Americans, What Would You Like to Change About Your Parties?

IchabodPlain · 14th June 2008, 12:54 AM

Alright, I've been an Independent most of my life (before recently changing to Republican), mostly because I'm split on the issues between them (I tend to be socially and economically liberal).

Example:
Democrats are protectionist on trade
Republicans are fence builders

Now that I am affiliated to the Republican Party, I feel it is totally my place to lay out what I would change about the party.

1. I am completely disgusted with the compassionate conservative/evangelical wing of the party. I understand the logic behind playing to them to get "value" votes, but most evangelicals are big government when it comes to economic issues, which divides the Party -- especially now that it's transparent that they aren't going to overturn Roe v. Wade. Is a constitutional amendement banning gay marriage and vacuous rhetoric about abortion enough to keep these voters from changing Parties?

2. I wish to high hell that the Republican Party of today would remember the lasting lesson of the bearer of my sig and reclaim the conservative = conservation on environmental and energy issues. McCain has done a better job of this than most, but the environmental movement of today is much different from the movement in the 70's, in that it has found the way to make conservation economical as well. Environmentally friendly, and energy-efficient products are making their way into consumer purchases at a growing rate and it is the perfect opportunity to seize upon this with a government policy that sees us importing more fuel-efficient cars (in the US we have two 40mpg cars on the market as of 2007, compared with over 100 in Europe), and offering tax deductions for energy-star rated purchases.

But this leads me to wonder; what would you change about the Major Political Parties in the US?

For background:
http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php
http://www.gop.com/images/2004platform.pdf

quixotecoyote · 14th June 2008, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

Alright, I've been an Independent most of my life (before recently changing to Republican), mostly because I'm split on the issues between them (I tend to be socially and economically liberal).

Not to derail, but if you're economically and socially liberal, why are you a republican? I think the dems are fairly obviously more socially liberal and it's arguable big-government-wise but I think they're the more liberal economically of the two.

IchabodPlain · 14th June 2008, 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Not to derail, but if you're economically and socially liberal, why are you a republican? I think the dems are fairly obviously more socially liberal and it's arguable big-government-wise but I think they're the more liberal economically of the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

ETA: I suppose I am using an arcane version of liberalism to describe myself.

shadron · 14th June 2008, 03:19 AM

Call me a stary-eyed idealist, but what I would most like to change about both is their god-awful (good term!) must-win attitude. There are times when the pendulum swings, and to insist on winning above all else when the pendulum is not in your yard is not only a classic fail but a guaranteed lose of integrity in the effort. There is much to be said about a loyal opposition and grace in loosing that the parties need to take to heart. Yes, that means that some political careers have to go into eclipse at times, and perhaps there will be more turnover of experienced politicians as against those who are not so experienced in beltway politics, but I don't think that is an evil thing.

Every novelist who mentions about Washington in the periphery of his writing does so, as far as I can determine, citing the absolute corruption , the cynicism and basically hateful way of the area. No one sees elected government service as a healthy environment, and I don't think that's right.

As I said, an idealist, but you asked. I'd sure like to see the high road once in a while. Neither party appears capable of it.

shadron · 14th June 2008, 03:32 AM

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

2. I wish to high hell that the Republican Party of today would remember the lasting lesson of the bearer of my sig and reclaim the conservative = conservation on environmental and energy issues. McCain has done a better job of this than most, but the environmental movement of today is much different from the movement in the 70's, in that it has found the way to make conservation economical as well.

There was a time, in the administrations of Eisenhower and Nixon (heaven help me) that environmentalism wasn't a nastified word like "liberal" was made to be. Both of those worthies supported conservation efforts - they extended funding of National Parks, they invested in scientific research on alternatives, even though the requirement that they do so (mainly OPEC and oil-countries' economic solidarity) was not yet a glimmer. The Kennedy, Johnson and Carter administrations further promoted conservation and research. Only when Reagan was elected was that research and environmental support deemed to be anti-business, and unworthy of government support. As much as I like a lot of what Reagan did, his turn-around of emphasis on this one point set the country's efforts to become energy independent back almost 30 years now, and set the gold standard for the Republican party. Conservation and research was equated with wasteful Liberals, and the rest is history.

