I can only speak for Germany where the specific parties forbidden are the NSDAP, the attempted rebrand SRD and the Communist Party. The NSDAP was forbidden by the Allied Council which included the United States. The latter two were banned because they were in breach of a German law (Art. 20 GG) perpetuating the republic, democracy and the social welfare state - a law which was formulated on experiences made in 1933 and encouraged by said Allied Council. The whole GG had to be approved by the Allied Powers as well. So they were essentially deemed "unconstitutional".
In the United States, no political party of any kind can be banned, per se
. The US Supreme Court ruled (based on the Constitution) that one can only be prosecuted for what you do, not what you believe (however, conspiracy to commit a crime, even before a crime is actually committed, is illegal). If Germany today bans certain parities, that is none of my business, and has nothing to do with the US. I don't presume to know what is best for other countries.
It's all well being against party bans until a country makes the experience of a fascist party being democratically elected into power and then abolishing democracy. Enacting laws which make a party illegal that has the abolishment of democracy in their agenda, even without explicitely calling for violence, makes a certain sense. Yes, you can always make the philosophical argument that any government can abuse this to just outlaw the competition, but at least in Germany, that has not proven to be the case in the last 60+ years. I don't think a whole lot of people would content that it was necessary for the fledgling democracy to outlaw the bureaucracy of it's predecessor dictatorship. And while the Communist Party was banned, there are other communist parties in Germany. One is currently the third biggest political party and has participated in coalition governments of various federal states.
Elected governments who have abolished democracy have occurred on the left and the right. It is less likely to happen in the US because neither the legislature (Congress), nor the executive (President) have the unilateral power to due so. The US has a system of check and balances, and the US Supreme Court can overrule both the legislative and executive branches of government in accordance with the principles of liberty and freedom as enumerated in the US Constitution. This only works if one has a tradition of accepting what the Constitution actually says (as to opposed to ignoring provisions that seem inconvenient at the moment).
It's also easier to be laissez-faire about it in the United States, where an electoral system is in place that makes it nigh impossible for any party outside red and blue to be elected in the first place.
Laissez-faire is not the proper term IMO. It has to do with liberty and rights that were established in 1791 in the US Constitution, which US society takes very seriously. You make it sound like the US electoral system is restrictive, when in fact it expresses the will of the majority, as opposed to the situation like occurred in Germany where Hitler was elected with only about 37% of the vote. For you that may mean only Red or Blue, but for me that means moderation, and not extremes, and more often than not it expresses the will of majority of the people.
That's a nice display of selective perception.
I don't think so. The NAACP boycotts businesses and cities all the time. But if you have statistics on that, I am willing to listen.
Depends what you mean by boycott. If individuals or groups choose not to frequent certain businesses, it's all well.
What I've always been appalled by is the (not exclusively, but frequently) American tradition of sign-wielding in front of somebody's home or business. Because that is in my humble opinion not boycotting, but Defamation. In the same vein do I find it ridiculous to eat there to support the notion of disadvantaging a minority.
The 1st amendment of the US Constitution (part of Bill of Rights) states:Amendment I -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Sorry you don't like the 1st Amendment, but it is in the US Constitution Bill of Rights.
I don't think people opposed to gay marriage would have decided to support Chick-fil-a if others had not previously called for a boycott. Regardless, the 1st amendment applies. Once one starts making exceptions as to when the US Constitution applies, and when it should be ignored, that is when a person like Hitler will come along and try and abolish the Constitution and the rule of law (under the pretext that it is no longer relevant to modern society).