Third Party & Independents Archives

Agreed. There is no reason someone should be allowed to own a seat for 60 years. The world moves so quickly and yet our government is stuck in the same old muck. We need younger people. People with a grasp of reality. If you can’t use a cell phone you should not be a representative.

More often than not I am inclined to spit in the face of most legislators rather than laugh, but then there’s the whole assault charge thing.

David, I agree it is the electorate’s responsibility to periodically unseat incumbents in order to ensure that their representatives have no guarantee of being reelected. This was the crux of the issue that rallied our founders 230+ years ago. MPs in England could raise taxes on American Colonists without fear of any consequences because they did not rely on any American votes for reelection. We must work to avoid a similar situation from developing in the United States. This means doing whatever we can to discourage the development of a hereditary aristocracy, this is precisely why we have laws like the Estate Tax.

Unfortunately, the electorate is sometimes complacent. One good example is my own congressional district. When I am not at school, I live in the fifth congressional district of Massachusetts and this is where I am registered to vote. My old representative was a hypocrite when it came to term limits, when he was first elected in 1992 he only promised to serve four terms. However in 2000, that promise was forgotten. Marty Meehan even criticized GOP representatives for reneging on their term limit promises throughout the 1990s. In 2007 when he finally retired, the subsequent election resulted in the ascension of Nicola Tsongas, the widow of former Senator (and MA-5 representative) Paul Tsongas. That election completely reeked with nepotism. A lot of voters pity Paul Tsongas because his career was cut short by cancer, but that still is no excuse to give his widow a free ticket to congress. When I voted in my first general election last year I refused to vote for Niki Tsongas, instead I voted for Jamie Eldridge, one of her primary opponents from 2007. Until Tsongas does something to earn my vote, I will continue to do this. I am happy for Eldridge however. He used to represent a neighboring district in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, but now he is my state senator.

Out of curiosity, what are the two Supreme Court cases you cite that say that term limits are unconstitutional because they “arbitrarily restrict voter choice on election day?” I am sure there’s more to these cases than that because we have term limits all over the country, at both the federal and state level. Presidents, governors, mayors, many of our state legislatures, etc. are all subject to term limits.

And no matter what the Supreme Court has decided based on existing laws, it can be changed if Congress makes new laws. That’s what the courts and Congress do all the time on all sorts of issues.

Proponents of term limits can be found amongst Democrats, Republicans and independent voters. But, when push comes to shove on Election Day, Democratic voters vote for their Democratic incumbent, and Republican voters vote for their Republican incumbent

And why is this an argument against having term limits? On election day, these incumbents wouldn’t even be on the ballot if they had already reached the number of terms they were permitted to serve.

Time to crank up the propaganda machine for the 2012 elections. Reps and Dems are starting to move toward the center for public appeal.

However, when the states ratified the Constitution (1787-88), several leading statesmen regarded the lack of mandatory limits to tenure as a dangerous defect, especially, they thought, as regards the Presidency and the Senate. Richard Henry Lee viewed the absence of legal limits to tenure, together with certain other features of the Constitution, as “most highly and dangerously oligarchic.” Both Jefferson and George Mason advised limits on reelection to the Senate and to the Presidency, because said Mason, “nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation.” The historian Mercy Otis Warren, warned that “there is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well timed bribery, will probably be done….

The reason that it was dropped by the Republicans was because they couldn’t get enough Democrats to support them, using the logic of the Democrats today who see their own majority as being insufficient to get anything done.

In May 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) that states cannot impose term limits upon their federal Representatives or Senators.

Earlier that Spring, the U.S. Congress had given the Court assurance that the Justices would be acting only against state statutes, not overturning an act of Congress. For the hopes of some that Congress would self-impose term limits had abruptly come to an end. Congressional term limits had been featured prominently in the Republican Party’s Contract with America in the 1994 election campaign, and may well have contributed to the Republican Revolution, as the Republicans wrested control of the House of Representatives from the Democratic Party for the first time since the 1952 elections. The Republican leadership brought to the floor of the House a constitutional amendment that would limit House members to six two-year terms and members of the U.S. Senate to two six-year terms. However, this rate of rotation was so slow (the life-tenured Supreme Court averages in the vicinity of twelve years) that the congressional version of term-limits garnered little support among the populist backers of term limits, including U.S. Term Limits, the largest private organization pushing for Congressional term limits. (U.S. Term Limits wanted House members to be limited to three two-year terms.) With the Republicans holding 230 seats in the House, three versions of the amendment got well under 200 votes, while the 12 year term-limits which overrode all the more stringent state measures managed a bare majority in the House of 227-204, well short of the requisite two-thirds majority (290 votes) required to pass a constitutional amendment. Defeated in Congress and overridden by the Supreme Court, this populist uprising was brought to a halt for the purpose of reforming the federal government.

It’s a shame the Democrats blocked this effort…

Again, this is according to the insane arguments of current Democrats who blame Republicans for their own party’s failure to enact legislation… I don’t ascribe to it myself and blame the Republicans for not following through on their promises, it would just be nice to see the Democrats being consistent and blaming the Dems for the failure of term limits in 1995.

And no matter what the Supreme Court has decided based on existing laws, it can be changed if Congress makes new laws. That’s what the courts and Congress do all the time on all sorts of issues.