In a person anecdote, I was working in solar energy at the time (Carter administration) for a major aerospace firm. They (the industrial side of the M-I complex) were competing to create pilot solar power plants and doing practical engineering research. They had four major contracts - one with Spain, the rest in the US - and a plethora of IRADs (Independent Research and Development projects) in work. In the months after Reagan won election the word was being passed that there would not be any follow-on work after them. All the IRADs dried up as the company read the writing on he wall. The projects were delivered, and the company division closed down. The largest project, placed in Dagget, CA was run for 5 years, and then decommissioned as economically non-feasible by the customer. And they were right, it was, but then it was a pilot project - and it went to no avail. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=3...14269&t=k&z=16

So I agree with you, Ichabod, on that count (actually on the other as well, but I'm still an independent, so I'll not lean on that). Great thread.

Oliver · 14th June 2008, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

But this leads me to wonder; what would you change about the Major Political Parties in the US?

I would introduce a regulation into the "Communications Act of 2008" that instructs the obligation to air a balanced share of political ads during elections from all parties in the United States, prohibiting commercialization of election-ads that does nothing but limiting the democratic process and swepts third parties under the commercial carpet.

After all, there is a reason why so many feel they have to choose between the lesser of two evils - and this reason is that the big 2 parties, as you pointed out, are devided based on their inner wings - and the third parties are pretty much ridiculed. So many people end up like you: "I have no real choice".

Also the Delegate-system and nomination-process is completely out of date. Presidential candidates should register ONCE at federal level if they choose to run - and after that they should be on all states ballots automatically without having trouble with stupid individual state-election laws, which is nothing but chicanery anyway.

And voters shouldn't have to register to a party to vote. They should be registered automatically to vote for whatever party they like, for example via their social security card/-number.

WildCat · 14th June 2008, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

I would introduce a regulation into the "Communications Act of 2008" that instructs the obligation to air a balanced share of political ads during elections from all parties in the United States, prohibiting commercialization of election-ads that does nothing but limiting the democratic process and swepts third parties under the commercial carpet.

After all, there is a reason why so many feel they have to choose between the lesser of two evils - and this reason is that the big 2 parties, as you pointed out, are devided based on their inner wings - and the third parties are pretty much ridiculed. So many people end up like you: "I have no real choice".

Also the Delegate-system and nomination-process is completely out of date. Presidential candidates should register ONCE at federal level if they choose to run - and after that they should be on all states ballots automatically without having trouble with stupid individual state-election laws, which is nothing but chicanery anyway.

And voters shouldn't have to register to a party to vote. They should be registered automatically to vote for whatever party they like, for example via their social security card/-number.

Sorry Oliver, please try to stay on the topic. this is about what you would change about the political parties, not how you would rewrite the Constitution to make Ron Paul leader for life.

KoihimeNakamura · 14th June 2008, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Oliver

I would introduce a regulation into the "Communications Act of 2008" that instructs the obligation to air a balanced share of political ads during elections from all parties in the United States, prohibiting commercialization of election-ads that does nothing but limiting the democratic process and swepts third parties under the commercial carpet.

You mean, you'd amend the constitution to remove Freedom of the Press?

Quote:

After all, there is a reason why so many feel they have to choose between the lesser of two evils - and this reason is that the big 2 parties, as you pointed out, are devided based on their inner wings - and the third parties are pretty much ridiculed. So many people end up like you: "I have no real choice".

Well, when they present an attractive neough pattern to enough people, they have a choice. Until then, I will just note that Americans unlike Europeans tend to vote by the one element in the party they like. Also, for third parties to really work, we'd need a Parlimentary System.

Quote:

Also the Delegate-system and nomination-process is completely out of date. Presidential candidates should register ONCE at federal level if they choose to run - and after that they should be on all states ballots automatically without having trouble with stupid individual state-election laws, which is nothing but chicanery anyway.

Sorry, there's this principle called federalism. In addition, it would require rewritting the Constitution

(As for delegateS? That's up to the individual party. Fail.)

Quote:

And voters shouldn't have to register to a party to vote. They should be registered automatically to vote for whatever party they like, for example via their social security card/-number.

They don't have to in national elections.

Now, for what I'd change about the Democratic Party

1. I'd not have them so paranoid of big buisness. Sometimes, it's entirely right to suspect multinationals, but they take it to an absurd edge. (Or, yes, companies like Enron exist, but we shouldn't suspect say, General Motors of doing the same thing without evidence.)

