Saturday, August 20, 2011

The Two-party system

[Those of who who have found this page because you received a forged email, attributed to me, comparing President Obama to Hitler, should know right away that it is a forgery that does not reflect my views. I ask you however to read this entire post.]

With the exception of relatively short periods such as the 1820s, the late 1850s, and 1912, the United States has essentially had a two-party system. In the 1820s the Federalists disappeared and what drama remained took place within the Democratic Party, until in the early 1830s the Whigs formed in opposition to Andrew Jackson. About twenty years later the collapse of the Whigs, followed by a split among the Democrats in 1860, created a very confused situation that allowed Abraham Lincoln to win a sweeping electoral majority with only a little more than 40% of the popular vote, but the war turned the Republicans into the majority party at least in the North (and for a while, during Reconstruction, in some of the South as well.) In 1912 Theodore Roosevelt's attempt to return to the White House split the Republicans and Woodrow Wilson, like Lincoln, won a huge electoral majority with a popular minority. (Wilson failed again to win a popular majority in 1916, although he had a bare plurality.) Third parties won about five southern states in 1948 and in 1968 because of the civil rights movement, once again depriving the victor of a popular majority. Ross Perot played the same role in 1992 and 1996, although he won only a few electoral votes.

The two-party system has fulfilled the essential function of modern democracy: to allow the public, or that part of it whose votes cannot be counted on by either the Republicans and Democrats, to change our leadership when things go badly. William Henry Harrison, the first Whig president, defeated Martin Van Buren in 1840 because of an economic panic. Grover Cleveland came into office by a very narrow margin in 1884 because of disgust with Republican corruption. Franklin Roosevelt came in by a landslide in 1932 because of the Depression, and Dwight D. Eisenhower did the same in 1952 thanks to frustration with the seemingly endless Korean War. The civil rights movement and the Vietnam War destroyed the New Deal coalition in the mid-1960s and Richard Nixon barely made it into the White House in 1968 as a result. Watergate and the Nixon pardon brought in Jimmy Carter in 1976, but more economic problems and setbacks abroad turned him out four years later. Recession brought Bill Clinton in to power in 1992. The case of George W. Bush in 2000 was very different: the country showed no overwhelming disgust with the Democratic Party, and the best available evidence suggests that he was not really elected at all.

Most of these transfers of power, however, made relatively little difference to the country, because they took place in eras of broad consensus about the role of government. Harrison and hid immediate successor John Tyler made no attempt to bring back the Bank of the United States. Grover Cleveland's only policy difference with the Republicans involved the extent of the tariff. Franklin Roosevelt, of course, was a truly revolutionary President, but after he left the scene the Republicans did not try to undo his revolution. Indeed, Eisenhower not only left the major achievements of the New Deal alone, but also defended and continued Truman's highly controversial foreign policies. Richard Nixon made no attempt to undo the great society and even brought the EPA into being simply because he did not want to take on a Democratic Congress on that particular issue. Ronald Reagan's major contribution was to change a progressive tax system into a regressive one. Meanwhile, however, a new generation, the Boomers, was growing up without much respect for anything their elders had done.

We are now in a new crisis era, and we face a potential catastrophe because only one party--the Democrats--seems remotely capable of governing at all. That is not to say that the Democrats are doing at all well. Barack Obama's response to the economic crisis he inherited fell short in critical respects. The stimulus was not nearly large enough, nor sufficiently focused on jobs. His Justice Department and SEC decided to let the big banks and mortgage companies escape their responsibilities for the crisis unscathed. He did not take the opportunity to let the Bush tax cuts expire. After last year's elections he adopted the catastrophic idea that cutting the deficit was more important than creating jobs, and he refused to give up the fantasy that the Republicans might cooperate with him to restore the country's confidence. As a result, his approval now hovers around 40% and his re-election is anything but assured.

The country survived that kind of situation after 1932, 1952, 1968, and 1992; but should the Republicans regain the Senate and the White House next year we will truly be entering uncharted territory. Today's Republicans reject not only the American achievements of the last century, but also some of the foundations of modern western civilization. As Rick Perry explained to a New Hampshire voter last week, he believes both creationism and evolution should be part of school curriculums. (Perry actually said that Texas requires this, which is not the case.) The Washington Post reports today that while over 70% of Democrats believe in global warming, less than 40% of Republicans do. Perry, it turns out, is a genuine acolyte of Glenn Beck, who wants to undo the Progressive Era as well as the New Deal, and repeal both the 16th and 17th Amendments, ending the federal income tax and returning the election of Senators to state legislatures. All the Republican candidates, including Mitt Romney, have violently repudiated traditional American ideas of the separation of church and state. They are all committed to a fantasy world of low taxes, no government regulation, a free market for health care, and the end, more or less, of workers' rights. And we could find them in control of the government in January 2013.