Um, no, if something has been ruled unconstitutional then there would be little point in trying to pass a law to do the same thing…

You know, like making it a law that people have to purchase a private industry’s product in order to stay out of jail just for the purpose of living as an American…

Oh wait a sec…

Rhinehold, I don’t think anyone insinuated that Democrats didn’t play a role in defeating GOP efforts at term limits.

Um, no, if something has been ruled unconstitutional then there would be little point in trying to pass a law to do the same thing…

Congress can pass a constitutional amendment, which is exactly what the current GOP proposal is calling for. The Supreme Court can rule that a run-of-the-mill law passed by Congress is unconstitutional but cannot do the same with a constitutional amendment. They have absolutely no authority to do so.

DR
One of the reasons California is so often in trouble is because of term limits. The Reps put them in place for the specific purpose of unseating Willie Brown,thelong term highly effective assembly speaker. God,did they hate him. What term have led to is a bunch of novice legislaters that just do not know how to get things accomplished. They do not have the personal connections that help so much in reaching legitamet compromise with the opposition. The legislature has become much more partisan.Another natural result is that the beauracrats have gainned much more power.The Supremes were absolutly correct in throwing out federal term limits. I just wish they would extend that to the states.
You are indeed correct that some Reps are again trying to use indis for patsys.

Rhinehold, why should the law do what voter’s were charged with doing. If a law becomes a crutch for a disabled electorate, then the heart of democracy is dead. Is that your intent in advocating against the wisdom of most of the founders who refused to install term limits?. To drive the dagger of term limits through the heart of democratic voter responsibility.

Would it not be more prudent and wiser to simply educate our children and voters to their responsibility to hold their OWN representatives accountable and responsible for the government they disapprove of? Doing so only requires throwing politicians off our School Boards and putting educators without a political agenda on them. Far easier to do than a Constitutional Amendment too, on this issue!

Paul, you will have to research those two cases yourself. Sorry. I saw them referenced in my research, but, not the actual case reviews. The parenthetic comment was my own, and not contained in any summary of those cases, which is why it was parenthetical.

bills, both term limits and their absence, have serious opportunity costs and liabilities. This is one of those mystifying facts which the voting public does not appreciate. There is no policy on any issue which will not bear negative returns of one kind or another. To pass policy in reaction to the the failures of current policy, is at the very least, only going to instate new policies with failures intrinsic to them.

The trick is to weigh the net positive and negative of a choice of policy decisions and go for the one that has the greatest benefit and least negative consequences, recognizing that all national policies will have negative consequences.

Of course, the minority Party will always take advantage of current policy’s negatives to advance their minority position to a hopeful majority position. If only the voting public could, and would, take this fact into account on election day, we might have a far greater capacity to consistently address long term challenges and perpetuate long term and affordable solutions for them.

As it stands, we reverse long term policy every 8 to 12 years, cutting long term and affordable solutions off at the knees before we can ever reap the benefits of those policies. It’s a helluva way to run a nation, and this one is in very real danger as a result.

Rhinehold said: “It’s a shame the Democrats blocked this effort…”

I assure you, Rhinehold, if Republicans were in the majority, they too would block that effort. It is not in the majority Party’s self-interest to sanction term limits. The incumbent has very real advantages over challengers on election day. Which is why between 87 and 96% of them are reelected regardless of public opinion on how well Congress is doing.

Which is why Republicans now resurrecting Term Limits is such a hollow gesture and disingenuous at best. A gambit and ruse.

Why should any of you have a say in whether I can re-elect my Congressman and Senator? My Senators, Wyden and Merkley, are both excellent, and consistently represent my point of view. They have great reputations, and keep the people of Oregon at top of mind. My Representative is also very good. I want experienced, capable people in office, not amateurs.

Now taking the money out of the campaigns through public financing… that would be an excellent idea.

Apparently there is some confusion about the use of irony…

It is clear to me (and the Supreme Court) that the federal government has very little business in telling a state how to choose their representatives. In fact, if the states wanted to go back to having their local state representatives choose their Senate representatives, I don’t think that the Supreme Court would be in a position to stop it.

Any term limits on representatives of a state should be done on the state level.

If there is an intent on passing a constitutional amendment to enforce such a limit, it would of course then be constitutional, but I don’t see that happening any time soon…

However, I think it is disengenuous to assume that everyone calling for term limits are doing it for purely political reasons, to ‘dupe’ people into voting for them. There are many who feel passionate about the topic and I am sure some of those people are currently elected officials or are running for office for reasons including term limits…

phx8, you make a very valid argument. Which is why VOID advocates voting out incumbents ONLY if the voter is dissatisfied with their government.

Even voters who like their incumbents, but, don’t like government performance, should consider voting anti-incumbent. Why? Because, at the very least, the incumbents they like have been INEFFECTIVE in producing the government they can approve of.

But, if a voter approves of the government they are getting and believes their representative is a part of that performance, then, that voter absolutely should commit to voting their incumbent back into office for another term.

Rhinehold said: “It is clear to me (and the Supreme Court) that the federal government has very little business in telling a state how to choose their representatives.”

It is clear to me the people of the respective states and districts have every right to elect their representatives, which contradicts term limits, which denies the people a choice, if their choice happens to be an incumbent whose term has expired under law.

I think we agree, but come at the agreement from slightly different verbage.

