I propose we start a new Moderate party. What we do is take the political center right out of both the Democratic and Republcan parties, explicitly rejecting the radicals on both sides. The resulting party would better represent most Americans, and would be much stronger than either of the current major parties. The Republicans that are left would end up having to ally with the Libertarians, much as they might dislike it, and the Democrat holdouts would just slip right over into full-on Communism.
I think it's a great idea.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Count me in.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So, will this party be:
1. a) pro-life b) pro-choice c) apathetic
2. a) pro gay marriage b) anti gay marriage c) apathetic
etc...
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Contrary to the attacks of the mudslingers, Moderation does not equal apathy. Apathy would not be a reasonable position to take on any important issue.
However, a Moderate or Centrist party would necessarily leave room for a certain degree of disagreement among its members when it comes to the most divisive issues. I am assuming here that those that choose to join a Moderate party would tend to have opinions on those issues, but not to be so rabid about them.
On a party-wide scale, you could take one of two approaches. You could take no "official" position on those issues, and be quite vocal about encouraging individual members to pursue their own positions, albeit with level-headedness and reason. Or, you could attempt to take a firm, but compromise, position, trying to find a middle ground. (e.g., on the abortion issue, you could oppose abortion-on-demand, but allow for abortion in cases of rape, incest, Mother's medical condition, and severe defect in the fetus, AND at the same time support sound and rigorous sex education.)
I believe that the necessity to do this kind of dance would be rare. In most cases, there are perfectly sound moderate positions that most people would be happy with, if people would just stop shouting about it.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Perhaps they could agree to disagree on whether or not they personally approve of it, but agree that the government is not the organization to be making such decisions for people?
[ May 24, 2004, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Ayelar, you might do that, but if you do it too often you start to sound like a Libertarian, and they definitely are not Moderates.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Surely there are other aspects to the US political system than gay marriage and abortion rights? Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
So membership in this party is a reflection of tone, not principle?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
No. Both "tone" and principle are part of it.
Moderate principles are the more important part, IMO. However, I have noticed that the most radical the position taken, the more likely that the tone taken is inflammatory and overblown. I think it's because most people are not dumb enough to be talked into extremely radical plans by reason alone, but must be whipped into a frenzy first, so that they don't take the time to think things through.
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
I think its funny that because of the way our politics work you want to create a party called "Moderate."
I think it's human nature that turns the other parties into what they are, and before long the "Moderate" party would be shaped right into the same mold. You can't have a party based on thinking things through, people want to make a stand.
Originally, we weren't supposed to have parties at all- I think that's the only answer. Not that it will happen, but as long as we're being hypothetical.
edit: I just reread that. I'm not disagreeing, I think its funny because that idea makes a sort of ironic statement about our political system
[ May 24, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Lara ]
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Unfortunately, most Americans need to be "whipped into a frenzy" before they can care about anything enough to spend 15 minutes a year in the voting booth. So, a "moderate" party would likely fail miserably.
If not, sign me up.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Perhaps they could agree to disagree on whether or not they personally approve of it, but agree that the government is not the organization to be making such decisions for people?
At least with respect to abortion, that's not neutrality or moderation, that represents one of the two opposing sides of the issue.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
But it doesn't represent one of the extreme ends of the spectrum.
[ May 24, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
PARTY!!!
......ooooooooOOOOOOO........ politcal party.
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
I don't think the position that government should make difinitive laws regulating abortion is "extreme"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Also, Law Guy, I wasn't trying to be a mud-slinger. I just wanted to know your thoughts on the issue.
But the first option *does* sound like apathy to me. The party is saying that it refuses to take a stand on the decisive issues. That means that the party as an organizaion does not care which way things go with that issue. So if you really do care about one of those issues, you'd better go find another party.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Ummm.. isn't the whole point of a moderate party to come up with compromise solutions.
Why does the party have to be either pro-life or pro-abortion? there is clear middle ground, say for example no abortions after the first tri-mester except in clear cases where the mother's life is in danger?
For gay marriage a moderate party could support civil unions but not gay marriage.
A moderate party could support no deficit spending but also no tax increases, or maybe tax inxreases which are tied directly to the inflation index.
and so on...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Lara, I didn't say it does. I said the opposite.
