Originally posted by PsychoPawn Actually, I hadn't heard of that. It's interesting and I'm wondering what the political mood was to enable it - which is essentially the question.
I'm wondering if we could even get to that point at this time or what it would take.
Unfortunately the era didn't last all that long in the scheme of things so I still don't know about the sustainability of the good times.
Well, after the Era of Good Feelings was the antebellum political period.
What could possibly be worse than having no choice? It certainly would not be democracy. There would be no accountability, no exchange of ideas. If you thought you should governed differently your only option is to move.
Originally posted by quackquack What could possibly be worse than having no choice? It certainly would not be democracy. There would be no accountability, no exchange of ideas. If you thought you should governed differently your only option is to move.
Well, that's the point, if you read my first post.
Originally posted by scherzo Advantages: Efficiency; little if any controversy in the country/region; no election years or mud-throwing; no filibustering
Disadvantages: Quelling of dissent; usually a lack of personal freedoms and democratic elections; not always truly governed by the people
Seems to me the scales are pretty balanced! What if we had several one-party states, with e ...[text shortened]... eed with the platforms could go to live in the countries with the parties that best suited them?
then the people who agreed with the platforms could go to live in the countries with the parties that best suited them?
I guess we could give this question the title of "most surreal question of the year 2009".
Originally posted by generalissimo [b]then the people who agreed with the platforms could go to live in the countries with the parties that best suited them?
I guess we could give this question the title of "most surreal question of the year 2009".[/b]
Woo! I'd like to thank the RHP team for this honor!
Originally posted by scherzo Woo! I'd like to thank the RHP team for this honor!
you should try coming up with more questions like that.
what about "what if we get rid of Israel so that we can live happily ever after?", or "How to get Obama to back us up, when we invade?", or even "What if we have a one-party state but pretend it is democratic?"
Originally posted by generalissimo you should try coming up with more questions like that.
what about "what if we get rid of Israel so that we can live happily ever after?", or "How to get Obama to back us up, when we invade?", or even "What if we have a one-party state but pretend it is democratic?"
The first question doesn't work. The others are just surreal and idiotic enough to pass.
Originally posted by scherzo Advantages: Efficiency; little if any controversy in the country/region; no election years or mud-throwing; no filibustering
Disadvantages: Quelling of dissent; usually a lack of personal freedoms and democratic elections; not always truly governed by the people
Seems to me the scales are pretty balanced! What if we had several one-party states, with e ...[text shortened]... eed with the platforms could go to live in the countries with the parties that best suited them?
A novel idea, but I doubt it would change much. The political leaders would be just as dishonest as they ever were, and peoples political ideas would just have different labels. 😏
Originally posted by bill718 A novel idea, but I doubt it would change much. The political leaders would be just as dishonest as they ever were, and peoples political ideas would just have different labels. 😏
Peoples' "political ideas"?? That's what this would be trying to solve!
Originally posted by Melanerpes Isn't this what people do now? People with "blue state" views move to blue states or the blue parts within a red state -- and people with "red state" views do the opposite. And people with a very specific, intense interest in one thing usually hang out with others that share that interest.
And you end up with the political version of "wars" -- culture ...[text shortened]... es -- where each side has this exagerrated, distorted view of what their opponents think.
Yes indeed - it does happen already - it's one of the less fortunate consequences of mobility. G.K. Chesterton commented 100 years ago on the dangers of the situation, which I think would be grimly exacerbated if the world consisted of hundreds of one-party states and everyone chose one according to their inclinations.
"The man who lives in a small community lives in a much larger world. He knows much more of the fierce varieties and uncompromising divergences of men. The reason is obvious. In a large community we can choose our companions. In a small community our companions are chosen for us. Thus in all extensive and highly civilized societies groups come into existence founded upon what is called sympathy, and shut out the real world more sharply than the gates of a monastery. There is nothing really narrow about the clan; the thing which is really narrow is the clique. The men of the clan live together because they all wear the same tartan or are all descended from the same sacred cow; but in their souls, by the divine luck of things, there will always be more colours than in any tartan. But the men of the clique live together because they have the same kind of soul, and their narrowness is a narrowness of spiritual coherence and contentment."
I think a ONE party system would really = a no party system, which I think is ideal.
I'm sick of people drawing party lines and having to defend their "team". Of course I say that but I, myself, am a Democrat. But that's only because I agree with Democratic ideals on most issues. I still would prefer that it was every man and woman for themselves (politically) and everyone could be held equally accountable. If someone screws up [meaning for real screws up] they will be held to account by their fellow public servants and the American people. If something is really a non-issue then you're not going to have manufactured crap just for the sake of blasting the "other" party.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper I think a ONE party system would really = a no party system, which I think is ideal.
I'm sick of people drawing party lines and having to defend their "team". Of course I say that but I, myself, am a Democrat. But that's only because I agree with Democratic ideals on most issues. I still would prefer that it was every man and woman for themselv ...[text shortened]... p just for the sake of blasting the "other" party.
Of course, this will never happen.
Democratic ideals are impractical in today's world. "Democracy" leaves a government ripe for oligarchy.
A One-Party System
12 Jun '09 16:05
Back to Top