There is a way to give adequate measure to a congress receiving low marks while the incumbents continue to be relected a high percentage of the time. Bring to power a political party, such as Republic Sentry, with a different attitude. Here party members provide oversight for their elected/appointed officials. If the Congressperson from, say Idaho, fails to support the party agenda or becomes miscreant, party members can submit a complaint about that person. If a significant number of complaints are received, 20% of voting members, then a mandatory up/down vote on that person is mandated. Here you have national party members voting up/down on a senator or representative from the state of Idaho. If that official receives less than 66% favorable vote he/she is rejected from the party. Through that process you can weed out the bad apples that would otherwise be carried forward by their state constituents. These bad apples are relected by their constituents for a number of reasons. The incumbent may be the only person running for the office, many will vote based on name recognition, etc. But, primarily, incumbents are re-elected by their constituents to grow their representatives tenure and position so the incumbent can bring home more and bigger ear marks and perks of office to his/her state. Seems to matter little if they are a little flaky or how they vote on issues. Republic Sentry specifically addresses that issue. Gives nationwide redress to a super serious problem where, at the present, there is no choice for the nationwide voters.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

The only infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to get a truly new Congress is :
NEVER REELECT ANY INCUMBENT! AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION!

Don’t let anyone serve more than one term. Some of the reasons to do this:

• It gives us a one-term-limited Congress without using amendments
• It encourages ordinary citizens to run for Congress
• It would be supported by 70% of the country who want term limits for Congress
• It is completely nonpartisan
• If repeated, it ends career politicians in Congress
• It opens the way to a “citizen Congress”
* It would open a torrent of fresh ideas to improve our government
• It ends the seniority system that keeps freshmen powerless
• It doesn’t cost money. But you MUST vote! Just don’t vote for an incumbent
• It is the only guaranteed, infallible, unstoppable way to “Throw the Bums Out”
• It takes effect immediately on Election Day
• If it doesn’t work, do it again and again! It will work eventually

NEVER REELECT ANYONE IN CONGRESS. AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrAOe4w1zzw

nelson lee walker of tenurecorrupts.com
send for your free NEVER REELECT bumper sticker

Nelson Lee Walker, I fully support you recommendations and plan to act accordingly come election time. Not sure it would end the seniority system. I think titles would prevail to continue the discrimination between legislators. Republic Sentry calls for a reorganization of the legislative bodies to ensure that a junior legislator has the same clout, access, as a titled or more senior legislator. Committees are fine, but a junior senator, with no other status than just being elected, should be able to put forth proposals and in essence, act as a one man/woman committee by him/herself having the same clout as, say, a committe chair person. Today, states with junior personnel are discriminated against through the current pecking order established in Congress over the last 100 years for a reason. Power and control by a minority.

I feel Republic Sentry offers an alternative way to ‘throw the bums out’.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Nelson Lee Walker says: “The only infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to get a truly new Congress is :
NEVER REELECT ANY INCUMBENT! AND DO IT EVERY ELECTION!”

That is like saying the ONLY infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to eliminate obesity amongst the poor is to starve them. It is neither a practical nor an ethical solution. We have a democratically elected government, and as both a practical and ethical matter, 10’s of millions of voters will vote for their incumbent representative, out of Cognitive Dissonance, if no other reason.

To advocate for all incumbents out is to advocate for a fantasy. To advocate for Independents and a small fraction of Dem’s and Rep’s to hold their representatives responsible IF they don’t like the result of government with their representative in office, is entirely rational, logical, and potential to the extent that the percentages of incumbents reelected drop from around 90% to 50 or 60%. Such a drop would be so close to even chance flip of a coin, that politicians would do what the Independents required to approve of Congressional results again, in order to improve their odds of reelection. That leaves more than half of the nation’s voters not changing the way they vote.

A far cry from Walker’s commented dream of all incumbents out, presumable all at once. This is why Walker and his web site hurt the anti-incumbent movement as much as they help it.

Let the voters decide and exercise their free will, but, continue to make the case that voting for a congressional incumbents reelection while disapproving of the results of Congress, fails to change what’s wrong with Congress in the eyes of that voter. Because at the very least, if that voter doesn’t like the results of Congress, their own representative is at the very least, ineffective in changing those results. Why vote for ineffectiveness, even if you like your incumbent? It is illogical.

Roy, since the Republic Sentry doesn’t have Perot’s billions, nor the name recognition of even the Libertarian or Green Parties, and even fewer Party supporters, we must have a course of action in the interim, until, if it happens, the Republic Sentry (change the name), achieves that kind of clout.

The anti-incumbent movement is growing from the grass roots up, driven by public distrust of the federal government and Congress and the results of their tenures at tax payer expense. That is the interim action to take.

Republic. Get rid of it from the parties name. A republic requires and expects NOTHING of the citizenry in governance, that is what the Representatives are their for. To get out of the mess America is in, those representatives (the Republic) are the last place to look for good governance.

If your third party is going to seek the voter’s responsibility and expectation of their own power to change the way government responds, then the word Democratic makes far more sense than Republic and represents what you seek from supporters of your third party, that they make the difference, not the tenured incumbents in the Republic’s Houses of Congress. Those incumbents represent themselves first, their lobbyists and campaign donors second, their Parties third, and we the people last, as a general rule.

Democratic Republic Sentry is more reflective, but too long and obscure in meaning, as more than half the population could not expound the definition of either Republic or Sentry.