2. GROW A SPINE.

3. Stop being so paranoid of nuclear power. Both times something went wrong were minor, and Chernobyl was when they disarmed every safeguard system ever. If you modernize our reactors, and add more, we wouldn't be so dependent on coal and oil.

4. Look, I realize things can go badly wrong with offshore oil. But can you at least give a reason besides 'it hurts the environment'? Most oil companies now have a vested interest in not doing that - the fines are large.

5. Re 2: If you want to get rid of the Patriot Act.. stop the war.. other things.. take the appeal to the people in more than just empty rhetoric by TRYING. Sure, Bush and the Republicans may vote it down. But if you try, you might just get a bit more approval, and you at least tried.

Policenaut · 14th June 2008, 06:43 PM

How about both parties stop wasting time in Congress? They screw around with ******** instead of legislation, take vacations way too often, and ignore important issues all the while taking pot shots at one another like it is the end goal of a congressman to belittle the other side.

Madalch · 14th June 2008, 07:56 PM

I saw this as, "What would you change about your panties?"

geni · 14th June 2008, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Tokorona

1. I'd not have them so paranoid of big buisness. Sometimes, it's entirely right to suspect multinationals, but they take it to an absurd edge. (Or, yes, companies like Enron exist, but we shouldn't suspect say, General Motors of doing the same thing without evidence.)

The market reduced thier debts to junk bond status at one point. I'm not sure that is a good sign.

geni · 14th June 2008, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Policenaut

How about both parties stop wasting time in Congress? They screw around with ******** instead of legislation, take vacations way too often, and ignore important issues all the while taking pot shots at one another like it is the end goal of a congressman to belittle the other side.

It is. Those short 2 year terms mean that the spend the vast majority of the time in campain mode and the system of checks and blances means that taking pot shots and passing feelgood motions has a better risk reward ratio than trying to pass serious legislation.

IchabodPlain · 15th June 2008, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by shadron

Call me a stary-eyed idealist, but what I would most like to change about both is their god-awful (good term!) must-win attitude. There are times when the pendulum swings, and to insist on winning above all else when the pendulum is not in your yard is not only a classic fail but a guaranteed lose of integrity in the effort. There is much to be said about a loyal opposition and grace in loosing that the parties need to take to heart. Yes, that means that some political careers have to go into eclipse at times, and perhaps there will be more turnover of experienced politicians as against those who are not so experienced in beltway politics, but I don't think that is an evil thing.

Every novelist who mentions about Washington in the periphery of his writing does so, as far as I can determine, citing the absolute corruption , the cynicism and basically hateful way of the area. No one sees elected government service as a healthy environment, and I don't think that's right.

As I said, an idealist, but you asked. I'd sure like to see the high road once in a while. Neither party appears capable of it.

[idealist]

It isn't so much that I want the parties not to adopt a must-win attitude, so much as I want them to recognize and admit failures, and say "Hey, I screwed up.". I am fine with the competition, I just want integrity.

[idealist/]

Quote:

In a person anecdote, I was working in solar energy at the time (Carter administration) for a major aerospace firm. They (the industrial side of the M-I complex) were competing to create pilot solar power plants and doing practical engineering research. They had four major contracts - one with Spain, the rest in the US - and a plethora of IRADs (Independent Research and Development projects) in work. In the months after Reagan won election the word was being passed that there would not be any follow-on work after them. All the IRADs dried up as the company read the writing on he wall. The projects were delivered, and the company division closed down. The largest project, placed in Dagget, CA was run for 5 years, and then decommissioned as economically non-feasible by the customer. And they were right, it was, but then it was a pilot project - and it went to no avail. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=3...14269&t=k&z=16

Cool. I completely agree with your assessment of Reagan. I liked much of his economic policy but his stance on the environment (and the WoD) was appalling.

I am half-tempted to start a solar power thread now, but I'll save it for another time.

Newtons Bit · 15th June 2008, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Policenaut

How about both parties stop wasting time in Congress? They screw around with ******** instead of legislation, take vacations way too often, and ignore important issues all the while taking pot shots at one another like it is the end goal of a congressman to belittle the other side.

What you want to do is change how VOTERS think, not how the parties work.

IchabodPlain · 15th June 2008, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Tokorona

Well, when they present an attractive neough pattern to enough people, they have a choice. Until then, I will just note that Americans unlike Europeans tend to vote by the one element in the party they like. Also, for third parties to really work, we'd need a Parlimentary System.

