Here
and
Now

opinions

U.S. politics: Two small tents, with most Americans on the outside

30 Comments

The big tents are shrinking. Republicans and Democrats used to take pride in calling their respective parties "big tents" with room for a diversity of views. That tradition has ended for Republicans. It may be on its way out for Democrats as well.

Some liberals are celebrating the fact that retiring Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada will soon be replaced by Senator Charles Schumer of New York. That's because Nevada is a swing state. "By choosing leaders outside the party's home turf," Ari Melber wrote for "Politico" in 2010, "Senate Democrats up the odds that their standard-bearers will be distracted by close races -- caught between the politics of their constituents and the national party." Reid squeaked by in his 2010 reelection race with 50.3 percent of the vote.

That's not likely to be a problem for Schumer. New York is a deep-blue state. Schumer won with 67 percent of the vote in 2010.

The main reason the tents are shrinking is that the number of swing states is diminishing. Congressional Republicans increasingly represent red states and congressional Democrats blue states. Thirty percent of Democrats in the House of Representatives now come from just two states - New York and California.

At the same time, there is pressure to "purify" the party leadership by making sure it represents reliable party supporters and won't face pressure to make deals - that is, "sell out." This has already happened to Republicans. Representative Steve Scalise (R-La.) got elected House Republican whip in 2014 largely because conservatives demanded a Southern Republican in a leadership position.

Scalise explained his role in an interview with "Politico": "My goal is to get leadership to bring more conservative policies to the floor. It's not . . . to get conservatives to vote for something they don't like.''

The shutdown of the Republicans' big tent occurred in three stages. First, conservatives demanded a place at the table. They got one when Arizona Senator Barry M. Goldwater won the Republican Party nomination in 1964 by offering "a choice, not an echo."

Goldwater lost big time to Lyndon B. Johnson, but conservatives gained influence in the Republican Party. Second, conservatives won control of the Republican agenda. That happened when Ronald Reagan got elected president in 1980.

In the third and final stage, conservatives banished dissenters from the table. That happened with the rise of the Tea Party in 2009 and 2010. Tea Party Republicans refuse to tolerate moderates - or even conservatives willing to make deals. They're party poopers. The Tea Party brought down former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) last year, and the long knives are now out for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

The Democratic Party went through stage one when South Dakota Senator George McGovern won the nomination in 1972. McGovern, too, lost the election big time, but liberals gained a seat at the Democratic Party table. It wasn't until the election of Barack Obama in 2008 as president that liberals gained control of the Democratic agenda. The 2010 and 2014 midterms saw a massive purge of conservative and moderate Democrats. But it was not at the hands of liberals. Moderate and conservative voters threw Democrats out.

Now liberal groups are trying to "purify'' the Democratic Party's message, mostly by pulling likely nominee Hillary Clinton to the left. Liberal activists are urging Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to challenge Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Their argument? A letter just released by a pro-Warren group warns, "If we end up with a single Democratic candidate - and little or no debate in the primaries - those of us unlikely to support a Republican nominee will be left voting for a Democrat who may be opposed to the Republican agenda but is not necessarily a champion of the vision of change that millions of us seek."

What's wrong with offering voters a clear choice? Nothing, really, except that the Constitution makes it difficult for one party to govern on its own. It's not like a parliamentary system, where one party can take over the government and simply pass its program.

To do that in the United States, a party has to control the White House, the House of Representatives and at least 60 votes in the Senate. That rarely happens.

Democrats did control everything for a year when Obama took the Oval Office in 2009. But they still had trouble passing healthcare reform.

Normally, the only way Washington can work is through compromise and deal-making. President Bill Clinton once said, "If you read the Constitution, it ought to be subtitled, 'Let's make a deal.'"

As the party tents shrink, the distance between them gets bigger. And it gets harder to make deals. The likely result? Perpetual gridlock, which can be resolved only by the least democratic institution of government - the federal courts.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

30 Comments
Login to comment

What’s wrong with offering voters a clear choice?