Here’s a good example of term limits:

News Flash:

William Jefferson, former congressman from Louisiana was just sentenced to 13 years in prison. I’m sure all of you liberals who were defended him in the past are experiencing depression at this time. Now all we have to do is get Franks, Dodd, and Rangel. There is a God and the rule of law triumphs.

dembs, you can search through the watchblog archives, but you won’t find anyone defending Fmr. Representative Jefferson. Jefferson’s defeat last year is a prime example of voters taking the responsibility to limit the terms of their congress person when the overwhemingly Democratic district sent Anh Cao (R) to congress.

Not so fast on law triumpherent. Just saw a news article whereby Janet Napolitano is saying that sufficient progress has been achieved on securing the border that it is now time to move on with immigration legislation. The article noted that if something wasn’t introduced by March immigration would likely have to wait until after the 2010 elections.
IMO, thats the liberal press talkin at you. They want to assure you that the status quo remains strong. The longer the Corpocracy can put off doing anything on immigration its a win-win for them. So many little pieces of amnesty have been put in place with the stimulus and recovery act, and SCHIPs, yada yada yada, that about all that remains is to start signing citizenship cards. With illegals drawing unemployment insurance, one has to assume they will be covered for healthcare if the HC bill get passed into law.
I would say we have full blown Socialism, where the minority are in control of the majority. Your representative doesn’t give a whit about what the majority of the public thinks. FOX did a survey of about 3k recently and found that something like 10 people out of the 3000 thought that having the Gitmo detainee’s tried in a federal court in NYC rather than a military tribunal was a bad thing. Go figure.
I don’t see my reps, Cantor and Webb, walking the halls of Congress calling for enforcement of immigration law and securing the border. That’s why I like the Tenure Corrupts approach. Vote them all out. Maybe Cantor and Webb are good ole boys, don’t know. But they sure are passive on some things I’m interested in so I will vote against them, not so much for their actions but for their inactions.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve

It doesn’t seem to me that anybody here talking about anti-incumbent sentiment and what to supposedly do about it is acknowledging one of its root causes: that our population itself is more diverse and heterogeneous than its ever been, that we do not collectively agree about every much, and that our Congress represents that.

There’s nothing inconsistent about expressing disapproval of Congress in a poll and then voting for one’s own incumbent congressman. Voters who are disgusted with Congress have completely different reasons for that disgust, and don’t even agree with each other about what the solutions to the country’s problems are—or even what the problems themselves are. Residents of Berkeley, California, are disgusted with Congress for completely different reasons from residents of Salt Lake City. You can’t expect a Bay Area liberal to suddenly vote for a social conservative because of their anti-incumbent sentiment—not any more than you can expect a Mormon to express his/her anti-incumbent sentiment by voting for a social liberal.

Congress’s inaction, hesitance to address big issues, and inability to enact changes even when they try cannot be explained as simply by pointing to who the incumbents are. The diverse groups who elect them are a big contributing factor. And to change this, you’d have to throw out the voters at the same time you threw out the incumbents.

Paul, voters can always vote against the incumbent and maintain their ideology by participating in their party’s primary election. I’m a social liberal, so in 2010I will cast a vote for Jamie Eldridge instead of Nikki Tsongas and not for her GOP challenger. I explained this in my earlier comment.

Warped Reality, I think my point is that voters see no need to vote against the incumbent in order to maintain their ideology. They voted the incumbent into office in the first place because of their ideology. What voters would like to do is vote out other people’s incumbents, those who represent the ideology of voters in other parts of the country. Their complaints about Congress really boil down to their complaints about living in the same country with people who aren’t like them.

Maybe my view is different from most people, but when it comes to the issues I agree with Niki Tsongas on nearly every issue; we are both leftists. The problem I have with her is how she ran her campaign back in 2007. Many people in my district were saddened when Paul Tsongas’ life was cut short by cancer. I can’t comment on his legislative ability from personal experience, he was the 5th district’s rep during the 70s and Massachusetts’ senator during the 80s. I wasn’t born until 1989. Nevertheless I believe nepotism played a key role in that election; many votes were cast out of sympathy for Niki Tsongas’ late husband and not for any particular achievement or promise on her part. Jamie Eldridge has been a long-time champion of clean elections and transparency in government, which I thought were very important in Massachusetts where the previous speaker of the house was caught obstructing justice while attempting to cover up a scheme to Gerrymander districts in the Massachusetts house of representatives. His successor wasn’t any better and had to resign under a cloud of ethics investigations. Personally, I am sick of all the corruption and machine politics. I hope that if Bay State Democrats go through a series of single-term office holders, maybe they’ll rethink their mode of operation.

dembs
Name one liberal that defended Jefferson.After all,we’re not Republicans and its not likely Jefferson will be Dancing With The Stars any time soon.

Paul & Roy
I have read a bit about congress not taking action on important issues from both of you. May I point out that this Dem congress and administration ARE taking action on important issues,health care reform for example. Out today is that immigration reform is set to be on the agenda early next year(There you go,Roy.).The charge of inaction is not warrented.You may not agree with the outcomes, but that is not inaction. The partisan in me wants to point out that things would move a lot quicker if the Reps would at least try to come up with something besides blanket opposition but then again,the legislative process set up in the Constitution was designed to be slow.

