WHAT IF we had a centrist party

[mizzou]

Just think about it....I think now is probably the perfect time for us to move away from the 2 party system. It just doesn't work anymore. PERIOD.

Can we please have a party that doesn't feed off of religion, abortion, banning firearms, restricting freedom of speech, letting people feel me up at the airport, etc. etc. etc.

I want people who actually know what the F' they are talking about, and have an idea about how to implement those ideas into a society.

If there were a new party branch of centrists who were committed to doing things in the best idea of the general public and not to pander to a group of extremists, would you be on board?

I'm 100% on board, I just want to see it happen and who joins up.

I believe both parties are ripe for splintering and co-mingling, or maybe get some new heads in the game.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think we should do Gods will on earth as it is in heaven.

 

[TruePaige]

Why just three parties?

 

[MotF Bane]

I'd certainly like to see it happen, although there is a risk they would take the worst aspects from both parties, but I suspect it would be for the better.

 

[Zorkorist]

I should have voted Perot in 1992 or whenever it was. I'll never forgive myself.

I still think we have a 3rd party option... but people should know how much better Perot would have been. IE., learn from my generations failure.

-John

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm not exactly certain what the platform of a centrist party would look like. Would it be liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal and economic issues? Hmm. Sounds rather like a libertarian party. Would it be conservative on social issues and liberal and fiscal and economic issues? Not much of a base for that.

Would it take a "center" position on every issue. Very hard to define what that is. It exists in theory, but it's problematic to purposefully hold a calculated "center" position on every single issue. It's rather articifial.

The best theory is that a centrist theory is one consisting of independent minded people who advocate a pragmatic, non-ideological approach to problem-solving. The trouble there is how would such a group have any sort of cohesion.

I will say that a centrist party, in concept, is the only possible way to break the two-party system, as for the most part our existing third parties have historically been fringy extremist parties who can never capture the mainstream electorate. Defining such a party is quite a challenge, however.

- wolf

 

[Jhhnn]

We already have a centrist party- the democrats. we also have a rghtwing party, the republicans. there is no left, certainly not in terms that the ROTW would define as left...

America is a place where the financial elite makes more from collecting interest on the national debt than they pay in taxes, and whines about it. Most of the rest of us are so brainwashed that we think they're right.

 

[Robor]

Until those elected to represent us aren't controlled by corporate interests it will not make a difference how many parties we have. They'll all wind up sucking up to those who donated to them. It's a good thing that recent SC decision was a step forward toward eliminating that. Oh wait... :\

 

[Zorkorist]

Robor,

Who are you going to work for, but a corporation?

I'm just trying to know why you think Corporations are so evil.

You realize there are millions of Corporations, with competing interests?

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

A Corporation isn't like the Government, that can take money by force.

A corporation is probably the biggest collection of like minded individuals, that DON'T rely on taking other peoples money by force.

A Corporation is a business, made up of 1+ individuals.

-John

 

[MotF Bane]

We already have a centrist party- the democrats. we also have a rghtwing party, the republicans. there is no left, certainly not in terms that the ROTW would define as left...

America is a place where the financial elite makes more from collecting interest on the national debt than they pay in taxes, and whines about it. Most of the rest of us are so brainwashed that we think they're right.

We have no centrist party currently. There is left, and there is right.

 

[MotF Bane]

I'm not exactly certain what the platform of a centrist party would look like. Would it be liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal and economic issues? Hmm. Sounds rather like a libertarian party. Would it be conservative on social issues and liberal and fiscal and economic issues? Not much of a base for that.

Would it take a "center" position on every issue. Very hard to define what that is. It exists in theory, but it's problematic to purposefully hold a calculated "center" position on every single issue. It's rather articifial.

The best theory is that a centrist theory is one consisting of independent minded people who advocate a pragmatic, non-ideological approach to problem-solving. The trouble there is how would such a group have any sort of cohesion.

I will say that a centrist party, in concept, is the only possible way to break the two-party system, as for the most part our existing third parties have historically been fringy extremist parties who can never capture the mainstream electorate. Defining such a party is quite a challenge, however.

- wolf

I suspect it would be more of a libertarian-esque grouping, because as you said, there isn't much for a socially conservative fiscally liberal group... well, aside from neocons.

 

[Patranus]

Per my previous thread, I believe there are irreconcilable differences between "Progressives" and moderates.

 

[RedCOMET]

I think if you had the support of The People. Well, actually you need to inform The People, and get them to care. Once that happens, you get them invovled. Soon, The People will want to govern. Once that happens, perhaps there will be more political parties.

But, it has been shown historically, that an emerging parties platform gets absorbed by one of the 2 big parties. So, in ended we are still left with two parties. sad day

 

[Zorkorist]

We chose REPRESENTATIVE Government, just so we wouldn't HAVE to get too involved.

At some point, probably FDR, maybe earlier, the Federal Government went crazy, and here we are.

-John

 

[RedCOMET]

We chose REPRESENTATIVE Government, just so we wouldn't HAVE to get too involved.

At some point, probably FDR, maybe earlier, the Federal Government went crazy, and here we are.

-John

Yes, I realize that. But perhaps the folks who are "representing" us are really aren't doing that any more. It seems like a two party system is what we will be stuck with because The People are to apathetic to want a change things.

A new political party is not started by the lazy uninformed voter. They are started by folks who are active participants. Not some passive sheep who votes the party ticket each year.

 

[Hacp]

Why would you limit the 3rd party to centrist?

 

[Moonbeam]

Why would you limit the 3rd party to centrist?

What fucking difference does it make. There will be no third party.

If this if that if the other thing,,,,,,,,all the ifs ifs ifs in a million threads.

