Split both GOP and Dem parties?

[Beavker]

I know this will dilute things even more with all the other fringe parties (or will it absorb some of them?), but should the GOP split into a Conservative Party and a Centrist Republican Party? And should the Dems split into a Blue Dog and Progressive party?

Then, let the chips fall as they may, the Dems and Repugs will have to make a choice. Be a real repuke or a real Dem, or one of the new offshoots? Seems it's inherently split this way anyway.

Just a thought, and probably not a novel one at that.

[kerrywins]

1. hell, we might be a complete totaltarian police state before that even happens

and the dictators will be appointed for us...

save us all from making these painful decisions.

[FBaggins]

2. There's much to like about the idea... but also some danger

There's a difference between how people self-identify and how we might objectively label their beliefs. Many self-identified "moderates" for instance who agree with most liberals but wouldn't agree that they WERE liberal. The current label "Democrat" allows those folks to support a liberal candidate (particularly whey they also call themselves a moderate). I don't <b>think</b> (but am open to correction) that this is AS true for the republican label.

The reason this is important is that moderates + liberals significantly out number self-identified conservatives... but conservatives dramatically outnumber self-identified liberals. If we really DID split up the parties, we could find "conservatives" winning plurality elections where they couldn't beat a "democrat".

[sui generis]

5. exactly the reason for these deeper divisions in our existing parties

The answer to this question determines your likelihood to be a republican or a democrat whether or not you are a conservative or a progressive:

In a trial with unclear evidence as to guilt, would you be more likely to let a potentially guilty man go free rather than take away a potentially innocent man's rights, or would you be more inclined to jail a potentially guilty man at the risk of him turning out to be innocent later?

I personally believe that the demarcation is along the lines of how "fair" people have learned to be, and generally speaking that makes republicans more selfish, self-centered, and immoral, even if progressives can sometimes be characterized as being "amoral".

[FBaggins]

6. Re: your question...

Which side were you expecting to get it right?

I'm not sure that I see that as a dividing line. Our justtice system is built on the assumption that we would rather let ten guilty men go free rather than jail one innocent man. But I can't imagine a progressive OR a conservative answering any other way. I can also think of contrary examples on both sides.

[sui generis]

7. I would far rather let a guilty man go free

Our justice system is built on punishing people for defying authority, mostly, and that's a whole 'nother thread topic.

Either way our political system does indeed have little to nothing to do with our standards for justice. Just the mentality of people who gravitate to one party or the other (with some exceptions) is pretty reliably binary along that line and derivations of that observation.

To answer your question about me - the single most abhorrent thing I think a government can do is take away the rights of an innocent man or take away the rights of a guilty man with the objective of catharsis.

My single biggest pet peeve after the death penalty: community labor sentencing AND the inevitable sentencing hearing where one of our BRILLIANT journalists idiotically proclaims "the defendent showed no reaction or remorse as the sentence was read" as if that was relevant to anything at all.

No I am absolutely a progressive in reality, and philosophically a refined individualist (not anarchist, not libertarian).

Labels really are more rigid and confining than identifying though so the idea of splitting our party along rigid definitions is counterproductive if my ideological identity values things different than someone else's.

[FBaggins]

8. Then the dividing line isn't where you think it is.

The other side ALSO hates "taking away rights"...

...they just disagree what those rights ARE. Gun ownership... what you do in your bedroom... choice... educational choice... certain drugs vs certain other drugs. Separation of church and state or freedom of religion? Which are rights and which leave room for public control/regulation?

In this case though, I thought both sides agree. "Innocent until proven guilty" MEANS killers will go free so that few innocent men are punished in error. We may disagree on which actions are considered crimes... and/or on which punishments (if any) are appropriate for certain behavior... but surely "innocent until proven guilty" is close to universal?

[sui generis]

9. no - you've extended my argument wrongly

the dividing line is along human rights, not "my rights".

[FBaggins]

11. Not "my rights", but

what I consider "human rights" to be. A progressive (with a few exceptions) will jump right up to protect a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body while a conservative wouldn't recognize that as a human right... while the conservative would (with a few exceptions) jump to defend the "baby's" right to life and most progressives don't recognize it as a human to have human rights in the first place. Most conservatives would defend what they think are second amendment rights while most progressives don't think that 2A is referring to personal rights at all.