David, Republic Sentry, guardian of the Republic, how can you not like that? We already have the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Democratic Republic of N. Korea, etc. Why would you stress ‘democratic’ anyway since democracy is what got us into the present situation.
Here is what Gary Wood, Republican turned Libertarian has to say about democracy. Quoting:

We Weren’t Supposed To Be A Democracy

The what you say? We hear it everyday from someone, “We need to help spread the cause of freedom and democracy around the world,” or, “We support the aiding of democracy wherever, whenever, and however possible.” This misguided or misdirected rhetoric helps the citizens of this country forget one very important historical concept the United States was founded upon, we were not to be democratic thanks to the history lessons our founding fathers learned. Not only was democracy not their goal, a republic, a monarchy, dictatorship, and hereditary aristocracy were also to be avoided.

Hey, if we aren’t to be a republic why are we then labeling the form of government founded by the U.S. Constitution as a Federalist Republic? Where does this federalist theme come in? Actually, we were not to be a pure federalist system, nor were we to be a pure nationalist system. Although some wanted federalism and some wanted nationalism to firmly set the roots in, either of these types of soil would have alienated entire groups of representatives from the different States. A Federalist Republic actually indicates both the system of interaction between the government and the states as well as the system of ruling or operating the system as a whole between the governing and the governed.

STOP!! What a bowl of noodles that all is…and you will see, it really is and there in rests the concept that what the Constitution of the United States produced was a form of government “…unprecedented under the sun,” according to Historian Forrest MacDonald. Just how, then, do we unwind these noodles to see what is in this bowl? Hold on to your hats, here we go.

First thing is separating the two main noodles, the Federalist noodle on the left, and the Republic noodle on the rightt. The debate over how much authority the States should have in this new nation created two camps of philosophy between a system founded on federalism vs. a system founded on nationalism. So, those two will be compared to attempt to discover what ingredients went into the making of that Federalist noodle. The debate over how to rule the country, as a whole, is where the debate raged over creating a Democracy, Monarchy (yes, some thought it best…being British and all), or Republic. Serious consideration was never given to a socialistic dictatorship but we will peek at those as well. Everyone set on that so far? It does get confusing but if you press forward I think it will become clearer, not clear mind you, but clearer.

Ok, let’s tackle the left noodle first, Federalist. In the most basic of definitions federalism and nationalism were the two areas of debate which would ultimately determine the role of the States. To look at each in my view (I encourage you to research more deeply for your interpretation);

Federalism – A unity of States joined together through a centralized Federal Government. Sovereignty is maintained by the States and control of activities within the State borders are the responsibility of the State and those citizens living within the State. The Federal Government is limited in its responsibilities to such matters which impact or affect more than one of the States within the union. States appoint representatives to aid in governing at the Federal level. Citizenship is within the State rather than the Federal level.

Nationalism – A National Government directly governing all citizens living within the nation. The nation is of the utmost importance over any other, outside national interest. The National Government is responsible for all matters within its borders. Within a pure form of National Government different townships and cities will be formed but there is no recognition of a State legislative body or Statehood. All citizens of the nation impact the decisions of the government and the governing oversight is selected directly by the people.

The form of government that was created in Philadelphia in 1787 was neither a pure federalism approach nor a pure nationalism approach. Alexander Hamilton invested the entire body of Federalist Paper No. 39 to outlining how the different areas were influenced either from a federalist approach or a nationalist approach. “The proposed Constitution, therefore, even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both.”5

Thus was born the raging debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist during the three year period it took to sell the proposed Constitution to the different States for ratification. The collection of speeches used by both sides has become known as The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers. The Federalists had the distinct advantage of being able to point out there were combinations of both nationalism and federalism within their proposal. Cries of potential tyrannous opportunities against the people came loud from the opposing camp. The major argument won by the Anti-Federalist camp was the lack of a Bill of Rights. Later 12 amendments would be proposed and 10 of those would be ratified. Oddly, many of the warnings and concerns of tyranny not corrected in the Bill of Rights can be seen attacking the country today.

Even though the Constitution is not pure federalism the left noodle is called Federalist solely based on the fact we are a United States or a nation built from individual States joined in union to a Federal Government. Thus, we have the first term used in describing the experiment born in 1776, Federalist. There now, don’t you feel better?

Ok, let’s get this right noodle, Republic, figured out. There are many general names used to describe how countries are ruled. Without turning this into a book of its own we are going to briefly look at a monarchy and hereditary aristocracy, dictatorship, socialism (confused with a system of rule), democracy, and republics. Over the centuries there has been a grand mixture of these varying philosophies which go well beyond the scope of this writing yet it is the mixture of democracy and republicanism which causes such confusion in the U.S. today. This mixture is why it is so easy for the politicians to tout how we support democracy around the world and the citizens merely cheer in support as well since it sounds right to our ears.

Monarchy - ruled over by a single king or queen. Holding dominion over the 13 colonies prior to the founding events of the United States was the British Monarch King George III. In a monarchy power usually changes through heredity with no public input into who would rule over them as the people’s king or queen. Citizens are referred more often as subjects since they are subject to the laws of their monarch. However, through nationalist pride the subjects are often extremely loyal to their monarch and their land. This loyalty breaks down if the monarchy imposes too many oppressive laws. Although the country is ruled by the monarch it is well beyond the ability of a single person to control the whole of a country or empire, as was the case of the British Empire, so the king required assistants. This assistance was generally appointed by the monarch and carried a variety of titles such as lord or duke, etc. Once appointed to such a noble position these individuals became a part of an aristocracy within the country. The titles, rights and responsibilities were generally expected to be passed on from generation to generation which is how we obtain hereditary aristocracy as part of the ruling class of a country or empire. Quite! (A bit of a side note, if there is no monarch and the rule is by the hereditary aristocracy then it is known as an Oligarchy)

Dictatorship – in the hopes of not having too many professors of history slap their foreheads in further discuss this form of governing is going to be summed up real simply. A dictator is as powerful as a monarch but there is simply a decision not to use the title of king or queen. A dictatorially ruled country is controlled by a single person and generally rule is enforced with an iron fist. Citizens obey the laws either through nationalistic admiration for their country and ruler or by force from the usually strong policing arm of the dictator. The dictator appoints advisors and officers within his cabinet or ministry to aide in the running of affairs. The voice of the people is of no concern. It is an extremely authoritarian means of rule.