The voters are never given a choice. Candidates are chosen by their parties, and then foisted upon the voters. And this works for the parties because people are generally stupid enough to vote along party lines.

The parties choose prospective mainly upon their looks, backgrounds (nothing too dirty to conceal), and ability to read a teleprompter without sounding like a third-grader in a school play. Leadership ability is not necessary, the last thing a political party needs is a leader who might be able to control them. If their candidate passes these tests, he or she must promise to be a puppet to the party, and respond promptly when their strings are pulled.

"Tents are getting smaller" because the divided-and-conquer tactics have used to divide the electorate into two sides have been very effective. "Social issues" are touted as the main concerns of our time; abortion, gay marriage, marijuana, gun control, religion. It is easy to work people up into a froth on any of these issues, but, in reality, these issues are simple matters of choice and personal belief, and should be regarded as such. Instead, they are used to keep the people hating each other, and diverting them from the much more serious problems our countries face, out-of-control spending by our politician, graft, corruption, unfunded entitlement programs, etc. etc.

And by dividing people into two parties, whom always vote along party lines, these parties and politicians are more easily re-elected, so they can lie, steal, and cheat that much more.

The parties in Washington don't hate each other, or each other's policies, they see it as business as usual. Too bad the normal voter doesn't realize this.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Democracy in the US is sadly gebroken, and I say that as a citizen. Sadly there aren't too many places where it is implemented well.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Sorry to be the one to break the news to the author But the Democratic party is and has been in a small tent for as long as the Republicans. Nice try on the authors part to try and spin some fantasy the Democrats might still be valid But the fact is both parties have a minority of people supporting them, while the majority of Americans are as the headline says, outside the tents. If anything Democrats are less relevant because even fewer follow their euromarxist socialist agenda. At least most Americans are still American, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness the Republicans at least pay lip service too. Democrats instead quote Lenin and declare Mao and che heroes

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

I don't think Americans matter at all to either party once the votes are in & that is shameful There are NO good choices come election day, only voting for the candidate that we hope will do less harm to the American Way of life. Todays Democratic party is so far to the left they are an obscenity in the eyes of God. As for "Tents" after the past dozen years of these bozo's on both sides i've decided to pitch my tent with the lord!.

-5 ( +2 / -6 )

"Today's Democratic Party is so far to the left they are an obscenity in the eyes of God."

You've not read the Sermon on the Mount, then?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Today's Democratic Party is so far to the left

It looks that way from the far right. From an impartial observer, they are very clearly centrist.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

" their euromarxist socialist agenda."

yeah, that's why we got the aca instead of single payer

5 ( +5 / -0 )

It looks that way from the far right. From an impartial observer, they are very clearly centrist.

No one is impartial. There is no "centrist". Politics is about sides, and in politics, the center doesn't count, which is one reason that in most multi-party systems, there are usually two main parties, and, as a rule, these parties tend to be diametrically opposed to each other. Neither the democrat party nor the republican party is centrist, only a democrat or a republican would describe their party as being so.

If you are a democrat or a republican, you have no voice and no power, because you can always be counted on to vote along party lines. You will never go to the polls and vote because you care about your country, or that the politicians you have elected and reelcted have put your country trillions of dollars in debt, or that entitlement programs are running out of money, or that infrastucture is crumbling, You go to the polls because your candidate has bought your vote by promising you a benefit (which he will likely never deliver), or your candidate has made you afraid of gay marriage, abortion on demand, or having your guns taken away, or your candidate has made you afraid that gay marriage will be outlawed, that you won't e able to get an abortion, or that the redneck whahoos who shop at Walmart can buy and carry guns.

It's all a farce, firstly, because people are silly enough to care about irrelant crap which is no one else's business, second, because the candidates who say they support or oppose social issues couldn't care less about them. They will make any promise or support any issue that will get them elected, and if things change, and the issues they formerly supported won't keep them in power, they simply switch sides! Brilliant!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"euromarket socialist agenda"

You say it like it's a bad thing.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

There is no "centrist". Politics is about sides, and in politics, the center doesn't count, which is one reason that in most multi-party systems, there are usually two main parties, and, as a rule, these parties tend to be diametrically opposed to each other. Neither the democrat party nor the republican party is centrist, only a democrat or a republican would describe their party as being so.

