Reply #9: It's not about why or how the Republican party

[hyphenate]

should continue to exist, it's about having more than a one-party system which quickly could turn into a totalitarian regime if there aren't checks and balances in place.

We've seen how this works already--before the election this past November, the Repubs were "in charge." Not only were they in charge, but they had already set up enough ways for themselves to continue to influence the country's politics long after they were out of office. It was just short of being a dictatorship in some ways, though you won't hear them say that, obviously.

A single party dominance, as we've seen for the past eight years, makes sure that their agenda is the one to be passed, and that any and all of their ideals are pushed through. In this past regime of the last 8 years, the incompetency of the president brought other members of the administration to the fore, and each soaked the country for their own personal gain.

I realize that some here like Hugo Chavez, but he is currently one of the dictators in the world that shows what happens when someone charismatic can do once they have their foot in the door. Making himself the "elected" president for life, he has managed to take over his country with sneak thief style, and while many might have wanted differently, he had the backing of too many people looking for simple solutions in their lives. They decided to forgo a system filled with those checks and balances, which actually protect everyone in the long run.

A democratically run country such as the U.S. needs to maintain two (or more) parties in order to show perspective of the entire populace. There are some ideals offered by the right that are actually admirable, if you take away the taint of the religious right from the party. The "old" republican party wanted smaller federal government, wherein the states themselves would have more power. The "old" republicans actually wanted to spend less, and rely on the people themselves to bring changes to the country. The old "pioneer" outlook was crucial in this country for many many years, and even when it was often cruel--killing Native Americans in order to move west, for an example--it brought the country from one coast to the other. The old republican party was interested in making the U.S. formidable and self-relying. They wanted to see the country succeed in every endeavor it made. And until the World Wars, the United States was relatively equal to the other countries, especially the European countries. I don't believe the concept of a "superpower" came until after the wars, but after all was said and done, the U.S. was crowned with that title, and it's been what we've been trying to keep up with since.

A single party system would defeat a lot of admirable traits that the real republicans hold. A multiple party system ensures that all the citizens voices are heard, and not just those on one side. It also makes sure that not one sector in the country is left out when decisions and choices are made. It is true that urban states have more liberal leanings, but at the same time, the rural communities in the country need a voice too. And republicans are largely from those rural settings, and represent those folks who otherwise wouldn't be able to influence decisions made.

The problem, unfortunately, is that real republicans have made some decisions over the past thirty or so years that have helped weaken the party. They have allowed neo-cons to flourish, and they have allowed the religious right to infiltrate them and demand decisions based on their sole criteria. As we have seen, now it is very difficult to remove the RRs influence--it's like a cancer which is so interwoven itself into the party, that to separate them is now impossible.

Hope this helps.