Socialism – often connected in our minds with a dictatorial ruler or the communist approach to government there is a good reason we have this connection. The rule over a socialistic country usually is extremely authoritative, especially if the economic conditions of the citizens becomes heavily depressed which is a common effect in socialist societies. With a socialist society the citizens are basically provided their needs as property and the distribution of wealth are handled by the government, or community. The entire concept was not really a philosophy of consideration during the founding of the United States as its chief voice came in the late 1800s due to the disillusionment of a capitalistic, private ownership approach to economy. We think of socialism as a form of government for whatever reasons however it really is more accurately an economic system. Just as capitalism and private property ownership are part of economics so to is socialism so we need to separate it as such. The confusion is part of the reason many U.S. citizens cannot grasp the fact we are becoming more and more socialistic due to the government control and distribution of a large percentage of personal income earned by the people. Yet if someone were to say we are becoming socialistic, which we are, most are in denial due to the connection with a dictatorial form of government, which we are not becoming. To say we are more a socialistic democracy today than a federalist republic would be a true and accurate statement but many will call a person’s patriotism into question if they dare declare it to be.

Communism – the system U.S. citizens faced off against for much of the time after WWII until the eventual collapse of the U.S.S.R. was believed to be communism. Just as discussed with socialism, communism is actually an economic system where pure control of all assets of the community are equally controlled and distributed by the community. It is a sort of utopian world envisioned by Karl Marx. The means of reaching this nirvana was to be through a shift from capitalism to socialism based on the dictatorial control of the ‘proletariat’ or working class. The path to communism, therefore, is routed through socialism by a dictatorship form of rule. Most of us remember that the U.S.S.R. was the Soviet Union. The actual name of the union was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This union never reached the ultimate end of the evolution of their society, as Marx believed, that of pure communism living equally, happily sharing in all fruits of each citizen’s labors with no private property entanglements or capitalistic greed. It was not reached by the U.S.S.R. nor has it ever been obtained in history, to date.

Once we can accept the fact both socialism and communism belong linked with capitalism as economic systems we can then more easily understand the remaining methods of rule. A final note, the U.S.S.R. was a union so it could be considered federalist and the individual States or countries were termed to be Republics so we could say the Soviet Union was a Federalist Republic. This is where all this mixing of a few different ingredients produces entirely different dishes. Lenin and Stalin (among others) mixed together dictatorship and socialism to produce their version of a Federalist Republic known as the Soviet Union. Jefferson and Hamilton (among others) mixed together democracy and capitalism for our version known as the United States of America. The Soviet Union version lasted 69 years while the USA version lasted 133 years (go ahead, pick your chin up off the floor, you are thinking we still have the USA version but wait until you read the book, 1913: Death of the Federalist Republic: Who Dare Revive the Dead?) All right, enough straying away from the kitchen, lets get back to that right noodle.

Democracy – in its pure form is government rule by those being ruled. Jefferson described it this way. “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” He must have been thinking about the Greek origin with the roots of demos, “people,” “the mob, the many,” and kratos, “rule.” History traces democracy as far back as Mesopotamia but the best historical reference of democracy was found in Athens, Greece. To truly describe democracy now is like playing the game where you whisper in your neighbor’s ear and then your message is passed from person to person until the last person has a completely different message but they could still say it originated from you. Even the North Korean constitution claims democracy yet there is little doubt of the totalitarian dictatorship in control of that country.

Democracy is a majority rule philosophy of government. Within a democracy factions can rise to majority status and gain control over the minority. As Jefferson said, this can be as little as a 2% difference, 51% to 49% but in a democracy the 49% would have to follow the rules of the 51%. In a civil society of 100,000 citizens, organized under pure democracy, 49,000 may be quite unhappy while 51,000 tell them to suck it up. This simple fact led the Federalists to observe the following. “Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”6 Clearly, history had taught the founders if the United States was to survive in peace and prosperity, if inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was to have a chance the United States could not be founded as a democracy.

That being said, we humanoids like to rule over ourselves, the ideals of liberty and freedom rally our hearts and passions. This is why you can no longer clearly define democracy and this is why there are so very many variations on the theme today. This is also why you find it woven into the methods selected for electing representatives, although it was never to be the method of electing all representatives as we are so close to doing today in the United States.

Republicanism – is a method of governing through a division of powers into branches of government, as developed in Rome during the time of the Roman Empire. The initial scheme was based on the creation of a legislative branch, the senate. Senators were prominent citizens who served in the senate for life. The senate selected two of its members to serve as the executive branch for a period of one year, after which they returned to the senate. It was devised after the citizens of Rome deposed their monarchy. After failing to survive in Rome it disappeared for centuries. There were some 16th century philosophers, among them Machiavelli who authored The Prince, yet most applied the form to small city states rather than nations. As we have seen with other forms of government the variations really started to morph the concept of a Republic with many sound aspects being hailed while many of the tyrannical possibilities being assailed as too dangerous to implement.