How has this happened? The shift of the Republican center of gravity to the South, starting in 1968, is perhaps the biggest factor. The traditional southern distrust of government in general and the federal government in particular gave way to something new during the New Deal, but the civil rights movement restored it among white southerners. Meanwhile, the explosion of personal freedom that also began in the 1960s deeply unsettled many heartland Americans, some of whom turned to fundamentalist religion in response. Much of today's Republicanism is reactionary in the literal sense. If one listens to Rush Limbaugh for a while, the impression becomes inescapable that many Republicans reject global warming, stimulus programs, and evolution because Democrats and urban liberals believe in them. That is why the Republican Party now rejects so much of the western rational tradition--which those of us who live on the coasts or in the upper Midwest have been taking for granted for a long time.

And let there be no doubt: there is an element of racism in present-day Republicanism as well. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is known as a realtively sensible Republican--a doctor, as it happens, who has refused to sign Grover Norquist's no-tax-increase pledge. Yet here is what he said last week when a constituent asked him whether, in fact (as Rush limbaugh says almost every day) President Obama's policies were designed to destroy America:

“No, I don’t... He’s a very bright man. But think about his life. And think about what he was exposed to and what he saw in America. He’s only relating what his experience in life was...

“His intent isn’t to destroy. It’s to create dependency because it worked so well for him. I don’t say that critically. Look at people for what they are. Don’t assume ulterior motives. I don’t think he doesn’t love our country. I think he does.

“As an African American male, coming through the progress of everything he experienced, he got tremendous benefit through a lot of these programs. So he believes in them. I just don’t believe they work overall and in the long run they don’t help our country. But he doesn’t know that because his life experience is something different. So it’s very important not to get mad at the man. And I understand, his philosophy — there’s nothing wrong with his philosophy other than it’s goofy and wrong [laughter] — but that doesn’t make him a bad person.”

(You can actually here exactly what he said here. Barack Obama in fact graduated from law school with many thousands of dollars of student loan debt, money that was only paid off after the success of his autobiography. But Coburn must surely be speaking for millions of white Americans who refuse to believe that Obama could have honestly gotten where he is.

The Democratic Party remains a traditional American political party, with a broad spectrum of opinion and a tendency to give in to its moderate wing. The Republican party does not. Its most enthusiastic constituents, its media outlets, and nearly all its candidates are from its most radical wing. And that wing is entirely out of touch with reality.

This week about 3500 people looked at this web page. At least a thousand of you were conservatives drawn here by the fraudulent email, attributed to me, comparing President Obama to Hitler. That email has now been circulating for two and a half years, even though I and several media outlets immediately pointed out that it was a forgery. It regularly reappears on the same conservative web sites, such as , and if anything it seems less likely recently that anyone on those sites will come forward to note that the forgery has been debunked again and again. To my fellow Americans who reached here because of that email I ask you to think about where you, and your country, are going. I believe you have lost your bearings and given up your judgment. Should you get what you want--should the Republican Party take over in 18 months--you will find yourselves and your children much worse off than you can possibly imagine.


Anonymous said...

"We are now in a new crisis era, and we face a
potential catastrophe because only one party
--the Democrats--seems remotely capable of
governing at all. "

Please do elaborate, with some tangible facts,
what this assertion is based on.

As fictional TV lawyer Perry Mason would say:
Assuming facts not based on evidence.

After three years of governing and having only
obamacare to show for - which by the way will
be overturned by the US Supreme Court -what else
besides record deficits and high unemployment
have the Democrats - which are the only party
capable of governing according to you, accomplished?

Please note that for first two years of the current
administration the Democrats had majority in
both Congress and the Senate.

So you can from the offset spare us with any explanation about republican obstructionism. The
facts simply do not support such an excuse.

The facts also do not support your assertion
that Reagan was the only president who advocated
the tax reduction that you personally disagree with.
The current president signed such tax reduction
into the law himself.

Anonymous said...

