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.

[Consort]

Thanks for your nonsensical comment. How predictable of you.

In addition to transparent, add simple-minded and Conservative death-wisher to your resumé.

[Protagoras]

I'm not into a flame war with a nitwit. Move along, nothing to see here, just another kook. Ta Ta.

[Sam Cree]

IMO, one of the six absolutley needs to be:

*All citizens are equal before the law.*

This by itself would insure the rule of law instead of the rule of men (and bureaucracies) that we now have. It is the prerequisite for the individual freedom that our founding fathers hoped for.

It gets rid of class warfare, affirmative action and all left wing legislation.

I think you can then eliminate "privatize social security," as returning power to the states kills it on a national level anyway.

[Consort]

...nothing to see here...

Agreed.

[Capitalism2003]

I consider a so-called "conservative" party that brags about adding massive new entitlements to medicare...that is happy to sign a campaign finance law abriding free speech...and that and increases NON-DEFENSE government spending by 12.5% EVERY YEAR they are in power to be a true failure.

Next year, the budget will hit 2.5 Trillion dollars and the debt will be at nearly 8 trillion. Another 200 billion will be spent on Iraq and the new 600 billion dollar medicare entitlement will go into effect.

Go conservatives!

[/sarcasm off]

[Protagoras]

My thinking is it needs to be specific in nature.

[labard1]

"Repeal the 19th amendment.Idiotic proposal."

The poster was just having fun. Given that a majority of US voters are women, there is absolutely NO chance that such a repeal could be passed. Because a majority of women support Dims, it is an interesting fantasy, but the poster knows it's a fantasy.

If there are going to be new third parties, I think they should have liberal and welfare oriented goals. The more the left fragments, the better the result. The corollary of that is that we don't need more conservative/libertarian parties. One is enough if we hope to win elections. Folks who don't win elections (regardless of ideology) are losers. Good losers, perhaps, but losers. As Douglas MacArthur said, "There is no substitute for victory."

[Protagoras]

The corollary of that is that we don't need more conservative/libertarian parties. One is enough if we hope to win elections. Folks who don't win elections (regardless of ideology) are losers.

Of course you are assuming a REAL, focused, third party would be a failure. That assumption has never been tested since no such party has existed.

So just remember, "if you always do what you've always done, you will always get what you always got."

[labard1]

"Of course you are assuming a REAL, focused, third party would be a failure. That assumption has never been tested since no such party has existed."

American history is littered with single issue (or small number of issue) parties that lasted one or two elections, but which don't usually rate even a footnote in the standard US histories. Unfortunately, your proposal has been tried a huge number of times, and the results have been (almost uniformly) abysmal. The Reform Party helped elect Bill Clinton. The Dixiecrat Party failed to stop Truman. The Henry George Single Tax Party (only tax real estate) went no where, though it threw some real scares into local politicians for a time. T. Coleman Andrews ran in 1956 on a platform to abolish the income tax (Independent Party?).

The most recent third party to survive in the US is the Republican Party. It began with a smaller number of issues, but has expanded its issues over time to try to achieve and maintain a large enough coalition to win elections-- the necessary precondition to accomplishing anything.

[Kaslin]

The poster was just having fun. Given that a majority of US voters are women, there is absolutely NO chance that such a repeal could be passed. Because a majority of women support Dims, it is an interesting fantasy, but the poster knows it's a fantasy.

I hope so, but there are some here in FR who would like notheing better then to take the voting rights away from women

[Protagoras]

It began with a smaller number of issues, but has expanded its issues over time to try to achieve and maintain a large enough coalition to win elections-- the necessary precondition to accomplishing anything.

It has accomplished a left leaning aganda. Ever bigger government and failures by the boat load. Unconstitutional programs and intrusion. Nixon expanded the government by leaps and bounds and they haven't looked back since.

You can have 'em.

[backtothestreets]

A new political party would be warmly welcomed if it stirred clear of the inherent failings of the present major political parties. The one failing both parties share is cronyism. Both parties hold the needs of their friends in higher esteem then the country they govern.

My six:

Snuff out cronyism.

Protect citizens from harm, both domestic and foreign, but not self inflicted.

Restore the republican form of government that assured densely populated areas could not dictate the lives of sparsely populated areas.

Revamp the justice system to achieve speedy, fair trials.

Return our education system to educating our youth and not creating, or maintaining jobs.

End the conflict of interest that allows attorneys, already members of the judicial branch of government, from seeking elective office while they are still members of the court.

These are the six I would start with. I would take the liberty of replacing any of the six with a new plank once a previously stated plank was achieved, and if it were necessary.

[Protagoras]

Thanks for your ideas.

[Final Authority]

And how would this attract enough voters to even beat a candidate like Allen Keyes, Pat Buchannan (pick any like them) in a national election?

You or I may vote for such a candidate but didn't we do that before when a vote for Perot put Clinton in office. I say good luck because it will take a personality and a movement (no jokes here) to garner enough votes to overtake the GOP and the Dems not just some grand ideas.

[Cold Heat]

The differences between the two major parties are essentially those of scope and detail.

Yes, a great deal of scope and detail.

[labard1]

"Nixon expanded the government by leaps and bounds and they haven't looked back since."

I can't disagree with you about Nixon. I wanted to vote against him in 1972 because of Nixon's wage and price controls, but then the Dims nominated McGovern, and I couldn't do it.

I STRONGLY disagree with you if you're denying that Ronald Reagan made a dramatic change for the better in the country. I think he was a very principled man who convinced the country to move toward the conservative principles most of us at FR support.

[Protagoras]

I reject the Perot comparison, but that for a different thread.

The proposal is for a party, not an election. Not a Presidential campaign. Not this cycle. Not a specific time.

"There is no more powerful thing than an idea whose time has come."

[Protagoras]

My tag line says what I think about Reagan. I wish he had had more sucess at it, but he did a great job under the circumstances.

[PersonalLiberties]

Exactly, you need an awesome fundraising machine to get anywhere.

[labard1]

So you don't REALLY mean that the Republicans have been all down-hill since Nixon. You might also have approved of the Contract with America in 1994. Bet we could find some other things the Republicans have done right, though goodness knows, you're right that they have done some dumb things, too.

My bottom line is will the Republicans or Democrats be better for the country in this election? So far in my lifetime, my answer has never come up "Democrats." If I don't want Dims to win and govern as they please, I darn well better ELECT somebody else. If I go off and vote for somebody that doesn't have a chance to win, it's almost as bad as if I had voted for the Dim. There are those who choose to do that, but I can't overcome my conscience that says I should try to achieve the best outcome, not just a personally satisfying defeat.