At this point, the Middle Party is a reflection of the views of myself and several people very close to me. We talked about several issues and came to an understanding as to what we thought was the proper position. I want the Middle Party to be created in much the same way as TCP/IP (the rules for computers talking on the Internet) was created (I am a geek). For each rule, a member submitted a description of how that process should work and then the community commented and improved the rule until it was released. I have put up an initial description of how we thought the issues should be approached and as others comment, we will fold those improvements into the platform. Over time, this will become the platform for the party. As far as the abortion question, the Middle Party does not have a position yet. I think you and I should work out a position together as the basis for the Middle Party is compromise and debate.
The Middle Party is for fiscal conservatives with a sense of social justice. In other words, the federal government should spend as little money as possible while doing what is fiscally responsible to protect the citizens from harm that other people will try to inflict on them. Currently, the Middle Party takes the position that government has gotten WAY too big to do anything well. We need to scale back on pork barrel legislation and we also need to improve the efficiency of some social programs and eliminate others completely.
In fact, I believe that the Constitution originally gave the office of VP to the person who came in 2nd in the presidential election, ensuring that the second place person would still have some influence as president of the Senate. Ditto. I agree. Everyone should feel like they have a voice in government, especially those that do not completely agree with the current major parties.
an aside... ------------------------------------------------------- Survey: Independents Wary of Vote in '04 By EMILY FREDRIX, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Independents, who outnumber Democrats or Republicans, need a good reason to head to the voting booth, according to a survey released Thursday. The poll, conducted for the New Democratic Network, found that slightly more than 40 percent identify themselves as independents, 32 percent called themselves Republicans and 27 percent said they were Democrats. But these so-called "swing voters" were more than twice as likely not to vote than people who consider themselves Republican or Democrat, a factor for the candidates running in the 2004 election. "They have to be appealed to in a nonpartisan way in order to overcome their hesitance of politics itself," said Mark Penn, who did the poll for the centrist organization. Penn is the former pollster for President Clinton and currently is working for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, one of the more conservative contenders in the nine-candidate field. Penn's survey of 1,001 likely presidential election voters provided some demographic information. <b>Independents are usually white suburbanites, between ages 25 and 49, and likely to use a computer at work. They list the news as their favorite television show and football as their preferred sport. </b> <i> sound familiar boys?</i> Seven of 10 swing voters consider themselves moderate or conservative, making them potential backers of either party. "The American electorate is fairly volatile, probably more volatile now because of less affiliation with parties and more contact with national media," Penn said. Among the subgroup, according to Penn, are "office-park dads," men apt to be workaholics and likely to volunteer with civic ventures, reflecting an interest in community just not in politics. Penn said the influence of "office-park dads" could echo that of "soccer moms," whose support for Democrats in 1996 helped secure a second-term for Clinton. The poll was done June 8-15 and had an error margin of plus or minus 3.1 percent. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=548&u=/ap/20030801/ap_on_el_ge/swing_voters&printer=1
i'm not as gung-ho about compromise as you are. i have no position of compromise on that issue. not trying to sound like a jerk or a hard-ass...but given my beliefs on the topic, i couldn't respect a position of compromise on that.
Great article. A strong third party without the outrageous calls of the Libertarians and Greens could probably garner significant support and eventually toss this whole us vs. them, black vs. white, left vs. right partisanship in the toilet where it belongs.
So, you can't see ANY possibility for compromise? What if we made a concerted effort to reduce and eventually eliminate abortion through means other than banning it (education, contraception, etc.). I am opposed to abortion, I am just more opposed to prohibition.
As long as the difference between high and low in society stays as big as it is people will have to much frustration in them, and it will come out in any of the ways you said.
I´m just not sure a strong third party would make racism and political left and right wing tendencies disapear. Sorry for being vague.
A strong third party wouldn't make the political right and left go away, just temper them so that it is not the kooks on the far left and far right driving everything. A strong middle party would allow the left and right to have input, but the partisan divide we have now would be filled by reasonable people who are not beholden to the radicals on the left and right. Racism wouldn't disappear because there are a whole lot of idiots out there who will, unfortunately, see the world through hateful eyes. The best thing that we can do is try to create policy that is not racist in its application so that the government itself is not seen as racist.
i can't stomach it...you know why i think that, because i've given you my reasons for that over and over again.