So...what is the answer to this problem. Are we being brainwashed by the government, thinking that everything they do is for our own good? Is the media so blind or are they be dictated to and report only what the government wants them to say? Seems to me that no matter who gets to be the president, they will be in a damned if they do and damned if they don't situation...May God help the Humans of the United States....

Anonymous said...

The fraudulent email that you noted at the top of your blog is unfortunate but typical of right wing tactics. I have also suffered a similar number of attacks in the past and do not currently blog because of it. Recently, conditions in our country have moved me to once again consider blogging.

I applaud you for your thoughtful comments and tenacity to be heard. I have just come across your blog in the past few days and will return on a regular basis to read your posts. Keep up the good work!

Best Wishes!

Calm Center of Tranquility said...

I came to this blog a long time ago due to that email - I was researching it in order to respond to friends who had sent it. That was a lucky day - I subscribed to your blog and have never missed a post since. Thank you for your fine writing.

Gerald Meaders said...



Although a rosier portrait of the 2 party system, and the party history than I would paint,

bravo nonetheless.

All the best,

James50 said...

David - there is no magic solution such as "just toss out those rascally republicans" and we will be OK. There is only the hard slog of productivity, innovation, and hard work. These screeds against the "irrational" conservatives are driven by where you live and what you read.

I can imagine a republican observer in 1932 sounding just like you.

I beseech you to consider that the policies of the last 2-1/2 years have unfortunately done little to relieve the sufferings of the people. We need a different way.

galacticsurfer said...

several ideas I have read in the past.

One book I read written by an older gentleman imputed the dumbing down ofsociety to the massive increase in watching television, particularly since the introduction of cable with its many private channels delviering any amount of garbage. A lcack of consensus therefore for more educationally and morally standardized product on several television channels, made in generational terms by GI generation for edification, etc. (one might expand on this to include radio in USA).

Another idea comes from Peak Oil area. Due to Air conditioning the south and Sotuwestern deserts have been massively settled and increased their electoral and economic weight. Add to that the expansion of suburbia in such areas like So.Cal. etc. and we have people living in historically uninhabitable areas watching and hearing opinions on Fox News or hollywood reruns far from any intelligent reality.

So they expand an unreality physically and in their minds till Collapse in Jared Diamond's sense is inevitable in USA.

steveftw said...

Dave, thanks again for putting voice to what many of us feel.

To those anonymous commentators stating how poorly Obama has done these last 3 years - go back and read some of Dave's older posts.

There is no doubt in my mind that many of the people that voted for Obama were hoping for a transformational political figure, myself included.

I, and the rest of those looking for that "new way" are disappointed and disgusted with the lack of leadership our president is displaying.

The 2012 election appears to be coming down to weak & timid vs. batsh*t crazy.

That does not bode well for our republic, for at least the next few years. But if that is the choice, maybe it's what's meant to be to complete this turning.

Bob in NC said...

Dear Professor,
The 2-yr-old fraudulent post that has harmed you might be alleviated by "", who claim to correct slanders and errors on the Internet.
To the Anonymous ones imbued with right-wing fantasies, and selective memory, I cite the 20-yr GOP/right-wing demolition of Glass-Steagall Act and SEC, EPA etc., as greater cause of current crisis than the subprime mortgage debacle. WE now have an oligarchy, ('oiligarchy'?) nearly as corrupt as that in the new Russia. This is American 'exceptionalism' taken to dangerously irrational heights.
If the GOP/Tea Party/right-wing captures the White House and Senate in 2013, 2014-16 will see riots and total coollapse of the social order resulting in martial law. Is that what they want? Maybe so.

F C said...

True, Pres. Obama has been a weaker leader than I had hoped for. But why? One of his goals was to promote bipartisanship and conciliation after the extreme partisan attitudes that were built during the Bush-Cheney-Rove administration. In response the Republican party leaders stated that their primary legislative goal was to defeat Obama in the next election. t\The President should have acknowledged that change, unfortunately, was impossible and should have changed his style to become more assertive. Senator Reid has been a disaster as a legislative party leader. The Democrats are woefully bad at generating positive publicity. Republicans claim that the "people" don't want ay health care reform, yet poll after poll refutes that.

Anonymous said...

"To the Anonymous ones imbued with right-wing
fantasies, and selective memory, I cite the 20-yr
GOP/right-wing demolition of Glass-Steagall Act
and SEC, EPA etc., as greater cause of current crisis
than the subprime mortgage debacle." - Bob in NC

I am going to let the facts speak for themselves
without even attempting to refute your distortion
of them.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall Act was signed by
by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

Was President Clinton from GOP - BOB in NC?

