Do you think we need a good centrist third party in the US?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Not my puppy, Dec 24, 2008.

?

Do you think we need a good centrist third party in the US?

Poll closed Feb 2, 2009.
  1. No, the liberals should be in charge of government.

    2 vote(s)
    13.3%
  2. No, the conservatives should be in charge of government.

    1 vote(s)
    6.7%
  3. A strong centrist third party would benefit the country even if it couldn’t win.

    14 vote(s)
    93.3%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Darn those Axis countries!

    - N
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    A good centrist party in the US would be somewhat to the left, and quite bit more libertarian, than the either of the two standing Parties.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Sure and it might even happen one day, when technology allows citizens to vote on each issue. Although I am not sure about the wisdom of that...

    Right now it is already happening when people vote on referandums and so on.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. White Rhyno Registered Member

    Messages:
    34
    There already is one...
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    The problem with centrism

    The problem with centrism is the bane of democracy. People don't always want to play by the rules. For instance, centrism as it stands now:

    • Torture is kinda sorta okay.
    • Civil rights are for some.
    • We're a capitalist society; now bail us out.
    • Equality means my group is superior.​

    An example of what this kind of drift brings might well be my father. Philosophically, he had certain sound principles. But in practice, he found himself always making compromises. His views of business were out of date, so the capitalism he advocated in my youth was not actually what he thought it was. And one of his social-conservative ideas was that it was okay to compromise our rights. For instance, he thought Miranda went too far, that criminals shouldn't have rights. This particular lesson had elements that seemed like a fair compromise until I finally learned the story of Miranda rights. I don't wonder why people prefer to push morals instead of teach history; I just don't think it's wise.

    Fast forward over a decade. When I found out I had a warrant stemming from a failure to appear on a charge that ... well, it's a messy story. But he came to town, threw down a stack of cash, and hired me a lawyer. After our first meeting with the lawyer, we were walking back to the car and he actually recalled those former principles. And he said, "To be honest, I'd rather have a shark."

    And we did. A pretty good one. The gallery laughed during my hearings, the charges were eventually dropped. The only mistake he made through that process two other lawyers made, too, so I'm not unsettled at all. But in the end, after all his high-minded principles, it was only when it was his own son that he figured out that not every accused is guilty, and, well, for all he spat on the notion of lawyers when I was younger, he realized that the sharks do serve a purpose in society.

    And in truth, that's puzzling. I'd never seen that side of him, willing to fight with every tool at hand. My charge occupied a strange gray zone, and he actually seemed to enjoy when either the lawyer or I would explain bizarre things like why certain evidence doesn't matter. It would have been interesting to actually get that one to trial, but I'm happy to have not had to be a guinea pig.

    The moral of the story is that popular compromises—originally struck in order to censor heavy metal, or see one more bad guy convicted at whatever risk ... he was actually one of those who said, "Well, you only need to worry about it if you break the law."

    Somewhere along the line, he figured out that it isn't true. And the problem is that if we wait for all of the "centrists" to find a specific personal cause to pull them one direction or another off the fence, we'll be stuck at square one forever.

    The fact that Bush and Cheney were not impeached should make a point. The fact that there are some on both sides of the aisle that think it would be better for everyone if there was no further investigation or prosecution of American war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terror should make a point. The state of Wall Street—where America's brightest minds congregate in higher than usual numbers—should make a point. That pop-culture icons would elevate the Mumbai attacks to the level of civil disobedience in order to discredit their chosen domestic foes should make a point.

    To use a grotesque exaggeration: God and Jesus want to save us. Satan wants us to suffer. What is the centrist position? (Salvation for some, suffering for others; what are the criteria, if not aesthetic?)

    That two opposing positions exist does not inherently demand a middle ground for compromise. The problem with centrism is that it runs a risk of pandering to injustice in order to make what is, ultimately, an empty gesture of "fairness". Case in point? Barack Obama should mollify the right wing by inviting a prominent bigot to give the invocation at his inauguration. People on both sides of the aisle are upset, which actually makes it a great centrist move.

    But that doesn't mean it's not stupid.
     
