Green Party because John Fucking Kerry wouldn't contest Ohio.

I'm registered as independent. Which still sucks because now I get twice as many sleazeball ad cards in the mail. I'm thinking about not voting anymore anyway. I drove people to the damn polls in '04 just to try to DO something against the evil machine and it was a waste of breath. Now I might move to Canada.

Yes, I am, but I withhold my vote when they fail me.

Socialist party. No one ever wants to send me a damn thing (and I couldn't be happier for it!).

Yup, because NYC has closed primaries. Probably would be anyway- I tend to be a yellow dog voter.

Registered Dem.

Never give up on voting. The fewer voters, the happier those in power.

Yes, because... I'm not sure why, really. I think when I registered to vote in CA they asked, and I just checked the box. And while the Dems seem to be the only party even giving lip service to abortion rights, and while "abortion rights" somehow annoyingly stands in for any progress on women's rights in this country, I will be a single-issue voter and I will be a Democrat, so identifying as such seems to make sense.

Because on almost every other issue I'm willing to see both sides, and could consider myself independent, but that issue's the one that's life-or-death important to me, and so I think a protest vote outside the two main parties could be personally dangerous to my autonomy and health.

So the Democrats have me by the uterus, basically.

Registered independent. I just about always vote Democratic, but I don't like being tied down.

I'm actually a pretty strong believer in traditional Democratic values -- I just wish we could field some decent candidates and stop pandering to the center quite so much. But part of me is with you, occhi -- if we had a strong Democratic Socialist party in this country, I'd participate. But I won't vote third party, either, while so much is at stake.

No longer a member of any party, never intend on voting again. Used to be a Dem, a precinct committee officer, even. I will keep my voter registration current so I can sign ballot petitions.

After they ran Lieberman as Veep and Kerry took a dive, that was it. I had spent ten years working inside the party for progressive reforms and even got some. I am now of the opinion neither party can be reformed and the republic ceased to exist in the mid-80's. The Dems could fuck up a fifteen-ton iron ball. The only issue before either party is incumbency and spoils.

Nope. Can't vote because I'm a landed immigrant and not a citizen of Canada. If I could vote, it'd be for the Green Party, maybe, as the whole Liberal/Conservative, Republican/Democrat thing has always struck me as pathetically two-dimensional. You know, good/bad, black/white, with us/against us crapola. Oh, and insulting... like people aren't smart enough to be able to compare mutiple parties with different agendas. (ok. *some* people are smart enough, and some people like what their given and haven't the brains to ask for more.)

Democrat. I sometimes vote a split ticket, though. Just because there is a (D) after a candidate's name does not automagically align that person's position with my own (or vice versa).

I post to DemocraticUnderground once in a while, and I catch sh!t for discussing politicians of other stripes as reasonable alternatives to Democrats. As for John F'ing Kerry.... I started the longest-running thread over on DU, entitled "I BELIEVE" where I voiced my opinion (hope?) that Kerry would eventually be shown as the winner and would take office. Boy was I wrong.

Nevertheless, I tend to align with Democrats on just about everything, so I registered as one.

if we had a strong Democratic Socialist party in this country

I dunno, socialism is kinda like Christianity, a lot of well-meaning ideas that don't work out in real life. The track record of applied Marxism has been abysmal (see Russia, China, Romania,Berlin Wall et al). (Yeah, yeah, I know, they weren't 'real Marxism,' people always say, but maybe that's just an excuse when things don't work out to our ideals. I'm not saying I like the status quo or that I have any better ideas, but the record so far makes me disinclined to give it a whirl.)

I BELIEVE

Dude, that was you?

D'oh, I knew I forgot to do something when I moved. Oh well, might as well wait till I'm in MA to register this time around.

I often vote Libertarian just to piss off the Establishment. Instant Runoff Voting, pls ok tks!

I don't bother to vote in national elections, nor am I a member of a party, but I'm tempted to join the American Prohibition Party just for the sheer fun of showing up drunk at one of their rallies.

jonmc, you do realize that many successful countries in Europe are currently governed by the Socialists? Socialism is not the same as Communism.

And here's the proof:

I love to socialize.

I don't have a clue how to communize.

Q.E.D.

I confess I am a Republican.

