It seems to me that our country is dominated by crazy idealogues. We've got crazy idealogues on the left saying one crazy thing, and then crazy idealogues on the right saying the opposite thing, half the time just for the sake of disagreeing with each other.
Then all the third parties manage to take the craziest ideas from one party and combine them with the craziest ideas from the other party and out-crazy everybody. (Libertarians = Legalize drugs and set the corporations free! What the crap?)
The system is set up, I think, in the hope that by pulling from both extremes, we'll land somewhere in the middle, where it's less crazy. But lately, as we've become more centrifuged and more idealogically divided, it has turned into more of a war than a compromise. Each side scrambles for its little piece of turf, and when they get it, they try to make the biggest mess they can before the other side takes it back.
Can't we have a third party that is all about the exciting new prospect of telling everybody else to shut up? If there is a real place for flaming moderates, I could sure use a spot to sit down.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
So basically it would be just like one of the current parties, except with a psych evaluation on the application form. Obviously not going anywhere in terms of numerical success, but let's address the broader claim: are voices on the fringe of society a negative influence? I say no. If I were only able to define my views in relationship to mainstream examples, they would not be as strong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Thw problem, Geoff, is that I think you'd be hard-pressed to identify univerally "moderate" positions; that was the difficulty the LAST time this was suggested on this board.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
WEird... The other day I was thinking that it wouldn't be a bad idea to legalize marijuana at least... And tax it high... Use the high taxes to support things like education and social programs. But, mostly I was having one of my odd days adn I had just seen Blow.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Crazyness makes things interesting
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Dude, Geoff. I wish I had thought of that.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote: Use the High tax (on Marijuana)
Was that pun on purpose?
Moderation in all things has two problems.
1) Most extremists think they are moderates, and they call everyone center of them Extreme. If you asked "Is Gay Marriage an extreme idea or a moderate one." that question would go to 14 pages here on Hatrack.
2) Extreme = Passion. That is not to say there are no passionate moderates, but all extremists are passionate so they more readilly turn their passions into headlines and political power.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Dan:"Most extremists think they are moderates, and they call everyone center of them Extreme."
That may be so, but the question is really much easier to answer than that. If you can look at the pet ideas of both the liberals and the conservatives, and think they are both too radical, you can be sure you are a moderate.
However, if you are (for instance) a Republican, and think you are a moderate, and yet think the extreme positions are represented by the Democrats on the left and the now-defunct Nazis on the right, you are just delusional. The extremes aren't merely hypothetical. They are real and contemporary. In other words, if you look around and can't spot the current extreme position on either the left or the right, then it is probably the position you yourself are taking.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Oh, I don't disagree. However, announcing yourself as the Moderate party will get you called extreme from both ends.
Do you think any Pro-Choice group would not call you a dangerous extreme if you promote any limitations on abortion? Do you think the Pro-Life groups would not call you a dangerous extreme if you would allow any abortions at all?
Do you think Rush would hesitate to call you Liberal Extremists if you do not agree with all of his ideals? Do you think PETA would not call you dangerous nazi extremists unless you agree to all of their ideals?
Moderate is a word who's definition is open to who ever gets thier meme out their the loudest and strongest.
It can be done. I would love to help. It is not, either easy, nor self-evident.
Posted by Han (Member # 2685) on :
1) A third party will have little to no influence without radical changes to our electoral structure. First past the post single-member districts lead to a two-party system. Instead of whining about how neither party adopts all of your positions, work with the one that's closer to enact some of the policies you want. Or work for constitutional change (as a crazy idealogue).
2) Just because you choose only to notice the "crazy idealogues" does not mean that they are the only people involved. Governments across the country are managing to muddle through and conduct the people's business with more or less the usual mixture of compromise, conflict, efficiency, and incompetence, and the nation hasn't fallen apart yet. If you think the nation is on the brink of falling apart, feel free to give us your specific reasons why--but be aware that you'll probably be labeled a crazy idealogue for thinking something that is by no means obvious to most others.
3) Don't confuse elections and electoral politics with governance and policymaking. The move toward the permanent campaign has not yet eradicated the need for the latter.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*taps thread mic*
"Is this thing still on?"
Rat?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
My husband calls this the 80% party. We mainly talk about the NRA and Planned Parenthood as being the outlying 10%s. I tend to think of certain groups as the total wacko fringe. On the left would be (in my opinion) total redefinition of the family and on the right would be folks who think the second coming is pretty soon so it doesn't matter what we do to the environment.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Pooka,
Since you posted (my apologies for haunting the lively threads). Do you think a 3rd party is necessary? useful?