The reason I have a problem with banning it is the same reason I have with banning anything. Banning things in a society does not make those things magically go away, it makes them more expensive, more dangerous, and increases the social costs. I guess I don't get why you can't see ANY compromise at all. What do you think about cases of rape or incest? How about when the mother's life is in danger? If you can see compromise in these areas, then why wouldn't you be willing to look for a realistic path that actually has a chance of reducing or eliminating abortion? I get your philosohical position on the life that is being taken, but I don't get why we can't look for a solution that would actually work as opposed to a prohibition that would be in name only. Wouldn't you rather have a system where NO unnecessary abortions took place in this country rather than no LEGAL abortions, but thousands of them under the table?
andy -- we went back and forth over this in a thread that i think was pretty close to 10 pages long. let's don't do that again right now. and my answer stays...i don't compromise on it. you don't compromise with what you perceive to be murder. end of story.
Are you really sure you want a strong third party?? Remember, with the first past the post system, vote splitting is a reality. Think Nader. 30% Dems; 30% Andy's new party; 40% Republicans equals Republican win. Across the nation, the result could be a landslide. Even if the majority wanted "anyone but ###" Get enough vote splitting, and politicizing between the less popular parties and suddenly you have one national party left. It's easier to take votes from the 2nd most popular party (you disagree with the ruling party, but don't like the alternative) than to tear down a strong governing party. Canada experienced this with rise of regional support for alternative parties, and the result has been no real national alternative to the governing party. Perhaps it's best to find the party you agree with most, and try to influence that party to your way of thinking. Just food for thought.
Yes. What did Nader do that was bad? For that matter, was Nader ever really a strong third party candidate? He didn't even get invited to the debates for lack of support. You could make a stronger case for Perot having a strong influence on a presidential election, I mean, he is the one that forced the Dems and Reps to change the rules on debate to exclude third party candidates. If the Congress was split as you say, neither the Reps nor the Dems could get ANYTHING done without bringing the third party on board, which would necesitate compromise with another party to pass legislation. Not according to history. Historically, third parties have sprung up as a result of abuses by the two major parties and then faded again once the abuses were curbed. Even if all this party did was reform campaign finance, for example, it would have a major positive impact. On the other hand, if it did grow to the same stature as the current majors, it could have a substantial impact on politics for quite some time. I disagree so substantially with both of the major parties on different issues that I would rather vote Libertarian than support some of the power and money hungry politicians we have today. There are exceptions as I would have voted for McCain had he won the last nomination and would probably vote for him if an asteroid strike took out Bush and he got the nomination this time. The biggest problem that I have with both parties is that there is no compromise in either of them, it is either their way or no way at all. A third party could inject compromise and reasonability into politics where today we have none.
Not even in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's health? Not even to eventually end a practice that you find barbaric? And if I remember correctly, it was 12 pages.
The Middle Party is for fiscal conservatives with a sense of social justice. In other words, the federal government should spend as little money as possible while doing what is fiscally responsible to protect the citizens from harm that other people will try to inflict on them. Great. I would guess both major parties and most individuals would agree with that. Who's going to argue that it's better to be fiscally irresponsible? Or socially unjust? The devil is in the details - and you can't argue for "common sense" positions on issues because if they really were common sense, everyone would agree with them already. Let's say there are just 10 issues in this world, and two sides to each issue. The Democrats support "answer A" to each and the Republicans support "answer B". Your new middle party supports answer A to 5 of the issues and B to the other 5. What reason do you have to believe any large number of people would support that, as opposed to Answer B on the first five issues and Answer A on the other 5? Both parties have reasonable positions on the issues. Rather than trying to create a new party to fit your exact vision -- with just 10 two-sided issues, you'd have 1022 different 3rd parties if people created one to fit their own vision -- why not focus on pushing the issues that matter the most to you through the current two party system?
The way I see it, the solutions are not A or B, they have shades of grey that make it where the solution could be AAAAB, ABBBBB, AAABBBBB, AAAAABBB, etc. That is what the middle party is about, finding practical solutions to the problems facing our country rather than this A or B, black or white, left or right mentality. When you are talking about most issues facing us, there are more than just two solutions and it is up to us to find the right mix of solutions to take America forward. I agree that both parties have reasonable positions on some issues, but neither party seems willing or able to take the best ideas from all sides of the political spectrum to craft a solution that meets more than the needs of the powerful few. I don't want this party to fit MY vision, I want it to fit the vision of real Americans who don't have a voice since the Dems and Reps are beholden to their respective special interests. If either party had a reasonable platform on the issue I see as the most important in our society, we might not be having this discussion. One problem with the two party system is that if neither party speaks what is on MY mind, I am not represented. That is the case today.
