Could a Democrat and Republican running together repair our divided country?

Question

Right now the United States is politically polarized between Democrat and Republican, with both sides becoming more extreme and both sides becoming more and more unwilling to compromise. If a well-known Democrat and a well known Republican were to both leave their political parties in the upcoming 2008 election and run together as independent candidates, would they have a shot at getting elected, and would this bring the US back toward the unity of purpose that made us a great nation to begin with?

Answer 1

It's a wonderful theory, but not likely to work. The country really needs the security blanket of a party system, with the perceived advantages of internal discipline and pressures to apply to the candidates to keep them focused on the party platform.

If two well known Democrat and Republican figures were to start a third party that had a wide appeal to the voting base, I believe they could really start something new. People are finally getting tired of the two parties at the throat of America. We need a third party willing to put America first instead of the rest of the world and the Constitution ahead of pet projects and programs.

I like your question!

Answer 2

No, because the main reason why there is such an extreme split in our political landscape is personal unwillingness to work together, and the money and power the offices bring. When this nation was founded, 13 colonies realized they had a need to be free from the hand of England and to live as they see fit. For them to do so would be to work together. This was achieved in many ways, by influential leaders, the media and neighbors going go to door to convince others on the idea. The motto "United we stand, divided we fall" is an example of how it was done. Today with the need for instant information, and changing tides of feelings in almost a blink of an eye, we have forgotten that it is helping each other no matter where we came from is what made this country great. The United States is the true melting pot, our fore fathers knew this in the beginning. We must respect everyone rights, freedoms, beliefs no matter how much they differ from our own, and work together. A joined ticket would be nothing more than a novelty, that would lead us nowhere.

Answer 3

No it could not. We were a great nation many years ago because the majority of our population shared similar ideals, goals, and most importantly beliefs. Now, we are a country of diversity - we come from different backgrounds, hold different beliefs, and have different goals. I think these differences provide a natural balance of power, force growth, and give the vehicle for people to question their own belief system - not necessarily change it, but understand it more.

If we were to step back almost 150 years, we would see a country truly divided. So different were their views, they felt a need to engage in a civil war - a tragic point in our country's history to be certain. But, what if we all felt the same way as the South did at that time? Would we still have slavery? Would women have the same rights as men?

The parties represent the beliefs of certain sub-groups of our culture. I doubt that a Democrat and a Republican could work well together anyway because of the differences in their beliefs.

Answer 4

i personally think that would be a great idea. for a long time in our history it has always been picking black or white, one or the other, if there was some compromise and negotiations then that would bring things together more. this will always create more divisions if we continue to only pick one side based on the majority of votes. of course still both sides will have a voice but because one voice is the head, either the democrat or republican, that voice will still be the more superior. this would bring us back to our unity, this would make us more open to others, to other policies, to other people. there can be similarities found between the two. we are constantly negotiating in technology. we are bringing different programs together from all over the world and networking, but we need to do that in our own country to open up the world more!

Answer 5

I think this is the time to create a new party called "Welfare of Mankind" and ask both republican and democrat to join the new named party. This way people's prejudice towards the democratic or republican party will go away. We should elect a candidate for what they stand for and not for the party name.
We are no more kids where we need two teams for competition. Welfare is just a welfare which needs unity and not the division. No competition, we just need a collective good deeds that are based on honesty, unselfishness and equality and not on power, ego or selfish motive. Decisions should me made not according to constituation but using the basic principles of honesty, unselfishness, equality and treating people the way you would like to be treated(when wearing their hat) . If constitution also violates these principles then amend the constituation. We need a president who can make this country a heaven. So if you want to choose your President / candidate then see the candidates replies for my question that I am going to post right now "What does it take to build a heaven?" The candidates' answer will show their honesty, ethics and willingness to work for the country in totally impratial and unselfish way. So I would request to all the democratic and republican candidates to please answer the question - "What does it take to build a heaven?"