With the last name of R**g*n was there any doubt?

Yeah, I realize that socialism has had limited success in Europe, and I'm even in favor of of some socialist-type reforms. Maybe, I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate here, but...America isn't Europe. In fact, a large percentage of America's population was chased out of Europe with it's ass on fire. And the welfare state sort of flies in the face of the Land-Of-Opportunity, Go-For-Broke attitudes that make up the American mentality*.

*I realize these ideals are 90% bullshit, but if we did the Euro-Socialism thing, wouldn't we just be trading one flavor of bullshit for another? maybe our bullshit tastes better**

**/cranky old coot with low tolerance for utopianism

Socialdemocrats in Sweden. Here a socialist is a step more extreme than a communist. No grades in school, everyone gets a job assigned by the government, owning property is not legal and other mad ideas are listed in their party promises. Nobody votes for them. Or maybe like 00.001% do.

On the other hand 48% or some such vote for the Social democrats, which is why they are currently ruling together with the "left party" (used to be the left party comunist but they dropped the last word when it became unfashionable) and the environmental party.

I'm a Republican. All because I wanted a job working for the highway department in the town I live in and it was a Republican stronghold at the time (1979). Now it's a Democratic stronghold, not that you'd notice. I've been considering changing to independent since that's the way I vote but I never seem to get around to it. I haven't voted in any of the primaries (they're rare here anyway) but I vote in the regular election every year.

The track record of applied Marxism has been abysmal

Look at Western Europe.

What? A large percentage of America's population was born in America and hasn't even been to Europe, let alone been chased out of it with their various asses on fire.

I'm not part of any party, nor intend to be. I am a registered voter, although I doubt I'd be voting in any national elects for a long while. Unless hilary ran, then I'd have to vote against her. Not that it really matters, being in texas. I do vote in local elections though.

[preview] I dunno, jon -- I am resisting starting a big political discussion 'cause my brain is flatlining today. But barring the practical fact that the US isn't culturally ready for social democracy, I would indeed be willing to trade our present form of bullshit for a form which at least ensured full medical and dental care for all children, prevented the existence of abject poverty, and guaranteed a free public education with per-student resources evenly divided.

I do agree that wholescale socialism would most likely be unsuccessful in the U.S. But I also wish that we took some of the real ideas from socialism -- things like safety nets and universal health care, for instance, and other wacky pinko-liberal ideas about actually doing right by your citizens -- and debated them seriously in this country.

Not because I think they should be adopted wholesale, but because I think this country's mainstream Left is not really all that Left, especially in comparison to other first world nation's elected left-wing government parties.

We could use a wider debate with richer ideas from farther away from center, is my main point. Which I'm not sure is possible with a two-party system.

I'm a Republican. All because I wanted a job working for the highway department in the town I live in and it was a Republican stronghold at the time (1979).

This reveals a lot about the American attitude toward politics. Except, for people who follow politics like sports there aren't that many party loyalists in the US. The country runs hot-cold, left-right. Usually, a party will gain power, coast for a while and then do something to alienate people and the reaction will cause the other party to take over. Look at California going from Jerry Brown to Ronald Reagan.

Also, my late grandad was a lifelong Democrat. An outer-borough ethnic Catholic small shopkeeper, the clasic NYC Democrat (in those days, since then the Dems have seemingly abandoned their original constituency-seemingly). One day he called up the local democratic ward heeler on some zoning matter and the guy blew him off. The next week he registered republican. That's how politics works in a lot of the US.

Miko, to (slightly) paraphrase Lenny Bruce, Marxism would be like living in a big phone company.

What? A large percentage of America's population was born in America and hasn't even been to Europe, let alone been chased out of it with their various asses on fire.

Maybe on the west coast. On the east coast, it's a whole different story. Most of us get the up-from-ellis-island stuff from birth. And while there's a healthy dose of propoganda in it, there's also the truth that things were so bad for them over there that they were willing to come here. I'm not trying to start an ideological war here, just letting you know some things). Failing to try and see the world through the populace's eyes has always been the american left's greatest failing. We work on that and we might get somewhere.

or, what occhi said.

jonmc, my sweet, once again I feel compelled to butt heads with you on this one. a) it's not just a convenient excuse, what happened in China & the USSR was not at all Marxism. b) socialism is so far from that. Seriously. c) what you have in the States is not at all the free market pure capitalism that you make it out to be. You have corporate welfare and appalling protection for blue collar criminals, as we do here. Not that I agree with pure capitalism, but for cryin' out loud, if that's what y'all want, go with it without changing the playing field whenever you don't like it (that's the Brechtian every-you, not you personally).

