Are political parties necessary?

[PeanutCoins]

It seems many of our early politicians realized that political parties could and probably would be sources of strife and conflict and the nation would be better off without them. I doubt they would have thought that we would reach a time where compromise was a dirty word and members of different political parties could actually hate each other.

The two party system is so entrenched in America its hard to imagine the nation without them. Many of us would like to see a third party to give us more choice but I wonder if anyone thinks we would be better off without any political parties at all? In fact....how would the government work without organized political parties? Are these parties necessary for democratic nations to remain free and governed by the people? Without the ordered structure of parties would politics be an exercise similar to "herding cats"? Are political parties doing more harm than good? What do you think?

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/political-parties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States

[1714790802]

1714790802

[1714790802]

1714790802

[1714790802]

1714790802

[1714790802]

1714790802

[1714790802]

1714790802

[Chef Ramsay]

Some of the Founders were against political parties because there was no need as long as the letter of the Constitution was followed to a T. As in, if an issue was clearly authorized in Art I, Sec VIII clause 1-17 then Congress couldn't even discuss or vote on a matter yet that changed rather quickly back then and completely in modern times. Now, you have your two major parties that have written relatively strict ballot access (incumbent protection) laws now in state and federal law making it very tough for 3rd parties to ever get majority party status and not have to spend time and money on signature campaigns just to make it on the ballot. Furthermore, gerrymandering gives those in charge an extra leg up on their opponent party. The easiest way that those that value liberty can make any moves in that direction is to get a larger shareholder stake in the GOP and it has been working in state and federal level races among others lately thanks to Ron Paul's first campaign for Prez as a Republican that awakened the remnant to get actively involved in the local and state republican parties across America.

[bitsmichel]

It seems many of our early politicians realized that political parties could and probably would be sources of strife and conflict and the nation would be better off without them. I doubt they would have thought that we would reach a time where compromise was a dirty word and members of different political parties could actually hate each other.

The two party system is so entrenched in America its hard to imagine the nation without them. Many of us would like to see a third party to give us more choice but I wonder if anyone thinks we would be better off without any political parties at all? In fact....how would the government work without organized political parties? Are these parties necessary for democratic nations to remain free and governed by the people? Without the ordered structure of parties would politics be an exercise similar to "herding cats"? Are political parties doing more harm than good? What do you think?

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/political-parties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States

Different countries have and had different systems, even though they name themselves a democracy. For example, the number of political parties range from 2 to 40 or so. For example, the folks in the UK have much more choice than 2, there are like 17 parties. In order to be a democracy, a political party is not necessary. In a democracy, citizens can participate either directly or indirectly through elected representatives. An alternative would be a system where the citizens vote directly for laws/regulation as opposed to parties. Given the current state of technology, such a system could actually be implemented. I'm not saying it is better or worse, just that it would be possible. As for freedom, as much as power gets expanded freedom is in a decline.

[Nathonas]

Mainstream (Conservative/Liberal) political parties are necessary to create the illusion that people elect politicians to represent them. The reality is that these political parties are mostly just extensions of powerful business interests and wealthy people in general. The only REAL political parties are Green Parties and groups like the Pirate Party in Europe. But these don't have enough support.

[peeveepee]

Yes.  Because they give the people the illusion of choice.

Over simplification of a complex system.

Some cultures who live in harmony with nature prefer socialism.

Cultures that are aggressive in nature choose capitalism with military expansion.

[Ekaros]

Mainstream (Conservative/Liberal) political parties are necessary to create the illusion that people elect politicians to represent them. The reality is that these political parties are mostly just extensions of powerful business interests and wealthy people in general. The only REAL political parties are Green Parties and groups like the Pirate Party in Europe. But these don't have enough support.

I wouldn't even say that established Green parties are always any better than the old ones. They might have started as such, but if they got their share of power it has corrupted them. Ofc, there still exist certain specifics in policies...

[Rigon]

It seems many of our early politicians realized that political parties could and probably would be sources of strife and conflict and the nation would be better off without them. I doubt they would have thought that we would reach a time where compromise was a dirty word and members of different political parties could actually hate each other.