The final bill resolving the differences was passed
in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the
House: 362–57 (15 not voting).

Were there 90 GOP members of the Senate in

Were there 362 GOP members of the Congress
in 1999?

Furthermore, I would remind Bob in NC that
the elected representatives are simply doing
what their voters had elected them to do.

As is Senator Brown in Massachusetts currently,
whose voters, including myself, made damn sure
to elect him so as to insure that filibuster
continued to exist!

remained alive.

Bob in NC said...

To FC: As hard as it is to accept, the GOP has been captured by the extreme right, and are therefore unable to engage in statesmanship or rational thought. The 2-party system is in jeopardy, as is our entire Nation.
The reason Republicans can get away with outrageous and fallacious claims that Americans don't want health care is their ownership and bribery of media outlets, especially Fox & AM radio.
Plus, at least here in NC, they have played the "race-card", indicting Obama because he's black. It's the usual divide & conquer ruse the GOP has resorted to since Nixon and the "southern strategy". Wish it weren't so.

Gerald Meaders said...

To comment on some different thoughts here:

The biggest booming country in the world, China, has a 'one party system', so to speak.

The largest booming democracy in the world, India, has turnstile electoral democracy.

Both are in Greater Asia.

All the best,

jim mccann said...

Sheesh! I am a Republican who happens to believe in a lot of what the Tea Party represents: less government, less Federal spending, sensible entitlement reform, less regulation. That makes me crazy?

As for the Democrats being the only party that can govern; then why hasn't the Democratic Senate proposed a budget for over two years as is Constitutionally mandated? Because they are afraid to cut anything that might hurt their chances of reelection. The same thing happened in my state-Minnesota. No budget from the Democrats-which would have required cuts-and an electoral takeover of the state house and senate by Republicans in the last election.

Responsible government is coming-balanced budgets and recovering economy to follow.

Anonymous said...

Dear David
I must admit I got to your site driven for the "truth" of the Hitler quote. I really couldn't believe the quote. Actually that event happened many months ago but since I have become a sincere fan of yours.You seem to remember how we got here and that is very refreshing. You also have a keen understanding of history and its links to the present.I look forward to your posts and I treat them as a kind of therapy. I simply say thank you.

steveftw said...

To Jim McCann:

I appreciate those in the tea party that truly believe the government is spending too much - 24% of GDP is a big chunk, and needs to be reduced, with time. as the economy improves and taxes from wage earners starts to increase.

I know that for me - speaking only for me - I'd be more interested in what the Tea Party has to say if the apparent leaders of the movement - Bachman, and to a lesser extent Perry, could sound a little less crazy.

Bachman said she was ok w/cutting 40% of the budget on August 3rd- but would never say what 40%. If she's the leader, let's hear the details. Unless she really intends on defunding everything except interest payments, social security, and defense, let's hear what her plan is and how voters feel about it.

But seriously - where would you cut the budget to affect the level of change you and your party are proposing?

Want to take food away from people that are working 32 hours a week at walmart, and cannot find full time employment sufficient to pay rent, utilities, and put food in their family's belly? You try being a single mom, with a non-paying dad (for whatever reason), and try to raise a family on $300-$400/week - go ahead, show me how it's done....

Or would you prefer to continue "stealing" the social security retirement payments I've been making all my life? (and by the way- that word "stealing" came from Sen. Tom Coburn). Work until we die, is that the plan?

Medicare - Now THERE we can make some cuts. Let's start with negotiating drug payments, something congress refused to do when the program was passed. We need to have a national discussion on the basis for medicare - it is far off from the standard of care the current rates are based on, and there needs to be something done regarding the standard of care that society is willing to pay for. But let's have an honest conversation.

How about defense? We spend more on defense than the next 6 nations combined (China, England, Israel, Australia, N. Korea, S. Korea). Is that how you want your treasure spent? Nobody is paying is to walk that beat, if it's all about the Benjamins.

With tax proceeds at 14% GDP and expenditures at 24% GDP, the deficit is so obvious it hurts.

We need jobs, jobs that business is not creating, not because of "tax rates", "regulator uncertainty", or any other fal-da-rah. Business will create jobs when they have customers.

I'm a commercial General Contractor in Texas, and I can guarantee you I won't hire anyone until there is a need for them to be employed.