Answer 6

I agree, CGI. Only God can repair this country. The problem is, we won't let Him, because we won't do what He says. To answer the question, though: Republicans care only for big business - not America per sè; as an example, let's use the war in the Middle East (check the link below for the REAL reason for that war). On the other hand: Democrats seem to care more about America, but are generally weak and indecisive when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world - and even some of our own people. They seem to want to have a "one rule fits all", and that just don't cut it. An example here would be Don Imus: Common sense told everyone that he meant nothing by his remarks, but Al Sharpton couldn't rest until Don Imus was properly punished just because some overly-sensitive people happened to take offense. The last I checked, just because you say something about someone doesn't make it true. Now that our "leaders" have everyone thoroughly confused (and confusion worked good for Hitler, too), it is time for the rest of the world to move in and take over. And it has, too - just look at who really owns Wall Street, and whose stocks are stronger than whose, and whose currency is stronger than whose. Now, let's look at our heritage of being a "great nation". When was America great? America was great when we were following God. This country was certainly founded on God and Biblical principles. But ever since 1963, when America in its wisdom decided that God and the Bible only belonged in church, and not in everyday life, the division in this country has been getting steadily greater and greater, until we have been left with little more than the two extremes that you mention. To put it plainly: While anything is possible, and they may get elected (but let's not forget that it's the MEDIA - not the people - that elects the president; it was FOX that elected George W. Bush in 2000, after all of the other networks reported that Al Gore won), absolutely not would a Democrat and a Republican (or vice versa), or anyone else, for that matter, "repair" this "great nation". Only if we elect a man of God - a TRUE man of God (not some money-grubber like Joel Osteen or Pat Robertson) - could we ever hope to get back on track. The problem there is: No TRUE man of God could ever get elected - or even get his name on the ballot.

Answer 7

I don't believe a democrat-republican team-up could win the day. That's a step in the right direction, but I just don't think it could happen.

It seems that the 50%/50% vote counts from the last couple of elections prove only that the people are confused. A 50%/50% split indicates a random probability distribution; meaning that everyone's got a differnt issue which is "the most important." In the end, this is a completely random variable.

The one thing that unifies all Americans is a belief in our right to remain free. The true meaning of this, including the necessary risks and sacrifices, seem to be the core of all concerns.

The people are tired of politicians - we want a real person who understands the average citizen's way of life.

Unfortunately, it seems that people are not willing to take the time to listen or read what others are thinking. A good example of this is how many comments there are, and how many votes there are per comment. Most seem like they would rather get out their thoughts than read those of others.

Answer 8

Noble but naive.
We are a democracy (err, Federal Republic with strong democratic traditions)...but, our country thrives on checks and balances which at least two political parties and non-partisans or pure self and selfless interest, make sure it happens. Clinton owes his success to the Republican congress as they both battled over the budget therefore no one could spend what they wanted thus balancing the budget, paying down some of the debt and creating a surplus. Bush had a rubber-stamp congress...look what happened. Though, some people are happy about this because even with despair there will be some that are fortunate and vice a versa.

A group of politician that agree and never question or challenge each other...gee, can we see how Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao did whatever the heck they wanted.

No, democracy is about debate and criticism...above being able to vote. Many totalitarian regimes have elections but suppress any criticism. Saddam always won 99% of the vote and I think Kim Jung Il win 100%.

Answer 9

Historically , politics have been as nasty ,sometimes a lot nastier than they are now .Anything to the contrary was an aberration. Don't know if "repair" is possible, or desirable .There are legitimate differences in policy preferences , and there always will be .A lot of misery has been caused by "unity". Another term for it is "Tyranny of the Majority".

As a practical matter, a combined ticket would gain some support , but would lose others , who would call their candidate a "sell-out", or a "traitor". (you can probably guess which side would use which.;D) Probably be a wash .

What needs "repair" is the media's backbone, work ethic, and opinion of us . Also our attention spans , and voting habits . Differences are fine , if the discussion of them is honest , and based upon facts and logic , not lies,slander, half-truths, convenient omissions, appeals to base emotions, manufactured, false statistics , and non-issues. If we stop rewarding bad behavior , and stop penalizing candidates for truth-telling, and speaking their minds, about things tat actually matter, it will be greatly reduced . (It'll never actually stop)


"The public deserves to get what it wants , and get it good and hard!"
- H. L. Mencken.


Wally, sigh and the rest of the reality-based , I gave ya' a thumbs up , to counter the TDs from the rosy-glassed trolls . ;D

Answer 10

First, I'd have to see evidence that this:

"both sides becoming more extreme and both sides becoming more and more unwilling to compromise"

is actually a true statement.

Really, the odds of independent candidates winning the Presidency depend entirely on who they are. It's unlikely in any case - even Theodore Roosevelt couldn't win in 1912. In addition, the candidates could not share the Presidency, and would therefore have to choose which one gets to detract more from his party. If we had a semi-presidential system, with both a President and a Prime Minister, responsible for different areas of the government, this would be more feasible, but I don't really see how this could work in an acceptable fashion.

EDIT: In addition, keep your non-existent deities away from my government.