Modern republic states desired to tie in the philosophy of the people’s rights which the Philosopher of Liberty, John Locke, wrote extensively about in the 17th Century and his philosophies would be among the most influential in the minds of the founding fathers. In order to actually maintain a nation under a republican form of government many factors were considered essential. One was the establishment of openly known and accepted laws, commonly referred to as the rule of law. Second was the need for citizens to actively participate, oppose corruption and live their lives with civic virtue. If these factors could be sustained then a Republic was thought to have a good chance to not only survive but to thrive.

With this in mind those representatives attending the Constitutional Convention, behind locked doors, put together a system that dared to bring all the positive elements of federalism, nationalism, democracy and republicanism into one. It may be easier to now understand why this is often called an experiment and why it was, and is, considered unprecedented and unlike anything under the sun.

The United States was meant to be a Federalist Republic that was unified federally and decentralized politically. “The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures,” is how Hamilton explained it. There cannot be enough emphasis on how fragile the balance was to keep things level. All aspects have to be maintained, all ingredients must be mixed properly, if the experiment is to succeed. If a baker is making a pumpkin cheesecake and substitutes the cheesecake with more pumpkin does it not then become pumpkin pie instead, no matter what he calls it?

Because we have moved away from the experiment of the Constitution we are seeing the polarizing effects which history has taught and we are moving toward teaching the same lesson again. We are more democratic today; we altered the ingredient of how each branch of the federal government was elected turning us into more of a democracy, still called a Federalist Republic but look at us. We altered how we funded the Federal government and demanded the Federal government do more for us in our daily lives balancing out the inequality of capitalism, moving us closer to socialism, still called a Federalist Republic but look at us. How violent will the U.S. be in its death if we keep marching on our path toward this new bowl of noodles more accurately described as a Socialist Democracy?
Unquote:

His post better answers you query about the Party name and mission. The mission is to advocate for reform of government, more Republic, less Democracy, through a populist center movement. The goal is to restore our Constitution, sovereignty and Democratic principles that have been thoroughly trashed over the last 30 or so years. Also, to put accountability into the political equation whereby the voters have some redress from politicians gone bad. If party politicians, who are elected/appointed to office, fail to support the Party’s reform agenda or otherwise, go crazi, then the membership has the authority to vote to reject them from the Party. In that sense the Party is working toward the same goal as VOID and Tenure Corrupts. Remove the underperforming elected/appointed leaders from their position.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Paul, I agree that diversity and cultural differences do set the country apart in the political sense. On the local scene you can point to Calif. and the border areas. For example: The homicide rate in Salinas, Calif. Is 3x that of the national average. Due to a heavy gang following in the Hispanic community. Witnesses don’t talk due somewhat to cultural differences. Many have roots in nations where police are seen as predators. Half of the violent incidents are by caused by kids who get in a car and go out and hunt. Most of the country rejects gang warfare in their communities.
On the national scene you could point to the government’s immigration policy, refusing to enforce the law of the land, and the current tension between the Islamic community and the nation with mosques and businesses being confiscated and the recent incident at Fort Hood.
On a national scale the citizen has little recourse other than to watch from the sidelines and try to keep their backyard free from gangs and extremism from any quarter. A majority of the country doesn’t care to see our tax dollars go toward supporting illegal immigration. Some of Calif’s policies might not be popular across the country.
The Republic Sentry Party promotes an oversight function for the membership. If Party members significantly disagree with, say a US Congressperson, of the same Party, and representing Calif. then the membership may vote to either do nothing or to reject the representative from the Party. If rejected the Congressperson would continue to serve out his/her term of office but would be on his/her own as to further political aspirations. In this way the national voter/taxpayer has some redress as to how their tax dollars are spent. A similar example would be those representatives supporting illegal immigration and who may be seen as turning a blind eye to the border violence, 1700 murders a year in Juarez, and gang related crime such as that going on in Salinas, Calif. The local populace may re-elect and re-elect their representative to promote his/her tenure and position in government for the purpose of expecting a return to the State through perks and ear marks. Conversely, national members of the Republican Sentry Party would be encouraged to vote to sustain or reject that representative from the Party. Through oversight a political party can achieve some level of accountability for elected/appointed officials of that respective Party. I’m advocating such a policy for any political party, Democrat, Republican, Constitution, or otherwise.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

This one deserves to be corrected. Republican Sentry Party for Republic Sentry Party.

Roy, but, you can see how easy a mistake that name could be.

BTW, the idea of the Party exercising platform adherence control over its candidates and elected incumbents is precisely what the duopoly parties did when they began. But, power corrupts, and near absolute power corrupts nearly absolutely.

I still don’t see the safeguard in RSP to prevent those responsible for platform adherence making the political decision that though an incumbent has left the reservation on some issues, keeping that seat in Congress in RSP control on other issues is too important to allow that seat to be taken by a Duopoly challenger who might overpower a RSP challenger. This kind of political calculus is unavoidable, as far as I can see.

I commend the intention. But, it is an ideal that will not be observed in the political struggle for power over agendas and issues.