The two party system is so entrenched in America its hard to imagine the nation without them. Many of us would like to see a third party to give us more choice but I wonder if anyone thinks we would be better off without any political parties at all? In fact....how would the government work without organized political parties? Are these parties necessary for democratic nations to remain free and governed by the people? Without the ordered structure of parties would politics be an exercise similar to "herding cats"? Are political parties doing more harm than good? What do you think?

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/political-parties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States

We created that via our Tea Party Movement. We Now have Collectivist Liberals on the Radical and Extreme Left wing, the DC Insider Republican Moderates, and our Individualist, Conservative Tea Party Movement.
I do Not  see how you might eliminate the two Very entrenched party Enemies. Consider the huge money the Insider GOP has spent fighting against our Fiscal Conservatism with our Tea Party candidates who still kicked their butts! The "Demopublican" Party owns all the keys to the DC castle!

[umair127]

The Insanitea party is just the radical right's voice. Not really a party. Just the extreme branch of the Republican party. The libertarians are another branch of the conservative movement but not nearly as radical as the Insanitea people. The Libertarians are closer to the anarchists. Then there are the Classical liberals who seem a bit like the libertarians and the constitutional party people who just seen to want to go back to 1776.

[zolace]

The Insanitea party is just the radical right's voice. Not really a party. Just the extreme branch of the Republican party. The libertarians are another branch of the conservative movement but not nearly as radical as the Insanitea people. The Libertarians are closer to the anarchists. Then there are the Classical liberals who seem a bit like the libertarians and the constitutional party people who just seen to want to go back to 1776.

If you look at the Tea Party's platform, they're not at all extreme.  You may take issues with some individuals who identify with the movement, but the movement itself is not extreme.
It seems that no matter what a third party looks like, the existing two will paint it as a nutbag extreme group that poses a danger to our very being.  All in the interests of keeping the power right where it currently resides. 

[noviapriani]

I think if we figured out how to use the internet we could eliminate the political parties and the corrupt politicians that infest both of them, but what are the chances of that happening?

[umair127]

The Insanitea party is just the radical right's voice. Not really a party. Just the extreme branch of the Republican party. The libertarians are another branch of the conservative movement but not nearly as radical as the Insanitea people. The Libertarians are closer to the anarchists. Then there are the Classical liberals who seem a bit like the libertarians and the constitutional party people who just seen to want to go back to 1776.

If you look at the Tea Party's platform, they're not at all extreme.  You may take issues with some individuals who identify with the movement, but the movement itself is not extreme.
It seems that no matter what a third party looks like, the existing two will paint it as a nutbag extreme group that poses a danger to our very being.  All in the interests of keeping the power right where it currently resides. 

I do have a problem with the known leaders of the movement . I consider them extremists and by in large harmful to the nation. They remind me of many Christians who claim to believe in Christ but can't live by his teachings. What good is a political platform if it becomes clear that is not really what the party is all about?

[JohnnyLightning]

The Insanitea party is just the radical right's voice. Not really a party. Just the extreme branch of the Republican party. The libertarians are another branch of the conservative movement but not nearly as radical as the Insanitea people. The Libertarians are closer to the anarchists. Then there are the Classical liberals who seem a bit like the libertarians and the constitutional party people who just seen to want to go back to 1776.

If you look at the Tea Party's platform, they're not at all extreme.  You may take issues with some individuals who identify with the movement, but the movement itself is not extreme.
It seems that no matter what a third party looks like, the existing two will paint it as a nutbag extreme group that poses a danger to our very being.  All in the interests of keeping the power right where it currently resides. 

The fact that simply wanting the federal government to follow the constitution is now considered extreme speaks volumes about the state of the Union, not to mention the mental state of a decent percentage of its citizens.

[sana8410]

Political parties being necessary, I believe it is a natural phenomenon for people of like interests and beliefs to join together as there is the feeling that strength in numbers will help to promote the issues one cherishes. What I have a problem with is when the parties try to take on too many issues (the platforms go on and on) and be everything to everyone. A simple underlying philosophy rather than a menu of interest group pandering points would be more appealing to me.
Political parties are probably necessary. I am not a member of any of them. I have, in the past, been a member of the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party. Neither really were a good fit and I have no desire to formalize a relationship with the Republicans although they are more likely to reflect my beliefs, at least superficially, than the others. Where they lose me is when they take the advice of liberals who tell them where they are going wrong and how they will be more successful by adopting lukewarm versions of Democrat policies. Like that will work. I prefer a sharper contrast.