Let's take the two extremes: a) Abortion should never, ever be legal b) Abortion should never, ever be regulated
The above stance *is* moderate, when compared to the extremes.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I think that people can get passionate about Moderation, at least as long as there are passionate people at the extremes. The passion of a moderate would come as a result of disgust and impatience with the blindness, bigotry and nonsense being foisted upon the people by the radicals. I feel that kind of passion right now. I think a lot of people could get worked up enough to take a real stand against that kind of thing. It's just a matter of channeling their passion into a cohesive unit that can actually get something done. Thus, a new political party.
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
I see what you're saying, mr_porteiro_head. I was confused about which statement you were replying to.
I really don't think a moderate party would work, unless the party was so untraditional as to almost be an anti-party. Isn't that the purpose of running as an independent candidate? But they don't get the same financial support as party candidates, so maybe an... independent party...would be good.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:A moderate party could support no deficit spending but also no tax increases, or maybe tax inxreases which are tied directly to the inflation index.
That doesn't sound moderate at all. The extra chump change I get back in taxes isn't worth the deficit hole that's being developed or the looming slashing of social programs. Personally, I'd rather be paying a little more in taxes, paying down the debt, and provide some reasonable safety nets for seniors, people with disabilities, and the poor.
I know I'm pretty far to the left. But using the current tax situation - the result of stupendously stupid cuts in a time of national crisis - as a "baseline" for what is reasonable in taxation doesn't sound very moderate.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
A big part of my frustration with the current state of American politics is the mindset which says that, if the other guy is going the wrong way, then the right way must be 180 degrees away. So that if, as is more likely, the "right" way is really more like 90 degrees away, then both sides are totally mistaken. Worse, anybody who tries to point this out is lambasted from both sides.
I think this principle is behind the religious dictum that says that Satan is the master of the half-truth, that even he can quote scripture, and that he could deceive the very elect. He (if such a being exists) wouldn't be dumb enough to simply tell everybody to leave the correct path and walk back the other way. He'd tell you to turn off the path at an angle. That way, you can't simply oppose whatever he says, or you'll still be wrong. You have to use your head.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Actually, I was reading in the paper the other day (I think it was in the Washington Post) about how the Kerry campaign was trying to do essentially this - bring Democrats and moderate Republicans together into a more centrist campaign than in previous years. The article was pointing to things like the attempts to woo McCain into a vice presidential nomination.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The good and the bad.
The good: Take Abortion: The moderist view is--"It is impossible to stop abortions through legislative means. That is a trick used by the vote mongers to steal our passion and use it for their power. To lower/stop abortions requires a three fold attack. 1)a dedicated effort to change public opinion without resorting to US/Them namecalling and graphic displays that only preach to the converted, 2)educate the people on the root cause of unwanted pregnancy, and the spread of many diseases,--sex, and 3)Promotions of alternative solutions. All of these can be far more successful at lowering and eventually halting all abortions far more effectively than stomping around in front of a clinic threatening scared young women."
The Bad, no matter how extreme your views are, you are most likely to consider them moderate, and anything more centrist than your views will be seen as radical.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I really only used abortion as an example, and not as a firm one anyway. But I basically agree with you, Dan.
In the case of abortion, I think a moderate position would have to go beyond abortion alone, and into such things as sex education. So that, if you must allow for greater flexibility in obtaining abortions that some are comfortable with, at least you can support education programs that aim to diminish unwanted pregnancies in the first place. And conversely, if you must be more restrictive of abortion that some would wish, at least you can give greater societal support to people who find themselves facing such a pregnancy.
I guess I'm thinking that, from a Moderate point of view, you can't wield planks in your platform as if they were band-aids. You can't assume that there is a single position that, by itself, will answer whatever dilemma you are faced with. You've got to build a coordinated and broad-based response designed to meet a variety of needs from a number of angles. This takes work, and it takes thought, and it takes time. Mature people should know by now that all of life is that way, and that politics shouldn't be any different.
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
Yo Mama: The party system was created by a majority against the wishes and advice of the people who created the foundation of our government. If THEY couldn't keep the very trend you're concerned about, lawguy, from happening, can anyone?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It sounds like this party would win a vast majority and then right off the bat split into two smaller parties once it fell into disagreement.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I was reading in the paper the other day (I think it was in the Washington Post) about how the Kerry campaign was trying to do essentially this - bring Democrats and moderate Republicans together into a more centrist campaign than in previous years.
I remember reading the same thing about George W. when he first ran.
[ May 24, 2004, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
He succeeded in a way, but mainly by taking the most dangerous Republican policies and combining them with the most fiscally irresponsible Democratic ones.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)