For a long time the US had a three party system. Two of the three parties were legally aligned, but with very different agendas. These were the northern Democratic Party and the southern Democratic Party. Then, there was the Republican Party.
The northern Democratic Party, beginning with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was primarily the party of progress, social justice, and economic justice. It could be called the liberal party of the US, but it was a big tent party, with conservative elements as well. From 1933-69, this was the dominant political party of the US. When the era of this party ended, the poverty rate was the lowest in history, the rate of discretionary income was the highest in history. Millionaires and billionaires did not suffer, but the attitude was, for the most part, that the US should be a fairer country, always looking to assist the average person. There was an element of socialism to the party's agenda.
The southern Democratic Party was the party of slavery, and then Jim Crow. While it produced men who had liberal tendencies (such as Thomas Woodrow Wilson), the party was intricately enmeshed in the KKK and white supremacy. It was also, primarily, the party of agrarians. Often, in reaction to the laissez-faire economics of the US in the 19th century, elements of populism were present in the southern wing of the party. Due to the split between the northern and the southern branches of the party, the Democratic Party won few presidential elections from 1860 through 1928. The party was one in name, but two in temperament and values.
The Republican Party, the often misnamed party of Lincoln, represented the majority party in the northern US, but was virtually non-existent in the south from 1877-1964. This party (along with, to a great extent, the northern Democratic Party) was owned and operated by the wealthiest people in the US, who did not want regulations to interfere with their windfall profits, regardless of the social costs (does this look familiar?). They successfully suppressed the labor movement, children's rights, women's rights, and any scent of anarchism or socialism especially, beginning in the early years of the 20th century, communism. With the backing of the courts, they treated labor as an equal partner with management. That is to say, the worker agreed to work, the employer agreed to employ him, and they were equal in the bargain when, in fact, workers were overworked, maimed, and killed in the bargain, while few if any owners suffered this fate. The Republican Party had a blip, in the 1900s, known as Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a wealthy patrician, who realized that the extremes of laissez-faire were likely to, eventually, result in class warfare. Rather than taking a radical stance, he favored a position of reasonable reform of the system. Unfortunately, once he left office, his party returned to the pro big business position, and the blatant support of the wealthiest elements, it holds to this day.
Herbert Clark Hoover was often blamed for the Great Depression, but people who could be fair, noted that he took office on March 4, and the economic disaster began on October 29, less than 8 months later. What these fair people do not state, is that Hoover was a part of the Harding-Coolidge-Hoover school of leaving the private sector alone to do what it wished, again, with no regard to social fallout.
The Depression, and the extreme anxiety it created, resulted in many changes in attitude among the desperate multitudes, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected in a landslide in 1932. Given Hoover's track record, I think that many men could have beaten him had they been nominated by the Democratic Party. But FDR was one of the greatest politicians of all times, and this allowed him to not only be elected, but to shift the paradigm of politics in the US. Organized labor, which had struggled for more then half a century, suddenly gained credibility. Wealthier than his cousin, Teddy, FDR was no agitator. What he did believe was that government should put in place reasonable regulations to keep the banks from failing in the future, also the savings and loans (remember them?). They made margin calls more reasonable. No longer could you buy stock with 10% down. Across the board, attempts were made to give people work, to help those who could not, to create something of a pension and health care for the average worker, and to build infrastructure. FDRs election in 1932 is not surprising. What is surprising is that the political system permitted him to be re-elected three times. The only way in which he could achieve this, was to make peace with the southern branch of the party. As a result, the lot of the average worker improved from 1933 on, but there was absolutely no attempt at civil rights. An anti-lynching bill languished in congress for years, supported by Eleanor Roosevelt, but FDR would not use his political power to help it, and it never passed.
The alliance between two very different parties existed, with greater or lesser success, from 1933-69. Beginning with Harry S. Truman, civil rights was part of the agenda, and Truman never had the support his predecessor had.
I suspect that this paradigm would have continued for a while longer, had not Nixon been so paranoid. He was re-elected president in 1972 with a landslide. Given his track record, it was a foregone conclusion. However, not satisfied, Nixon broke the law and, as the US then had an independent press (yes, the US used to have a free press), his crimes were brought to light and he was driven from office. Still, I think the paradigm would have continued under Nixon's mild mannered successor, Gerald Rudolph Ford. But, a southern maverick, with a big grin, defeated Ford in 1976. This man, James Earl Carter, turned into one of the most ineffective presidents in US history. With a Democratic majority in both houses of congress, he would not work with them. The man had an enemy's list that would make Nixon proud. So, in 1980, with an ineffective president in the white house, a man, seen just a year or two earlier as a right-wing fanatic, far outside the mainstream, took his actor's charm and got himself elected. As a result, in 1981, the US underwent a paradigm shift, and the party of Reagan has gone further and further towards the 'lunatic fringe,' and continues to do so to this day.