I'm a socialist because I believe that a civilized society takes care of its own people, and recognizes that it's in the interest of the entire community to help out those who need it, rather than letting them die on the streets or turn to crime or raise children in abject poverty.

barring the practical fact that the US isn't culturally ready for social democracy

well, a big part of the reason for that is that when you say 'Marxism,' or 'Socialism' to most Americans, it conjures up images of Mao, Kruschev, the Berlin Wall, Castro and Ceaucescu. That's an awful big burden to overcome.

what you have in the States is not at all the free market pure capitalism that you make it out to be

I never said it was. I'm no laissez-faire warrior, I don't like the way things are, I just think that Marxism has proven itself a poor alternative and we need something else. I've known many people who've lived (or who's families fled) under marxist systems (russia, cuba, yugoslavia) and none of them had much good to say about it, and (no disrespect intended) I'll take their word for it over somebody who's read a few books.

That's an awful big burden to overcome.

Yeah, and it's a failing of our educational system that this isn't widely understood. Which brings us back to the beginning of the cycle: How to improve standards for education? Begin with equal funding...

and socialism? Please tell me that you do see the difference, because I know you're smart enough but in writing you tend to deal with Communism and socialism as if they were the same thing.

Miko is east coast, and while I live on the west coast, it's only been for a few years. And I'm only third-generation American, with great-grandparents hounded out of Eastern Europe because the Communists weren't too fond of Catholics.

But what happened a century ago in Lithuania doesn't really change the fact that poor Americans have no health care today. And the immigrants coming in today are not mostly fleeing Socialist democracies (nor were the immigrants coming in a century ago).

And the fact that "Socialism" is a bad word here is exactly my point, that the political debate in this country is ridiculously narrow, that we can't even separate out Socialism and Communism (which are a hell of a lot more different than the Republicans and the Democrats).

also, AAAAAUUUUUGGGGHHH! Yugoslavia and the USSR weren't Marxist. Not that I advocate Marxism or any form of communism, but please please be straight on this one.

On preview: what occhiblu said

I realize there's a difference, elizard, but what I'm trying to do is get you all to realize the cultural burdens you have to overcome here, or maybe a brand of socialism that embraces American cultural attitudes needs to be created.

(like my Cuban exile friends in Miami used to say, when people in Miami build rubber rafts to float to Havana, then maybe I'll buy the 'glorious tommorrow propoganda. sorry, but there you have it)

(and as Griel Marcus once said, rock and roll couldn't have ever been birthed under any other system besides capitalism. I won't lie, I love what someone once called the 'pure products of America.' I like muscle cars, Twinkies, diners and 24-hour TV. I don't want to give them up for Cheese Shop #5 which contains no cheese. Universal health care? No child allowed to starve? Fairer allocation of education funds? Great. But I also believe that free enterprise is vital to a healthy society. Otherwise you wind up with the 'we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us,' system that was the Soviet Union.)

also, AAAAAUUUUUGGGGHHH! Yugoslavia and the USSR weren't Marxist.

and Hitler wasn't a vegetarian. c'mon, any system, no matter how well intentioned, can become a corrupt monstrosity. Maybe what I want is an end to systems, especially ones that promise Utopia. Utopianism is the deadliest ism that exists.

jon, none of us are arguing against the point you seem to be trying to make, as far as I can see.

I'm registered as a Republican (though I don't think I've ever voted for one in a general election) because their junk mail is funnier.

maybe a brand of socialism that embraces American cultural attitudes needs to be created.

Exactly!

maybe, but a lot of you seem to be very gung-ho on the idea of socialism, and like I said, the track record of Marxism makes me apprehensive about that. Is this the best we can come up with as an alternative to the Bush's of the world? a 100+ year old system that failed miserably and killed millions?

as a wise man once said: offer me solutions, offer me alternatives and I decline.

