Sunday, March 13, 2011

Sunday Morning political-religious thought

I generally like to take a day of rest from politics and everything else, but I thought this was timely and applicable. If nobody minds I will do this from time to time and not just from my own religious philosophy. I have a copy of the Koran in English and if anybody has a thought for me to post from other philosophies or traditions, please let me know. I'd be happy to do so.

Matthew 5:17-18 KJV
"17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring for good fruit."

A two-party system doesn't yield very much good fruit so what can we infer about the character of a two-party system? Sure parties have the right of freedom of association, I'll vigorously defend that. However as readers here are intimately aware, the two-party system has taken upon itself to act as a publicly funded 'establishment' filter in the conduct of our elections. The bottom line is that arrangement is not yielding good fruit. By postulation, a two-party system as it exists now cannot ever yield good fruit.


wjk said...

How about, 'To thyne own self be true' If I want to be an independent thinker, then to be true to myself I can't declare myself a member of any party. But if I'm not a member of any party, then I am disenfranchised in closed primary systems. I.e., the political system punishes me for my personal integrity! That is a subtle form of political repression. People like me need a liberation movement.

Does anyone know of one?

Nancy Hanks said...

IMHO this is the "good fight" right now for our time. The world needs all the liberation movements we can create!!

richardwinger said...

I am planning on being in New York city March 26-28 and I would love to meet you, Nancy.

wjk said...

Hope you can meet up w/ Richard, Nancy. Ask him why he favors the rights of parties over individual liberty, yet identifies as a Libertarian.

richardwinger said...

Thank you, Dr. Kelleher, for urging Nancy to find time to see me. So far, she has not responded to my e-mail or my phone call, hoping that she and I can get together.

DLW said...

A 2-party system has born better fruit in the past in the US when it was a contested duopoly and it was common for us to use multi-seated state legislative elections.

That's the best goal we could be pushing for to change our system, since we also must discern what we can and cannot change about our world and it does not seem likely that those in power would permit a change deigned to end effective two-party domination. But if we played political jujitsu then they'd have a harder time resisting the change.


mikey said...

wjk, that's a mighty huge straw man you have constructed to characterize Richard's views> I think it's transparently obvious from even a cursory look at Richard's views that his libertarianism INCLUDES the a defense of the liberty of third party voters to freely associate with and have an opportunity to vote for candidates that embody the goals of their parties. [The pursuit of liberty doesn't take place in a Robinson Caruso vacuum--it includes people joining together to form all kinds of institutions, parties, communities].
Your simplistic and unilateral pronouncement that "parties=evil" (one oddly shared by this blog and its parent company, which not long ago was a staunch advocate for independent parties) enables you to declare moral/ethical/political superiority to that foolish segment of society that still foolishly identifies with major or minor political parties (which still is, mind you, a majority of ethically inferior, liberty-hating Americans). This blog has been the site of some bizarre and seriously unethical attacks on Richard by a variety of authors who seem less guided by a spirit of fairness than by a narrow political expediency (eg, a fondness for billionaires who "share" this new-found devotion to a pseudo-nonpartisanship that is in reality a slavish servility to corporate benefactors.

wjk said...

Hi mikey!
RE "Your simplistic and unilateral pronouncement that "parties=evil"...

What do you think of the quote from George Washington on the front page of this blog?

Secondly, I wonder if you and Richard agree with the Fed Ct decision in Idaho to take away the vote of independent-minded people in that state, so that the Repubs can control who votes in their primary. Since Idaho is a one-party state, being barred from voting in the Repub primary means they lose their right to participate in self-government.

I wonder if you and Richard, as party lovers, like that?

richardwinger said...

Nancy Hanks has an excellent blog, and she and I have lots of interests in common. I'm hoping she and I can meet when I am in New York March 26-28.

mikey said...

wjk-I'm not big on 2 century year old quotes from dead presidents, but..if you review the period's history in detail, and the specific context and meaning of this omnipresent quote, you would find that the parties that were Honest George's main concern were those who might upset the fragile and hypocritical status quo that suppressed African Americans into slavery and a vast mass of laborers into political powerlessness. In fact, many urban political machines were able to grow and build a base amongst just such current and future (eg, "ethnic" immigrants) outcast segments of the republic as a direct result of these built in injustices of the Founder's republic. For better AND worse, in corruption and in liberty, parties have often been the vehicles for those who have been denied a voice in this republic.