  9. Not my puppy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    The vote is pointing toward a strong conclusion favoring more representation toward the center. Will it happen or does the press now decide matters of popular opinion?

    Voting open until 2/2/2009
     
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I think the Democrats are the most centrist of the two parties now and have been over the course of the last sixteen years.
     
  11. Not my puppy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    A new centrist party, not the Democrat party or the Republican party, is the issue. The people who would make up the new party would not be Democrats or Republicans. They would be Centrists.

    Those issues that divide the people would be issues that Centrists would take the middle ground on.

    The Centrists would say it is up to the individual to decide for themselves on the divisive issues. That would leave the important national issues as the deciding factors in a national election.

    At the state and local level the same approach would be in effect.

    Think of how much special interest money that would remove from the campaign coffers. Maybe candidate's positions on the real issues would actually determine an election.

    Please vote in the poll.
     
  12. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I think you guys should lose the whole Republican/Democrat thing and just let parties run on their own. After the election the largest party picks one or more other parties until they have the required points.
    The rest of the parties get a number of chairs in the opposition relative to the amount of points they got.
     
  13. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Who needs a New Centrist party? We already have one....
     
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I don't like political parties period, anything we can do to dilute the power of 2 dominant political parties in The United States is a good thing me thinks.
     
  15. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Me either.
     
  16. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    We don't need three parties, just one good one. Right now we have two shitty ones.
     
  17. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    More centrist. There are only two of them. And it isn't saying much.


    ...D..................................Center......................................R

    Hard to brag about that ^^^
     
  18. mikenostic Stop pretending you're smart! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,624
    I spent 3 years in Germany. I highly doubt they are happier than Americans.
    The cost of living in Germany is about equivalent to the Monterrey/San Fran area of California (one of the most expensive places in the U.S. to live).
    While I love Germany, it's crowded, cramped, very expensive and have quite a few stupid ass laws that would never fly here in the U.S. (getting a ticket for giving someone the finger on the Autobahn is a prime example).

    Oh, and aside from maybe Kia or Hyunk-o-shitdai, every car maker makes better cars than American cars.

    And we don't need two parties in the U.S., let alone three. We need only one party, that's the common sense one. Why categorize yourself with either party, when both parties have their advantages and shortcomings. Why not take the best from both of them, discard the worst, combine them into one party, then everybody get the fuck along with one another.
     
  19. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    I started a political party a few years ago. I really wish it would pick up some steam.

    It is called the "Anti-Incumbent" party.

    Please join. Our only official party platform is Term Limits. Beyond that, you can choose whoever you like. Once politicians learn that they are NEVER re-elected, and start spending their entire time working for us instead of working to keep their jobs, we can move onto other issues.

    Politicians should not be lawyers, they should have a few lawyers on their team in an advisory role. Politicians should be teachers, farmers, foremen, construction workers, doctors, pilots, students, etc... Once we get enough people in the AI party, political service will become more like Jury Duty. Something you go do for a few years and then come back to your community.
     
  20. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    You are an idiot, talking non-sense...
     
  21. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    Excellent job of countering his claims.
     
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Personal experiences means nothing when talking about nations. In short a sample of 1 for a population of millions or billions.
     
  23. tim840 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,653
    The two parties we have now are really coalitions of these varied groups. If we split them up, we would end up with a multidude of weak, feckless parties serving small cliques and special interests. The reason our party system works is because they encompass such a wide spectrum of people; they adapt to the people they represent, which is why, in New York, you get very moderate Republicans like Rudy Giuliani, whereas in Alaska you get far-right Republicans like Sarah Palin. The Democrats and Republicans arent homogenous groups. A libertarian, a social conservative, a fiscal conservative, an environmentalist, and a moderate might all end up in the GOP (and similarly for the Dems). Both parties contain rich, middle class and poor. Both parties contain whites and minorities. Thats because they represent such a wide range of views and are so flexible that people feel like they arent constrained to follow party line.

    Hitler came to power when a huge number of parties were existent in Germany.

    No. Governments need a single strong figure to lead them. This leader provides a sense of direction and energy, and gives a face to the government. Look at the Directory in France, turn of the 19th century. Napoleon took over because the oligarchic system was ineffective.
     

Share This Page