And neither really bears on the question of how guilt/innocence presumptions would be handled on issues where both sides agree there is a crime.

What you're saying is that if we had reasonable doubt on a jury, one side would be more likely to say "guilty" than the other side would be... and I still can't figure out which side you're saying that would be.

[sui generis]

12. I'm being quite cynical BUT

I believe that given a choice and poor leadership, a predominantly republican and conservative jury would put readily risk putting an innocent man in jail if there were were any question as to his guilt.

You seem to be focused on crime and semantics here a bit more than a real ideological divide. Without over-parsing this, I don't see too many conservatives defending my adult rights.

I might even go so far as to say that social conservatives tend to be broadly sentimental and childlike in their ideas of adherence to authority, in the sense that questioning authority is bad or wrong, yet they fail to address real emotional consequence of making proxy decisions for other adults using the weight of their personal world-view.

Ramble continues:

Musing on crime for a moment: I find it odd that a child can be tried as an adult in any case, no matter how horrific. Why have two standards, and why readily violate the standard? I sincerely don't know how progressives fall on this line, but it's odd that conservatives who defend the rights of babies seem to be more likely to try a 13 year old as an adult, or to believe that people who murder other people are sane and should be judged and punished by the same moral standard as a sane person who just got full of sin and greed and decided to kill someone. (sarcasm tag omitted)

There IS an ideological dividing line in contemporary republicanism and contemporary democratism, and I'm leaning more towards "my rights" as that line. It's My Right to tell someone else what they can and can't do with their body and lives with regard to procreation, rather than It's My Duty to educate other people to make better personal choices.

[FBaggins]

13. "I don't see too many conservatives defending my adult rights"

Absolutely!

But it's because they don't see them as your rights in the first place.

It always used to stun me that conservatives would say that liberals wanted government to control every aspect of your life while they wanted to protect individual liberties... because I thought it was the other way around. Now I think it's just a disagreement on what those liberties ARE and when they are trumped by a compelling societal interest.

I have a bit of a libertarian streak in me. From my perspective, conservatives are perfectly happy to tell me who I can sleep with and (were I female) what the consequences had to be. Liberals, OTOH are happy to control whether I wear a seatbelt, whether I text, etc. (which isn't to say that I don't agree with the decisions, just that they're my decisions to make).

but it's odd that conservatives who defend the rights of babies seem to be more likely to try a 13 year old as an adult,

That's the same thing as asking why they favor the death penalty but oppose abortion. I think they just see one as the difference between innocent and guilty. The 13 yr old did something, the "baby" didn't.

to believe that people who murder other people are sane and should be judged and punished by the same moral standard as a sane person

I'll take the "conservative" side on that one. I don't think the "insanity" defense makes sense at all. IMO... if you break into a home and rape and kill a woman there... you are, by definition, insane. Whatever the appropriate punishment for that crime is, you should get it. When a lawyer stands up and says "but my client is insane" I think "duh... he killed someone. Did you think we thought he was normal?"

[Kahuna]

3. Yawn... could you be more obvious?

:boring:

[brooklynite]

4. Actually, what would probably happen is...

the Center R's and Blue Dog's would merge into a "Middle of the Road" party which would probably be pretty competitive.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I might move back to France.

The French government ain't the eutopian panacea...
but the difference is that the natives are not batshit crazy.

[jotsy]

14. Political affiliations and party lines are the problem, I don't see fragmenting them is going to be

effective in 'doubling down' so to speak. To hear Thom Hartmann tell it, the founders advised against party politics because they anticipated just the kind of divisive interaction we see from congress today. Say a third party does get itself established and then we're in a situation where 35% represents a majority, the more you sliver from there, the worse the numbers get.

Having said that, two party politics are poison to the needs of the people. Elected officials may find some financial favor in following the established pecking order and sacrifice whatever promises made to a constituency in the name of what is best for the party, and not the people.

Holes must be poked in those ranks with the election of 'off party' candidates, not so much to establish other parties, but to expand the political horizon beyond these two huge walls that see themselves as the only view.

Edited for bad transition from header to body.

[RM33]

15. Your right.

I figure we should at least be a 3 party state. Study after study shows that Americans fall into 3 categories. Liberal, Conservative and Moderate. If that is the case, why do we only have 2 parties to pick from?

I am frankly tired of the 2 party system. We have a wider selection of toilet paper on the supermarket shelf than political parties. That's a problem.