With 60%-70% (of our economy driven directly by consumers, we need consumers to have more money, which translates into more jobs, or higher paying jobs.

We have ignored our infrastructure for most of the last 50 years, and it shows. The quickest way to more workers is putting them to work - tomorrow - building infrastructure.

Not interested in another stimulus program? I don't think it can pass now, either. The key phrase I keep seeing is "public private partnerships" (David, may be worth a column) - the major infrastructure companies are telling the government they'll create jobs - if they have a market to sell into. Here in Texas, that means more toll roads, private water companies that charge 500% of what public utilities charge, etc.

If, as a society, we are not willing to prime the pump with our own monies (and we need to), then, if we offer an incentive for profits, "they will come" to build it.

But seriously, where would you cut? To what percent GDP?

Izabanchi said...

Part 2
I make financial decisions for my household based on real earnings not projected earnings and when it came time to make the decision to buy a house I bought within my means committing no more than 25% of my total household wages to the house payment. This allowed me to live reasonably well and as I accrued a larger salary over the years to pay off my house note in 11 years rather than the 30 that I projected when I took out the mortgage on my house. The housing bubble was not brought about by deregulation as you state but by Government policies that required banks to lend to people who were not financially solvent. There were less than scrupulous individuals involved in the process and they belonged to both parties so the blame is more than sufficient to go around. I therefore won’t try to attribute all the blame to the Democrats on this issue but will instead say that if I had run my household finances like the Government has run our National finances then I would now be sitting under a bridge and living out of a cardboard box while a bank would now be in possession of my house. People without any significant income were qualified for houses far in excess of the value of my house and how anyone could believe that they wouldn’t default is beyond me yet we were constantly assured that Fannie May and Freddie Mac were solvent and we should continue to loan to that type candidate. The logic used to justify these loans was that everyone has a right to a home of their own. Please show me where the Constitution puts forth such an idea because I certainly can’t find it.
The Democrats gained control of the House and Senate in November of 2006 and in November of 2008 they gained the White House while adding to their significant majorities in both House and Senate. With what amounted to in essence an unstoppable majority control of all political movement in the Capital they accomplished nothing until threatened with loss of control in November of 2010. In their last month in office after losing bids for reelection the Democrats forced through the Health Care Act which while certainly commendable in principle is untenable during a time of massive layoffs and economic strife. The bill will eventually be found unconstitutional because as you noted the Republicans have the majority in the United States Supreme Court and the Liberal interpretation that both you and Obama would like to see applied is not in standing with the Constitution. I truly do wish there were more middle ground that the two parties could agree on. As I see it your party is drifting away from the ideals that have sustained our Great Nation for over two hundred and thirty six years. The ability to disperse out of the public coffers to people who do not work but still feel entitled to the proceeds of the work of others has allowed your party to grow by leaps and bounds. The Democrat Party has become the Party of choice for Academics and Elitists while you attract in the poor and destitute with offers of Universal Health Care, Amnesty, Medicare and Social Security in order to get their votes. You refuse to make realistic cuts to any of these programs because it will alienate those poor destitute members of your voting bloc. We cannot as a society survive on the backs of the workers while ignoring the plight of those same workers. People can’t find jobs because every Democrat President wants to tax the rich and the rich choose to avoid those taxes by moving their business outside of the United States thus eliminating jobs in the United States while creating them in some third world nation that is complicit in allowing the company a significant tax savings. Simple economics has a much more direct impact on our current situation than you give it credit for and the Democrats are not the party of reason and rational action as you depict. Thank You for your time. Kerry W Fleenor

Anonymous said...

You are light in darkness my friend and will be bookmarked. Paranoia should never be a guiding principle in thought. I only wish the Right could see it. Wish.

David Kaiser said...

To Mr. Fleenor, above:

It is amazing that a person of your obvious intelligence could believe the nonsensical lie that the housing bubble was caused by federal programs. They were a negligible factor. It was caused by lenders like countrywide giving mortgages and second mortgages ("home equity loans") to people without asking the simplest questions about what they could afford. Countrywide, disgracefully, got away with this without any criminal charges at all.

My party--or at least my part of it--is standing for the principles that SAVED our country, all of it, during the last great crisis of the 1930s. The reforms put in place then kept our economy on a sound footing until the 1990s. THERE WERE NO HUGE BUBBLES AND FINANCIAL CRASHES FROM 1933 TO THE S & l CRISIS. Deregulation in the 1990s, in which both parties joined, allowed us to return to the glorious post-civil war days of financial panic every 8-10 years. If the Republicans have their way now this will continue indefinitely.

