Issue Politics v. Party Politics

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Read/skim this: http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/11/03/simmons/

Nothing super-special, but it's what got me thinking more about this...

The two-party system is wholly incapable of dealing with the complexities of most sociopolitical issues both here in America and abroad. The impending energy crisis (if you believe in it) worries environmentalists and isolationist neocons alike (a rarity, these days). Immigration is opposed by both protectionist union groups and xenophobic Minutemen alike. Strange times, strange bedfellows, etc.

Politics has really always been about issues, not parties. And the suggestion that party politics has fucked with getting anything done is hardly a new idea. The question is: what are we going to do about it? The Republican party, in my mind, has a much bigger tent than the Democrats, simply because they are much more effective at organizing voters around issues. It's how they've managed to unite louche Wall Street businessmen with God-fearing Southerners. And the answer is simple: Baptist preacher knows that by siding with morally depraved investment bankers he'll get what he wants and vice-versa.

Whereas: most of the narrow set of liberals (narrow demographically) I've spoken to in dorm rooms/message boards/wherever have a take it or leave it attitude. Like, if you're anti-abortion (for example), we don't want you. "And you call yourself progressive?" etc. Obviously I'm generalizing a bit here, so don't go crazy.

...all of this is why city politics are so interesting (esp. in Chicago, which practically invented modern city politics). Candidates really have to listen to what their constituency wants if they expect to get elected. Thus: aldermen and women frequently ignore the party line. Which is totally kickass, in my opinion.

Anyway: I'd be interested to see a compendium of essays by "unbiased experts" (if they exists anymore), point-counterpoint style, on Big Issues that don't hinge on moral certainties (like, say, abortion).

Not really sure what I'm asking here....so, uh, discuss.

― giboyeux (skowly), Friday, 11 November 2005 21:21 (twenty years ago)

the parties are organized around attitudes. the Republicans appear more united because there is an infinite number of positive numbers, but only one zero.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 11 November 2005 21:47 (twenty years ago)

He'll be here all week, remember to tip your waitress.

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Friday, 11 November 2005 21:48 (twenty years ago)

http://www.howyoudoin.de/bilder/nebenrollen/ursula.jpg

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 11 November 2005 21:56 (twenty years ago)

HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF I DERAILED YR THREAD ASSHOLEZ.

I"LL SEE YOU ON THE MOD BOARD OMG I AM SO PISSED FOREVER

― giboyeux (skowly), Friday, 11 November 2005 22:03 (twenty years ago)

The impending energy crisis (if you believe in it) worries environmentalists and isolationist neocons alike (a rarity, these days).

yes, the possibility that oil will run out concerns both those who want to conserve it and those who want to control it. but this doesn't unite them.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 11 November 2005 22:08 (twenty years ago)

I'm sorry, giboyeux, I really don't have anything to say just yet :(

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Friday, 11 November 2005 22:10 (twenty years ago)

but this doesn't unite them.

Sure it does. Temporarily at least. I'm sort of wondering if it's worth it, like. Because I think things would get real interesting really fast if everyone just started getting into bed with each other. Like, right, let's do this thing so we both get our way.

w/r/t enviros and isolationist neocons: the guy that's advocating drilling in ANWR and reducing our dependency on foreign oil is ALSO advocating a move to local, organic farming and alternative energy sources. Not because he thinks those things are inherently sweet as a first principle, but because they actually make political and economic sense.

"Natural Capitalism" to thread.

― giboyeux (skowly), Friday, 11 November 2005 22:34 (twenty years ago)

Which guy? that senator from Alaska who got all pissy on CSPAN when someone suggested killing off that porky bridge projects, or wouldn't allow any of those oil execs to be sworn in this week?

what's his name? stevens? or is it grassley?

― kingfish cold slither (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 11 November 2005 22:40 (twenty years ago)

To maybe shift the topic a bit: I want to know about some other interesting and unlikely mash-ups that result when people play issue politics.