I know you were responding to someone else, but I wanted to avoid Parliamentary discussion. Primarily, my reasoning is it is a lot easier to change the party than it is to change the system.

Quote:

1. I'd not have them so paranoid of big buisness. Sometimes, it's entirely right to suspect multinationals, but they take it to an absurd edge. (Or, yes, companies like Enron exist, but we shouldn't suspect say, General Motors of doing the same thing without evidence.)

That is probably the #1 thing I would like to see change in the Democratic Party. It's an easy vote-getter to blame big, bad corporations for all of our woes, but I think it is vitally destructive. For one, they usually aren't usually the evil culprit they are made out to be, but I also think it gives people an excuse to feel powerless. "Oh, there's nothing I can do about the price of gas, exxon and GM made it so. They fixed the price so they could make profits".

Quote:

2. GROW A SPINE.

Heh.

Quote:

3. Stop being so paranoid of nuclear power. Both times something went wrong were minor, and Chernobyl was when they disarmed every safeguard system ever. If you modernize our reactors, and add more, we wouldn't be so dependent on coal and oil.

4. Look, I realize things can go badly wrong with offshore oil. But can you at least give a reason besides 'it hurts the environment'? Most oil companies now have a vested interest in not doing that - the fines are large.

Yes, definitely.

Quote:

5. Re 2: If you want to get rid of the Patriot Act.. stop the war.. other things.. take the appeal to the people in more than just empty rhetoric by TRYING. Sure, Bush and the Republicans may vote it down. But if you try, you might just get a bit more approval, and you at least tried.

Wow, Tokorona, we are 5 for 5 here

. The only thing I would add is that I dislike the protectionist stance on trade by many Democrats. Trade strengthens ties between allies (or would-be allies) and improves the standard of living for the countries involved, even if it causes some short-term harm at home.

Kerberos · 15th June 2008, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Tokorona

Well, when they present an attractive neough pattern to enough people, they have a choice. Until then, I will just note that Americans unlike Europeans tend to vote by the one element in the party they like. Also, for third parties to really work, we'd need a Parlimentary System.

No you'd need proportional representation, that's a completely different thing.

KoihimeNakamura · 15th June 2008, 05:05 PM

The way Congress works, I'm not sure that'd work without a change or reason to work together.

IchabodPlain: After seeing the wreck NAFTA and other freetrade deals have made of several fields? I feel a limited protectionism policy is worth it. But yes, the edge they talk that.. *sighs*

In any case, yeah. I don't get the congressional dems at all at times. If they ran on this platform, why don't they just do it?

Rob Lister · 16th June 2008, 05:27 AM

The parties.

Ziggurat · 16th June 2008, 08:13 AM

Less cake, more pastries.

Ysidro · 16th June 2008, 10:20 AM

More women, less clothing.

jj · 16th June 2008, 10:52 AM

I just want a party that socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and that gives two (bleeps) about civil liberties.

Mister Agenda · 16th June 2008, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by jj

I just want a party that socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and that gives two (bleeps) about civil liberties.

You mean what the Libertarian Party SHOULD be?

jj · 16th June 2008, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

You mean what the Libertarian Party SHOULD be?

Socially liberal implies things like healthcare, firemen, policemen, an army, and welfare for those who can not work.

So no, it's hardly a libertarian position.

luchog · 17th June 2008, 02:51 PM

Well, I'm not a member of any party; but I'm probably closest to the Libertarians, so what I'd like to see for the LP:
1) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs.
2) Ditch the ridiculous revolutionist attitude, and move to a gradualist position, focussing on the battles that are winnable now, and save the grand schemes for the future when you actually have the ability and support for them. Stop driving away your supporters with this all-or-nothing nonsense.
3) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs.
4) Get some candidates who actually have some political savvy, and a realistic idea about how the world works. Harry Browne was a decent candidate; but he was the last decent candidate you idiots managed to produce. Stop driving away your supporters with moonbat nominees.
5) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs.
6) Repeat after me: "Minarchist, not Anarchist", "Independence, not Isolationism", "Constitutional test for all proposals, even your own", and "Progress is made in small steps in a focussed direction, not great leaps at random".
7) STOP PANDERING TO *#!&$*ING FRINGE NUTJOBS! No single-issue idiots, no drooling potheads, no whacko tax protesters, no anarcho-capitalists, no radical Randroids, no conspiracy-theorist moonbats; no extremists of any sort, regardless. You don't need them, and they'll only hurt your cause in the long run.

