Joel is claiming that I am wrong; he disagrees with me that the single party system in the United States does not work. His latest examples that he can give in the United States are the 1860s.
I am talking about modern times, here, Joel. We are talking about the government being more far more centralized and expanded. Since the 1860s, the United States has increased in territory and the federal government has added to its power both Constitutionally and extra-Constitutionally. Let’s try not to play pseudo-historical games here. Also, may I add that over the course of those years, certain persons were disenfranchised (women, non-landowners, African Americans and First Nations people, among them) so really the historical context is completely different. Prove to me in modern times. There was Ronald Reagan and the 1980s Democrats. Clinton and the 1990s Republicans. Bipartisanship and divided Congresses and governments do work.
And can we look at the failures of Joel’s examples, otherwise, Joel will not be humbled:
The Jacksonian Democrats: Well, just ask any Native American. Oh, there was that Depression in the 1820s and, oh, yes, that failed national bank experiment.
The Republicans of the 1870s: Reconstruction. I needn’t say more.
*Edit: Addendum*:
In sum, what I am saying can be stated as such- The One Party system successes Joel is praising actually benefited from a smaller country to run in the United States (fewer states) as well as having on a small voter base to satisfy, i.e., the elites who were allowed to vote prior to the 1860′s.
Actually, the Jacksonian Democrats faced the Whigs and the Reconstructionist Reps faced Dems.
As far as a national bank – ask North Dakota.
And considering that your statement was not limited to modern times, I am still right, unless you now want to change the nature of the game.
Which means, you would have to admit that with the changing of the political and geographical landscape, as well as the enfranchisement of voting minorities, our system of Government by necessity would have to expand past the vision of the Founders, as they certainly did not see today in their view. Once you admit that, then your pseudo-Libertarian front falls face first into the trash heap of history, as a ‘return’ to limited Government, as you have so well demonstrated, simply doesn’t work, and had never worked.
Burn – to you.
No–burn you. You never have asked me what I believe how government should be limited. First, I do not believe in returns to the past. It’s unbiblical. I have never once proposed for us to go back to limited government. Fallacy One Joel. Stop trying to add me to your trash heap you call your straw-men of libertarianism. How can I say that government was limited when it permitted slavery to happen? That is not limited government.
Why do you just not ask what I believe, Jack Conway, rather than stating it for me? This is the frustrating part about having dialogue with you Joel, you have all these presuppositions about your former libertarianism and project it on me. Just ask. Can you quote me on Twitter or my blog or even facebook about us going back to the founders? No, you can’t because I do not believe that way. I believe in the midst of struggle, traditions must change and look differently.
Stop trying to speak for me. Oh, yes,and I forgot to add: you are a Democrat in Name Only– DINO!
Per your addendum – ‘elites? You mean, white land owning males? And then , when did voting really become inclusive?
Your pseudo-stance of libertarianism is premised on a return to limited government. I note pseudo because there aren’t too many issues which you actually line up with them on, except for an unqualified hate of the current President.
Limited Government and slavery… The Federal Government tried to step in, but was not able to.
Actually, I don’t have a ‘former’ libertarianism. I am just calling you out on your words.
And tell me, Rodney, when are you going to stop attacking and start defending? Oh, that’s right, that’s because you have no real defense for your views because they aren’t yours. You just repeat what you hear on FauxNews
Nope, I do not watch fox news anymore. Sorry Joel. I watch CNN, but nice try putting me in a box.
The Federal Government never tried to step in; it was one of slavery’s biggest supporters. What history books you reading?
Joel, where exactly do you come off attacking my political views as “pseudo”? I dedicated wholesale blog posts to my change in political views and never once did I call for a return to the founders. I was deeply impacted by liberation theology; I just became a different kind of liberationist. LT is not about hegemony unlike your dream for a one party government.
You have no quotes from me proving I am a “pseudo-libertarian.” Try me. Otherwise you are just lying, like your President regularly does.
Um, Rodney, buddy, you need to look at the compromises which were developed, or attempted to be developed.
You are a pseudo-libertarian.
No evidence. Talking to you about politics is like discussing religion with Bill Maher.
But, still, much love. You will see the light one day. I hope.
You know, post-colonial scholars understand seeing the light in a quite different way, and it is not pretty. That’s all I will say.
Gentlemen,
If I may, it seems you are both stuck on the binary way of looking at this. Why is it only single or double party? Think bigger. Surely God did not stop inspiring political thought when the American constitution was written. Perhaps it is not the number of parties involved that will make the difference, but a new system of government? SHAZAM!
Chad, I already have posted months ago my case for a multiple party system of government. Joel never paid attention to it cuz he is the one stuck in the binaries.
Actually, I would be in favor of dozens of parties.