With no strong leader like Lyndon Baines Johnson, the Democratic Party began to wander. Thanks to Nixon, instead of Edmund Muskie facing him in 1972, George McGovern did. Carter came out of nowhere, and by 1980, the once majority party was in shambles. Part of this, perhaps most of it, was due to Nixon's southern strategy. He convinced southern Democrats that the Republican Party, rather than being the party of Lincoln, was the party of state's rights. To those seeking to continue Jim Crow, these were welcome words. In 1968, a southern Democrat ran a strong third party, which helped Nixon win. By 1972, the 'solid south' was well on its way to being solid Republican instead of solid Democratic. By appealing to the south's bigotry, almost half of the Democratic Party became welcome members of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party was adrift, and Reagan's election gave the old northern Democratic Party a fatal blow. So, just as the Republican Party went from a generally conservative party (with moderates and liberals) to a hard-core right wing party, with no room for disagreement. Fascists (so called social conservatives) have joined with the self-serving wealthy, and this lethal brew unabashedly holds all legislation hostage to huge tax cuts for those who need it least, tries to force Genesis over science, and put women back in their place. Organized labor, and its potential to slow the greedmobile, is demonized, and has lost much of its power. So, the Democratic Party has shifted as well.
Once a party with a strong liberal feel, believing in social justice, freedom of expression, and something approximating a fair shake for most of us, but which contained moderate and conservative elements, this party has been, to a greater and greater extent, hijacked by a philosophy as venal, wrong-headed, and oppressive as the right wing, and that is politically-coerced censorship (pc). Starting out as self-proclaimed sensors of the English language, this inflexible and intolerant movement has superseded liberalism, though it refers to itself as liberal. It has replaced open dialogue with rigidly controlled flow-charts. No longer do you have to look at a situation and decide it on its merits (or lack of them), now all you need to do is apply a flow-chart and you have your position on any issue. Further, to prove that it can act the same as the Republican Party, anyone who disagrees with this calcified version of progressive thought, is ignored, insulted, and bullied. To this version of fascism, is added the Orwellian aspect of calling evil good and good evil, and insisting that their worldview is the one and only worldview. Therefore, debate is anachronistic. Look at the flow chart, or ask your superior, and you will find out exactly what you are permitted to say and think. To prove this, the so-called progressives of today are doing the same things the right wing has always done, attempt to create theocracy and stifle freedom of expression. However, whereas the right wing has always tried to force the most extreme, narrow, intolerant version of Christianity they can conceive on the rest of us, the worshipers of politically-coerced censorship are trying to force the most violent, narrow, intolerant version of Islam on the rest of us. People on the public payroll are forced to submit to proselytizing and accepting of terrorists as their friends. Say a word against this, and you face losing your job (now, G-d knows what the next step will be). Traditionally, school textbooks downplayed the racial crimes the US has committed, from Indians (Native Americans) to Asians, Blacks, and, of course, foreigners. Sometimes (depending on the era) these outrages were glossed over, but sometimes they were either not presented at all, or presented in a positive light (can any of you recall 'Blacks never had it better than they did as slaves?'). Well, having, hopefully, learned our lesson, the forces of politically-coerced censorship now insist that textbooks white wash Muslim atrocities over the ages. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of all hate crimes, in the US, are against Jews?
The Republican Party is bought and paid for by all the Koch suckers of the world, and the Democratic Party is (to a much lesser extent) bankrolled by petro dollars.
WE NEED A NEW POLITICAL PARTY IN THE US!!!
We need a party which will take a more fair approach towards looking after its citizens, and protect us from enemies foreign and domestic, such as terrorists and predatory businesses. This is possible! There was a time when e-coli outbreaks did not happen. That was when regulation of the meat industry existed. There was a time when savings&loans existed, but that is when the FSLIC existed. There was a time when consumer protection was regarded as a legitimate purview of the government. Of course, there was also a time, way back in the last century, when a handful of right-wing fanatics did not choose the president of the United States.
I respectfully submit a few anchors for this new political party:
Domestic-
Life supersedes property. Property and property rights are important, but people need to come first.
