is it time for a New Political Movement in this Country?

I think it is time for a new political movement in this country. Too long have we languished under one form of the current leadership or another. It is time for a change in this country. Here is my evidence.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. --And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Well, I can’t argue with that. Because I’m not really sure what you’re proposing. As near as I can tell, your two pieces of “evidence” consist of

  1. Jefferson’s quote in which he’s happy about the brutal suppression of a revolt of farmers who were (literally) up in arms about the taxes that threatened to make them lose the farm; and
  2. A military’s declaration of war against another military.

So, by “political,” it looks as if you mean, “military,” and by movement, you mean, “attack.” Is this correct?

Daniel

While I think that a new political movement in this country would be a good thing as both parties seem to have become rather stagnant and differ only on a few points, I fail to see where the Declaration of Independence bears anything other than the faintest relation to our current situation. How does the Declaration support your contention?

Mind you, I should qualify that I mean a new political party. I don’t mean that we should topple the government and start afresh with a new system. I like our system.

it is time to take back this country to the roots that it was founded on. The similarities between george VI and W are there, especially with the loss of civil rights under this administration. Our founding fathers would be saddened to see what we have become.

Which civil rights have you lost under this administration?

And you might have a “rose colored glasses” view of these roots you want to go back to.

Could you elaborate on the connection between Shay’s rebellion and our current situation?

Daniel

Who was George VI?

George VI. Though I’m not sure what the monarch of Britain during WWII has to do with anything.

So it’s time for armed revolt against the government?

Who are you planning on shooting?

Instead of hammering on semantics, allow me to try to elucidate what I think might be meant.

We have a situation where, for a significant number of people, the two party system doesn’t cut it. You have to buy a whole bill of goods of which you only want part, and are opposed to the remainder. The needs to be another option or two, but the existing two-party system is so entrenched that we’ll never see it happen in our lifetimes without some sort of revolution.

There are probably five groups of people to which this situation might apply.

  1. The fiscally conservative/social liberal group - Wants lower taxes, prudent government, and for government to stay out of our personal lives and decisions. Could be Republican, right? But no, the Republicans have created a coalition of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, so their platform contains a bunch of socially conservative baggage that most of them don’t want.

  2. The socially conservative/fiscally liberal group (see West Virginia) - Wants Roe v. Wade overturned, prayer in schools, etc. Again, sounds Republican, but when it comes to big business getting their way off the backs of the little people, they don’t want that.

  3. Libertarians, who want a ridiculously small government, very low taxes. Sounds Republican, right? Wrong again, the social conservative baggage the Republicans carry is very un-libertarian. The Libs keep trying to establish themselves, but there’s that pesky problem of libertarianism just simply not being a:) ever effectively implemented and b.) being perceived, probably rightly, as being unworkable, perhaps due to a.).

  4. Liberals - Socially liberal, sympathetic to the less fortunate. Sounds Democatic, but alas! The Democrats are having to kowtow to the conservative madness that has swept this country and have been unable to mount an effective counterattack, leaving them way short of the power needed to effect positive change. They’re pissed about that, but there’s nowhere else for them to go.

  5. Conservatives - Small government, low taxes, strong military, puritanical social beliefs. Well, you’d think they got what they wanted, but no! Shit happens, like wars and hurricanes, and there goes fiscal conservatism. And we have that pesky problem of more people wanting abortion to be legal rather than illegal; it really is unconstitutional to try to force everyone to be a white christian, so the whole conservative thing is a farce and a failure, so they’re pissed about that, but there’s nowhere else for them to go.
    Obviously, I’m no political expert, and ther are more holes in my descriptions than in a wheel of swiss cheese, but I think that the basic root of the problem is that we need more choices, but the establishment won’t let us have them. And that makes good, honest, hard-working people want to take up arms against their government.

Quiz time: do you believe the Founding Fathers permitted criminal trials that used evidence seized without a warrant?

Do you believe the Founding Fathers were OK with people being arrested and tried without a lawyer if they could not afford one?

Do you believe the Founding Fathers were OK with people being interrogated without being told they had a right to remain silent?

But it’s unclear from any of your posts in this thread what you would like us to become. Your OP quotes the Declaration of Independence verbatim in toto. So what? The Declaration of Independence might proclaim some timeless and valid principles, but beyond that it has absolutely no relevance as a political manifesto under modern conditions. If we overthrow the existing system, with what do you propose to replace it? 50 independent republics? A libertarian utopia? A socialist utopia? Ross Perot’s idea of democracy-by-national-virtual-town-meeting?

See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269169

Thanks! That is much more detailed and eloquent. Something that seems to be some sort of secret in American politics is coalitions. In multi-party systems, you have to have them, and it’s a good thing - the blend of ideas is certainly more fair and responsive than some single party’s “platform”.

We do actually have them here - it’s just that it’s unspoken and used to divide rather than unite. For example, true, pure capitalist fiscal conservatives don’t give two shits about abortion, religion, etc., but they’ll go along with the social conservative agenda because it gives them the votes they need and - like I said - they don’t give two shits about abortion, religion, etc. either way, as long as those filthy fuzzyheaded liberals keep their goddamn hands off their money.

Not exactly. You have to have coalitions in multipartisan parliamentary systems, viz. the currend “Grand Coalition” government of Germany. In a separation-of-powers system, the legislature is not obliged to “form a government,” the executive (governor or president) being separately and directly elected. Thus, no enduring cross-party coalitions within the legislature would be necessary. Coalitions would form but they would be issue-specific – e.g., the Libertarians would vote with the Greens on military/foreign policy and with the Republicans on tax policy.

And of course, you don’t actually have to have coalitions in a Parliamentary democracy. You only have coalitions when no party can form a majority. In many countries (such as the UK) coalitions are extremely uncommon.

And of course, coalitions can result in situations where the largest party doesn’t get to form a goverment…two smaller parties can form a coalition to exclude the largest party.

And lastly, even in multiparty countries parties are STILL coalitions of people with different interests. Some Greens hate nuclear power but don’t give two shits about the fucking baby seals, others love recycling but don’t care about nuclear power, others love baby seals but think recycling is a waste of time.

True. But, in a multiparty system, the parties are more homogenous and ideologically coherent than in a two-party system. You wouldn’t get a situation like we have here, where Al Sharpton and Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller can all run as “Democrats,” and George Bush, John McCain and Michael Bloomberg can all run as “Republicans.”

That’s because they don’t have proportional representation. Even in a parliamentary system, single-member-district represantion tends to freeze out third parties and produce a two-party system.

Nothing wrong with that, is there?

Say, where’s DrLoveGun? We’re still waiting for him/her to explain exactly what this “New Political Movement” is supposed to achieve.