You seem to agree about the polarization of idealoogies (pardon: I just really like that particular word-play, adolescent in origin as it is)
fallow
Posted by Stone Manga (Member # 6579) on :
There ought to be only one party
...... Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't like the "winner takes all" system. In some countries, the composition of the legislature is based on the percentage that the various parties took in the actual election.
It helps foster the "win at any cost" mentality that OSC complained about in a recent world watch article. I think it was "How can Americans do such a thing".
I also dislike polls. I was able to take one once toward the end of the Clinton administration and I think they really stink in terms of trying to make it look like something rather extreme is moderate.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
pooka,
I know what you mean.
Polls look/sound like tests.
Forgetting your own voice, though, do you think that polling enough people, in theory, would produce a more-or-less correct societal result? (This is sort of a political-policy-meets-economic-efficiency idea).
fallow
(edit: PS. The idea being that if a large enough group actually votes that the best course of action for the whole will be decided?)
[ June 02, 2004, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: fallow ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Maybe my sarcasm meter is fried, but I don't see what Planned Parenthood and the NRA have to do with the family and/or environment.
The more I think about this proposal, the less sense it makes. The only upside I see being argued is that U.S. policy would be more consistent over time. That might be a good thing if instability was leading to shaky investments and such, but for now I think it's more important to be correct than invariant.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
It's true that there is lots of discrepancy in the kinds of bills that routinely get drafted, raved about, and discarded. But when it comes to floor votes, where's the beef? A large number of Democrats voted for Iraq, the Patriot Act, the DMCA, welfare reform, partial-birth abortion, NAFTA, etc. A large number of Republicans voted for SS drug benefits, campaign-finance reform, the ADA, etc.
In sum, I'm much more afraid of the power of the majority than I am of fringe groups.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*fallow steps out in spaghetti-stained tux*
*curtains rise*
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you..."
"The chief evocative obfuscate of the Planned Parenthood's Rifle Association..."
*whispers into mic*
"richard burg!*
*fallow bows and exits stage left... no right... scrambles... pulls self behind speaker*
*upROARious applause*
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Inadvertantly or not, fallow points out that it really IS funny to put those on polar opposites. Both groups are lobbying to keep the government from regulating matters that their opposition claim to encompass life & death.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*mumbles behind speakers*
"Life and Death are petty goals and petty costs in the pursuit of which we're after, eh Richie?"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Most extremists think they are moderates, and they call everyone center of them Extreme.
The more I think about it, the more the word "moderate" just ends up meaning "What I (whoever the "I" is) think is reasonable.
Let's take the ubiquitious topic -- gay marriage. The current extreme views seem to be "Gay marriage should be allowed, and should legally be no different from traditional marriage" and "Gay marriage should not be allowed in any form".
But neither side thinks of itself as extreme. The pro gay marriage side says to themselves that they aren't trying to force anything on anybody. As Jon Stewart said, as long as nobody has to marry gay, then why would would you care that others do it? You can keep your anti-homsexual religion, and you can keep your heterosexual marriages. That's fine. Just let *us* get married just like you get to. It won't hurt you, and it will actually help us be a *more* stable unit of society. Isn't that what you want -- a stable, family-centered society?
But then the other side says to themselves that they aren't trying to take away a single right from homosexuals. It's not like we are trying to keep them out of public service, or keep them from voting, owning a car, living in our neighborhoods, or anything like that. We just don't want them to make up new "rights" that nobody has had before, and claim them as the same as the other "rights" that have stood for centuries.
Neither side seems extreme to themselves, and both sides can say "I'm not extreme. No this -- this would be extreme." Furthermore, both sides see a moderate position such as "Homosexual civil unions should be implemented" as an extreme position to be fought against.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:But then the other side says to themselves that they aren't trying to take away a single right from homosexuals. It's not like we are trying to keep them out of public service, or keep them from voting, owning a car, living in our neighborhoods, or anything like that. We just don't want them to make up new "rights" that nobody has had before, and claim them as the same as the other "rights" that have stood for centuries.
I more or less agree with the gist of your post -- that neither side considers itself extreme -- but I'd like to comment on the inanity of this point. You are effectively denying homosexuals equality with every other citizen by denying them the right to marry the person they love. True, you're not taking any rights away from them -- you're just denying the rights homosexuals have never had. Similarly, by supporting slavery not too long ago, you weren't actually taking any rights away from black people -- they never had the "right" to be equal in the first place! We'll let them keep the rights they've had standing for centuries!