The democrat party is very centrist. Sure they have some left policies, like Obamacare, but when you consider their track record with big business, and with spying on the people etc, they are much more to the center than to the left.

They only look far to the left if you are looking at them from the deep right.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

'Todays Democratic party is so far to the left'

Are all political history textbooks out of print?

'they are an obscenity in the eyes of God.'

Rich people, camels, eyes of needles, entering the kingdom of god, give all you have to the poor etc...

4 ( +4 / -0 )

the problem is professional politicians. they make their living by getting elected and get elected by spending money to pander to their constituents. don't have the money, no problem, borrow it and raise taxes on "the rich", i think "the rich" nowadays are defined as making something a bit over $100,000?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Democracy in the US is a fallacy. The last "presidential" president that the US had was Eisenhower. Things have basically gone down hill since then. If the US really wants democracy then it should follow the lead of other countries and make voting compulsory. You vote or you get fined. Your democratic rights are something that need to be exercised each election cycle.

The way things stand at the moment, the candidates on both sides have less to do with democratic principles and more to do with Didius Julianus (you'll have to Google that one I'm afraid). Indeed, I question if elections in their current form should be abandoned, and the money wasted put to better use.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@HongoTAFEinmate

Some people would argue that the liberal presidents are still doing a good job. Even with Obama, the true grading of his foreign policy decisions will take several years. In any event, it is more than just forcing people to vote, we need a multiround or preferential voting system so that third parties have a fighting chance.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Rich people, camels, eyes of needles, entering the kingdom of god, give all you have to the poor etc...

Hmm, which party in house of representatives has the most millionaires? It's not the republican party. 7 of the 10 richest senators are democrats. Many (or most) of these democrats are also christians, if I am not mistaken. But, as I said previously, no one, including you, is impartial.

If these democrats are from the south, they spout the same nonsense republicans do about religion, gun control, and the spread of socialism. If they are republicans in blue areas, they of course say little or nothing of their religious beliefs, gun control, and little about about spreading capitalism.

The simple fact is both parties lie. They tell the people what the people want to hear, but they seldom do what the people want them to do. Regardless of what they call themselves, liberal, progressive, conservative, libertarian, or even socialist, they are first and foremost in office to serve themselves.

You won't see republican politicians ever abolishing Obamacare, the program has too much kickback potential, and arm-twisting regulations that it is any politicians wet dream. Not one republican voted to enact Obamacare, but they wanted it just as much as democrats did. And you really haven't seen much of democrats abolishing tax cuts, partly because they themselves are among the largest beneficiaries of tax cuts to the wealthy, and those they extort for campaign contributions want these tax cuts in exchange for the money they contribute.

we need a multiround or preferential voting system so that third parties have a fighting chance.

What we need are term limits, no more than two terms for house or senate members. It takes more than one term to derive kickbacks and graft from the policies they create. If a thief doesn't have time to steal anything, then he is probably going to behave.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The big tents are shrinking. Republicans and Democrats used to take pride in calling their respective parties "big tents" with room for a diversity of views.

What nonsense. The Republicans have never cared an iota for minority interests or people. Only now with a Latino demographic shift have the Republicans began to be at all concerned with appealing to anyone who isn't white. However, the party on the whole is still xenophobic, racist, anti-gay and Christian leaning (except for attempts to woo elderly Jewish voters in Florida)..

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Let the Circus begin!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

To small tents? Because the Republicans are insane and the Democrats, and I quote

" may be on its way out for Democrats as well."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Mr. Schneider's narrow analysis settles on his main reason the tents are shrinking, political polarization at the State level. Mr. Schneider's argument is a good one but incomplete. Mr. Schneider completely ignores the privatization of media and the elimination of the journalist's discipline and funding.

While FoxEntertainment makes parody of news and analysis the same useless news has replaced any grown up dialogue. Media, owned by the same interests that have no use for an informed electorate, has eliminated rational analysis and replaced it with the shouting hysteria that most Americans can no longer tolerate. The result? The citizen has been eliminated from the Democratic process by exhaustion.