Yes, well, you're not arguing against Socialism, you're arguing against Communism, which is why we keep arguing. It'd be like my claiming that Springsteen sucks because "Abbey Road" is an awful album. And any time you defended Springsteen I talked about how awful the Beatles were, and any time you talked about the Beatles I started making fun of "Born to Run."
It's all rock music, so what difference do the distinctions make? Do you think it might drive you a bit batty to be having that conversation?

And as both Miko and I (I think) have said, we're not tryint to replace capitalism with socialism. Just add it to the mix, as I'd love to also add a viable Green party, etc. I'm not talking full-scale government change-over, just increasing the range of ideas available for serious debate in this country.

We don't register to vote here (what would be the point when it's compulsory?). I usually vote Liberal at a national level and Labour at a state level, because I think the strengths of each party's ideology work best at those two different levels. Also, having state governments that are fundamentally opposed to the federal government is a good check-and-balance thing, in my mind. I realise that almost none of you will have any idea of what I am talking about, but that's OK.

Just FYI, jon - you can have both universal health care and capitalism.

*tips hat to occhiblu* I couldn't have said it better.

Registered independent and voted Libertarian in California (because voting liberal didn't matter there), but now that I'm in Texas I might register either Dem or Green or perhaps Socialist, just to shake things up a bit.

I'm not a registered member of any party. I tend to vote Democratic, but won't join them unless they grow a damn spine on gay issues, esp. here in the south. I did vote in the Republican primary earlier this month, though, just to vote against Ralph Reed.

I have a strong anti-incumbent streak because even the best-intentioned politicos tend to ossify after they've been in office for a decade or more.

I'm shamelessly capitalist. And I'd love to see a good, honest, thorough debate about universal health care, education reform, and a strong welfare system.

Of course, I've lost faith in America's ability to host real debates. But it's nice to dream.

Yes, well, you're not arguing against Socialism, you're arguing against Communism,

It was the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics, right? I'll admit that I'm not the most politically sophisticated person in the world but aren't they both Marxist systems? and like I said, I've never met anybody from the countries I mentioned who had anything good to say about their governments.

Enough arguing about politics, let's argue fashion, could i get away with these in public? you tell me...

(oh, and it sort of gets my goat when someone claims that voting 3rd party is "throwing away my vote," because "The Dems (or the Repubs) need all the support they can get." Well excuse me if I don't want to choose the lesser of two evils).

Yes I am, and only did so when I moved to NY (to be able to vote in the primaries here).

jon, this page is talking about Canada, but seems to be a good summary:

After this date, social democracy could be defined by its opposition not only to capitalism but also to communism. Social democrats are resolute in their defence of individual rights and constitutional methods, and in their repudiation of the Marxist concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They also argue that political democracy (eg, equal right to vote) needs to be expanded to include social and economic democracy (ie, equal right to an education, medical care, pensions, employment and safe working conditions). Believing in the power of education and persuasion, and the potentially benevolent power of the state to redistribute wealth, social democrats have encouraged the emergence of an activist, interventionist state that provides extensive social security assistance to the less privileged.

I'm registered "no party affiliation".

maybe a brand of socialism that embraces American cultural attitudes needs to be created.

What, you mean like FDR's New Deal?

Exactly, baby brother.

Registered Democrat here, but that will change when I have the time. I believe them to be worse than useless at this point, as they represent the "opposition" party, a mirage if ever there was one. Had a couple of interesting conversations with volunteers calling to ask for donations in the fall of '04. I told them (politely) that I would not be giving any money, and explained that after rolling over on the war and everything else the Democrats no longer had any sort of support from me. Both times the volunteers agreed and said they understood, wished things were different. I wish those people, who have so much more motivation than me (read: aren't such lazy curmudgeons who like to bitch and moan but don't do much else), could put all that energy into a party/candidates that would not be "the lesser of two evils." Alas.
[First comment here. Hello.]

Oh, meaning I'll be registered Independent and vote Green, Libertarian, or some such, unless forced by extreme circumstances to hold nose and vote for a Democrat.