Your claim that homosexuals are already equal and just "[making] up new 'rights'" is laughable -- or maybe you'd prefer to say the same if the tables were turned all all homosexual marriages were legal and given civil benefits, but heterosexual "marriages" were not? Maybe, kinda sorta inequality there? Possibly?
I mean, heh, christ...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lalo, if civil recognition of marriage is viewed as a framework to support the natural human reproductive process in what society has deemed to be the "optimum" manner, then extending it to homosexuals would be a new right, because the existing right isn't about "marrying the person you love." It's about society catering to the institution that provides new little taxpayers.
Doesn't change my opinion on the subject, but it's not a prima facie ridiculous way to view the topic.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:... I'd like to comment on the inanity of this point....
Your claim that homosexuals are already equal and just "[making] up new 'rights'" is laughable -- or maybe you'd prefer to say the same if the tables were turned all all homosexual marriages were legal and given civil benefits, but heterosexual "marriages" were not? Maybe, kinda sorta inequality there? Possibly?
This hilights the point I was trying to make. Both sides view the middle-ground as extreme, and the other side as so extreme as to be beyond reason, and should be ridiculed.
[ June 02, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This has gotten me thinking about some issues that have come up here recently. On many issues, there is a binary choice. Take gay marriage, for instance. Either gay marriage will be allowed or it won't. If the "middle" position of civil unions is chosen, the unions will either have all the true civil benefits of marriage and therefore come to thought of as marriages by most Americans, or they will not have the same benefits and will not resolve the issue any more than current legal options for forming gay couples have.
So there is no "middle position" here. However, people on either side of the binary choice can be moderates, even though they advocate an extreme (in the sense opposite and incompatible with the other) view. This moderation would appear in how an advocate on one side views the advocates on the other. Someone who can see their opponent as conceivably a good person who has ethical and moral reasons underlying their viewpoint. Someone who automatically views their opponent as bigoted repressive fundamentalists or as agents trying to convert people to homosexuality would not be moderates.
The alternative view to find moderation is to view the gay marriage issue as merely one aspect of the larger gay rights issues. Extremists on one side would be those who want to marginalize homosexuals and keep them from participating in society at all. Extremists on the other side would be those who advocate laws like Canada's making statements about homosexuality as immoral a crime, or people who invade a religious service and desecrate Communion.
On the abortion issue, there is a clear divide between those who think abortion is a great enough moral wrong that it should be criminalized and those who do not. I don't think either position is in and of itself extremist. The extremists would be those who think their opponents are all trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen or those who think their opponents are trying to destroy all aspects of personal responsibility.
In other words, how you describe your opponents and their views is probably more of a statement about your own moderation than about theirs.
Dagonee
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
m_p_h
quote: This hilights the point I was trying to make.
Brilliant!
Anyway, don't we have a third "independent" party? I can't remember what post, but someone here on hatrack said he/she was going to vote her/his conscience because he/she already knew her/his state was going to vote democratic...or was it republican? hmm..
I found it odd that someone would only vote their conscience if the electorate was made sure. The problem with the independent party is that too many people think they need to choose the lesser of two evils because there is no chance the third better option will win. If EVERYONE, starting with you and me, voted our conscience, we would see a more powerful third party that influenced policy making for the public good. IMO.
Edit:
quote:The extremists would be those who think their opponents are all trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen or those who think their opponents are trying to destroy all aspects of personal responsibility.
In other words, how you describe your opponents and their views is probably more of a statement about your own moderation than about theirs.
pauses...thinks...very good insight Dagonee.
[ June 02, 2004, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's a sign of our country's generally moderate nature that the REAL extremes -- that marriage should only be available to people of a given faith, or that marriage should not be a civil institution at all -- are barely mentioned.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Most of the third choices available are even more extreme than the two main parties--Communist, Green, Libertarian, etc.
You know what I would vote for? How about the polite party. How about the party that recognizes that the other side has a point that real humans believe in, and should be accomidated or negotiated with, not tricked, ignored, lambasted, or demonized.
President Bush won the last election, but won it without a clear majority. Fine. He is still the president. However, he then proceeds to claim he had this overwhelming mandate to turn the country into a conservative Christian paradise.
Woooaaa. What about those people who voted against you? Do they mean nothing since they lost? So the Democrats have no majority in congress. Does this mean they should be totally shut out of government and ignored? Does this mean that they are the enemy? And do the democrats have to villify President Bush for every imagined flaw?
