The Dangers of One Party Rule

Marxist Hacker 42 writes "Now that the Politics section is up and running, I can submit this story. Back in February, The American Prospect ran a speculative article on The Danger of NeoConservative One Party Rule. A quote: 'Benjamin Franklin, leaving the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, was asked by a bystander what kind of government the Founders had bestowed. "A republic," he famously replied, "if you can keep it." There have been moments in American history when we kept our republic only by the slenderest of margins. This year is one of those times.'"

Comments

So true

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone in the United States should think very carefully about the past four years, and also remeber what the United States was like before the current administration. Once you've come to your conclustion, start telling everyone you know to vote Kerry. This is serious.

Re:So true

[Anonymous Coward]

What have you missed?! Unbelievable! Let me help you out here. Do you by any chance watch Fox News or something? Unbelievable...

"Then, we figured out it was Bin Laden's people from Afghanistan."

You mean Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

"Then, everybody like you said we'd be quagmired if we attacked Afghanistan. We attacked Afghanistan and overran it in like 10 days. Bin Laden fled to the Afghan-Pakistan border."

Where he remains free three years later while American troops are still stuck in Afghanistan while the Taliban control ever-increasing sections of the country. A quagmire.

"Then, Iraq kept rattling its swords. Everyone like you said Bush should go to the UN and get a resolution. So he did. Everyone like you said Bush should give the inspectors more time. So he did. Finally, the time was up and we invaded with the Brits and dozen or so other countries. "

No, he didn't wait until time was up. He went ahead before the inspectors could finish the job. Up until then they were saying there were no signs of WMD. Bush didn't believe them, invaded anyway, and whaddya know? The inspectors turned out to be right.

"Everyone like you said we'd get bogged down, and that we should have gotten France, Germany, and Russia's permission. We blitzed through Iraq like a hot knife through butter."

As the Iraqi soldiers melted into society waiting for us to stop bombing. We did, and they started to take back their country again, now absolutely controlling several sections. Meanwhile the U.S. troops are bogged down, more than 1,000 dead, and no end in sight.

"It also turned out that the people who wanted Saddam to continue in power, combined with those who wanted an Iranian-style totalitarian Islamic rule, decided to fight a guerilla-style set of skirmishes, assuming that the USA and the new Iraq government would back down. Well they didn't and they won't (unless of course Bush is voted out)."

Bush will run even if he is elected. The American people will demand it after, oh, 5,000 dead, or 10,000 dead, or sooner or later.

"Finally, these same Islamic radicals killed several hundred children in Russia. The Russians now see things our way and are going to kick some pre-emption butt."

Chechnyan separatists, you mean.

"Oh yeah, the economy's picking up steam, Al Quaeda people are being arrested left and right, we rolled up the Pakistani nuke connection, we captured Saddam and the Iraq people are going to try him, Libya dropped its WMD programs and surrendered, there've been no more terrorist attacks in the USA, and no one that you know has actually been affected by any Patriot Act provisions. You also have more money in your pocket than you did at the start of this administration due to tax cuts."

The economy is very slowing improving, Al Qaeda is more numerous than it has ever been as new recruits more than make up for old ones arrested, the Pakistani nuke connection is ever dangerous, they did get Saddam but where's Osama?, Libya did back down, there have been more terror attacks then ever even though not in the USA, and yes I do know people affected by the Patriot Act. As for more money in our pockets, only if we were rich to begin with. The pittance the rest of us got was spent long ago.

Re:So true

[Peaceful_Patriot]

Now, the only way to stop this trend is to actually go and fight these bastards where they live. These guys are nothing but power hungry madmen. There is no reasoning with them. There is no capitulation with them. Just as it was meaningless to try to appease Hilter, its just as meaningless now to appease these madmen. Its time to go after them.

I agree, regarding the crazies that attacked us from Afghanistan....So WTF are we doing in Iraq?

And remember, when Clinton went after Al Queda he was roundly criitcized by Republicans and in the press for trying to divert attention from Monica. Too bad the right-wingers were more obsessed with bringing down Clinton than they were concerned about the gathering threat of Al Queda.

Re:So true

[An Onerous Coward]

Read the grandparent again. He was not denying that the Chechnyan separatists were Islamic radicals. He was denying that the Chechnyan separatists are the same Islamic radicals that are fighting in Iraq.

There is nothing wrong with referring to the perpetrators of the Russian school attacks as "Chechnyan separatists," because that's what they are. They're also militant, because they use military-style tactics and training to prepare for and execute their attacks. So I don't see that the "liberal media" is doing us a disservice by using those terms.

Where in the "liberal media" have the attackers in Russia been referred to as "activists" or "freedom fighters?" Doing a quick survey of Google News, I find one story from today referring to them as "captors," one that makes no mention of the attackers (it focuses on the US plans for dealing with similar attacks), one that refers to them as raiders, and a Guardian article laced with words like "extremist", "terrorists", and "child-killers" (quoting Vladmir Putin). The last article also mentions that Chechnya has a Muslim majority, and mentions the possibility that some of the attackers were Arabs with links to al-Qaeda.

Yes, Islamic militants are a major source of terrorism, and to ignore this in dealing with Islamic terrorists is a bad idea. But many of the people and organizations who use violence to achieve political ends have nothing to do with Islam, and it would be a mistake to conflate terrorism with Islamic militants, or Islamic militants with Islam.

I for one am looking forward to November, when Kerry will be elected. I personally think that the hyperconfrontational posture Dubya is taking can only energize terror networks around the globe.

Re:So true

[An Onerous Coward]

Wow. Another right-winger who wants to break out the nukes. I'll say this once, because anyone who would murder millions in revenge for an act that murdered thousands deserves it: You are an idiot.