[umair127]

Political parties being necessary, I believe it is a natural phenomenon for people of like interests and beliefs to join together as there is the feeling that strength in numbers will help to promote the issues one cherishes. What I have a problem with is when the parties try to take on too many issues (the platforms go on and on) and be everything to everyone. A simple underlying philosophy rather than a menu of interest group pandering points would be more appealing to me.
Political parties are probably necessary. I am not a member of any of them. I have, in the past, been a member of the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party. Neither really were a good fit and I have no desire to formalize a relationship with the Republicans although they are more likely to reflect my beliefs, at least superficially, than the others. Where they lose me is when they take the advice of liberals who tell them where they are going wrong and how they will be more successful by adopting lukewarm versions of Democrat policies. Like that will work. I prefer a sharper contrast.

Someone once suggested they would rather see the first 300 names in a phone book sent to washington d.c. than anyone who deliberately seeks to go there.

I rather like that.  In fact, I think congress should be appointed by lottery.  Senate, too.  Even the executive.  If you served in the military or on a jury, you're in the lottery.

[sana8410]

There's some good things in the Communist manifesto but look at what the followers did to it. Ideals are meaningless unless people follow them. The way I read the Tea party they mostly hate their fellow conservative and want to shut the government down if they can`t get what they want.

[Cicero2.0]

Yes.  Because they give the people the illusion of choice.

Over simplification of a complex system.

Some cultures who live in harmony with nature prefer socialism.

Cultures that are aggressive in nature choose capitalism with military expansion.

Extreme simplification of a complex issue. You make some fairly large leaps of logic in your quest to discredit capitalism. Socialist countries have been aggressive throughout history. To assign that quality to either system leaves out a lot of very important variables about aggressive and non aggressive nation states.

[zolace]

There's some good things in the Communist manifesto but look at what the followers did to it. Ideals are meaningless unless people follow them. The way I read the Tea party they mostly hate their fellow conservative and want to shut the government down if they can`t get what they want.

I didn't note anything good in the communist manifesto when last I read it... a few decades ago now, I suppose.  Perhaps I should re-read it? 
It's puzzling to me that you seem to prefer to believe what you are told by much of the news media rather than what you are told by actual participants in the movement.

The government never 'shut down', it barely even slowed down and in many cases it actually spent more money endulging in temper tantrums.  Similar is true of the fabled 'sequester' where unka sam had a hissy fit about increasing spending only 4% instead of the 5% he demanded.

Both the shut down and the sequester never happened, meaning they never happened in the way that most of the media portrayed them.

We're over $17 trillion dollars in debt.  We have a government engaged in perpetual warfare and snooping upon the entire world.  We have a ss/medicare bomb going off.

It will either stop by deliberate action or it will continue until utter collapse.

Personally, I doubt unka sam has the wit, wisdom or will to curtail his gluttony.

[noviapriani]

I can kind of understand your thoughts but it seems like you are aiming at the wrong culprits. It's pretty clear to me that the Banksters and Wall St. are running the show. The government has been bought outright so the greed factor is present with them, but the root of all this is the  banksters and Wall St. So the OWS would be the more logical group to throw in with.

Political parties don't have all that much to do with the heavy lifting today.

[sana8410]

There's some good things in the Communist manifesto but look at what the followers did to it. Ideals are meaningless unless people follow them. The way I read the Tea party they mostly hate their fellow conservative and want to shut the government down if they can`t get what they want.

I didn't note anything good in the communist manifesto when last I read it... a few decades ago now, I suppose.  Perhaps I should re-read it? 
It's puzzling to me that you seem to prefer to believe what you are told by much of the news media rather than what you are told by actual participants in the movement.

The government never 'shut down', it barely even slowed down and in many cases it actually spent more money endulging in temper tantrums.  Similar is true of the fabled 'sequester' where unka sam had a hissy fit about increasing spending only 4% instead of the 5% he demanded.

