Jump to content

ROMAD1

Directions and Objectives For A Future Mainstream Party

Recommended Posts

I'm sensitive to creating too many threads.  But this thread is to provide a place to discuss the need for a new party.  Perhaps this is just #NeverTrump bitchery.  But what is needed to fill the gap between the former big tent centerist party which became an overtly racist party of ethno-nationalism and that other party with the chaotic structure.  

Also, gimme a symbolic animal symbol for your "new center party" aka the Party of Not Trump aka the Party of your non-racist friend who is (actually) fiscally conservative and doesn't think much of isolationism and who believes the nation and World benefit from free trade.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about one focused on real fiscal responsibility. Combined with pre 9/11 elements of the Dubya candidacy (Compassionate Conservatism) that focuses on education.  Aid to Africa and overall support for that continent.  Quit making yourselves into victims on everything.  Stop with the culture wars.  Don't make being against abortion a litmus test for inclusion.  You can be against abortion while allowing it to still be an option.  The way you do that is by breaking down barriers that people face to have children and offer them the support they need regardless of what they do.  The vast vast vast majority of abortions are a last resort and unwanted.  

But there's no money in that.

I guess you can start with what did we think being a Republican meant?  I do believe in lowering taxes but for the right people/groups.  Deficits are ok, just not massive ones like we have now. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Oblong said:

How about one focused on real fiscal responsibility. Combined with pre 9/11 elements of the Dubya candidacy (Compassionate Conservatism) that focuses on education.  Aid to Africa and overall support for that continent.  Quit making yourselves into victims on everything.  Stop with the culture wars.  Don't make being against abortion a litmus test for inclusion.  You can be against abortion while allowing it to still be an option.  The way you do that is by breaking down barriers that people face to have children and offer them the support they need regardless of what they do.  The vast vast vast majority of abortions are a last resort and unwanted.  

But there's no money in that.

I guess you can start with what did we think being a Republican meant?  I do believe in lowering taxes but for the right people/groups.  Deficits are ok, just not massive ones like we have now. 

 

More grist

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/22/was-the-2012-republican-autopsy-wrong/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.651faed37ff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Oblong said:

How about one focused on real fiscal responsibility. Combined with pre 9/11 elements of the Dubya candidacy (Compassionate Conservatism) that focuses on education.  Aid to Africa and overall support for that continent.  Quit making yourselves into victims on everything.  Stop with the culture wars.  Don't make being against abortion a litmus test for inclusion.  You can be against abortion while allowing it to still be an option.  The way you do that is by breaking down barriers that people face to have children and offer them the support they need regardless of what they do.  The vast vast vast majority of abortions are a last resort and unwanted.  

But there's no money in that.

I guess you can start with what did we think being a Republican meant?  I do believe in lowering taxes but for the right people/groups.  Deficits are ok, just not massive ones like we have now. 

 

Compassionate conservatism is just a nice phrase. As long as there are corporate donors, the political parties will create policy to benefit the elite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK  - I'll beat the dead horse here. Start a new party around the idea of reforming the US political *process* to put individual, living, breathing, human beings back into control of it. Publicly fund campaigns, change US libel law to remove the complete immunity that exists to perpetrate calumnies on public people, neutralize redistricting, pass an amendment stating that fundamental human rights can only inhere to individual persons, not political or economic associations of them. Then let what the people actually want their government to do emerge the way the people who fought to establish democracy intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think a reassessment of the idealistic definition of the word conservative should be looked at. At it's most ideal, conservatism is a form of government that looks with skepticism upon change and, when change does occur, advocates for it in the most gradual, non-disruptive sense. At least that's one definition for it. 

And from this reassessment, one needs to come to grips with the fact that the Republican Party had been straying from that tradition for many years prior to President Trump and, now that he is here, the party is miles away from that narrowly-defined definition of conservatism. And the conservatism that they now represent is of the nationalist, religious and racialist variety. And this *existed* before Trump, but now the party is fully embodied by it and overt about it in a way that it never has been before.

As far as the future? I think our electoral system is set up structurally in a way that discourages third political parties, especially as it pertains in Presidential elections. One way to ameliorate this would be to eliminate the Electoral College and set up a runoff system, but it is exceedingly unlikely that will ever happen. In addition, they need money to get this thing off the ground.... so they need folks like Mark Cuban or Steve Ballmer (just two examples - their public comments seem very open to centrist politics) to come in and financially float an operation like this. I would also add that it's possible to set up this party, at least initially, to compete strictly in federal, state, local elections, and to act as a block to endorse at the Presidential level. Perhaps over time, as the party becomes more established and gains a bigger presence, then look at holding Presidential primaries.

I think this party needs to be a big tent... it should draw from both the center-right and center-left, and there are areas of significant overlap between the two, especially if the social issues are set aside. And the platform should be pretty narrow.

Just my thoughts. One can dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

OK  - I'll beat the dead horse here. Start a new party around the idea of reforming the US political *process* to put individual, living, breathing, human beings back into control of it. Publicly fund campaigns, change US libel law to remove the complete immunity that exists to perpetrate calumnies on public people, neutralize redistricting, pass an amendment stating that fundamental human rights can only inhere to individual persons, not political or economic associations of them. Then let what the people actually want their government to do emerge the way the people who fought to establish democracy intended.

I would second this as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some sort of EC change seems required.  Perhaps a multi-year constitutional commission to fix that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how you change the EC.... it would require the smaller states approval and I don't see them doing that.  Regardless of how large and how many people are in CA, when it comes to amendments they are equal to MT, WY, and VT.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Oblong said:

I don't see how you change the EC.... it would require the smaller states approval and I don't see them doing that.  Regardless of how large and how many people are in CA, when it comes to amendments they are equal to MT, WY, and VT.  

 

The small states concerns are still real.  I want to see a system in place that protects them.  I'd also like an EC that had more of a role in preventing a demagogue like Trump from being elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Oblong said:

I don't see how you change the EC.... it would require the smaller states approval and I don't see them doing that.  Regardless of how large and how many people are in CA, when it comes to amendments they are equal to MT, WY, and VT.  

 

Personally, I don't see the EC as one of our biggest problems, if a party can't build a coalition that can overcome the relatively minor % offset created by the EC, they really haven't found a way to effectively build national consensus anyway. The bigger problem is that both parties are too compromised to do that. Go back to 1960 and there was a very close election, but that was because the differences between what parties wanted to do was really pretty minor. Today both parties want to change things in major ways - which generates so much of the heat, but neither has a real *voting* majority for their platform - they have effective political process control of their party for what they want, but today that is a far different thing from actually having the public - QED of the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the issue I see with the EC is that any third party could force a situation where the President is selected through the House of Representatives, not through the ballot box (ie. if nobody gets to 270 EC votes). Perhaps you could circumvent this by revising the rules (probably through Constitutional Amendment, I'm guessing) to allow for a runoff between the Top-2 EC vote getters as opposed to the House selecting the President.

But as it stands, there's little to no incentive for folks to vote for a third party in a Presidential Election because of this situation, IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t particulary see how the small states are “protected” by having the electoral college in its current form. 

Anyway, this may not be that far away. The interstate pact or whatever it is called could be gaining some steam. It has been adopted by quite a few states, and it’s possible that at some point in the near future enough more states will adopt it for it to go into effect. 

It’s kind of weird, but whatever. We think of the electoral college as this winner take all type of thing. But it could also change dramatically if more states decide to divide up their electoral votes like Maine and Nebraska do (I think those are the two).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

Most of the issue I see with the EC is that any third party could force a situation where the President is selected through the House of Representatives, not through the ballot box (ie. if nobody gets to 270 EC votes). Perhaps you could circumvent this by revising the rules (probably through Constitutional Amendment, I'm guessing) to allow for a runoff between the Top-2 EC vote getters as opposed to the House selecting the President.

But as it stands, there's little to no incentive for folks to vote for a third party in a Presidential Election because of this situation, IMO

The house deciding the election wouldn’t be the worst thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shelton said:

The house deciding the election wouldn’t be the worst thing. 

It would be if you were a disaffected Republican voting in 2020 with a Democratic House....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

It would be if you were a disaffected Republican voting in 2020 with a Democratic House....

So elect more republican representatives in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal should be to ensure that everyone's vote has the same weight.  The electoral college and the Senate don't give voters equal weight, and favor less populated states that contribute less to the country.  The House is supposed to be based on population, but gerrymandering has given voters disproportionate weight and is intended to circumvent overall popular vote totals.

Our implementation of democracy is designed and has been further manipulated for minority majority rule.  I doubt the founders intended that to be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to the House.... it's not as simple as the party that controls the house.  They would vote by state delegation. 

I did a quick study and it looks like by state the GOP has a huge advantage.  D's "own" 17 states, one is tied, and the GOP has 32.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Oblong said:

With regard to the House.... it's not as simple as the party that controls the house.  They would vote by state delegation. 

I did a quick study and it looks like by state the GOP has a huge advantage.  D's "own" 17 states, one is tied, and the GOP has 32.

 

This is correct of course. 

I was thinking about an alternative where the house reps were basically the electors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

OK  - I'll beat the dead horse here. Start a new party around the idea of reforming the US political *process* to put individual, living, breathing, human beings back into control of it. Publicly fund campaigns.

I'm with this.  I'll go one further, have that as the entire platform.

How are you going to improve education - "We'll take money out of politics"

How are you going to deal with infrastructure - "As I said, we'll take money out of politics"

Wasn't there a guy that ran on the democratic ticket last time around with some similar platform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love a centrist party...! But how to define Centrist? What to call it: "Mainstream American Party" (The "MAP to the Future" Party... haha!). And seriously, what animal to choose!!!

I choose the Owl. The wise old owl. For the Mainstream American Party.

My first focus is a balanced budget. Not an amendment, I hate restrictions. And in a recessionary economy, you deficit-spend to push the economy back upwards out of the recession. But a rolling Balanced Budget goal (IE: deficit spend in recession, get back to balanced within 5 years...) places the emphasis on matching governmental outlays with governmental revenues. Secondary budget priorities: Pro-Business & Pro-Consumer focus, to always keep our economy humming at its highest point. A healthy economy drives EVERYTHING ELSE...! Jobs, opportunities, tax revenues, the ability to maintain a world-dominant military, the ability to find and fix warts (poverty, health care)... everything. Sometimes those two are in conflict (environmental regulations, higher wages, social costs, etc...); but as a centrist... the goal would be to always BALANCE those scales.

Maybe that's harder to envision since I'm throwing platitudes around rather than specific examples...  but those examples do exist.

IE: The PRO-BUSINESS bent says that our economy and our businesses should always be LEADERS across this competitive world. Are we leaders in stem cell research and medical treatments? In canniboid medical treatments? if not, why not? Are we leaders in electric car technology, battery technology, battery backup system technology (and all the companies associated with the above mentioned technologies)? If not, why not? Solar energy? Wind power systems? AI? Because... these are the technologies, and the globally dominant companies of the future... And if the government is HINDERING our future companies/ technologies rather than devising policies that SUPPORT future technologies, they are wrong. IE: Why are we in a Tariff War that increases costs to businesses and consumers? Why has Trump not incorporated a national infrastructure component into his tax cuts? As part of that national infrastructure, tax breaks for a national system of solar panel/ electric car/ hydrogen refueling stations all along the national highway system. Tax breaks for consumer purchases of hybrid/ electric/ or hydrogen cars & SUV's and trucks. That should push a reduction in the use of gas (or foreign oil), jobs in infrastructure construction, increased purchases & use (and manufacture (jobs) of) clean energy automobiles, etc... How do we pay for this? A 60% tariff on non-North-American imported oil (screw Venezuela. Libya, Russia, Saudi Arabia and their ilk). Protects our oil & gas industry from further Saudi attacks. Pushes faster switchover to renewables in consumer usage, renewable power/energy infrastructure, and business usage. Dropping swiftly the need to purchase foreign oil in the first place. Add a national 25 cents/ gallon gasoline tax and that also pushes America into the renewables direction, while discouraging gasoline usage (lower gas usage means demand/prices drop for gasoline which leads to: not even feeling the effect of 25 cents/ gallon, except for a swift change in vehicle type usage (clean energy vs. fossil fuel vehicles).

Instead, Trump is increasing the cost of cars by average $3K per vehicle (per auto industry) with his steel & aluminum tariff wars? Awesome!

