h a l f b a k e r ySugar and spice and unfettered insensibility.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
The two major U.S. political parties are so close to each other now, they're virtually indistinguishable. Why not form a 3rd party that comes right out and admits it's trying to consolidate the two by adopting liberal social policy with a conservative fiscal agenda.
This would clear out all those
fuzzy-headed people from the original parties and make room for those of us who thought there was a difference between the two.
Republicrats... or call it the One Party (thanks CK)... or perhaps the Uniparty (thanks TK)... other ideas?
The Third Party of America
http://www.3rdparty.org/index.html
Create a viable alternative to the two major political parties by building a sound platform from scratch [LoriZ, Dec 05 2000, last modified Oct 04 2004]
Which Democrat Presidential candidate
http://www.tealeafmag.com
Description of democrat presidential candidate [tealeaf magazine, Oct 04 2004]
[link]
|
| |
If "liberal social policy" means spending money to help poor people, and "conservative fiscal agenda" means lowering taxes and taking in less money, how do you make up the difference between income and expenses? |
|
| |
(Assuming that each party's budget is in some sort of equilibrium when left alone.) |
|
| |
Or is the party directed towards people more accepting of fuzzy math? |
|
| |
Apparently. I reckon that the idea is for a party that can win, not one that can govern; liberalism and tax-cuts go together well politically not because they are compatible, but because they're both popular. Its appeal would be to those Jutta describes, but that's a pretty big part of any modern electorate -- people have long since stopped taking economic and financial plans seriously in an election and accept them as they are intended: As artificially sweetened statements of general direction. Anyone expecting a tax cut quite like the one promised them by the apparent winner of this last contest should expect to be disappointed. |
|
| |
(It is possible to combine tax cuts and liberal social policy without much borrowing, just not practical or politically possible.) |
|
| |
Anyway, apart from having to lure voters away from established parties with the same platforms, having no specific appeal, and being an "isn't it funny how close together the two parties really are" sort of observation rather than a party, I don't see how it can fail. |
|
| |
Socially liberal: civil rights protections, welfare-to-work, strong social security and medicare. |
|
| |
Fiscally conservative: regulation rather than "service provider," lower taxes, balanced budget. |
|
| |
Are the two really so opposed? My observation is that the Big Two parties are already blending these ideas with oh-so-slight variations. There seems to be wide consensus that some social programs are necessary if we do not want our poverty floor to resemble a developing nation's, and that government should be a lean machine that intervenes in key areas of general concern, like environment, consumer safety, crime, and defense. |
|
| |
The real differences between the parties are on the issues no one wants to talk about: abortion, public expression of religion, drug policy, poverty and race relations... |
|
| |
They've got a party like that: They're called the Libertarian party. It's been around since Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The founders of America were Libertarians. |
|
| |
A Party Who Can Win: The Libertarian party got less votes than the Green Party. |
|
| |
That's because Nader had been famous at some point in the distant past. |
|
| |
No, no... the Libertarian Party does not advocate any sort of the social spending. They strive for as little government as possible. |
|
| |
As for the Green Party, I like their platform, but you can take Nader... please! |
|
| |
The experience of 'centre' parties in the UK is that they get squeezed when the Left is in power and the Right moves slightly left in reaction to the popular mood and vice versa. |
|
| |
Demons. [Demo]crats & Republica[ns]. |
|
| |
There are two major parties now and the country is split
neatly in half - if a 3rd major party is created will it split in
thirds? (that's more undesirable...it will be a long way
before anyone can get a majority) |
|
| |
In a three party system where no single party has the majority, parties with similar viewpoints form coalitions and split up government posts.
This is very commonplace. You can get more done if you're in the majority, but governing as part of a coalition is still much better than not having any influence at all. |
|
| |
It doesn't really matter who wins...Democritarians, Republicrats, it's the same car with a different paint job. |
|
| |
Libertarians are a better choice, but never get any press so nobody's ever heard of them. |
|
| |
People have heard of them. It's just that those of us in the lower 99 percentiles are scared that we wouldn't last weeks in a laissez faire economy. |
|
| |
this is not just a US problem, in the UK New Labour is just reinvented old Tory |
|
| |
Vote Monster Raving Loony ! |
|
| |
vote for them, I'd damn well stand for them |
|
| |
Libertarians? Straight down the center? HA! Straight down the far right maybe ... |
|
| |
Gearing up for another election, it
does seem that another choice is
going to be necessary.
Libertarians are not a reasonable
(nor moderate) choice - but
finding a way to remove "party"
from at least the Executive Branch
will go a long way toward instilling
progressively moderate politics in
the system. |
|
| |
Libertarians are about to rock your world now that we have Hollywood producer Aaron Russo running for president! Finally, people will hear us ROAR! Check him out at www.russoforpresident.com. |
|
| |
I adore the fact that, after three years, the vote on this idea is split at 7-7. |
|
| |
In referrence to the Russian/Cuban/Chinese system, I have always said we are twice as good as those guys since they have only one candidate for each office. However, there is something to be said for one-party government. It saves a lot of money, both public and private if there are no elections not to mention the time we waste in bars debating which crook is better. As Will Rogers once said, don't criticize our system; We have the best politicians money can buy. |
|
| |
IMHO, one of the big problems in American politics is that many Republicans are more interested in trying to be 'Democrat Lite' than in trying to justify their positions. Unfortunately, by so doing, they shoot themselves in the foot more often than not. |
|
| |
If the Democrats propose some new program that would by its nature be harmful, conservatives should oppose the program entirely and explain why they're doing so. Unfortunately, Republicans are apt to instead support a scaled-back version of the program (which will naturally fail, as would the full one, but the Republicans will take the blame). |
|
| |
If a program is fundamentally a bad idea, a scaled back version is not a good idea. It's a lot easier to explain why it's better to spend $0 on a program than $25,000,000, than it is to explain why it's better to spend $10,000,000 than $25,000,000. But Republicans would rather be Democrat-Lite than articulate their principles. |
|
| |
// It saves a lot of money, both public and private if there are no elections not to mention the time we waste in bars debating which crook is better. // |
|
| |
"Don't blame me--I voted for Kodos." |
|
| |