Both the shut down and the sequester never happened, meaning they never happened in the way that most of the media portrayed them.

We're over $17 trillion dollars in debt.  We have a government engaged in perpetual warfare and snooping upon the entire world.  We have a ss/medicare bomb going off.

It will either stop by deliberate action or it will continue until utter collapse.

Personally, I doubt unka sam has the wit, wisdom or will to curtail his gluttony.

Oh but they do.  The banks and corporations can't take over the government without willing and equally greedy and corrupt pols to do the actual dirty work.  The more power we give to government, the more that power will be misused, bought and sold to the highest bidder 

[zolace]

I can kind of understand your thoughts but it seems like you are aiming at the wrong culprits. It's pretty clear to me that the Banksters and Wall St. are running the show. The government has been bought outright so the greed factor is present with them, but the root of all this is the  banksters and Wall St. So the OWS would be the more logical group to throw in with.

Political parties don't have all that much to do with the heavy lifting today.

.. if I take a bribe, who is ultimately the bad guy?  Me or the person who offered me the bribe?  In my way of thinking, I am the bad guy in that scenario... no bribe could have happened but for my willingness to be bribed.

Businesses do not have weapons, do not have prisons, do not have taxing authority.  Blaming them for the systemic corruption of the federal government just doesn't make sense to me.

And focusing upon elected officials ignores the real power of the federal government; it's vast, all powerful and unaccountable bureaucracies.  Indeed, wasn't it just a day or two ago that the IRS basically told congress, "f---"?

[Rigon]

I think Zolace has made some good points and has expressed them without anger. I don't think I will be running to join the Tea party anytime soon but his views along with bones deserve thinking about.

[sana8410]

I think Zolace has made some good points and has expressed them without anger. I don't think I will be running to join the Tea party anytime soon but his views along with bones deserve thinking about.

For that many millions of our Tea Party Supporters are truly grateful. You have proven yourself as a Rabid, Radical, Extremist, Collectivist Liberal FOOL! We, SO thankfully welcome your absence!Anyone who claims to 'speak for the party', doesn't.

[zolace]

I think Zolace has made some good points and has expressed them without anger. I don't think I will be running to join the Tea party anytime soon but his views along with bones deserve thinking about.

Thank you.
You can't really 'run to join the tea party' because there is no where to run to.  There is no headquarters, no address, no leader, no spokesman... nothing.  If you agree with some or all of the platform, you are as much a part of the movement as anyone else is.  If you fancy a little more organization, there are local groups across the country but most of us don't bother.

Happily, there are no dues, no dress code, no secret hand shake or anything else.  Just support politicians who at least claim they want to repay the debt, or butt out of other nations wars, or stop snooping upon the entire world... that sort of thing.  Doesn't matter if they claim to be democrat or republican or green or libertarian or Pastafarian.

When they inevitably betray you, and they will, you abandon them and vote for someone else next time.

[sana8410]

I think Zolace has made some good points and has expressed them without anger. I don't think I will be running to join the Tea party anytime soon but his views along with bones deserve thinking about.

Thank you.
You can't really 'run to join the tea party' because there is no where to run to.  There is no headquarters, no address, no leader, no spokesman... nothing.  If you agree with some or all of the platform, you are as much a part of the movement as anyone else is.  If you fancy a little more organization, there are local groups across the country but most of us don't bother.

Happily, there are no dues, no dress code, no secret hand shake or anything else.  Just support politicians who at least claim they want to repay the debt, or butt out of other nations wars, or stop snooping upon the entire world... that sort of thing.  Doesn't matter if they claim to be democrat or republican or green or libertarian or Pastafarian.

When they inevitably betray you, and they will, you abandon them and vote for someone else next time.

I see that you only listed part of what the tea party or libertarians stand for.  Libertarians believe in open borders according to their platform. But according to what has been posted on this board is the idea that we should take away the safety net for many people in this country and I guess just let them starve.  And someone can say that isn't radical. I guess it would only be radical if the republicans and their guns just went out and shot those little kids with extended bellies.

[boraf]

However bad the current system is, it is still better than one party dictatorship.

