Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Mar 2009 10:45 UTC
Legal We always try to avoid politics like the plague here on OSNews, but sometimes, it's hard to avoid it. Take the case of Joel Tenenbaum, who could be liable for over 1 million USD if the Recording Industry Association of America gets its way. While many hoped for a change of pace when it comes to these matters, Barack Obama's Department of Justice has squarely sided with the RIAA.
Thread beginning with comment 354712
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
US two-party "democracy"
by saso on Tue 24th Mar 2009 12:27 UTC
saso
Member since:
2007-04-18

I just love to see the way the US sells its political establishment as a "democracy". They condemned the USSR for its 1-party system, but as soon you add +1 to that number, totalitarianism automagically becomes democracy...

What's even funnier is they way these two parties are organized. Most western countries have right-wing and left-wing parties, with the political landscape sort-of representing the natural struggle between private (/conservative) and socially-oriented (/progressive) economical views. In the US, there is no such distinction - both major parties are right-wing. Regardless of whichever you vote for, you get the same politics, only supported by two different industries.

Reply Score: 3

RE: US two-party "democracy"
by magineer on Tue 24th Mar 2009 12:54 in reply to "US two-party "democracy""
magineer Member since:
2009-03-19

You actually have zero understanding of the US government and political structure. For one thing, both parties have been converging towards socialism for the last 15 years.

I hear a lot of ignorance spouted off these days regarding the way the US should work or does work from people who do not even live here and/or do not have any concept of how a democratic republic should work. Of course there's corruption. There's corruption in every form of government, from top to bottom, in every case.

However, I think you'll find (if you take the time to read) that the US government's structure has the most checks and balances built in to do ultimately what is in the best interest of the people. You won't find that happens in communism or socialism, and you won't see it in one or two terms of a US President's administration. You have to take the long view to see it.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: US two-party "democracy"
by h3rman on Tue 24th Mar 2009 16:34 in reply to "RE: US two-party "democracy""
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09


However, I think you'll find (if you take the time to read) that the US government's structure has the most checks and balances built in to do ultimately what is in the best interest of the people.


Please don't tell me you're serious.
How many countries has the US Army invaded or the CIA messed with that those magical "checks and balances" apparently failed to rescue? There are dozens of them.

You won't find that happens in communism or socialism,


Well, it may surprise you but communist/socialist states do have parliaments, courts, constitutions, etc. If you say they are often a joke, well so they are in capitalist states. There has been more corruption and lawlessness in Russia from the early nineties up to now than there was in the 1970s and 1980s. Homeless people did not have to freeze to death in the streets of Moscow under communism.
People often get heart attack when they learn that not *everything* was bad under communism.. :-)

and you won't see it in one or two terms of a US President's administration. You have to take the long view to see it.


Sure, there are democratic victories over plutocratic government in the United States. But it's exactly those that the reactionaries are trying to roll back, often successfully, all the time.
Perhaps some Americans still feel good about their political system. The victims of American imperial policies beg to differ.

What American citizens ought to do now is to rise up against the kleptocrats who are taking over the country more openly than ever. They are waging a war against the people, you know.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: US two-party "democracy"
by Ressev on Tue 24th Mar 2009 20:57 in reply to "RE: US two-party "democracy""
Ressev Member since:
2005-07-18

Just a note: the USA is a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: US two-party "democracy"
by jwwf on Tue 24th Mar 2009 17:47 in reply to "US two-party "democracy""
jwwf Member since:
2006-01-19

I just love to see the way the US sells its political establishment as a "democracy". They condemned the USSR for its 1-party system, but as soon you add +1 to that number, totalitarianism automagically becomes democracy...

What's even funnier is they way these two parties are organized. Most western countries have right-wing and left-wing parties, with the political landscape sort-of representing the natural struggle between private (/conservative) and socially-oriented (/progressive) economical views. In the US, there is no such distinction - both major parties are right-wing. Regardless of whichever you vote for, you get the same politics, only supported by two different industries.


I hesitate to reply, simply because I am not an expert on European governments. But I think I can make an imperfect analogy that might help explain the two party system a little: The two parties are like permanent coalitions. There are, for instance, hard-left socialists in the Democratic party, and there are also old line Southern Democrats who opposed the civil rights movement. There are neoconservative Republicans who think government is benevolent and a useful tool for acheiving policy goals, and there are old-line conservatives who believe that government is always the problem. Both parties have a big business base, (last season Wall Street donated several times as much money to the Democrats than the Republicans, yet people generally think of the Republicans as the business party) and both parties contain a lot of "regular people" who are only mildly ideological.

Both parties, then, contain a lot of difference in opinion, which is probably why they can start to look similar - lots of competing agendas average out. People generally remember Nixon as a conservative villain these days, but in his time, he imposed wage and price controls (not very conservative), and yet also disagreed with Eisenhower because he thought Eisenhower was too close to business interests to the expense of ideology and that made him not conservative enough. Point is, there can be a lot of serious difference within a party.

And by the way, we did not condemn the USSR for a 1 party system alone: that it killed tens of millions of people in the last century via labor camps and forced famines was also a factor. The fact that anybody thinks the comparison is a reasonable one to make shows that we have it pretty easy these days.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: US two-party "democracy"
by OMRebel on Tue 24th Mar 2009 18:07 in reply to "US two-party "democracy""
OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14

"In the US, there is no such distinction - both major parties are right-wing"

Are you kidding me? The current Democratic party is very far left (borderline socialism). The current Republican party is fairly centric, as they are far left in their financial spending sprees, and far right in their social beliefs.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"In the US, there is no such distinction - both major parties are right-wing"

Are you kidding me? The current Democratic party is very far left (borderline socialism). The current Republican party is fairly centric, as they are far left in their financial spending sprees, and far right in their social beliefs.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.


The OP probably is speaking from his own political paradigm. From a Dutch perspective, both of your parties are far-right, for instance.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: US two-party "democracy"
by kaiwai on Wed 25th Mar 2009 12:11 in reply to "RE: US two-party "democracy""
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

"In the US, there is no such distinction - both major parties are right-wing"

Are you kidding me? The current Democratic party is very far left (borderline socialism). The current Republican party is fairly centric, as they are far left in their financial spending sprees, and far right in their social beliefs.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.


Obama very very far left wing? what bloody planet are you on!

Compare Obama to the policies of the very far left in New Zealand, Australia, German, the UK - Obama is a centre left policitian and most certainly isn't sitting on the fringe.

Maybe you Americans should wake up, realise that the cold war has ended, and the centre left or centre right is in power in most countries. It is you the American's who have this obsession of labelling anything you don't like as apparently 'very very left' or 'very very right' when in reality it is neither of them.

Edited 2009-03-25 12:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2