A good trick and successful one, there are no sources of moderate or mature discussion the ordinary citizen can access. Murdock's Fox has shown the public will tune out and abdicate the role of citizen when exhausted by lies.

Hardly surprising, shout at any individual long enough and they will avoid discussion. The GOP-Tea proved this tactic as their operatives would stand in town hall meetings screaming "I want My Country Back!" when Americans undertook the public discussion of health care for themselves and their children.

Americans then are not served by "small tents" but disgusted with small minded bouncers closing public debate. Whatever the result, and there is no indication of change in technique, the town square has effectively been sealed and discussion drowned in hysterical sloganeering.

Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev said "We will bury you". The American Citizen has been buried, not by Russian bravado but their own media that no longer reports, discusses or informs. Asking an American to vote in their own interest is no longer possible because they no longer have the ability or information to make any choice to save themselves or their country.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What nonsense. The Republicans have never cared an iota for minority interests or people. Only now with a Latino demographic shift have the Republicans began to be at all concerned with appealing to anyone who isn't white. However, the party on the whole is still xenophobic, racist, anti-gay and Christian leaning (except for attempts to woo elderly Jewish voters in Florida)..

You have been hooked, reeled-in, and filleted by the half-truths and lies of your politicians. You believe without thinking, just like any religious nut handing out pamphlets on the sidewalk. You, just like most other people, need to believe in something. You are lied to, pushed around, and manipulated by the system, and you don't even realise it. If you read the words you just wrote, you sound as full of hate as the xenophobes, racists, and anti-gay people you just railed against. You are exactly the same as they are, there is no difference at all between you and those you deride.

Politics is about control. And the greatest way to control people is to make them afraid. In the past, the church did this using hell, satan, and demons. To be saved from these things, people gave the church food, money, land, and power.

People nowadays are quite skeptical about hell, satan, and demons, so new issues are created to instil fear. If you are a liberal, you are told that the opposition wants to ban gay marriage, force your children to pray in schools, ban gays from marrying, etc. If you are a conservative, you are told that the opposition wants to take away your guns, take away your religious rights, force you to support gay marriage and abortion, etc.

In reality, most people don't care what other people believe or do, these issues are entirely irrelevant. If you go to a typical neighbourhood, or company, you will see liberal and conservative people interacting as normal people interact, politely, peaceably, and honestly. There are nuts on either extreme, but these are few and far between.

But politicians cannot allow people simply to get along. They need to find ways to get into office, and, once there, stay there. To do this, they need long-term support, and this support comes from people. To get this support, they lie and manipulate. The oldest principle in politics is called "divide and rule", it has been used for millennia. Funny that modern, educated people still don't understand how the system works, and how they are played against each other for the gain of a third party.

Keep bashing each other, keep showing your stupidity and ignorance. The more time you spend doing these things, the easier it is for those who poke you and prod you to loot the system. While you are busy hating each other for no reason, the politicians who instigate you are spending trillions of dollars of your tax money. While you are debating about gay marriage and gun control, the disability and social security trust funds are being bled dry. While you are calling each other names, your politicians are laughing at you, and picking your pockets.

Keep at it, keep at it, do what the 99% is expected to do.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@sangetsu

So true!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Warren Buffet had it right, "It's a class war and our side is winning." That could change if things get real bad though.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

kcjapanAPR. 14, 2015 - 03:40AM JST Mr. Schneider's narrow analysis settles on his main reason the tents are shrinking, political polarization at the State level. Mr. Schneider's argument is a good one but incomplete. Mr. Schneider completely ignores the privatization of media and the elimination of the journalist's discipline and funding.