[DannyElfman]

Political parties are not necessary but it would be wrong to outright ban them. Parties are essentially a (large) group of people who share the same kinds of political beliefs. If you agree with two or three crazy liberal views then you likely agree with Democrats on most political issues. The same is  true with conservative issues and Republicans.

[LAstar]

Are political parties necessary? Yes they are! Because people need to believe that their opinions are important

[zolace]

My concern is primarily the debt, lit., followed by perpetual war and the perpetual welfare state.

Given that the national debt is primarily caused by two badly designed federal programs and presidents having little to do but play with the military, you can choose to interpret that as 'yanking the 'safety net', if you wish.

Seniors are, demographically speaking, the wealthiest of all Americans... yet they get welfare and medical paid for out of the pockets of the poor-est.

That's just stupid.

And allowing presidents to keep us in perpetual war...

[Rigon]

I think Zolace has made some good points and has expressed them without anger. I don't think I will be running to join the Tea party anytime soon but his views along with bones deserve thinking about.

Thank you.
You can't really 'run to join the tea party' because there is no where to run to.  There is no headquarters, no address, no leader, no spokesman... nothing.  If you agree with some or all of the platform, you are as much a part of the movement as anyone else is.  If you fancy a little more organization, there are local groups across the country but most of us don't bother.

Happily, there are no dues, no dress code, no secret hand shake or anything else.  Just support politicians who at least claim they want to repay the debt, or butt out of other nations wars, or stop snooping upon the entire world... that sort of thing.  Doesn't matter if they claim to be democrat or republican or green or libertarian or Pastafarian.

When they inevitably betray you, and they will, you abandon them and vote for someone else next time.

I see that you only listed part of what the tea party or libertarians stand for.  Libertarians believe in open borders according to their platform. But according to what has been posted on this board is the idea that we should take away the safety net for many people in this country and I guess just let them starve.  And someone can say that isn't radical. I guess it would only be radical if the republicans and their guns just went out and shot those little kids with extended bellies.

The answer to the abuse of government officials--not "gummint" because "gummint" isn't a single entity--but the problem of government officials abusing their power is to remove them, not the power.

Each and everyone of you  has the power through your vote to control those who govern you. YOU choose to exercise that power poorly. THen you blame "gummint" for the people YOU choose to put into office.

Take a look at your Senators and Reps. All of us on these boards vote, when's the last time you voted third party? I always do, I expect there are also others. But still your reps keep on getting elected. Well, the people get the government they deserve, and if all they deserve is kleptocracy, then that's what they'll get. Southerners who vote against a Senator who lost a leg in the service of his country because they're persuaded by a commercial of him in a turban put out by his opponent, lol, these people get exactly what they deserve.

DON'T blame it on gummint. Put the blame squarely where it belongs: people who don't do their duty as sovereign citizens to exercise their franchise with care and intelligence.

But the answer is not to say, "well, since some factories will bribe some congressmen to give them a pass, might as well just let ALL companies dump their cancer causing chemicals into the Love Canal."

[Rigon]

Of course we all want "constitutional" government. Some of us just aren't stupid enough to think that our reading of the Constitution is the only one that matters.

All of us want to cut out "wasteful" spending or "failed programs". The sticking point is what is wasteful and what is failed.

All of us want a "strong" defense but all of us all want not to "overspend" on the military. We never actually bother to define the terms.

We all want "limited" government--limited to exactly what we think it should and shouldn't do.

The problem with the Teabaggers is that they assume they are presenting a viewpoint that hasn't been presented before, but in fact, their goals are the same as all Americans' goals. The idea that presenting those goals as a "platform" is politically meaningful is moronic because the concepts are common to all Americans, with the execution being the sticking points.

And the execution the Teabaggers offer is, as we know, pretty moronic. Americans want limited government, yes, but they don't define "limited" as "allowing the corporations to poison our water supply."

So, no, the Teabaggers offer no third party alternative, nor do their moronic acolytes on this board, because they're not offering anything that other Americans don't already believe their OWN philosophy does. Of course Democrats believe t hat they're operating within Constitutional bounds. Of course Republicans believe they're not wasting money when we spend more on defense than the rest of the the world combined.