What I see as "the Balance" party is not one that seeks the moderate course, the third solution, but one that seeks to build unity within government and within the country.
"United we stand. Divided we fall" does not only mean against armies. There are other enemies our divisions allow to defeat us. That does not mean blind obeidieance to the government though. "United we stand" only works if we are united willingly, not forced into it. It only works if the stand we make is one all those united can believe in.
(edited to fix the "Untied we Stand" typo)
[ June 02, 2004, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:President Bush won the last election, but won it without a clear majority. Fine. He is still the president. However, he then proceeds to claim he had this overwhelming mandate to turn the country into a conservative Christian paradise.
Where and when did he do this?
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: So the Democrats have no majority in congress. Does this mean they should be totally shut out of government and ignored?
This has not, and cannot happen. If a president with his own party controlling congress tries anything too extreme, there will a certain amount of his own party that will vote against it, and it will fail. Of course, the more his party owns congress, the more leeway he has. And then, if the American people don't like what he does with that power, his party will lose that advantage, either by that party losing congress or losing the presidency (or both).
It's a self-correcting system.
[ June 02, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
I posted the bit about voting who I wanted to vote for, because my state will vote Democratic anyway. It's not because everyone else has already decided who to vote for that allows me to vote how I want. For me, it sets up a set of priorities: I'd rather have John McCain as an unlikely president than George Bush. I'd rather have John Kerry as a president than George Bush. I would not like George Bush to remain president. With Vermont's electoral college vote going to Kerry (as it definitely will), he will get my state's approval regardless if I chime in with that approval.
If my state were undecided, I would vote for Kerry, because I want him to win more than I want Bush to win. I would swallow my quixotic hope that if I vote for John McCain, he will either (a)become president, (b)send me a letter, thanking me for voting for him, or (c)make him want to run for president again. I wouldn't be happy if I were arm-twisted like that, but I'd be happier than living with George Bush in my White House for another four years.
Since we live in a single-member district-based country, winning an electoral college vote is all or nothing. My vote, at least in my state, doesn't matter. I can vote any way I choose, and John Kerry will get the electoral college vote. I will vote for John McCain because I think he's one of the best politicians in the country today. I liked him in the last presidential campaign, and every time I see him on C-SPAN (yes, I watch C-SPAN), I like him more. I know that there's no chance in hell that he's going to be elected, but I'm voting anyway.
I personally don't want a proportionally representative-based government, since it tends to ignore the unique interests of geographic nations in our country. If every senator and every house member were in a country-wide election (or even in a state-wide election), the interests of Vermont would quickly fall to the wayside, and our economy would collapse even farther.
EDIT: For clarity.
[ June 02, 2004, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's interesting, WheatPuppet. I also would rather see John McCain as president, even thought I would rather have Bush as opposed to Kerry.
We can't be unique. Did they miss a chance to give America a viable third option?
Of course, there was as viable third option in 1992, and it didn't seem to make any difference.
Another problem with proportionally representative-based government is that it tends to give even more power to the special interest and extreme groups.
[ June 02, 2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
The problem is that in our current electoral system, if the vote is split three or more ways, it's unclear what the will of the majority is. Proportional representative governments avoid this at the cost of ignoring geographic special interests.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
mph, all your checks and balances are systemic ones, and all very true. However, none of these really address Dan's point, I think. It's sad to me (and a blow to the Libertarian's POV, I think) that we are so willing to just appeal to faceless authority, and then in the meantime just do as much as we can get away with or spin (IOW, act however we really want, and just assume the government/constitution will sort it all out at some point).
Dan was saying we should work to go the OTHER way, to not rely on the strictures of the Constitution and we are sufficiently "polite" that we act in a spirit of comraderie. It's been quoted by various (mostly senators) that the 80s were a much more "collegiate" time for Congress. I take that to mean that there was a lot more compromise, or at least a lot more talking between the aisles.
Since then, both parties have sunk to sound bite politics, and we're left with a polarized electorate.
-Bok
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
On the contrary, mr_porteiro_head, it's what I think that is reasonable. That you think that what you think is reasonable is reasonable is extremist thinking of the extremest sort of extremist thinking. Unless you decide to agree with my reasoning above, in which case you are as reasonable as reason itself. And are invited to join the formation of the ReasonableParty formed to fight the extremism of the extremist policies of the extreme moderates of the extremely ModerateParty.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
MPH,
I'm a bit skeptical that it is a self-correcting system.
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)