Republican Haters: Do you want a one-party state, or what?

Great Debates
21

Pretty much this. I want a “loyal opposition” that will keep the majority party honest. I want obstruction – just not to the insane degree we’ve seen in Congress.

California now has a greater-than-two-thirds majority in both houses of the state legislature. I don’t want that – even though I am a liberal California Democrat and favor the measures they’ve been passing! Our system depends on division of power and the role of the opposition.

I want a working Republican Party, with some of their lost sanity back.

22

Disclaimer: I am a Republican albeit one who has serious issues with the national party.

But in my opinion, the Republican party disappearing would be a disaster for the Democrats. Obviously not immediately. But without competition, the Democrats would quickly succumb to corruption and extremism. Heck, it was the relative success of the Republican party in the eighties that led to its current problems. Imagine how much worse total success would ruin the Democratic party.

23

I want the Republican Party to come back to a place of loyal opposition, instead of the outright obstructionism that they’re doing today. In particular, I’d really like to see the Republicans as actual conservatives (financially and fiscally responsible, risk- and debt-averse, and opposed to foreign wars without extremely good cause. I don’t see the current Republican Party as actually debt-averse, despite their rhetoric, because of their outright refusal to raise taxes. It’s like an obese person who wants to lose weight solely through dieting without any exercise at all, or like a family with credit-card debt who wants to get out of debt solely through cutting expenses and won’t consider working overtime.

24

If, and it’s a big if, one of the two big parties should fall apart, a new party will form. Maybe the Greens will steal a bunch of Dems and the Dems will have to shift to cover the current Repubs. Or maybe the Libertarians will rise in the ashes of the Republicans and be forced to shift their positions. In any case, it will be all the same players, some will just have new hats and wave new signs.

I’d like to have two parties that both want what’s best for the citizen of America. Right now we have one party that manages to stumble into being useful sometimes and one that couldn’t care less about anyone except a few extremely wealthy Americans. Maybe a major shakeout would be a good idea, but like I said above, it’d still be the same players in the end. Those guys aren’t going to go out and get jobs.

25

I’d like to see the Libertarians and the “culture war” whackos taken off the table. Dismantling the government or reverting to some kind of throwback theocracy are not actual options, and these ideas don’t belong in a mainstream party. Then I’d like to see a return to some basic civility and “playing along” among the parties, rather than the ridiculousness we have now.

Then maybe we can talk.

26

There are always two or three good approaches to civic problems. It would be nice if our parties each brought a workable, broad-based solution to the table and hammered out differences between them until a consensus was reached and the maximum benefit at minimum cost was reached.

Wow, I think I just invented US politics pre-Reagan era. Aren’t I clever?

27

Well, it looks like not too many of us really want a one-party system.

28

As others have said, if the alternative is our current Republican party, then I will take single Democratic Party rule any day and twice on Sunday. It’s kind of like asking if it’s better for children to be raised by two parents or in the Jerry Sandusky household.

Further, I know we’re supposed to say that it’s always better to have the Republicans there as a robust opposition party, but I honestly don’t know any empirical evidence to support this. Why are we so sure they are necessary at all?

29

I think that with the current system as it is, we’re stuck with two major parties and as entrenched as the Republicans and Democrats are, it’s unlikely that either will get replaced by another.

I don’t think a one-party system will ever happen, or at least if it does, only briefly, because eventually someone will get nominated by that party that enough people disapprove of that, rather than just supporting the candidate they like most, they’ll find someone they can all sort of agree with, you get a few of those people aligned, and a party starts to form.

I think it’s possible that if enough people get upset with the Republicans, they could end up splintering into different parties, they’d slowly have start to grow and generalize from their stances in order to get more votes and win elections, and we’d end up back in two parties, except perhaps with some of the stances adjusted. For instance, if say the Libertarian party became the kernel that the new party formed around, we might see some of those ideas stay in place, but I imagine with a large constituency of the former religious right wing out there, some party is going to have to court them, which means alienating some others. So it’s possible you could see then end up with that new Libertarian party and them taking on some conservative views, sort of like a partial reboot to the Republicans of the 80s, or maybe latching into the Democrats and then some of the socially liberal minded jumping ship and we get a divide more along views of how much government should do. It’s impossible to say how it might ultimately shake out. But, ultimately, I think any of those are low possibilities.

Of the options given, I think the Democrats fracturing is more likely. As it is now, there’s some fairly conservative Democrats, particularly from Southern areas, and some very liberal ones, so I think we’d more likely see more of a regional divide as the former Republicans have to find a new home and get involved in their local politics.

Really, though, I just don’t see the Republicans going anywhere. Even with the recent criss being overwhelmingly blamed on Republicans, there’s still a large group of people who just plain see the Democrats as every bit as evil as some of those addressed by the OP see the Republicans, and they’ll stick with it since there’s still no viable third party and joining the Dems would be straight up wrong to them. So they’d likely become a marginalize party for a cycle or two, rebrand, and come back. We’ve seen this a couple times in recent history, with the Contract with America in 1994 and the Tea Party in 2010. Particularly if the Republicans do poorly in 2014, we could see them abandon the current course and come back with something new in 2016.

30

Even if it were a “one-party system”, it wouldn’t be. Some people just are conservative, and suspicious of change. Others aren’t, and eager to advance progress. If there were only a Democrat primary of any significance for any elective office, there would be a conservative Democrat (relatively speaking, of course) running for nomination against a more progressive Democrat.

And so it would go.

31

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Further, I know we’re supposed to say that it’s always better to have the Republicans there as a robust opposition party, but I honestly don’t know any empirical evidence to support this. Why are we so sure they are necessary at all?
[/QUOTE]

Well, empirically, can you name a few one party systems that have worked out well and that we would like to emulate? That would be a good place to start.

32

The Era of Good Feeling seems to be well-regarded.

33

Um…there were political parties during that period. It wasn’t a one party system.

34

Of course I don’t want a one party state, there is certainly room in our political process for a party that more closely coincides with my own particular views and I would vote for them instead. For instance it would be nice if there was a liberal party running for office.

35

True. All you have to do to prove this is look at the old South which had a de facto one-party system (controlled by Democrats) for decades.

36

I’m not interested in a one-party state. But I do believe many Republicans are not fit to govern right now, so will gladly suffer through 4 years (maybe 8) of Democratic rule until they can get their shit together again.

37

Funny, I often think of some of the more strident right-wingers, here and in the media: “why don’t you just come out and admit it: you want a one-party state, don’t you?” But hey, I’ll go along with the premise.

I’d actually like to to see a three-party system: Democrat (really centrist), progressive, Republican (center-right; not the one currently dominated by the Tea Party, anti-science yahoos). Party names not etched in stone; call 'em what you want. My pipe dream would be that without a clear majority in either house, accommodation and coalitions-of-convenience would be the order of the day.

Yeah, I’m still waiting for my pony as well.

38

A two-party system, or even one with a nominal third party, will alway have the same cycle of problems. I’d like to see a multi-party system that requires coalitions to achieve goals, perhaps enforced by limiting any one party’s plurality.

Freight address to deliver my pony available via PM.

39

Per the OP question;

Nope, I want a sane and rational Republican party. The kind I used to vote for.

I’ll take a three party state too, if necessary to have a sane and rational moderate/right party. The Retarded Right can fuck right off and form their own party.

40

And I have a personal expression regarding your requests for ponies;

“You can give some people a pony and they’ll still complain that it craps on the carpet.”