Individual rights are paramount. States rights is, and always has been, nothing more than a means to an end, with the end being that oppressing people at the state level shall not be interfered with by the national government. I do not know about all of you (assuming anyone is actually reading this!), but my passport calls me a citizen of the USA. NOT a citizen of New York, or California, or Mississippi. Therefore, my rights should not be impinged in one state but not another. Federalism was a good idea 225 years ago, but it has outlived its usefulness. The states are fine for dealing with local issues, but local issues do not include a person's civil rights. If you need any proof of the cynical nature of 'states rights,' just look at 2000. Five adherents to this so-called belief system had no problem whatsoever with overruling the State Of Florida, and deciding the election for themselves and to their own best interests.
On this subject, the electoral college is a dinosaur. It causes some states to be disproportionately treated as opposed to the rest, by political candidates. It makes politics into a chess game. And, in some dishonest Republican led states (sorry for being redundant), there is a movement to further manipulate this antiquated system for their own benefit (if you cannot win an election honestly, do what you can to win it any way you can. Does anyone remember that paragon of morality calling upon the faithful to be more like Boss Tweed? Why not Al Capone?). Enough. Let the people, at long last, pick the leader of the US, not some jerry-rigged byzantinian process. The politicians will have to pander to all the people, and every vote will be important. It might actually increase turnout (wait, I know that one of the existing parties does not want this).
Immigration needs to be fixed. Our borders need to be secure, for the sake of safety (can you say al Quida over the Mexican border?). That accomplished, anyone, from anywhere, who wants to enter the US should be allowed to do so. This worked great until the 1920s, and most of us would not be here if it were not for that. As long as the person does not want to murder us, and is not a criminal, let him in! HOWEVER, with rights come responsibilities. No one should move from anywhere to anywhere without some expectation of assimilating. This does NOT mean leave your culture, religion, outlook, or anything else at the door. It does mean that you have enough respect for the people in the country, to which you are moving, to learn the language and some basic norms. From wherever you come, learning English must be at the top of your to-do list, it is responsible, respectful, and a very minimal requirement to becoming a permanent part of that country. Any country on earth has the right to decide whom it lets in. We need to gain control over this right.
Freedom of religion is absolute. Anyone, with any beliefs, can practice here (as long as they are not sacrificing animals or people). However, large religious establishments need to pay their own way. There is no excuse for exempting them from taxation. A small church/synagogue/mosque/temple could be exempt, as long as they refrain, TOTALLY, from any form of political involvement. If they wish to participate in the political system, let them pay their own way. Proselytizing should NEVER be at public expense. Larger religious institutions can afford to pay, and need to do so, regardless of which religion. There must be absolute separation of church and state. 90% of our founding fathers wanted this. And this one they got right.
The war on drugs needs to stop. It is wasteful, a drain on the economy, and it is unsuccessful. Drug use has not declined since this was begun in the 1960s. Drug abuse may be reprehensible, but we should be able to pursue happiness as we choose. HOWEVER, if you commit a crime where drugs (or alcohol) is involved, be it theft, murder, domestic violence, child abuse, you should face a stiffer sentence than you would if you did not indulge. People need to be responsible for their actions towards others.
Regulation of private enterprise needs to be understood. Leave a business alone, and the abuses will continue until they are stopped. This was true in the period of 1865-1933, and it is true today. Cars need to be safe, drinking water needs to be safe, food needs to be safe, banks need to have limits as to their conduct. Private property may not supersede the national interest, and government owned land may no longer be available to the abusers at nominal charges.
Foreign-
The interests of the US come first.
Those who wish to be our friends, should be treated as friends.
Those who wish to be our enemies should be treated as enemies.
Diplomacy, in order to expand our friends network and decrease our enemies network should be a top priority. However, if a country is on record as wanting the destruction of the US, that country needs to account for itself in order to obtain assistance from US taxpayers. If a country (Iran?) not only wishes to destroy the US, but is building towards doing so, the US not only can, but must act to ensure this does not happen.
Given the US history of supporting oppressive dictatorships, this should no longer be policy. However, if insurgents are on record as wanting to destroy, or at least hurt, the US, they should not get assistance from us.
While religion should play no part in politics, it should be recognized that there are universal rights and wrongs. Deliberately murdering innocent people is wrong. There is no excuse for it. Wars kill innocents, and that is regrettable. But to target civilians is wrong, no matter how you paint it, no matter what flow chart to which you are referring. Using your own civilians as human shields is wrong. The US cannot, and, really, should not try and right every wrong in the world. However, the conduct of nations should figure strongly in policy towards that nation.
This is a start.