IchabodPlain · 18th June 2008, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by luchog

Well, I'm not a member of any party; but I'm probably closest to the Libertarians, so what I'd like to see for the LP:
1) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs.
2) Ditch the ridiculous revolutionist attitude, and move to a gradualist position, focussing on the battles that are winnable now, and save the grand schemes for the future when you actually have the ability and support for them. Stop driving away your supporters with this all-or-nothing nonsense.
3) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs.
4) Get some candidates who actually have some political savvy, and a realistic idea about how the world works. Harry Browne was a decent candidate; but he was the last decent candidate you idiots managed to produce. Stop driving away your supporters with moonbat nominees.
5) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs.
6) Repeat after me: "Minarchist, not Anarchist", "Independence, not Isolationism", "Constitutional test for all proposals, even your own", and "Progress is made in small steps in a focussed direction, not great leaps at random".
7) STOP PANDERING TO *#!&$*ING FRINGE NUTJOBS! No single-issue idiots, no drooling potheads, no whacko tax protesters, no anarcho-capitalists, no radical Randroids, no conspiracy-theorist moonbats; no extremists of any sort, regardless. You don't need them, and they'll only hurt your cause in the long run.

Absolutely. I often find myself being asked "so, are you a libertarian?" because of some of my political views, and I always have to disassociate myself with libertarians; mostly because they're such fringe nutjobs!

Abolish the FDA? What?
Abolish the Dept of Education? Huh?
Abolish the National Parks System? Go to the corner.

If the libertarian movement was much more moderate, I might possibly support them.

Darth Rotor · 18th June 2008, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

But this leads me to wonder; what would you change about the Major Political Parties in the US?

Being a closet green,

I'd only invite strippers who have not been surgically adjusted to my political parties.

My major political parties tend to be when we have some of the guys over and shoot at pictures of politicians with BB guns in the back yard, burn some meat on the grill, and suck down beer and whiskey.

That's a political party more folks can enjoy.

Beerina · 18th June 2008, 05:38 AM

Americans, What Would You Like to Change About Your Parties?

More chicks makin' out with other chicks. That wasn't in vogue when I was a teenager or in college.

I missed out on life, man!

davefoc · 18th June 2008, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by jj

I just want a party that socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and that gives two (bleeps) about civil liberties.

That in the fewest words possible is what I would like also. I would also like a party that is not dominated by lust for wars in the middle east.

My wild ass guess is that such a party would manage to get about 20% of the vote nationally and it might get as much as 40% of the vote around here (In a race with the Republicans and the Democrats).

Today neither Republican nor the Democratic Party is a very close fit for someone with those ideas. The Republican Party has betrayed fiscal conservatives to advance their corporate cronyism, fiscal irresponsibility and lust for war. The Republican Party continues to try to attract the fiscal conservatives with hypocritical rhetoric but the anti-science, pro-war, fiscally irresponsible wing of the Republican Party now dominates. Today, the Republican Party is not necessarily a better fit for the secular, economic conservative, social liberal/moderate portion of the electorate than the Democratic Party is.

While there are elements of the Democratic Party that appeal to voters like me, in my view, the country would be poorly served if the Democrats get enough power to fully implement the worst of their ideas. And for awhile, that is very likely to happen given the abandonment of anything resembling good governance by the Republicans over the last seven years or so.

DrBaltar · 18th June 2008, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by davefoc

I would also like a party that is not dominated by lust for wars in the middle east.

Being attacked by al Qaeda tends to bring that out in us. Now if we weren't so dependent on oil in the mid-east, I think things would greatly improve if we left them alone to implode with their dark-ages mentality. I think we should drill offshore while transitioning to clean alternative fuels. Today you can modify a Lincoln Continental so that it gets 100 mpg, has twice the horsepower, is 80% cleaner, and runs on a wide variety of fuels. (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...tml?page=0%2C0)

Somehow we live in a strange alternate reality where ideas like this are not immediately adopted.