Registered dead yellow dog Democrat, because it's a lesser of two weevils situation in this country and I will pretty much always pick the Dem, unless he's a proven chicken humping schizo organized crime figure, as, sadly, so many of them are. I was a registered Socialist in NY where that was an option and I would be again, given the choice. As for the Dems, well, it's partly what occhiblu said more eloquently than me above and then, although I despair of ever seeing change, they seem to me to be just slightly more likely to do something - something, anything, dear god - about our global joke of a health care "system" which is the issue that really sends me shrieking insane and around the bend.

The words of Will Rogers have never been truer: "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat." It's a good vantage point at which to watch the passing political charadeparade.

Hello, Zoinks, and welcome!

I'm registered to independent. I like to pick and choose as I see fit. But for the most part, I just haven't been happy with the choices I'm given.

Registered independent. I just about always vote Democratic, but I don't like being tied down.

Or, what jon said.

I've also said in other fora (and in person, I believe) that I consider myself a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, which generally pisses both extreme camps off.

Joining the debate somewhat late. I always used to vote Labour (although the area where I live is strongly Conservative) and I am a believer in social democracy, where those who are fortunate contribute to the well-being of those who need it.

But ...

... over the past 20 years or so the UK has seen a HUGE increase in the number of people who believe they are totally entitled to live off the taxes of other people without ever having to contribute anything to society themselves.

Educational and disciplinary standards are low in poorer areas, so the only options many kids think they have is producing babies, living on the social, and complaining vociferously if anyone dares to suggest they work for a living.

There was an article in The Sunday Times this weekend which said that it's now a badge of honour to have an ASBO (Anti-Social Behaviour Order).

I despair. I do not like paying so much tax. I believe in a fairer society but, as one in the middle (neither rich nor poor, wage slave, mortgage slave) I am feeling increasingly marginalised and do not see any political party in Britain offering me an option which I'd be happy to choose.

I'm a Liberal Democrat. That sometimes feels like a wasted vote, and this election I voted Labour for the same time. I gave my vote to Linda Riorhdan who was taking over from the fantastic Alice Mahon. I thought it'd be more of the same, but Linda has had quite a disappointing voting record, so next election it's back to the Lib Dems.

e/j: I know a few people who rely on Social Security and it's one of the reasons I'm proud to be British and proud to pay my taxes. For the most part, they need that money. However, it's frustrating to see though how difficult it can be for them to move into employment. The current system seems designed to keep people dishonest / signing on / out of work.

As for the ASBO thing... It's a typical humoured reaction to what is effectively a terrible piece of litigation. And it's probably not as widespread as the papers would have you believe.

I don't understand the whole "registering for a party" thing you Americans have at all, since it seems to determine little more than what sort of junk mail you receive. In Australia, being a member of a political party is a wholly more serious thing, generally involving signing your name to a set of beliefs, paying your dues each year, and being expected to help out the party in meaningful ways. Hence, a very, very low proportion of people are members of political parties.

I was a member of the Socialist Alliance once. Boy, wasn't that a fun three days. I've been considering becoming a member of the Greens for a long while now, I just haven't got around to throwing any money their way yet. The Labor party are about as useful as a hole in a flyscreen - I was thinking of joining up when Mark Latham was the leader, but he went batshitinsane and quit, and the Australian Democrats are leaking elected representatives like a sieve, so I think the Greens are the only real option.

I know a few people who rely on Social Security and it's one of the reasons I'm proud to be British and proud to pay my taxes. For the most part, they need that money. However, it's frustrating to see though how difficult it can be for them to move into employment. The current system seems designed to keep people dishonest / signing on / out of work.

I'm not talking about people who want to work or not be on benefits. All power to them. I also know people who are on benefits and who would love to get off them but are better off not working. They are keen to improve themselves and are taking advantage of the educational opportunities available to move out of the benefits trap.