Anonymous said...

David, you’re right, I did come here expecting to read an article which I now realize was a dishonestly attributed to you --- an article which, by the way, I appreciated far more than the things I have read since coming here.

I do not claim to know all the answers to or the reasons for our country’s current sorry state of things: but, have found nothing in your writings to cause me to doubt my long held belief that the teachings such as you posit here have had a deleterious effect on those who have unfortunately come under the influence of you and others of your ilk.

I did not read that article untruthfully attributed to you, but heard parts of it read on a radio station. It did, however, offer far more of what I believe to be an exposition of our problems than the things you actually do write: and, I am disappointed. I had hoped that your name might be added to that short list of people in academia from whom our young people would have a rare opportunity to hear --- if not what I believe is true --- at least an opposing view.

One has to wonder why, with an environment wherein the overwhelming views taught in our major colleges and universities, is of such a liberal bent, the nation has not already descended into the abyss of some form of totalitarianism.

Could it be that even after all the liberal education --- from PK through multiple advanced degrees --- it takes only a couple of years of working and paying taxes for people to finally see the world as it really is, instead of as some Utopian Dream presented to them under the guise of education? Or does it just take longer for a country to completely lose its way than is generally imagined?

There really is another view, Dr. Kaiser. Too bad you didn’t actually write that forgery. ~~~~~ daniel f. swann ~~~~~

David Kaiser said...

To Mr. Swann, above:

Please identify the radio station that read part of that email and apparently attributed it to me. Thank you very much.

David Kaiser

abstractist said...

My comment is I hope short and to the point.Most people that do the leg work and hold the signs at Republican rallies, should have listened to my mother as she told my father many, many times at the dinner table.
"We are too poor to be Republicans.
Politicians quote the following constantly.
We want to preserve the Middle Class, and then they define the Middle Class as any single person making $250.000 or a couple making 500,000 a year.

Let me explain what that is in reality $4,807 a week for a single person, 9,614 a week for a working couple.

HELLO if you cannot make it today on that kind of paycheck, try living on a tenth of that.
And think of this, a first term Representative in the House, makes $174,000 so unless he/she has another income, they are below Middle Class.

I believe people who are Republicans like to hate others, they like feeling better than those people, whoever those people are.

Many Republicans always talk about Welfare moms, and children out of wedlock.

But they oppose abortion.

They cannot think an argument through from start to finish, because if they could, they would gladly pay with government money for any amount of abortions anyone wanted in America. WHY?

Because everyone knows that unwed mothers, that raise 4, 6, or 8 children on Welfare, are only growing the next generation of Democrats.

So if they want to abolish the Democrats, freely pay for abortion anytime anywhere.

Les Griffith said...

It is good that you debunk the fake email.

You point to the Republicans and skillfully paint them as radical religious bigots, while pointing out that Democrats are moderate and sensible. I disagree. We who lean right are simply tired of witnessing the deterioration of our society hastened by the liberal progressives.

We refuse to accept that half of us should pay for the other half.

Anonymous said...

I also came here due to the email but I utterly disagree with most of your posts. I don't think either the Democrats nor the Republicans are capable of governing........and it shows.

You point out some problems with Republicans. Let me help you with the Democratic problems:

- They think the government has an answer to most everything

- They like big government and depency on government. As the saying goes, "He who robs from Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul"

- They are completely in bed with Unions. Unions which negotiate with a publically traded union is fine; although the unions shown themselves to provide incentive to move jobs overseas. Public sector Unions need to be reformed as they negotiate with a politican who generally receives campaign contributions for themselves and their party while theyw work for and are paid by the Taxpayer

- Democrats never think you are TEA (Taxed Enough Already).

- Democrats expand government. What is the Federal Government picking companies to give loan guarentees to? Why is the taxpayer involved in mortgages (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac).

- Democrats support Teacher Unions where every argument about the healthcare system can be said about education (expensive, poor results, etc.). Where are the vouchers? Why can't for profit schools and competition be legal with standards?

- Democrats, more than Republicans, rely on emotional arguments rather than logic and facts

- Both parties tend to care more about power and winning re-elections than governing properly

Want more? I can list these for a long time but don't know that they will be read so I will stop here.