This came up in another subject and I found it very interesting, I would be interested in everyones opinion. My feeling was that at this current point in American Politics, there seems to be a domination by the ruling conservative majority without respect for the minority. I felt this was a very scary scenario. Someone else posted that they felt it was the opposite, that there was minority rule right now in the country. They also felt this to be a scary scenario. My debate quetions would be:

Who is really running the country right now? The Republican/Conservative Majority? The Democratic/Liberal Minority? Neither?

Is this a healthy scenario?

Neither. As far as I can tell, the split between right/left, conservative/liberal, and Republican/Democrat (choose the dichotomy you prefer) is more-or-less equal. Sure, one group has more political power than the other right now, but that will change. The strongest voices on both sides of the divide will never be fully satisfied, and the USA will continue to muddle along in its moderate, centrist way. That's probably a good thing.

It's best when neither the majority nor the minority has power over the other. It's also very hard to arrange.

Special interest is running the country. Neither liberal nor conservative is looking out for the rights of the minority. Special interest is attaching itself to Democrats or Republicans or both and using government to champion their own personal agenda for the benefit of themselves.

Most voters select representatives this way. While not as profitable as special interest groups, people tend to select representatives who bring pork to their area. Philosophical positions are secondary to "what have you gotten my lately" or "what will you give me."

Those voters who vote on philosophical positions are given the song and dance with big money to get their support. It seems to work.

It is not healthy.

I think special intersts and the Republican Congressional/Presidential Majority is currently ruling right now. After '04 when Kucinich is elected President that will change and the Democrats will likely be the majority.

I would say just the opposite is happening. I think we are seeing the tyranny of the minority. Just by the few posts, I think special interest groups ARE the minority oppressing the majority. Look at the 10 commandments issue..once again the minority oppressing the majority. Look at the mess in CA with the wildfires and elsewhere in the country. Greens going nuts with enviro-policy with no clue as to the ramifications. Again..tyranny of the minority. And you can cite examples on and on and on.

cusbilla

Can you please explain to me, with the 10 commandments issue in Alabama, how the minority oppressed the majority? Seems to me that Judge Moore was the one attempting oppression, here.

He placed a 2500lb monument in the lobby of a public court building. He did it in the dead of night, because he knew he'd not get away with it in broad daylight.

When others asked to place their monuments there as well, he refused, calling their religious beliefs false. When ordered by a Federal Judge to remove the monument, in compliance with the separation of church and state doctrine, he again refused.

Nobody told Judge Moore he could not believe as he wished, only that he could not force his beliefs on others, in a building that is supposed to be open to all religions and to codify the rule of law. He was telling people that his God came before the laws of man, as far as he was concerned. Now, most people in this country may be Christians, but what this man was doing was a violation of the law he had sworn to uphold.

As far as the question asked goes, it's kind of a toss up right now. There is not enough of a majority in either house that can't be thwarted if a bill seems truly out of touch with the country.

The biggest problem I have is that both sides, no matter how narrow the margin of majority, seems to think that they have a mandate, a right to have everything they propose passed without opposition of any kind.

I originally said that there is an issue of the majority tyranny. My examples: the current Medicare bill, the late-term abortion bill and use of American troops at our "President's" pleasure. You gave us two examples, both very debateable. (As I am sure some find my examples.) But, I think this current "you question our president, we question your patriotism" attitude is a reflection of almost tyrannical majority rule.

Look again. Does the majority really want the Medicare bill? Sorry but the military is ALWAYS at the Presidents pleasure and has been since the writing of the Constitution. You have yet to make a debateable point on the majority being tyranical but, have made my point of the minority being VERY tyrranical.

cusbilla

Actually no. The President needs to consult Congress before deploying the military. But, you make my point here. At present, the Congress and the President are indistinguishable from each other. They are constantly doing each others bidding. Making for a...tyrannical majority rule.

Actually your totally mistaken. The President can deploy troops anywhere he wants to.

cusbilla

Okay. deploy was the wrong choice of words. But, in order to declare war, which in not so many words our President has done, you need the approval of Congress. Or you need your Congressional buddies in the majority to vote that this rule be disregarded. Again...majority abusing the minority. Yet, I feel soon we will see those opposing this "war" outnumbering those who support. In which case, the opposite of my case could be made and I would have to re-think my whole argument. Uh-oh!

cubilla, you seemed to have taken the idea of the tyranny of the majority and flipped it on its head. It is good when the majority can not will to the minority just because they are the majority. You seem offended that this is the case. Perhaps you believe in democracy in a very strict sense? An important concept of this country is to protect minority groups and even the smallest minority group, an individual. In others words, tyranny is to be avoided. Are you claiming this concept is tyrannical into itself?