Roy said: “Why would you stress ‘democratic’ anyway since democracy is what got us into the present situation. “

Your logic is flawed, Roy. We don’t abandon law enforcement because some police officers abandon the law in the exercise of their duties. One does not abandon democracy because those in power over it corrupted it. Democracy absolutely depends upon an educated and independent thinking electorate. Just because our politicians rejected this aspect of citizenry education is not an indictment of democracy. Rather than abandon democracy, let’s advocate for the education that democracy demands to function properly for all the people.

David, I’ve tried to engage people and peruse their ideas as to how to work accountability into the political equation without being intrusive into the legislative process or worse yet, having the courts shoot down the concept as unconstitutional. Essentially been no debate and no, zero, ideas proffered along those lines. THANK you for raising the issue as that goes to the heart of my third party advocacy.
IMO, a third party should not see the light of day unless that party 0ffers SOMETHING to the voters. Makes absolutely no sense, in fact its way foolish, to start a political party that has no regulations, bylaws, etc beyond what the duopoly offers. There should be no doubt, in any quarter, that a well intentioned third party that gained a little notoriety would quickly be consumed by special interest and the money influence. I’d be most interested to hear some ideas as to how we might legally adopt a RSP platform that would go beyond what I’ve suggested.
I agree that, as the Founder’s planned, some Democracy in a Republic is a good thing. You are right in that special interest and the money influence has corrupted our system of government. IMO, we are being pushed into Socialism to be in harmony with Europe and others. To counter that situation I make statements that we need to roll back democracy, NOT abandon democracy. Big difference. I’d like to see the balance of Republicanism and Democracy restored to something like the Founder’s sanctioned. Now, I know that will never happen but doesn’t mean thats not a desirable goal to frame the debate. If we could just push back beyond Socialism that would be wonderful.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve

Roy, socialism was incorporated into our colonies and society as the Constitution was being signed. It is a failing of our education system to point out to students and future voting citizens, the village counsel of elders who ostracized those in the community who failed to show up to contribute to a barn raising, was a form of socialism in practice even before the Revolutionary War.

The provision in state and local governments for taxation to support professional police and fire services, to build and provide public libraries, museums, and roads, bridges, and sidewalks, were all socialist policies practiced at the local level, county level, state level, where no one in the 1700’s or 1800’s derogated such widespread practices as ‘socialist’. These socialist approaches to the public good were simply accepted as logical, rational and justified without negative labels of anykind.

, and even at the federal level with the economic woes following the Civil War and reconstruction, the only states which did not ratify the 16th Amendment by 1913 were Connecticut, Rhode Island, Utah, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. The 16th Amendment permitted the largest single socialist act in our federal government’s history, the income tax. It was to be several more years before the word ‘socialist’ would become an ideology to be painted by some as egregiously evil and anti-American. But, the simple fact is, America has always chosen socialist policy to work side by side with free enterprise and capitalism from its very beginnings.

Americans don’t realize it today, but the real argument is not whether we should abandon socialism or get rid of capitalism. The real debate is as it always has been, over the balance of each which is appropriate for a particular generation in a unique set of circumstances in our nation’s development and growth.

The main reason it is such a hotly debated topic today, is attributable to two conditions. The ignorance of what he debate is really about, the balance, and the fact that America is, for the first time in its history, facing the end of growth and expansion economically. A prospect Americans reject out of hand and in knee jerk fashion despite all reality and data to the contrary. It is at this juncture, that our failed investments in objective based quality education will fail us the most.

The challenges we face, require consensus to resolve. And that consensus, through shared and empirically based objective education, is not to be found.

How one achieves a third party creation and representation in the U.S. Congress in the current political environment, is frankly, beyond me and my abilities.

Agree, there is a balance. IMO the balance has shifted away from Republicanism and Democracy towards Socialism. Outside some catastrophic event such as a WWIII, it will take a 3rd political party to restore, not return, but restore the balance to something more closely aligned with the Founder’s design.
Also, agree with the end of a free ride for the US economically. But, here is the rub; after 30 years its clear that a globalalized, free market economy is not working except for a few cheap labor sites around the world. I ask you, is it not a more proper policy to control our foreign trade balance with regulation, to invest in and support incubator businesses in those countries that want to participate in development, to educate foreign students and return them to their country to develop their country, and so on? Is it right that we should bring 10% of the population of Mexico here and in so doing drive down the wages of the US worker? Is it right that my daughter, with a 3.8GPA should be turned down from two graduate study programs so that foreign students garner 50-55% of the student positions? Today the Wash Post carried a 1 1/2 page story on a young female college grad, all kinds of high school accolades, went to GWU, magna cum laude, $200k education, more accolades, turned in 30 resumes, nothing, then 10 more, nothing, then out of all funding, returned home to live with her parents. How many foreign students received US jobs in that period of time? How many of them attended using my taxpayer dollars for tuition?
IMO there is plenty of cause to advocate for a worthwhile third party. Independents make up 35% of the vote and IMO they would support a third party with a reform agenda if they knew one existed. Sara Palin is threatening a 3rd party and perhaps Lou Dobbs will man up. Which is unfortunate IMO as neither would survive the money influence. The Repub’s are proposing to have their leaders sign a ten point pact agreeing to some conservative issues, like maybe Regan did. Ain’t worth the asswipe paper to write it down on. We need a party founded in some irrefutable laws that can’t be co-opted by the money influence.
I believe a few incumbents will get voted out in 10, but there needs to be more. We need to reform government and a 3rd party with a different political attitude is the only way I can conceive of that can carry out reform of government and keep it that way.