Decius wrote: ubernoir wrote:
however i think you need to take onboard a wider perspective than simply the party politics of the US. I believe party politics is an essential part of democracy across the world and the formation of two blocks which are themselves coalitions inevitable both in the first past the post system and in proportional representation systems.
How does this lead to the author's conclusion that one must participate in one of these parties and that failure to do so is somehow fraudulent or weak? If being independent is valid when viewed soley through the lens of American politics, how could broadening my perspective lead to the conclusion that it is invalid? Generally, two blocks form because in a majoritarian system with a unitary executive there must be a winner who holds power, and anyone who is not part of that winner is by definition the opposition. In America, I find can myself a part of the opposition regardless of who is in power. This is because both parties actually cut away at my interests. Both constantly press againsts civil liberties. Neither has the will to solve substantial domestic problems that this country faces. I don't suspect that the coming reign of the Democrats is any more likely to address real problems like social security solvency (which Democrats publicly pretend isn't real) or health care than the Republicans were. When they are able to find the will to act it is usually in response to phony news media moral panics or in the interest of corporate doners (intellectual property maximalism, new bankruptcy legislation). I do not see how it can be weak to refuse to join political organizations that are alligned against my interests.
it's interesting how you remember a piece and read it differently
(Stanley Fish the author of the piece is someone whose reader theory and writings I studied at university for my english degree so i find it ironic to have to go back to read his article again because my impression of it and what I took away from it is so different from yours) i missed him arguing that you should join a party i do not belong to a political party and never have but the set up in this country is very different. Everybody of voting age is on the electoral roll -- we do not register to vote in the US manner and i'm not sure of the exact mechanics of being an independent or registered democrat or republican. My mental model is rather different of the two blocks. In the UK we have party members and activists but membership is quite low compared to voter turnout. We have what are called swing voters, the undecideds who move between parties between elections. It is these who in general elections decide the outcome. Large areas of the country are electoral wastelands for party x or party y. It is a cliche of British politics that because Scotland had no Conservative MPs it was used as a testing ground for certain policies such as the poll tax by the then Conservative government. I take from your comments a desire and yearning for a President who is a moderate, beholden to neither Democrat nor Republican. In a sense there seems a desire for some sort of proportional representation whereby a centre-left or centre-right coalition becomes possible. This marginalises the extremes. One of the things I took from the article is the oft heard cry against politics and that somehow it is possible to be above politics. What I liked was But sooner rather than later someone gives these abstractions content, and when that happens, definitional disputes break out immediately, and after definitional disputes come real disputes, the taking of sides, the applying of labels (both the self-identifying kind and the accusing kind) and, pretty soon, the demonization of the other. In short, politics,
however policy differences are party differences
yes true in a simple binary system which you in America and we in the UK have except of course reality is a little more complicated. There is a political centre but it can be difficult to see its shape or form. Also the simple left right model is inadequate since there is also authoritarian and libertarian on both sides of the left/right divide. to go back to the above quote about real disputes and the taking of sides -- sometimes the politics of compromise and the centerground is to take sides -- i stand here and oppose the extremists on either wing -- that is a very political choice essentially i go back to the idea of coalitions -- parties are always coalitions -- but often effective decisive stable goverments are not coalitions of various parties -- this is not something which I am clear on in my own mind as to whether a proportional or first past the post system is better RE: Against Independent Voters - Stanley Fish - Think Again - Opinion - New York Times Blog | 
