Reply With Quote
Like your ideas, but it presumes a thoughtful electorate
Responsible + current demographics = oil + water
I have been inspired by RandomGuy’s post to CosmicCowboy in the “Letter to the RNC” thread:
This country has real problems, and its citizens recognize that. And yet, we have just held a "monumental" election in which nothing changed. The executive and both houses of Congress are still controlled by the same partisan, self-interested factions that controlled them last week. The entirety of our Government is controlled by the two parties that have collectively gotten us to the point we are at today.
We are in debt. Each of us doesn't trust half of our elected representatives - or our fellow citizens. Class divisions are getting worse, more and more Americans feel there is no hope of a better tomorrow for themselves, or their children. Income IS being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, while at the other end of the spectrum, permanent poverty and dependency on Government for basic needs – from cradle to grave - is increasing along with the illegitimacy rate. Hope and Change? No.
The problems are myriad and immense. It doesn't matter, ultimately, how we got here; because here we are.
The good news is our founders did give us a way to fix things; to get them back under control. We have the rights of free speech and assembly; and with the internet those rights are made exponentially more potent. Barrack Obama just won the presidency with ~60 million votes. Gangnam Style has over ten times that many views!
We also have the right to vote.
I have not had a candidate to vote for these past two presidential elections (and, honestly, I have never had a candidate I was actually excited to vote for).
I also note that most of the people on this board, reflecting the population at large, voted against a candidate in this election, and not for a candidate.
The problem is, frankly, the tribal mentality - Red vs Blue - pick a side, and stick to it on every subject. If you're against abortion, you are probably for capital punishment. If you are against cutting en lements, you are against cutting taxes. If you are against water-boarding, you are probably for legalizing marijuana, etc...
What we need is a new party. This new party must pull from both tribes; otherwise it cannot work. If a conservative knows voting for Ron Paul means that Obama is more likely to win; he simply holds his nose and votes for Romney, while if a liberal would really like to vote Green, but is terrified of Paul Ryan being VP - they vote for Obama. If those two citizens, however, were reasonably assured that the third party vote wasn’t taking exclusively from only one of the traditional parties; they would be much more likely to vote that way.
I know that in the instances when we have a thread that does not devolve into a Red Team/Blue Team shout/insult-fest - common ground is often found between people of different political persuasions. A reasonable solution can be found to most issues - and most Americans would agree with those solutions, in my opinion.
This forum, I feel, is a great test-bed for this theory.
I would like to try to build a platform for the "Responsible" party. The platform, ultimately, should be reasonably comprehensive; but should never take a position on personal issues that divide us; distracting and obstructing us from finding solutions unnecessarily. Abortion is the most obvious taboo subject here; if the platform were to take a position, we are immediately divided; to NOT take a position is the "Responsible" course of action.
After the platform is developed, we’ll post it (responsibleparty.org and .com are available); – and spread its existence through the internet on boards like this, blogs, etc…also with letters to the editor in small town newspapers all over the country (they’ll print just about anything; and people in those towns read them). Then, we send out pleas to million and billionaires all over the country (thanks to Citizen’s United, we only need ONE).
The first order of business is to choose a mascot:
I nominate The Bald Eagle. Amazed neither of the other has ever chosen it; but the eagle is a of a responsible animal. Mother and father both take care of the young, they keep their house up, and don't take from anyone.
Like your ideas, but it presumes a thoughtful electorate
Responsible + current demographics = oil + water
Or, said another way, the message of JFK's inaugural address wouldn't resonate with today's instant gratification society.
Seems like a lot of hot air DarrinS. How many of the liberals on this board don't work? Live off food stamps? etc etc
Besides you?
I have been thinking about this as well.
I think we can probably find a few issues that just about everybody can agree on:
Tax code is too complex.
We need to get our budget deficits under control.
As Democrat I am willing to give spending cuts on en lement programs, *if* necessary tax increases to attack deficits at the other end are done, as most object analysis says is necessary.
Can we find any conservatives willing to go for the latter part of that? (increases can be structured to automatically "sunset", this would reduce the "gov't always expands" objection)
That makes no sense.
mmm bald eagle
Last edited by DMC; 11-08-2012 at 02:08 PM.
How dare you TB? I'm DEFENDING YOUR FREEDOMS*!!! RARRR!!!Besides you?
*Sure, it's mostly your cyber-freedoms, but still.... FREEDOM!
Can you make the bald eagle mascot be shedding a tear?
You're just not looking it at from a racist perspective. It makes perfect sense. Those demographics that elect democrats are not capable of being responsible according to Darrin.
I actually don't buy into some of the ideas in the OP that we're cut along party lines for a lot of the issues you assume we are.