(fighting) Crime has always been a good example, in my mind.

xpost not sure. I'm thinking more along the lines of the interview I linked to above (not that the guy interviewed is an isolationist neocon...more of a concerned economist with industry ties)

― giboyeux (skowly), Friday, 11 November 2005 22:41 (twenty years ago)

"Which guy?" My response was worded funny: the guy in the article.

― giboyeux (skowly), Friday, 11 November 2005 22:42 (twenty years ago)

Conservative credentials aside, Simmons has been boggling the minds of people across the political spectrum with his recent prediction that the price of a barrel of oil could hit the high triple digits within a few years. To postpone economic meltdown, he says we should be drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other hotly contested spots. At the same time, he's calling for a massive shift in energy policy, including radical improvements in efficiency, as well as a return to local farming and manufacturing.

― giboyeux (skowly), Friday, 11 November 2005 22:44 (twenty years ago)

Simmons: We need to think on a grander scale. We have to find, for instance, far more energy-efficient methods of transporting products by rail and ship rather than trucks. We have to liberate the workforce from office-based jobs and let them work in their village, through the modern technology of emails and faxes and video conferencing. We have to address the distribution of food: Much of the food in supermarkets today comes from at least a continent or two away. We need to return to local farms. And we have to attack globalization: As energy prices soar, manufacturing things close to home will begin to make sense again.

― giboyeux (skowly), Friday, 11 November 2005 22:45 (twenty years ago)

Does he address the fact that drilling in ANWR will only provide a relative trickle, won't be ready for another 6-7 years, and is rumored to already be promised to China?

― kingfish cold slither (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 11 November 2005 23:02 (twenty years ago)

fyi, ted stevens = alaska

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 11 November 2005 23:03 (twenty years ago)

No he doesn't! At least the China part. He acknowledges that ANWR is a stop-gap, not a solution. Basically, he says we're running out of oil, if we don't get an oil band-aid things are going to get BAD, for everyone. So, while we're making the transition to cleaner/more efficient technologies, this will smooth the bumps.

...or you could just read it.

― giboyeux (skowly), Friday, 11 November 2005 23:22 (twenty years ago)

I could.

― kingfish cold slither (kingfish 2.0), Friday, 11 November 2005 23:24 (twenty years ago)

how is he a neocon? he's just a businessman. a relatively meaningless n of 1.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 11 November 2005 23:40 (twenty years ago)

I never said HE was a neocon. Although maybe I gave that impression. Just that isolationist neocons and treehuggers have something in common.

― giboyeux (skowly), Saturday, 12 November 2005 00:04 (twenty years ago)

"isolationist neocons"

?!?!?!?!?!

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 12 November 2005 00:06 (twenty years ago)

Entire UK Labour party to thread!!!

At what point was it decided that all political parties must de facto agree on everything ever? The Labour Party in Britain in the late 80s and early 90s is probably the classic example of this. A group of people who had broadly the same ideas about what the ultimate end should be but plenty of diversity in their opinions of HOW it should be achieved, to what extent and what they did and did not agree on. Any political party is going to have a pretty vast range of opinions within it purely because of how many people there are involved.

At the same time, this had until recently completely scuppered party politics in Britain - there was a real "pull rank, as long as it defeats the Tories it'll be fine" which was corroding all debate on anything. If the Terrorism Bill is anything to go by the notion of 'pulling rank' has been discarded in favour of 'if we're not in power for what we stand for, what the fuck are we in power for?' Which is surely healthy...

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Saturday, 12 November 2005 00:26 (twenty years ago)

three years pass...

Idle thoughts for the day whilst I was supposed to be working:

Do Political Parties engaged in government, either at national or local level, become obsessed with administration at the expense of the ideology? Where does theoretical debate take place within the big Parties? Is Theory the necessary precursor of Tactics? To what extent should a Party try to formulate an Ideology? Is the predominance of Tactics a recent phenomenon, if it exists?

― Birth Control to Ginger Tom (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 7 January 2009 13:26 (seventeen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.