True, but you've left out how gerrymandering has so dramatically affected things. Over the last six or so election cycles, more registered Democrats than Republicans have voted in most elections. Regardless, gerrymandering in various states has helped shift government to the right in both state governments, as you note, and at the Congressional level. While eliminating this still wouldn't make states like Arkansas or Oklahoma bastions of liberalism, even at the worst, Texas becomes is a purple state (consider Houston, home to big oil, electing a lesbian Democratic mayor).

sangetsu03APR. 14, 2015 - 11:38AM JST You have been hooked, reeled-in, and filleted by the half-truths and lies of your politicians. You believe without thinking, just like any religious nut handing out pamphlets on the sidewalk. You, just like most other people, need to believe in something. You are lied to, pushed around, and manipulated by the system, and you don't even realise it. If you read the words you just wrote, you sound as full of hate as the xenophobes, racists, and anti-gay people you just railed against. You are exactly the same as they are, there is no difference at all between you and those you deride.

No. I'm a political scientist by training and have forgotten more about American political history than you'll ever know. I know more about American government than most of the people working in it. At the national level, the country has tilted so far to the right that Eisenhower and even Nixon might have problems in the primaries. The Republican Party at the national level has tilted so far to the right that a centrists like Bill Clinton was portrayed as liberal and Barack Obama as a socialist (except when Teabaggers are accusing him of being a Nazi).

If you are a liberal, you are told that the opposition wants to ban gay marriage, . . .

As a matter of fact, this is very much the case with most of states banning same-sex marriage in one fashion or another, though there have been a number of state Supreme Courts that have struck down these statutes.

If you are a conservative, you are told that the opposition wants to take away your guns, . . .

If we only could.

take away your religious rights, . . .

If it were possible to legislate against all stupidity and superstition, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If there is so little difference between the two parties, which party is bent on dismantling the ACA? Which party wants to ban abortion with few to no exceptions? Which party never thinks the defense budget is big enough? Which party is doing everything it can to derail a nuclear agreement with Iran and the long overdo normalization of relations with Cuba? Which party hates the minimum wage and unions (calling Scotty Walker!)? Which party wants to privatize Social Security? Which party wants to defund the EPA, the Department of Education, National Public Broadcasting, and the National Parks Department among others?

The Democrats are certainly not what they once were, but even in their diminished and compromised state, they still stand in opposition to the worst things the Republicans would do to the nation if they could and their tent, though tatty and full of holes, is still many times larger than that of the Republicans.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"I'm a political scientist by training and have forgotten more about American political history than you'll ever know." - comments

Please continue to offer your insights as able. Mr. Schneider's work is worthy of consideration, as noted, your point is an essential part of the strategy of division. It cannot be understated however that the media is no longer an effective force to balance demagoguery with rational analysis.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Jeff Huffman

Keep up the good posts.

As for, "The Democrats are certainly not what they once were"

"..but I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard"

1 ( +2 / -1 )

kcjapanAPR. 15, 2015 - 03:40AM JST Please continue to offer your insights as able. Mr. Schneider's work is worthy of consideration, as noted, your point is an essential part of the strategy of division. It cannot be understated however that the media is no longer an effective force to balance demagoguery with rational analysis.

Agreed, and it's not even a matter of polarization. Fox News will run with or promote stories that have no basis in fact or, at best, distort issues. To say the same is true on the left is just silly Just where is the "leftist" counterpoint to crap like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage or Laura Ingram? NPR and PBS news can't seem to even be skeptical let alone probing any longer leaving the yeoman's work to shoestring but important news groups like Propublica and Democracy Now and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.

Talk to anyone thoughtful in the UK and they'll tell you it's become nearly the same there where even much of BBC News is not longer of any valuable and the Guardian the only reliably, if fallible, liberal voice and where Labour has become even more MOR and tainted by money than the Dems.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No. I'm a political scientist by training

Wow, finally someone who has a degree which is less valuable than mine.

Was it Jefferson or Tocqueville who said that "Democracy is mob rule, which allows 51% to rob the other 49%"? It was certainly Adolph Hitler who said "what a wonderful thing for rulers that men are stupid".

The Democrats are certainly not what they once were, but even in their diminished and compromised state, they still stand in opposition to the worst things the Republicans would do to the nation if they could and their tent, though tatty and full of holes, is still many times larger than that of the Republicans.

