Uniparty...

[Dill]

(11-09-2017, 12:32 PM)Benton Wrote: The UniParty idea came up quite a bit prior to the GOP primaries, specifically with some folks saying Trump was the anti-Uniparty. I think that was one of the many things that helped carry him forward, even for those unfamiliar with the term. It fits into that mindset that political parties, the economy, life in general, it's all rigged by a few people with a lot of authority.

Personally, I think it's just another way of trying to redefine the problem of special interests. With both parties — and Trump — you've got a few people influencing policy making. Think of Big Pharma. They bribe candidates indiscriminately. Pfizer and the like don't care what party you are, as long as you'll take their money and vote in their favor by opposing negotiations, price controls, out-of-country buying, expanding generics, etc.

Trump isn't anti-UniParty. Very few candidates are. Obama was probably the closest we've come since Jimmy Carter, but I don't think it was intentional; he just wasn't as influenced because he didn't have the same ties to those people. The Bush and Clinton families are good examples of that, with each having long established ties to a number of special interests. And it showed in their administrations. Much more so than it would if the POTUS had been a middle class guy from Arizona.

Edit to add: Trump is like UniParty on steroids. He skipped appointing people on second hand special interest dole, and went to just appointing those working directly for special interests.

Well said, well expressed.

I understand why people in both parties are frustrated when politicians don't do what they want and appear/are bought.

But I cannot get on the Uniparty band wagon when I remember how consequential the defeat of Gore was for US foreign policy and healthcare. And I can't when Trump appoints foxes to run every federal henhouse possible and publicly contradicts and demeans his own intel community regarding Russia, as his party remains silent about his still hidden business practices/connections.

There are ways to combat the influence of special interests, especially by limiting campaign funding and balancing air time. You might even include defense of voting rights in there. One party appears to support that kind of reform while the other appears to oppose it.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Government_Reform.htm

The GOP's 2016 party platform is the inverse of the Democrats:

“Freedom of speech includes the right to devote resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports. We oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage citizens from participating in the public square or limit their ability to promote their ideas, such as requiring private organizations to publicly disclose their donors to the government. Limits on political speech serve only to protect the powerful and insulate incumbent officeholders."