There are no ifs, there are just two parties. You can if your ass off for the next hundred years and it will be just the same, two fucking parties.

If never changes anything.

 

[Murloc]

there can't be a third party.
I am european, and I think that democrats are centrists and republicans are right-winged.

in the US there are no socialist parties.

 

[Craig234]

This is a very naive post, no offense. It's a natural reation to politics, but it's not really suggesting any solution.

We can't even get people to talk about the real issues - largely about the concentration of wealth. "Of that's commue that's class wsrfare that's jealous that's left wing that'..."

But even on the lesser issues used to split the public, what is the middle?

Some view abortion as the murder of the most innocent people, others view outlalwing it as one reliiong forcing its views on the most intrusive, ovebearing rights of others.

Let's pick the middle!

Some view handguns as 'good for nothin' but killin', put a man six feet in a hole' and others view them as a crucia constitutional right.

Let's pick the middle!

Some view the right policy as to have our society have programs that make things better overall, using taxes, and others rant about evey tax dollar being 'theft at the point of a gun'.

Let's pick the middle way!

About 25% would like to see an officially Christian nation, reportedly, while others cherish the separation of church and state.

Let's pick the middle way!

Some would like to see Universal Health Care single-payer, while others say 'let the private market be the healthcare provider'.

Let's pick the middle way!

What this post doesn't understand is not only the difficulty of governing a society filled with strongly opposed views, but the governning of concentrated powers that dominate that society.

The natural reaction when one learns 'how things work' is to run screamining and not be able to sleep.

That's what's meant by the old saying not to watch sausage or laws being made.

For a hint how it works, there's the saying I quote a lot, "Politicians have to LOOK good to the voter and DO good for the donor."

Every time there's a 'revolution', isn't it funny things quickly have the samew divisions - and are often worse.

Why don't you get the media to publicize your new party? Oh, that's right, the large majority of the media is now owned by five huge corporations, and they're not too excited about your agenda.

Now, they might be happy to hijack your idea - as the healthcare waqs sponosroing the 'tea party' events - but no, you can't publicize it there. Indeed, when our 'healthy, independant' media had consoloidated to only 50 owners, a famous book was written about the crisis of the lack of diversity of ownership. That was 45 more than today.

No, if you were prevented from posting your idea, that could get a public backlash. So publish it. Get a few people excited. But not much will happen.

Not that you have much idea, IMO, what to do if you had a big new party.

Besides, there's already a 'new party' now - the progressives among Democrats, who are largely at odds with the corporatists.

If you can't get a backing for an establised group who have 83 members of Congress - a fourth of the house - you think you can get a new party?

But look at the reaction when the progressives are mentioned here. Mostly knee-jerk comments.

And with the Supreme Court's radical ruling, they're an endangered species. Pick the 10 most progressive anti-corporaqte, and target them with uncapped opposition funds. Then the next 10.

No, new party talk won't get anything but at best a 'new party' immediately hijacked by the powerful.

I don't see much chance for change but the people supporting progressives as the 'new party'.

In the meantime, there liikely is a populist backlash, long predicted, coming, and the powerful are ready to use it for their own benefit.

Give the people the illusion of change - 'look, the big bad guy is thrown out, you are in charge!' Uh huh.

Remember one of the stories of the Prince, when ruling a new people.

Appoint a general who will go in, and ruthlessly wipe out the opposition, and create great animonisty among the people. The Prince then shows up, says he just learned of what was done, is shocked! by it, and has the general executed. In this way, he inherits a people withot the leaders of any opposition, freshly terrified, and grateful for the better approach of the new Prince.

You think dealing with populist backlash is new?

 

[StageLeft]

I actually think the US does have a single centrist party. In many ways dem and repub are simply different shirts on the same person. In more ways than not. Yes, they squabble like children and rarely support one another but look at the big picture: how much really changes from presidency to presidency or congress to congress? Each seem to simply continue where the other left off. Unless you can find a lot of laws and policies that Obama has reversed, for example, since he took power (good luck).

 

[CPA]

Robor,

Who are you going to work for, but a corporation?

I'm just trying to know why you think Corporations are so evil.

You realize there are millions of Corporations, with competing interests?

-John

Railing against Corporations is just the cool thing to do. Everyone should work for a mom and pop shop, you know those tiny businesses that don't provide retirement plans, don't provide health insurance, no opportunity to advance, pay substandard wages. The utopian work environment of the progressive.

 

[Craig234]

Railing against Corporations is just the cool thing to do. Everyone should work for a mom and pop shop, you know those tiny businesses that don't provide retirement plans, don't provide health insurance, no opportunity to advance, pay substandard wages. The utopian work environment of the progressive.

Except you make straw men because you think opposing corporate abuses is opposing corporations, no matter how much the people say they are for the corprations short of the abuse.

 

[Vic]

Per my previous thread, I believe there are irreconcilable differences between "Progressives" and moderates.

In order for this statement to be true, there would also have to be irreconcilable differences between moderates and conservatives as well.

Quit being stupid.

 

[Vic]

A Corporation isn't like the Government, that can take money by force.

A corporation is probably the biggest collection of like minded individuals, that DON'T rely on taking other peoples money by force.

A Corporation is a business, made up of 1+ individuals.

-John

Please don't be so naive. A corporation is a legal person comprised of and with the collective power of multiple persons. Because of this collective power, they can and frequently do take other peoples' property by force. I won't say they 'rely' on it, but they do have this ability, comparable to govt, and they do use such tactics.

Collectivism and its abuses are not limited to govts. FFS, corporations practically are govts (and being legal entities, all corporations operate with the express sanction of govts). And all govts are corporations.