Also, I don't think as many people as you think were voting for the lesser of two evils.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/ba...-approval.aspx
Over half the country currently approves of what Obama is doing. Its been steadily rising for awhile now.
I knew you guys would hear a dog whistle.
Yeah, it was pretty weak.
I knew you would make racist posts.
Issues that I think members of both parties could get behind:
Reducing the amount of people in jail - America jails far more of its citizens than many other nations. We could reduce this number by decriminalizing marijuana in many areas, as well as reducing things such as the "Three strikes" law. We could also reduce the amount of jailtime.
Reducing tax loopholes - This would be sticky, as loopholes are in there because someone paid for them. But we could probably eliminate subsidies that don't affect a great number of people. (Like, ones that allow people to get free golf carts, for instance)
Reforming social security/Medicare - As people get older and older, the numbers don't work out well in favor of this. Opt-out privatization might be a valid choice, as might be extending the retirement age (perhaps by staggering/grandfathering the law, slowly pushing it up a few years in certain increments of time)
Having an honest conversation about what we want our military capabilities to be - Do we want to be the world police? And if so, are we willing to fund it?
Climate change + related policies - I know, red party and blue party don't agree much here. However, we could make concessions. If red team thinks that warming is part of a natural cycle, and there's nothing we can do about it, can't we at least look at what consequences might come of warming and try to come up with some plans? And blue team, if you can't convince enough of the electorate that warming is man-made, what about looking at smaller goals that might lead to less man-made climate change? Cap and trade, carbon tax, and things of that nature.
^ solid post.
Oh, another huge thing that the Republican party won't touch today:
Since the 80's or so, the top percentile has gained incredibly, whereas the middle class has been stagnant. Given this, it only seems to make sense that said middle class would look to government as a buffer, or ask that taxes be raised on the rich. Really, the inability of the Republican party to discuss this is amazing. (Here's a hint R party... when the middle class is doing well, they buy stuff, which is usually good for the country.)
Because they don't know what he's really doing..
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204638
Republicans take for granted that they're better at running the economy, that they spend less, etc etc without producing any relevant evidence to back up their claims. Conservatives might be better at liberals when it comes to economic knowhow, but you have to do the work. I didn't see Romney doing any work that his policies would've helped. Sorry if I have a healthy skepticism that the economy would just magically do better if there was an R at the White House instead of a D.
Good post; yes, I think a majority of Americans can find common ground on each of those issues; As a "conservative" myself, I agree that we cannot begin to live within our means without both increasing revenues and decreasing expenses. Taxes will have to go up, but better than that would be more people making more money; wealth and income increase for everyone - as much as my fellow conservatives want to fight the argument; wealth IS being concentrated; the rich pay so much of the taxes because they're making all the money!! No problem them making money, but we have to figure out why the other classes aren't, and see if there's something that can be done about it. I would hope some of my left leaning friends recognize increasing taxes on one group doesn't increase INCOME for another; and direct redistribution doesn't raise the tide. We need more people doing more productive jobs, and getting paid for that production. There is enough data to suggest "trickle down" doesn't trickle (can be shot if you're a Republican) - but our new party won't need to be hampered with having to stick to any previously committed to ideology.
Mouse, are you listening?
Nevermind; this is a party looking forward; we're positive.
In fact, if everything goes as planned Harvard will have a course in 2145: PoliSci 645 - "Which was more important to the evolution of America, The Federalist Papers, or The Responsible Party Thread"
Issues that I think members of both parties could get behind:
Reducing the amount of people in jail - America jails far more of its citizens than many other nations. We could reduce this number by decriminalizing marijuana in many areas, as well as reducing things such as the "Three strikes" law. We could also reduce the amount of jailtime.
Reducing tax loopholes - This would be sticky, as loopholes are in there because someone paid for them. But we could probably eliminate subsidies that don't affect a great number of people. (Like, ones that allow people to get free golf carts, for instance
Reforming social security/Medicare - As people get older and older, the numbers don't work out well in favor of this. Opt-out privatization might be a valid choice, as might be extending the retirement age (perhaps by staggering/grandfathering the law, slowly pushing it up a few years in certain increments of time)
Having an honest conversation about what we want our military capabilities to be - Do we want to be the world police? And if so, are we willing to fund it?
Climate change + related policies - I know, red party and blue party don't agree much here. However, we could make concessions. If red team thinks that warming is part of a natural cycle, and there's nothing we can do about it, can't we at least look at what consequences might come of warming and try to come up with some plans? And blue team, if you can't convince enough of the electorate that warming is man-made, what about looking at smaller goals that might lead to less man-made climate change? Cap and trade, carbon tax, and things of that nature.
Kum-Bay-Ya
Thanks.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