There are no democrats and republicans, there are only people. Party ideology is nothing but empty dogma, designed to fool and divide, and those who believe in this dogma are "among the people lost for aye". And while you are ranting against republicans, and others are ranting against democrats, your politicians take advantage of your distraction by looting your economy.

Poor little republican sheep, "democrats, baaaad!". Poor little democrat sheep, "republicans baaaad!". Keep bleating! No one is listening.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"Just where is the "leftist" counterpoint to crap like Rush Limbaugh" - comments

As seen in many posts in these pages, there is no counterpoint to the Rumpelstiltskin tale told to Lobotomites. Spinning so many lies into gold for himself and sponsors, Rush, like Fox, are in the entertainment business. Entertainment that panders to hate and ignorance. These are not news outlets. They are the pro wrestling of the barely literate. One slogan of ignorant hate is spun into gold for Murdock and Ailes and when no longer needed another straw man is whirled into a golden shower of lies for a Rovian bacchanalia.

The structural weakness of media's responsibility, as the Fourth Estate, doesn't lie in finding someone to chase the scalded cats of propaganda. The weaknesses of Mr. Schneider's 'small tent' is the absence of any source of light for analysis. Chasing a chubby old man down the rat hole of deceptions is amusing but does little to illuminate the underlying conflicts.

Hand in hand, the "Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee" of profit and ignorance have joined as the permanent callous on the American mind and wit rendering a population unable to ask questions and think for more than thirty seconds about any answer. Who can blame them then for resorting to chanting any pabulum that substitutes for the difficult work of factual examinations.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

kcjapanAPR. 15, 2015 - 10:28AM JST As seen in many posts in these pages, there is no counterpoint to the Rumpelstiltskin tale told to Lobotomites. Spinning so many lies into gold for himself and sponsors, Rush, like Fox, are in the entertainment business. Entertainment that panders to hate and ignorance. These are not news outlets. They are the pro wrestling of the barely literate. One slogan of ignorant hate is spun into gold for Murdock and Ailes and when no longer needed another straw man is whirled into a golden shower of lies for a Rovian bacchanalia.

The thing about it is I'm pretty sure that most of these people don't even give a s*&% about the issues. Murdoch and the rest are PT Barnums looking to fool some of the people all the time all the way to the bank. Rove is a perfect example of this. He's not a Christian and even admitted that they were just a group to be exploited for political gain during his years with Shrub. Another being "the Donald" and his perennial threats to run for president. Neither has a real agenda other than winning and personal aggrandizement.

The only truly evil people I see in positions of power are Supreme Court justices Scalia and Alito (Thomas is, plain and simple, the conservative token). Scalia along with Dick Cheney have done more to diminish the U.S. domestically and abroad than anyone in modern history.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"At the same time, there is pressure to “purify” the party leadership" - article

The suffocating reality of the political process includes Mr. Schneider's observation above.

The purification method seems to be hyper criticism and blackballing any but the most zealous fascists. What character traits are most common in these legislators?

Certainly Newt Gengrich was the primal source for the DNA of the current species of GOP-Tea troglodytes. As Mr. Schneider notes, Americans' welfare isn't the subject of debate but the composition of the lead pipe to strike at any proposition without the stigmata of allegiance to Max Boot or Grover Glenn Norquist.

As comments note above, the only issue is the insistence on a thick cloud of anger to shield the corruptions of placing wealth over responsibility. The striking feature of the GOP-Tea is a seemingly endless cast of characters to take the stage shouting 'they want their country back' and exiting only to be replaced by another ogre to torture the poor or elderly.

The nascent campaign season for 2016 seems to have all the charm of the bedlam at Bethlem Royal Hospital. If 2012's anarchy is some guide the 2016 field has the same potential. Clearly the American Citizen isn't on the agenda and this is Mr. Schneider's thesis. The parade of bizarre from 2012 will likely be repeated in the strategy of an eighteen month death march to Election Day. No wonder the citizen hasn't the interest or stamina to withstand the mental quicksand that the campaign now wades into.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites