Proposal for a New Political Party

Vanity | 6-30-04 | Self

[Protagoras]

Current Political parties try to be all things to all people and end up being nothing to anyone. The differences between the two major parties are essentially those of scope and detail.

A new party may be the answer, but only if it is unlike the others in essence.

No more than six simple planks in the entire platform. Narrow in focus, leaving individual candidates to have differing positions on all issue which are not covered in the six.

Keeping it simple, working 24/7 to enact the narrow goals. Any candidate who wavers would be repudiated.

[Protagoras]

How bout this? No fraud, theft, or violence.

It is a failure, that's why it should be abandoned. They have too many issues, too many positions, too much baggage. Like all other political parties except this new one.

[Protagoras]

I'm afraid yours is an intellectual exercise only; no party could exist for longer than an instant under your guidelines.

Good luck, I think your fantasy is more of an intellectual exercize than mine. But then again, mine was designed as an intellectual exercise, for purposes of discussion on this site. I happen to think however that if we had the money and the inclination, this would work. Whatever happened, it would be better than being a Republicrat.

[Protagoras]

Wouldn't it be easier to infiltrate an established party and take control rather than reinvent the wheel?

Sure except for one little detail,,,it hasn't had any success for the goals mentioned.

It doesn't solve the problem of too many positions and standing for nothing.

[Protagoras]

Repeal the 19th amendment.

You run on that, I'll run against it. I will win.

[looscnnn]

Ya baby, ya gotta have mojo.

[TeenageConservative]

Conservative Party?

I know it's being used in England and Canada, but who cares.

[Protagoras]

Remove Privatize Social Security and replace with a broader mantra: Repeal All Class-Based Legislation (legislation not addressing a violation of rights that does nothing other than benefit one group at the expense of another)

Too broad. That is a concept, not a specific goal that can be realistically enacted.

[Protagoras]

Conservative Party?

Such as party as this would in no large sense be conservative. It advocates radical change, not conservation. And such a name would drive many away. They want different, not the same.

[Bob J]

Sorry. I thought it was a serious proposal.

[looscnnn]

"Sure, and who gets to define that?Sorry, that gets into just what the other parties do. Pages and pages to define it."

No, just say something to the effect of "We are going protect and defend the Constitution of the United States along with the Bill of Rights. We also affirm that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are to be defined as it has been written (the people means all citizens, etc.) with no reading into the meaning of any part. We will also push for the return to this form of government that the Founding Fathers created." This would easily still keep the platform on one sheet of paper.

[TeenageConservative]

WHO CARES!!!

The majority of Americans probably agree with our ideas anyway.

[looscnnn]

It would also eliminate the need to put withdraw from the UN, WTO, World Bank, etc. on the platform.

[Protagoras]

Sorry. I thought it was a serious proposal.

It is. Just because you don't take it seriously only means you will be stuck with the same old same old.

[mtbopfuyn]

Oh, kinda like Perot was the third candidate and split the Bush voters?

[Protagoras]

I like it personally, but I don't think it will fly.

[Capitalism2003]

Every issue of the Libertarian party boils down to two basic laws.

1. No theft.
2. No violence.

The platform is simply there to explain how and WHY we need to reduce government back to its Constitutional limits.

[snickeroon]

You know, it would REALLY be interesting to see some polling data on that. It would seem to me that a majority WOULD support total withdrawal from the UN.

In my perfect scenario, I feel that Savage (who is truly beginning to annoy me on air), had all the basics at BORDERS /LANGUAGE /CULTURE.... Here is my list:

1. Withdraw from the United Nations. Reaffirm the United States as a sovereign nation in the midst of a terrorist attack.

Therefore, guidelines for citizenship would become more stringent. Illegals simply NOT tolerated. (Further, costs incurred by them would be borne by the nation they come from. In other words, let Mexico (for one) become harsh on their rules instead of insisting we are more lax on ours). Also revoke all previous U.N. "biodiversity" deals in our parks, states, etc. We don't have to take a rigidly isolationist world view, but we MUST make ourselves clear and heard loudly that we will NOT participate in a world tax, world court, etc., etc.

2. English would become the ONLY recognized national language.

3. Culture: THIS would be the sticking point, but if I could have the nation I love back, we would IMMEDIATELY do the following: God would be placed (once more) as originally intended by the founders of this country. Nativity scenes, the Ten Commandments, and prayer etc. etc. would again be allowed in courts, schools, et al. Marriage WOULD be defined ONLY for men and women. Abortion rights would be REPEALED. Pornography would be defined (and accepted/rejected) by the community standard.... and citizens would have the right of free speech, but NOT the right to infringe upon the RIGHTS of others. There IS a threshold of speech which begins to tear a nation down. We are long past reaching it. Civility, manners and common sense would return by default if we stopped tolerating this PC garbage.

As for the rest? It would take some time to iron out specifics like a smooth way to replace the social security and tax systems, but if we went back to the constitution instead of these wacky courts we might have a chance to last as a Republic. Otherwise, we are DOOMED.

[Protagoras]

Oh, kinda like Perot was the third candidate and split the Bush voters?

This is a proposal which is entirely separate from the current campaign. You can vote for your beloved Bush. Nothing like this could happen overnight.

It is a vision of the future, one that will attain specific goals one at a time which will move us in the direction of freedom again. If the other parties don't want what we want, why would we care if they are not elected? the idea is to defeat everyone who opposes our goals.

It gives people something to VOTE FOR. Not against, or the lesser of two evils out of fear.

[Protagoras]

I do not believe a party which ran on your proposed platform could be elected in this country.

[Bob J]

Sorry. I thought it was a serious proposal.

"It is. Just because you don't take it seriously only means you will be stuck with the same old same old."

Above you posted this...

"But then again, mine was designed as an intellectual exercise, for purposes of discussion on this site."

You're confusing me. Intellectual exercises for purposes of discussion are not serious proposals, at least in my book.

I'm not picking a fight with you, I thought your were being serious about establishing another 3rd party.