For many years I lived/worked in areas where a significant proportion of the population will react with outrage at any suggestion they might:

- get a job
- use contraception
- turn their music down
- respect the property they live in (the rent for which is paid by benefits) by keeping it clean, not smashing it up, leaving rubbish everywhere
- respect other people (and their property)
- take some responsibility (a word which appeared not to be in their vocabulary)

It wore me down. I couldn't live or work around those people any more. The only kid in the street who stayed on at school to do 'A' levels was beaten up and had his schoolwork ripped into shreds on a regular basis. All the other kids in the street (about a dozen in all) had, by the ages of 18 given birth or fathered at least one child (one girl had three kids by the age of 18, all by different teenage fathers), been in trouble with the law and moved into their own properties, paid for by social security, to continue the cycle of 'benefit generations'. I moved away and got another job in the end.

he Australian Democrats are leaking elected representatives like a sieve, so I think the Greens are the only real option.
I hear ya - at a recent by-election where I live, the only vote I could cast with any conscience was for the greens, who had a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but the "main" candidates were a couple of lying sacks of shit (even for politicians), one of whom campaigned prominantly as a coalition candidate, then suddenly became a National member when he won (in a strong Liberal area). Arsehole.

I have sometimes voted for the Democrats and always in the senate because I agree with Don Chipp that someone needs to "keep the bastards honest" and the Democrats used to do that. The last few years though, boy, talk about spent forces.

I also know people who are on benefits and who would love to get off them but are better off not working.
This is the single biggest fault in all welfare systems that I have seen - there will always be people who are prepared to accept a lower-than-average (but still quite liveable) standard of living in exchange for never having to work to support themselves. In Australia, we are now approaching the third generation of people who have never worked. By that I mean that there are kids almost ready to leave the school system whose parents and grandparents have never worked for a living. The numbers of these people may not be huge, but they are significant and they, until now, have been coddled and supported by governments too afraid to stand up and do something about it. Only now are we starting to hear serious talk about forcing people to work or undergo serious training in perparation for work unless they have children below school age. Unfortunately, the solution for many will be to pop out another brat to get another five years on the single parent benefit. Those are the people who are sucking the system dry and it is almost impossible to do anything about them because they have grown up in a culture with almost no contact with mainstream society. How can this happen, I hear you ask? Well, it happened because the government, in its infinite wisdom, bought up huge tracts of cheap land to build estates of subsidised housing and then wondered why they turn into ghettos. Only now are they starting to consider what plenty of people have been urging them to do for decades - buy land dispersed in the wider community and built nice houses on them so people do not live and grow up in marginalised sub-societies that precondition them for failure. If you place people in an environment where those around them are striving to do better, they will almost always do better themselves. If you put them all together, they bring each other down.

Now see what you've done - you got me up on my favourite soapbox again, damn you.

Well, it happened because the government, in its infinite wisdom, bought up huge tracts of cheap land to build estates of subsidised housing and then wondered why they turn into ghettos.

<cough>ElizabethFrankstonMacquarieFields<cough>

<cough>LoganleaInalaMolendinarLoganholme<cough>

But dg. They're Ozzie Battlers! They represent all that is good about the Australian Spirit.

I've seen The Castle. You can't fool me. All Good Australians love these people. It's part of the national heritage.

I don't understand the mentions of capitalism and socialism here, as I've never had the chance to vote for an economic system. Then again, I've never had the opportunity to vote in a democracy, either.

It takes an informed electorate to make a real democracy. In the US we have at best a misinformed electorate, left and right, and at worst an uninformed electorate.

I mistrust power seekers and hoarders of wealth. If the gain targeted is tangible -- a house for your kids, a vacation, a more efficient SUV -- well, that's okay. But wealth (or power) treated as something to be amassed is creepy, like a lover unsatisfied with affection who demands my whole heart. You gonna put it in a bank or something?

Folks like to claim that the successes or failures of their country are due to the political systems in place there, or to their political leaders. I'm not saying it's only one thing (the will of the people) or only another (the movement of capital), but giving politics too much credit paves the way to giving politicians too much power.

I've seen The Castle. You can't fool me. All Good Australians love these people. It's part of the national heritage.
No, the family on The Castle were people that worked for a living and paid taxes to support the dole bludgers, just like I do. Don't fucking get me started on this, I warn you ;-)

Yeah, don't get him started, I've seen it before, it's not pretty!

How about we discuss the legacy of Joh Boekje-Petersen instead, heh? Put Queensland on the map, he did.

I've known many people who've lived (or who's families fled) under marxist systems (russia, cuba, yugoslavia) and none of them had much good to say about it, and (no disrespect intended) I'll take their word for it over somebody who's read a few books.

