Parliament building.

Congress doesn’t have anything comparable to floor plan of the House of Commons so no sword rule is applicable. Personal insults and fisticuffs were quite common in the Houses of Congress in the years leading up to the Civil War and a Representatives from South Carolina once nearly beat the Senator from Massachusetts to death with a walking cane in retaliation for something the Senator had said about one of the Representative’s relatives.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Is that so? *chuckles* It's entirely possible that the origin of the rule lay in the right to duel and that has somehow survived on the statute books. I don't know though. The two sides of the house are separated by a gap of two sword lengths :P

Partisan politics has occasionally turned physical with us too. The most celebrated incident was the Brooks-Sumner affair, where one Senator beat another into brain damage with a heavy cane. Interestingly, the victim, an abolitionist, won his next reelection, and his chair stood there, empty, while the Senate debated slavery and the causes of the impending American Civil War, 1861-65.

Nowadays this seems more the arena of State Legislatures, though even the pugnacious and pugilistic Texas Legislature doesn't throw punches as often as the Taiwanese.

[DanaC]

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?

Forgive me for not having a detailed plan worked out in advance and ready to implement. I don't know how you'd set the limits. I only know how the limits are set in my country. I barely understand how your political system works. I do consider that lobby funding may feed into partisan politics as it has the potential to harden up party differences in line with lobbies.

There is a fairly tight spending limit on election expenditure over here. But, that only applies for the official election period. The rest of the year the parties can spend money upping their profile. I don't know what the exact amount allowed on spending is but there's a limit that each parliamentary candidate can spend or incur (including the market value of donations in kind). The same applies at a local level in council elections.

The limit in council elections is £600 + 0.05p per registered elector for the ward (approx. 8400 electors in my ward). That worked out at around £1020. For everything, printing, postage, telephone bills, admin, ink, paper, rosettes, posters, etc. etc.

How you'd set it over there I don't know, but over here we have something called 'london waiting' on wages, expenses and what have you and that applies to elections too. In london where the prices are so different from the rest of the country the amount allowed is higher.

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?

I have no idea. I do not have an intimate enough understanding of your political scene to make any such judgement about the individual politicians.

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

I see no reason why that must be the case. There comes a time when the debate must be brought to a close and a vote entered into.

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?

Yes, they would. And they would also go out of their way to take fewer risks in debate. I would not want my elected representatives to be hamstrung in such a way. Inside that chamber they should be able to say anything they wish. If one lies, another may stand and set him right.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Forgive me for not having a detailed plan worked out in advance and ready to implement. I don't know how you'd set the limits. I only know how the limits are set in my country. I barely understand how your political system works. I do consider that lobby funding may feed into partisan politics as it has the potential to harden up party differences in line with lobbies.

The U.S. has something like 300,000,000 people while the U.K. has around 60,000,000 the last time I checked. Furthermore, elections in the U.S. can cover wide areas whereas the whole of the U.K. would only take up a few U.S. states.

And lobbyists are not the cause of partisan bickering in the U.S. since lobbyists for business and industry tend to give to both parties so they will have something to hold over the head of whichever party wins the next election. Expanding ballot access to include 3rd party and no-party candidates would help stop this.

There is a fairly tight spending limit on election expenditure over here. But, that only applies for the official election period. The rest of the year the parties can spend money upping their profile.

We often have that here as office holders are perpetually running for re-election.

The limit in council elections is £600 + 0.05p per registered elector for the ward (approx. 8400 electors in my ward). That worked out at around £1020. For everything, printing, postage, telephone bills, admin, ink, paper, rosettes, posters, etc. etc.

Do incumbents in the U.K. have the franking privilege whereby they have free postage for anything they want to mail to their constituents? Members of Congress have this power (but I don’t think the President does), so incumbents could easily outspend any limit imposed by law.

I have no idea. I do not have an intimate enough understanding of your political scene to make any such judgement about the individual politicians.

Consider yourself lucky. I know quite a bit about U.S. politics and find most of it nauseating.

I see no reason why that must be the case. There comes a time when the debate must be brought to a close and a vote entered into.

What do you do about political issues that no office holder wants to make an issue of? Inaction can come from a failed vote whereby something that is needed is not done, but it can also come from failure to debate to begin with. Prior to the U.S. Civil War the House of Representatives had a gag rule, whereby any resolution or bill regarding slavery was automatically tabled. For years the issue of slavery couldn’t even be discussed according to the rules of the House of Representatives. As it stands now, anything that any member of either House of Congress wants to introduce can be tabled by a majority vote of his respective House. Ignoring controversial issues can be just as bad as debating them endlessly.

Yes, they would. And they would also go out of their way to take fewer risks in debate. I would not want my elected representatives to be hamstrung in such a way. Inside that chamber they should be able to say anything they wish. If one lies, another may stand and set him right.

What risks can there be in debating an important public issue with a civil tongue and mutual respect between political opponents?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by flaja

I don’t consider either Hilary or McCain to be moderates. Hilary is pro-abortion and wants socialized medicine; McCain supports high taxes and he went out of his way to keep many of GWB’s judicial appointees (at least some of whom may have been conservatives) off the federal bench.

Please tell me, what is the moderate view on abortion in your mind, and how does it differ from the conservative view?

And are you suggesting that McCain is a liberal?

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Please tell me, what is the moderate view on abortion in your mind, and how does it differ from the conservative view?

Parental consent for minors, just like you have to get for every other medical procedure.

Prohibit late-term partial birth abortions

Require pre-abortion counseling to inform the patient of all available options.

All of this things stop well short of the conservative position on abortion, but are more restrictive than the position held by Clinton and others in her party. I think you can consider that to be somewhere in the "moderate" zone.

Abortion is kind of like the death-penalty - nobody on either side of the issue will acknowledge that a moderate position is actually a moderate position. They will attack it as surrendering to the other side on cherished principles.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Parental consent for minors, just like you have to get for every other medical procedure.

There are other medical procedures and treatments for which minors do not need parental consent... VD treatments, blood donations, drug/alcohol rehab etc...

Not that I think minors should be running around getting abortions willy-nilly, just that I don't think legislating morality is a good idea for anyone, even if you can get away with it with minors under the guise of protecting them.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Parental consent for minors, just like you have to get for every other medical procedure.

And if the parent consents, an unborn human being still ends up being murdered.

Prohibit late-term partial birth abortions

Why? If an unborn human is not a living being after 1 day or 3 months or 6 months in the womb, is he or she any more a living human being after being in the womb for 1 day less than 9 months? Why give the unborn the benefit of the doubt after 1 day less than 9 months when you won’t give the same benefit of the doubt after 1 second in the womb?

Require pre-abortion counseling to inform the patient of all available options.

And if the “patient” refuses all other options, an unborn human being still ends up being murdered.

[flaja]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Please tell me, what is the moderate view on abortion in your mind, and how does it differ from the conservative view?

There is no moderate, liberal or conservative view on abortion- only a morally right one and a morally wrong one. Human life begins at conception and any abortion that is performed when the mother’s life is not endangered by continuing the pregnancy, is murder. The view that any and all abortion is OK is the liberal view only to the extent that this is the view that people who are liberal on other issues tend to support.

And are you suggesting that McCain is a liberal?

Yes and I think I am far from alone in this.