SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dale Baker who wrote (10430)1/31/2006 5:58:52 PM
From: Fred Gohlke  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 541602
 
Good afternoon, Dale

The difficulty in responding to your post is that I mostly agree with it. If there is a difference in our views, it may be that, while I agree "The whole process is rotten" and attempts to improve it risk "Stalemate in a cesspool", I may be a bit less willing to accept those circumstances without objection.

You are correct: "The Constitution says nothing about how candidates will be chosen, nor does it mention political parties." In this connection, Professor John F. Bibby wrote:

"When the Founders of the American Republic wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they did not envision a role for political parties in the governmental order. Indeed, they sought through various constitutional arrangements such as separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and indirect election of the president by an electoral college to insulate the new republic from political parties and factions."

"In spite of the Founders' intentions, the United States in 1800 became the first nation to develop parties organized on a national basis and to transfer executive power from one faction to another via an election."


Professor Bibby's essay can be found at:
usinfo.state.gov

I stress the point because I fear most Americans are unaware that there is no Constitutional foundation for our political parties. Over the years, the parties have assumed a quasi-legitimacy, not because their existence was ordained but because we allowed them to do so.

I don't agree that "the incumbents would have to write and pass a new amendment that would legislate their own parties out of existence" because there is nothing in the Constitution that decrees their existence in the first place. Having said that, though, I confess that your "Won't happen" assertion is compelling ... not because a Constitutional amendment is required but because of the extraordinary difficulty of supplanting an entrenched system.

It is not my intention to ban political parties. To attempt to do so would not only be futile, it would be unhealthy. We have a tendency to align ourselves with others who believe as we do ... and that's a wholesome trait. In addition to helping us hone our views, it adds the force of numbers in support of our beliefs. The problem in America is not political parties, it is allowing political parties to usurp control our political process.

Our Constitution has been in existence for about 219 years. I've existed for about one-third of those years. For most of that time, I've excused my passive acceptance of my country's gradual degradation on the grounds that I couldn't change it. Well, maybe I can't, but someone has to make the first step ... and the first step is to conceive of a way to select representatives who are not burdened with the baggage of "party loyalty".

It can be done, but it won't be quick. It took 200 years for the party system, which systematically excludes principled people from public office, to bring us to our current state. It will take many more to work our way out of this morass

Fred