Exiles are not the best representation of the general feeling of the people living under the system. Would you consider By the Grace of God, for example, representative of a typical American feeling about the U.S. government?

I doubt I'd be voting in any national elects for a long while. Unless hilary ran, then I'd have to vote against her.

So after the current administration has dismantled the Constitution, conflagrated world war, and gutted the national treasury to enrich oil barons, the only thing that would prompt you to vote in a national election was some personal (and probably misogynistic) distaste for Hillary Clinton? That's one of the most pathetic things I've ever read.

Hugh, we're voting for the people who put economic policies into place -- that's why we're discussing economic systems when discussing political parties. It's the political process that enacts welfare reform, tax structures, business regulations, etc.

As to the welfare question: I agree that it's not good that there could be such a thing in which three generations of a family have never worked, and don't contribute to society. But I disagree that the way to change that is to remove the supports that allow people who don't work to be healthy and have safe shelter -- what happens when you do that (as in the U.S.) is that society still ends up beaing the financial burden, only we do so with the high cost of health insurance, property taxes, law enforcement and corrections. It simply shifts the costs into the private sector, where rampant corruption and collusion can actually drive them up.

What's the goal here? If work as a value in and of itself is so important to us, if we believe contribution to society is a requirement for participation in civil society, then let's think of ways to get at the root of the problem. I always point to education and early-life influences for this. Adults are hard to change. Young people, however, can be very powerfully impacted by programs during youth in which they learn how to make contributions, and more importantly, how good it feels and what a source of personal dignity it can become. The New Deal's another great example -- millions of young people across the country enlisted into public-service programs that to this day greatly enrich our culture and landscape. We now call the generation who was poor and struggling during the depression, and who ended up participating in the youth cultures of the CCC and WPA, the Greatest Generation. Coincidence?

It's just the carrot-and-stick thing. You can't make people want to work by taking away their fundamental supports. The basic goal of civil society should be to see that the needs of every individual for food, health, safety, education, and shelter are met. Once that is accomplished, if we'd also like everyone to do work of some sort, we need to find models of meaningful work for them to aspire to. The motivation to work does not come solely from need -- as someone pointed out, many people are willing to accept a lower standard of living so that they can have the freedom not to work. So the real question is whether work has intrinsic value. Some kinds of work may; exploitive low-wage labor, though? I'm not so sure.

I'd like to find ways to emphasize the value of work that are beyond economic. I don't work just to take care of myself -- if I did, I'd do something a lot more remunerative and a lot less interesting. I work because I like working. I like having meaning in the world. How can we set up social programs in such a way that everyone is encouraged to make meaningful contributions to society, and sees and feels the individual value of their labors, knowing that their efforts are rewarded in both tangible and intangible ways? To me, that's the real question to ask about welfare-to-work programs.

I know my vote doesn't count here in the US, because I vote for a "representative" of my views who doesn't represent my views. I refuse to become a single issue voter, and my not voting is a wash; it strengthens every other vote equally, and thus makes no difference. I'm not much of a compromiser, and I won't vote for someone just because of their views on one thing if I think they're wrong on another. If things get bad I'd rather wait for a revolution than vote for someone I loathe a little less than his competition.

I also know that most issues are really solved or applied at the local level, and I feel rather transient right now; since I rent without a lease and use very few of the city services candidates demagogue themselves into power on.

In absence of a strong candidate, elections are a popularity contest, and I despise people who will do anything to be popular. There are always ulterior motives (oh no, they just care so much!), and I'd have a little more respect if they were honest about their motivations.

On the local level at which my vote would count, I'm insufficiently knowledgeable or invested in the political situation to make my vote worthwhile. At the national level, I know that my vote doesn't really count, and the candidates are so compromised by the concessions they make that they just can't represent me, and are thus not worth my vote. Someone who cares, believes them, or doesn't care that they don't believe them can vote instead.

And we don't vote for economic systems. We might vote for modifications in economic policy, but that's a far cry from switching over from regulated or deregulated capitalism to share-and-share-alike communism/socialism. And political parties in this day and age all line their pockets from the public coffers in more or less the same way.