To equate two things is to say P->Q and Q->P. If someone is an Islamic terrorist, he is also a terrorist. But the converse is most certainly not true. All terrorism is a worldwide problem, regardless of the ideology. Terror by militant Islamic groups just happens to be a large component of the problem.

The religion of Islam is no more to blame for Islamic terrorism than Christianity is to blame for abortion clinic shootings. Both have adherents with wildly varying interpretations of the faith. These people aren't terrorists because of Islam, but because they are dirt poor, fed anti-Western propaganda all their lives, and feel that they have nothing to lose.

You're making a huge mistake in declaring one third of the world's population to be your enemy. Did I mention you're an idiot?

Re:So true

[itwerx]

Islam in general has shown itself to be an evil religion lately.

So, by that logic, if I (an American citizen) went to another country and killed somebody, people in that country should assume that all Americans are murderers?
What if I were Catholic? Does that mean all Catholics are murderers as well?

Next time think for a moment before you make sweeping statements...

My two discussion questions

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I think they were edited out because this is Politics, not Ask Slashdot (and yes, I promise to pick my topics more carefully in the future).

Will this lead to a Stalin-like hard right rule in the United States, and the warned curtailing of rights that a single, right-wing party is feared to be? Or will it be neoconservative utopia, ushering in an era of low taxes, small government, trickle down economics, and an end to labor law disputes?

Re:My two discussion questions

[Mark_MF-WN]

Trickle-down economics? Grow up. They don't work, and never have. The whole concept of trickle-down economics was just a feeble excuse to cut taxes for the wealthy.

Re:My two discussion questions

[temojen]

And thats exactly what we see today, neither much to the left or the right

Try looking at american politics from a foreign viewpoint. In the grand scheme of things, both the Republicans and the Democrats are right of centre. The Republicans are just more right wing and way more authoritarian

Re:My two discussion questions

[Veridium]

But we don't call our opponents Hitler, Nazis or Stalin.

No, you just knee jerk call people who disagree with the president or his policies, communists, socialists, terrorist sympathizers, and all kinds of other nasty illogical names. And before you whip you the "leftist" label out of your rear and try to apply it to me, I'm a Libertarian. My party stands for free markets, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. You remember those words? It's what Bush promised us and then delivered the exact opposite.

There is something more dangerous than

[antifoidulus]

1 party rule, and it is happening as we speak, and has been happening for a while: The constitution is set up assuming that all 3 branches of the government would be constantly suspicious of what the other ones are doing. However, with the solidifcation of political parties, this isn't happening. Everyone is just toeing the party line, and that is dangerous. The supreme court justices aren't supposed to like the president, congress isn't supposed to depend on the president for inspiration for legislation. The president isn't supposed to just sign everything that his party passes. (I can't seem to think of one veto that George W. Bush has had overrided) That to me is dangerous, it signals that the checks and balances are erroding.

slow down cowpoke

[spreer]

I was with for your first three sentences. The left often engages in hyperbole. No one rational here thinks Bush is in any substantial way like Hitler.

Then I get to sentence four. I am not giving my civil liberties up, even a little bit, not because of Al-Qaeda or for any other reason. I'm probably the nine-millionth person to quote Ben Franklin on this, but "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

And then I see sentence five: "The only thing we would gain from John Kerry is a government that's a slave to France." And your credibility is shot.

a) Do you honestly think that?
b) If so, why?
c) What the hell?

spreer

That's fine by me

[ElForesto]

I prefer my information presented with an obvious and admitted slant. It's much easier to take in the grains of salt that way. What really peeves me is when a news source tries to pawn itself off as being impartial or balanced when it really isn't. I can totally deal with bias if you'll just be upfront with it.

A Heat Sink is a Good Thing.

[RobertB-DC]

I pine for the day... that /. can get back to the "News for nerds" part. This bitching and vote-mongering is hardly "stuff that matters."

True, but I think the editors have made a brilliant stroke by creating the "Politics" section. It's a heat sink.

The heat generated by a power transistor is an inevitable part of its operation. Unfortunately, it tends to degrade the component's operation, to the point where it's no more than a two-legged* blob of molten silicon. To prevent this, we use a Heat Sink. The transistor can then function normally, with the waste heat dissipated somewhere other than the silicon.

Slashdot generates heat, too, in the form of strong opinions that don't actually contribute to the discussion at hand. Post a story about the next release of Knoppix, and someone will say something about the government supporting/restraining Open Source, then someone will say something about the current administration, and pretty soon you're looking at a hole in the screen where a discussion used to be.

The Politics section is Slashdot's heat sink. People like me who have strong opinions can vent them here, where they don't affect the articles in the Games, Science, and Apple sections. The heat is inevitable, but you can at least make sure it doesn't interfere with your performance.

* I know transistors have three connections. I'm thinking of the power transistors where the body is the ground connector. And Bush sucks, by the way.

Re:Utter Crap......

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I doubt you served at all, ever. You sound like an utterly typical chickenhawk conservative who thinks he knows everything about the military because he knows some guy who knows some guy who says ... etc., but who never had the guts to wear a uniform himself. You, and Dick Cheney, can go fuck yourselves.

sincerely,
Daniel Dvorkin
former SSgt, USAF
USAR infantryman 1987-1989
USAF medic 1989-1997

Re:Correction . . .

[brunes69]

For the past sixty years the United States have been tilting heavily in one direction

In what direction would *that* be?

You imply that it is the left, but the US is and has been (for *at least* the past sixty years) one of the most right-winged first world nations around. The "Democrats" in the US would be what is considered very conservative in most of Europe and also in Canada and AU.