[sana8410]

Of course we all want "constitutional" government. Some of us just aren't stupid enough to think that our reading of the Constitution is the only one that matters.

All of us want to cut out "wasteful" spending or "failed programs". The sticking point is what is wasteful and what is failed.

All of us want a "strong" defense but all of us all want not to "overspend" on the military. We never actually bother to define the terms.

We all want "limited" government--limited to exactly what we think it should and shouldn't do.

The problem with the Teabaggers is that they assume they are presenting a viewpoint that hasn't been presented before, but in fact, their goals are the same as all Americans' goals. The idea that presenting those goals as a "platform" is politically meaningful is moronic because the concepts are common to all Americans, with the execution being the sticking points.

And the execution the Teabaggers offer is, as we know, pretty moronic. Americans want limited government, yes, but they don't define "limited" as "allowing the corporations to poison our water supply."

So, no, the Teabaggers offer no third party alternative, nor do their moronic acolytes on this board, because they're not offering anything that other Americans don't already believe their OWN philosophy does. Of course Democrats believe t hat they're operating within Constitutional bounds. Of course Republicans believe they're not wasting money when we spend more on defense than the rest of the the world combined.

Following Rick Santelli giving birth to our Tea Party Movement, some of our Facilitators sent out an extensive poll of many American issues, asking people to prioritize them. What came back was overwhelming support for Fiscal Conservatism with social issues beneath them. The Facilitators tallied them and took the top ten items, and made those our objectives, and the elements upon which we base all that we do nationally.

The local Tea Party Groups are free to add any items they wish since we are a Movement and not a party. We do NOT have any Gun/Immigration/EnviroNazi/or any NON-Fiscal goals in our agenda, just simple Fiscal sanity by returning to compliance with our Constitution as it states.

Thus, our goals for the next few decades or more will continue to be these, nationally:

Tea Party's 10-point "Contract From America":
1. Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.

2. Reject Cap and Trade: Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumers prices, and weaken the nation's global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.

3. Demand a Balanced Budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike.

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution.

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility and Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington: Create a Blue Ribbon task force that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitufc tionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholes sale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the U.S. Constitution's meaning.

6. End Runaway Government Spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.

7. De-Fund, Repeal, and Replace Government-Run Health Care: De-fund, repeal, and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health; care and health insurance system that isn't restricted by state boundaries.

8. Pass an "All-of-the-Above" Energy Policy: Authorize the explora? tion of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs.

9. Stop the Pork: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a two-thirds majority to pass any earmark,

10. Stop the Tax Hikes: Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011

Teabaggers offer no third party alternative

True, we do not intend to become a political party, merely to continue as a national Movement, electing specific members of Congress and the Senate working ever toward these ten objectives. Each person we elect will naturally be a complete person with personal positions on Gun/Immigration/EnviroNazi/and other NON-Fiscal goals. We neither ask nor do we care what their Social positions are so long as their government fiscal values align with our ten points.

It is HIGHLY motivational and energizing for our Supporters that the Radicals and Extremists in BOTH parties keep our Movement on the minds of all Americans with their constant and repetitive attacks. The Collectivist Liberals are actually our Tea Party PR Department, and they are doing a WONDERFUL job for our causes!

[shogdite]

And the execution the Teabaggers offer is, as we know, pretty moronic. Americans want limited government, yes, but they don't define "limited" as "allowing the corporations to poison our water supply."

Doesn't help when you have teabaggers like Michelle Bachmann calling for smaller government when her own family has benefited from government aid  

A counseling clinic run by her husband has received nearly $30,000 from the state of Minnesota whilst her family farm in Wisconsin received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies.

[sana8410]

The tea party movement is actually more popular than congress.
Which isn't saying much, I'll grant you.  Given, however, the hatred directed at us from most of the media and nearly all sitting politicians... we've managed to accomplish quite a lot.
Consider the possibility that some part of our success is directly due to the attacks from all these discredited scum. Many Americans would believe Assad and Putin, even Obama before they beieve See BS!

[Benjig]

The public perception of parties in young or established democracies doesn’t differ that much either. But like them or not, modern representative democracy cannot do without political parties.