I'm not saying it's all the same, but that the differences are slim. In the US, parties pander in the same way to the same people; political races are attempts to prove to the voter that each party will do exactly the same as the other: whatever the individual voter cares about. There are small superficial differences in platforms, and almost no differences in the candidates (for example, Kerry and Bush).

I think somewhere like the Costa Rica of a few years ago is a great example of the kind of thriving democracy I admire -- a highly literate country of politically involved citizens voting on important decisions about what to do on a local, regional, and national level. Unfortunately, Uncle Sam and CAFTA are putting an end to one of the world's few true democracies, but maybe we can learn something from its legacy.

Wouldn't it be nice.

funny... i cant think of anything more "democratic" than workers sharing control of the means of production, profits, etc, etc. crackerassed corporate capitalists are the real parasites. think about it.

and how many of us (metachattish ppl) dont have health/dental/etc insurance? i would guess that a majority do not. if/when something wrong happens, you're totally fucked... e.g., my appendicitis was something like $12k USD. that's fucking wack! americans should have a right to affordable health care.


btw i vote green or progressive whenever i can, but i'm not a member

re: workers sharing control of the means of production.
As a programmer, I own the means of my production.
As a Brit, I get free health care.

I am living the marxist dream.

Registered Democrat (have to vote by mail). My political leanings are Socialist Democrat. Good thing I live in Canada, eh?

I'm eligible to become a Canadian citizen next year so I'll be able to not make a difference in two countries! Not sure if I'll register NDP or Liberal (if picking is required, that is). Stephen Harper can go fuck himself.

Former branch official (back in the old country). Former campaigner for (though not member of) the ALP. But after the disgraceful way the ALP handled the racist "Tampa" business, now just plain disillusioned.

How about we discuss the legacy of Joh Boekje-Petersen instead, heh? Put Queensland on the map, he did.

Nice try. ("Bjelke" BTW). Trust a croweater to try to turn this into a State of Origin thing. (JK). Not that Beattie is much better (or even very different in many ways).

I'm waiting for Divine Wino to pull Jon up though. The USA has a fine socialist tradition, but "liberal", "conservative", and of course "socialist" are words which in the USA are now completely debased. That is double plus ungood.

So the real question is whether work has intrinsic value. Some kinds of work may; exploitive low-wage labor, though? I'm not so sure.
Well, the work itself doesn't have to have any instrinsic value in and of itself to be valuable - to me, the fact that I was supporting myself and my family would provide enough value to motivate me to continue doing it. I simply don't understand the attitude that anyone has a right to choose to sponge off the community simply because they don't want to work. I'm all for lifestyle choice, but what about my right to choose not to support lazy arseholes? These very people who spout off about their rights are the same people who are taking away my rights when they syphon off a considerable portion of my tax dollars to support them.

I disagree that the way to change that is to remove the supports that allow people who don't work to be healthy and have safe shelter
You're right, of course. Still, it seems that the only motivation for some people to work is because they have to to live. I can't speak for other countries, but I believe the majority of long-term welfare recipients here in Australia are in that position by choice. If we make the barriers to welfare high enough, these people will see that it is less effort to jsut get a job and join the productive part of society.

In the late '80s, I was a single parent on welfare with no real job prospects, living hand-to-mouth, but now I have a good job with a decent salary and my own home. I'm no superman, just a guy who chose to take the path of most resistance and pull myself up, rather than choosing the easy path. Really, anyone can do it - you just have to choose.

dg, I think what you're saying is true to some extent, and while I know Australia has its racial issues, I think the situation in the US gets more complicated because of its more complicated racial issues. It's all very well and good to say "Get a job," but when you've got a system that's so totally stacked against such a huge section of the population, from before birth (with prenatal care and nutrition problems) through childhood and schooling (with failing inner city schools) through college (as we try to dismantle affirmative action admissions) through the workplace (with hiring discrimination), it's not always quite that easy.

Which I think goes back to Miko's point -- if you envision "work" as something that can get you ahead, if you've seen people succeed, if getting promotions and moving up the ladder are somehow built into your idea of "work," then there's a motivating factor there. But when they *only* idea of "work" you have is flipping burgers for the rest of your life at a minimum wage that won't even pay your rent or support your family, then it's not exactly clear how that will benefit you.

the APA has an interesting and informative list of welfare facts and myths, fwiw