Proposal for a New Political Party

Vanity | 6-30-04 | Self

[Protagoras]

First the Dem party goes down in flames--it has moved leftward and the extent to which it has marginalized itself will not be evident until the election is in full swing. Then the GOP splits along liberal and conservative lines.

I don't see those things happening. And I don't think it would solve the basic problem that people will do whatever they can to garner power.

The power in this new party would all be directed towards the six goals, not continuing in power for it's own sake. Once a goal is attained, it could be replaced by another. If the goals were unpopular, the party would fail. The people are interchangable, the goals would stand the scrutiny of the market place.

[tpaine]

Reaffirm/defend/return to the the true meaning of the Constitution & BOR.
4 posted on 06/30/2004 8:31:59 AM PDT by looscnnn

______________________________________


Only one position is really necessary:


Reaffirm/defend/return to the the original [literal] meaning of the Constitution & its Amendments.

[Which would necessitate repealing the 16th & abandoning much of 20th century fed/state/local 'law', as unconstitutional]

[Protagoras]

Please hit your ping list if you have one. I don't have one.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Until you achieve power you are not going to change our system and with out major change none of the hundred or so third parties that have tried have succeeded. Besides my original point that it is easier to influence one of the exiting parties than it is to reinvent the wheel still stands.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Why only six? Are there ONLY six ideals worthy of consideration? Are the people too stipid to remember more than six?

[Protagoras]

Asked and answered. No agreement would be reached on the true meaning and the constitutional changes you propose have no popular support. The idea of this party would be to get elected and attain the six narrow goals identified.

One step at a time we can change the world. Freedom won't come in one fell swoop.

[Texas Federalist]

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)

Otherwise, I like it.

An interesting side note, I heard James Carville predict that a third party will take over 35% of the vote in the 2008 presidential election. He thinks the party will be a populist Nader/Buchanan hybid favoring trade barriers and strong immigration laws.

[birbear]

Nice idea, but it has a basic flaw (and it's a basic flaw with most 3rd parties.)

Your six planks (which I happen to like) are national planks. You're still forcing the local politician to side with either the Republicans or Democrats. And, for the most part, it's local politicians who have the power to influence their constituents the best.

In order to make lasting change to the Republic we need to elect Senators and Representatives that hold our values. The President, while an important person in our government, is really quite limited in power (only 2 4 year terms) Senators with unlimited 6 year terms and congress critters with unlimited 2 year terms (and the power to tax), IMHO, wield the greater power.

So let's say I want to be a congress critter from the great state of Washington. I have no name recognition and no money. So my first step is to run for city council and county supervisor. How can I use those 6 planks of this new party to help me?

I get elected and spend a term or two as city council, and run for mayor. Again, those 6 planks are too narrow in focus for my job. I side with one of the major parties in order to get financing and support.

I do well, and decide I want to run for state office. I still like this new party concept, but they can't really help me out. I need money. I stick with the major party.

Now I have enough experience to run for a national office. I've built up a lot of political capital as a major party candidate. It becomes gut-check time. Do I now abandon the party that helped me get here? Politics isn't about principles, it's about how do I keep power, or how do I get to the next higher office. A 3rd party isn't going to do it. I need to stay loyal to my party if I want a chance of winning.

At least, that's how I see it.

In order for there to be a viable 3rd party in this country right now, one of the 2 major parties will have to split (which is quite possible).

[Protagoras]

Why only six?

It's a nice round, small number.

Are there ONLY six ideals worthy of consideration?

There are many more, but then you are just like the other parties. And the more you add, the fewer number of people will agree and join.

Are the people too stipid to remember more than six?

No, the people are not in agreement on more than six. In fact, six may be too many.

[Texas Federalist]

Until you achieve power you are not going to change our system and with out major change none of the hundred or so third parties that have tried have succeeded.

Ross Perot was polling at over 40% before he dropped out of the 1992 race and still got over 20% when he reentered. Imagine what an intelligent and charismatic candidate could do if he invested his own money.

[tm22721]

Repeal the 19th amendment.

BUMP

[Fiddlstix]

That makes seven. Which would you drop?

Don't drop any. Make getting out of the UN a part of the "strong military". We make military alliances with those we choose. Not what the UN wants to choose.

[Protagoras]

Nice idea, but it has a basic flaw (and it's a basic flaw with most 3rd parties.)

In my view, candidates need not abandon their parties, nor ignore other local issues.

They would be selected based on their seeking endorsement and living up to the narrow goals. In lieu of a suitable candidate or one who has lied about his or her commitment, the party could run their own.

One issue at a time. Get going in the right direction. The world can be changed, we can regain our freedom, one issue at a time.

[Bob J]

[Bob J]

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

Worked for the commies...

[Mr. Bird]

I'm afraid yours is an intellectual exercise only; no party could exist for longer than an instant under your guidelines. Politics is nothing if not the art of negotiation and persuasion. It would be easier to adhere to ONE large principle than to find unanimous agreement on six (or three or nine or whatever).

The GOP ostensibly tries this; they have historically been the party wanting "smaller government". However, the remarkable success of the USA has created voting blocs of special interests. Every American is basically living a better life than 95% of the world. When you reach that level, and you've granted the government the power to redistribute wealth, you get the ridiculous programs and government we have today.

My hope would be to return to the Reagan/Hedgehog mindset of governing: agree on the one big thing, and let everything else be assessed based on that one big thing. My vote for the "one big thing"? A massive return of power to the states from the federal government.

[Bob J]

Imagine what an intelligent and charismatic candidate could do if he invested his own money.

[Capitalism2003]

How bout this? No fraud, theft, or violence. Otherwise, leave people free to pursue their own interests. This means government will fund roads, courts, police, defense...maybe a library or two on the local level...and that is all. Ooops, I'm already describing a political party, and here is their PLATFORM. ;)

[Protagoras]

Agreed. However, Most people in the country would not sign on to a party that would drop out of the UN, IMO. Picking six that most normal real Americans can support is the key. Drop those that cause dilution. The other issues will be worked out by the people in power, as is the case now.

The idea is to get elected, accomplish your narrow goal, and on to another one. Pick the wrong one, lose the election. It's as simple as that.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Look at Jesse in Minnesota, after a short honeymoon he had more difficulty governing than either our current President Bush or that impeached ex-President. The Federal Government with two houses and an independently elected President does not lend itself to coalitions like Europe where third parties are common. A parliamentary system where third parties work leads to endless debate and attempts at consensus, but about guarantees that no strong leaders like President Bush emerge.