An interesting conversation

[GT40FIED]

So this week I was back up in KC so I could work a few hours. I was happy to bump into one of our regulars, Otto. Otto's an older guy who came here in 1960 after Castro took control of Cuba. It should also be noted that he served in the 26th Of July Movement during the revolution (which by no means makes him a communist). We got to talking about his days in Cuba (under Batista, before Castro) and how it compares to Amerika today and he pointed out something interesting. Although Amerika prides itself as being the cradle of democracy, it really isn't. At least not in a classical political structural way. Everyone here thinks that they can belong to one of two parties if they want to be behind the "winning" candidate. But those parties (dems. and repubs.) are, again...in the greater scheme of things, basically the same. A few fundamental differences aside, they're pretty much the same bunch of assholes. As he pointed out, a true democratic society would include something like 20 viable parties. That is...20 parties that actually had a chance. With two such similar parties and no real third party system, people become so rabid about one party or the other...and I think this election year proved that. I personally know a few people who voted straight down party lines for everything...even though they had little or no knowledge of anyone they were voting for besides Bush or Kerry. Ridiculous. So why is it that we don't have a reliable third party (or more) system here? It can't be because the two big ones are doing so well. One party serves 4 or 8 years in office, then we switch parties like it's a retarded political square dance. So what gives?

[AzCivic]

gotta have money to play, and no one's willing to blow millions of dollars in hopes of becoming the exception to the rep/dem rule.

[GT40FIED]

Originally posted by AzCivic
gotta have money to play, and no one's willing to blow millions of dollars in hopes of becoming the exception to the rep/dem rule.

So true...but maybe that's part of the problem. Why does money rule the political process? Sure, we take it as a given...you have to have money to run, but is that REALLY what true democracy is all about? Who has more money?

[AzCivic]

thats just how it is, even in grade school when they had those stupid little kiddie elections. everyone voted for the person who had the coolest signs and passed out treats, and that takes money.

now its who has the best and most commercials, and who can travel the country and gather the most support.

[pdiggitydogg]

what gives is that its the same group of people running everything over and over again, only cycling to give the people a sense of change.

[GT40FIED]

Originally posted by pdiggitydogg
what gives is that its the same group of people running everything over and over again, only cycling to give the people a sense of change.

So why are we so dumb in not realizing that? I mean...we'll shout to any country that'll listen about how we're this pillar of democracy. Why can't we back it up with REAL change rather than a simple sense of it?

[pdiggitydogg]

Im sure, most people dont just because they dont take the time to actually think about it...too busy with the rest of their lives.
People are too wrapped up in thinking things are different. If they took the time to think about it, theyd see that its all really been the same stuff since it started.

But really, how different could it get? People's views are stuffed into their heads and no one would vote for someone w/ radically different ideas anyway.