The McLaughlin Group actually had statistics on this tonight. The country is 33% Republican, 34% Democratic and 33% Independance or Other. I know those numbers don't add up to 100, but they're rounded. So basically, it's an even split. There is no "silent majority" of any type in my opinion, though I believe that both the Democratic Party is falling and leftism (not Liberalism, mind you) is rising, but most of all we're getting polarized.

However, the Conservatives have a firm hold on the government, and I have a feeling they may suffer for this in a time when America isn't as Conservative as they'd like to think.

No, what I am saying is that we really aren't seeing the tyrrany of the majority but rather the tyrrany of the minority which is of MUCH greater concern. It's not that the majority is forcing something on the minority but, vice versa.

cusbilla

This country is being ruled by a tiny minority: the conservative corporate elite. This elite and its lobbyists dominate both of the major parties, which are practically indistinguishable from each other anyway.

The American people, in all their diversity, should rule this country - and any majority should seek to protect the interests of the smallest minorities among us.

The American people no longer govern themselves. American business - in the form of corrupt crony capitialism - does. And it is a tyranny of the worst kind.

I have to totally agree with this post- whether or not you supported GW or Gore in the last election, both were from very well established political families and fund raising machines. Both had enormous ties to corporate interests. Bush was flying around in the Enron jet during the supreme court hearings. The real reason for the election being so close in my opinion was voter apathy over both of them, with only the extremists on either side really making an effort to get out the vote.

* start of blatantly biased promotion *

Oh boy! What a great place to hawk my candidate, Dean!

If you're tired of politicians being beholden to special interests, then support Dean. His campaign has the best chance of changing this situation. Grass roots efforts, YES! Tiny minorities, NO!

Yessiree, no matter what your political leaning, just the presence of the Dean campaign is changing the way this country works. It's setting the wave of the future, writing the book that will be followed by anyone wanting to get into office from here on out.

It's not so much about Dean but about how campaign money is raised. You want a candidate who sucks up to corporate special interests? Or do you want somebody supported by a lot of little donations?

Heh, I bet even Republicans could be on this to ensure Dean runs against Bush, a sure shoe-in! YES! Get those credit cards out and buy a sure thing for Bush.

* end of blatantly biased promotion *

Seriously, the only way we will turn the tide of special interests is to directly support our chosen candidates through lots of small donations building up to a gigantic war chest of campaign funds. The people of the United States have done this before in differing forms (unions, marches on Washington), but now the Internet enables the Dean phenomenon to happen in a very easy manner. Just a couple of mouse clicks and it's done.

Know what? I am frankly amazed that Libertarians didn't do this first. Eh, maybe it does take someone from the Big Two for this sort of thing to get going. People have to feel that there is some chance of winning the election.

An additional benefit is that campaign finance reform becomes a moot point. Dean only needs to get a hundred bucks from 2 million people to match Bush's expected funding. We have a population of over 250 million. So only 1% of the population has to finance Dean's bid.

And if 2% finance? Why, the money doubles!

But then we need to ask if money wins elections.

Republicans rule the roost. I rest my case.

BTW, I also think Dean will make a great president. However, the impact of his campaign on the future is greater than any president could have. We have a shot at returning to a true republic where tiny minorities of corporate special interests do not pull the strings. That's worth a hundred bucks.

I might also add that Dean has no need for pre-election secret meetings with energy moguls whom we know as only dark silhouettes in Cheney's head.

I think that would be fairly accurate. Perhaps we have an even split because there isn't a real isue to galvanize people to one side or the other. The democrats obviously rode a wave of resentment during the great depression and into WWII. The Republicans capitalized on resentment of government and general ineptness during the Carter years to rule the White House for twelve consecutive years. Now, there just isn't an issue that makes most everyone, of both parties, angry or motivated enough to cast votes decisively for one party.(i.e.-the "Reagan democrats" etc.) I don't believe that the war, prescription drugs, energy bill fight, or corporate scandals are important enough issues to create such a wave in society. It will take another issue to do so, and we have yet to see it in my humble opinion.