IE: Increasing home-building costs with lumber & aluminum tariff wars are not pro-consumer. Cancelling the estate tax; which doesn't do **** for the economy, is not pro-consumer. Jacking 25% of middle income families with higher taxes (despite his BS proclamation of "tax cuts for the middle class") is not pro-consumer. Inflationary policies (higher tariffs on everything from China, higher lumber/ steel/ aluminum tariffs) is not pro-consumer. Stripping consumer protection laws from predatory financing and in other areas is not pro-consumer. Classifying marijuana as a class I drug is neither pro-business nor pro-consumer. Making health care unaffordable for 15% of Americans, or foisting the majority of health care costs onto American businesses is neither pro-consumer nor pro-business. What the **** is wrong with this picture?!?!

Centrist: Pro-legalized marijuana because it just makes sense. Pro-Environment AND Pro-business (addressing climate change swiftly by providing incentives for renewable energy switchover/ consumer purchases/ national infrastructure), pro-global trading system (nationalist/ protectionist/ pro-tariff wars...? Are you kidding me? Don't be THAT F'ing stupid you idiot Trumptards!!!). Pro-consumer as much as possible because CONSUMERISM drives our economy to be the #1 in the world! Did you FORGET that Republicans?). A tax system that STOPS attacking the middle class and sucking the country's wealth up into only the top 1%'s hands. The MIDDLE-CLASS drives our consumer economy, NOT the top 1%. That means affordable housing. Affordable health care for all. Social Security and other social safety net programs healthy and supported rather than attacked/ stripped by clueless Republicans. Student loan relief. Because a steady supply of college-educated future workers is REQUIRED to support a #1 economy/ it's companies/ it's future. Not a steady supply of college-educated bankruptcy candidates. Have we forgotten that? A strong military to protect our national interests... but do we really need to turn ourselves into the Police State that Trump is trying to turn us into? ... NO! And why isn't the minimum wage tied to a COLA factor? Instead of waiting 20 years until people are falling below the poverty line and businesses are ("Shocked! I'm just SHOCKED I'm telling you") by new increase proposals (from $8 to $15?!), why are we not increasing min wages by 2% per year so that we would NOT be having this discussion/ businesses can handle/ plan for the annual 2% increase/ and people aren't falling under water as soon as the min is increased (and then stuck for the next 20 years)?

And somewhere in all these conflicting priorities, could we please balance the budget? 

So asks the wise old OWL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 84 Lives!!! said:

<SNIP>

And somewhere in all these conflicting priorities, could we please balance the budget

<SNIP>

NATIONALDEBT.JPG.1b2a747f0e2cf48c5f94b8aa99ed2f4c.JPG

Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said balance the budget, not eliminate governmental debt.

But... there's no chance at the second without at least starting with the first.

Interest payments are going to F with all our future budgets immeasurably if these SPEND and SPEND Republicans currently in office aren't dumped Poste Haste...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Democrat Democrat Republican Total Legend
California 39 14 53 -25
Massachusetts 9 0 9 -9
New York 18 9 27 -9
Maryland 7 1 8 -6
Connecticut 5 0 5 -5
Illinois 11 7 18 -4
Oregon 4 1 5 -3
Hawaii 2 0 2 -2
Minnesota 5 3 8 -2
Nevada 3 1 4 -2
New Hampshire 2 0 2 -2
New Jersey 7 5 12 -2
Rhode Island 2 0 2 -2
Washington 6 4 10 -2
Delaware 1 0 1 -1
New Mexico 2 1 3 -1
Vermont 1 0 1 -1
Maine 1 1 2 0
Alaska 0 1 1 1
Arizona 4 5 9 1
Colorado 3 4 7 1
Montana 0 1 1 1
North Dakota 0 1 1 1
South Dakota 0 1 1 1
Wyoming 0 1 1 1
Idaho 0 2 2 2
Iowa 1 3 4 2
Mississippi 1 3 4 2
Wisconsin 3 5 8 2
Nebraska 0 3 3 3
Virginia 4 7 11 3
West Virginia 0 3 3 3
Arkansas 0 4 4 4
Kansas 0 4 4 4
Kentucky 1 5 6 4
Louisiana 1 5 6 4
Michigan 5 9 14 4
Missouri 2 6 8 4
Utah 0 4 4 4
Alabama 1 6 7 5
Florida 11 16 27 5
Indiana 2 7 9 5
Oklahoma 0 5 5 5
South Carolina 1 6 7 5
Tennessee 2 7 9 5
Georgia 4 10 14 6
North Carolina 3 10 13 7
Ohio 4 12 16 8
Pennsylvania 5 13 18 8
Texas 11 25 36 14
      435  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...