I am 57 years old. I was told in grade school that I was free to be what ever I wanted to be in the USA,---even President. Now, if you want to win, you have to join a party, giving up founding American values, (because both parties are based on collectivism), or you have to be a billionaire in what is left of our free enterprises system with no lobbyists, and hoe the election is not rigged too much. Having our founding philosophies is not required, and even shunned. We need to get rid of the party system of voting, (it is divisive), and allow anybody to run for office, 100% based on their merit and not a party affiliation or fat pocket book. The only thing that should be forced to be equal in this nation is free TV/radio/internet advertisement for political office, and equal time. That is not a "one party system". That is any individual with a brain in competition. Let the best ideas win. Are you scared that I will beat you?
I am seventy two . I think that very, very few people at that time dreamed that a person like Obama would be elected president, not once but twice in my lifetime.
you have to do x to be president? of course. thats how those with power made it. same with, hey, i want to murder a man? it's not that im free to do that, it was just that people were free to make 2 party systems.
I like the focus on the difference between a system of parties (people uniting politically to accomplish a goal and to destroy the other factions) and a party system (people actively believing the organisation of democracy in the form of parties is a party). However, I do think especially in covering the history of parties the analysis of the professor is maybe a bit too conceptual. Throughtout history he describes the parties as monoliths, who acquire both their form (the organisation of parties) and their content (what we would call ideologies) through discussion. However, I believe it is often more interesting to understand parties as coallitions on the national level. Coallitions don’t necessarily adopt a coherent program, neither do they consciously create their own structure. For instance the Democratic Republicans of the 1820s could indeed be seen as a partyless state, as the professor does, but they can also been seen as a coallition of various factions (Henry Clay, John C Calhoun, Martin Van Buren) who were already at odds with each other, but outside the bounds of parties. Then the new question would be how these factions organise, how they clash and when they create or transform parties. Those questions seem to be closer to how the parties operate nowadays.
I also think it’s bit of a bummer that there is no discussion of the influence of local political machines on the origins and evolution of the parties.
Hilldale Libertarian? Did the self avowed greatest president since King Jackson threaten to split the Republican party if he didn't win the primary? 🤔😉😊😁
I disagree that there weren't factions in the Republican party. I voted Trump, because i thought he was the only one who stood a shot to win a national election, from day 1. But Cruz was BY FAR viewed as the true Conservative of the bunch. Many of the rest, Fiorina, Jeb, Cristie to name a few, were viewed as leftists, or at least inclined to side with the leftists, within the conservative party. Trump was put in that basket to, not saying he wasn't, just saying, there were definite factions.
James Wilbur Caesar es un politólogo estadounidense. Es profesor de política de la cátedra Harry F. Byrd y director del Programa sobre Constitucionalismo y Democracia en la Universidad de Virginia, donde ha enseñado desde 1976.
Thank you so much for sharing these informative lectures!
I am 57 years old. I was told in grade school that I was free to be what ever I wanted to be in the USA,---even President. Now, if you want to win, you have to join a party, giving up founding American values, (because both parties are based on collectivism), or you have to be a billionaire in what is left of our free enterprises system with no lobbyists, and hoe the election is not rigged too much. Having our founding philosophies is not required, and even shunned. We need to get rid of the party system of voting, (it is divisive), and allow anybody to run for office, 100% based on their merit and not a party affiliation or fat pocket book. The only thing that should be forced to be equal in this nation is free TV/radio/internet advertisement for political office, and equal time. That is not a "one party system". That is any individual with a brain in competition. Let the best ideas win.
Are you scared that I will beat you?
I am seventy two . I think that very, very few people at that time dreamed that a person like Obama would be elected president, not once but twice in my lifetime.
you have to do x to be president? of course. thats how those with power made it.
same with, hey, i want to murder a man? it's not that im free to do that, it was just that people were free to make 2 party systems.
I like the focus on the difference between a system of parties (people uniting politically to accomplish a goal and to destroy the other factions) and a party system (people actively believing the organisation of democracy in the form of parties is a party). However, I do think especially in covering the history of parties the analysis of the professor is maybe a bit too conceptual. Throughtout history he describes the parties as monoliths, who acquire both their form (the organisation of parties) and their content (what we would call ideologies) through discussion. However, I believe it is often more interesting to understand parties as coallitions on the national level. Coallitions don’t necessarily adopt a coherent program, neither do they consciously create their own structure. For instance the Democratic Republicans of the 1820s could indeed be seen as a partyless state, as the professor does, but they can also been seen as a coallition of various factions (Henry Clay, John C Calhoun, Martin Van Buren) who were already at odds with each other, but outside the bounds of parties. Then the new question would be how these factions organise, how they clash and when they create or transform parties. Those questions seem to be closer to how the parties operate nowadays.
I also think it’s bit of a bummer that there is no discussion of the influence of local political machines on the origins and evolution of the parties.
Hail Ceaser!
Top three, not top two. (There were only two this time, anyway.)
Hilldale Libertarian? Did the self avowed greatest president since King Jackson threaten to split the Republican party if he didn't win the primary? 🤔😉😊😁
Libertarian faction Republican Party. Progressive faction Democratic Party.
How is the Bible outdated but the constitution never gets outdated.
They're both outdated but the Constitution at least has a mechanism to update it for modern times.
I disagree that there weren't factions in the Republican party. I voted Trump, because i thought he was the only one who stood a shot to win a national election, from day 1. But Cruz was BY FAR viewed as the true Conservative of the bunch. Many of the rest, Fiorina, Jeb, Cristie to name a few, were viewed as leftists, or at least inclined to side with the leftists, within the conservative party. Trump was put in that basket to, not saying he wasn't, just saying, there were definite factions.
Trump received the confidence of his voters and increased it over his first term
James Wilbur Caesar es un politólogo estadounidense. Es profesor de política de la cátedra Harry F. Byrd y director del Programa sobre Constitucionalismo y Democracia en la Universidad de Virginia, donde ha enseñado desde 1976.