Originally Posted by davefoc

The Republican Party continues to try to attract the fiscal conservatives with hypocritical rhetoric but the anti-science, pro-war, fiscally irresponsible wing of the Republican Party now dominates. Today, the Republican Party is not necessarily a better fit for the secular, economic conservative, social liberal/moderate portion of the electorate than the Democratic Party is.

I agree in part with what you say, but the Democratic Party doesn't attract the secular, economic conservative either.

Originally Posted by davefoc

While there are elements of the Democratic Party that appeal to voters like me, in my view, the country would be poorly served if the Democrats get enough power to fully implement the worst of their ideas. And for awhile, that is very likely to happen given the abandonment of anything resembling good governance by the Republicans over the last seven years or so.

I agree with what you say about the Republicans, that they have not lived up to their smaller government hype at all. But I do not see them as obsessed with war in the mideast. There was a cause (9/11), which is followed by a response (war in the mid-east). Yes, we went to Iraq too, perhaps for the wrong reason, if you just look at the WMD issue, and don't consider that any WMD had been trucked to Syria before the attack (They did trace a LOT of nerve gas that was going to be used against Jordan from militants in Syria to Iraq. Naturally this received little press.) Or perhaps for the right reasons if you consider there might have been a larger strategic plan for the mid-east. Iraq would certainly have been working against us, and by being in Iraq we are close to a lot of potential enemies, like Syria, Iran, and militants from Saudi Arabia.

ZirconBlue · 18th June 2008, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by luchog

Well, I'm not a member of any party; but I'm probably closest to the Libertarians, so what I'd like to see for the LP:
1) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs.
2) Ditch the ridiculous revolutionist attitude, and move to a gradualist position, focussing on the battles that are winnable now, and save the grand schemes for the future when you actually have the ability and support for them. Stop driving away your supporters with this all-or-nothing nonsense.
3) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs.
4) Get some candidates who actually have some political savvy, and a realistic idea about how the world works. Harry Browne was a decent candidate; but he was the last decent candidate you idiots managed to produce. Stop driving away your supporters with moonbat nominees.
5) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs.
6) Repeat after me: "Minarchist, not Anarchist", "Independence, not Isolationism", "Constitutional test for all proposals, even your own", and "Progress is made in small steps in a focussed direction, not great leaps at random".
7) STOP PANDERING TO *#!&$*ING FRINGE NUTJOBS! No single-issue idiots, no drooling potheads, no whacko tax protesters, no anarcho-capitalists, no radical Randroids, no conspiracy-theorist moonbats; no extremists of any sort, regardless. You don't need them, and they'll only hurt your cause in the long run.

I agree with this 100%. The "Libertarian Party" as it exists today takes what I feel are noble ideals to such ridiculous extremes that they have become a laughing stock.

GreyICE · 18th June 2008, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by luchog

Well, I'm not a member of any party; but I'm probably closest to the Libertarians, so what I'd like to see for the LP:
1) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs.
2) Ditch the ridiculous revolutionist attitude, and move to a gradualist position, focussing on the battles that are winnable now, and save the grand schemes for the future when you actually have the ability and support for them. Stop driving away your supporters with this all-or-nothing nonsense.
3) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs.
4) Get some candidates who actually have some political savvy, and a realistic idea about how the world works. Harry Browne was a decent candidate; but he was the last decent candidate you idiots managed to produce. Stop driving away your supporters with moonbat nominees.
5) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs.
6) Repeat after me: "Minarchist, not Anarchist", "Independence, not Isolationism", "Constitutional test for all proposals, even your own", and "Progress is made in small steps in a focussed direction, not great leaps at random".
7) STOP PANDERING TO *#!&$*ING FRINGE NUTJOBS! No single-issue idiots, no drooling potheads, no whacko tax protesters, no anarcho-capitalists, no radical Randroids, no conspiracy-theorist moonbats; no extremists of any sort, regardless. You don't need them, and they'll only hurt your cause in the long run.

You mean there's anything to the party besides fringe nutjobs?

I mean I really love the theoretical principles behind the Libertarian party, but they're really absolutely insane as it stands.

This page kinda illustrates the problem:

http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes

Cut taxes? Okay.
Eliminate a lot of wasted military spending? Sure.
Privatize the few industries our government still owns? I can buy it.
No bailouts? Sounds good to me.
Cut welfare because private charities do a better job? Uh, not what the evidence says.
Rich welfare workers? What? This is insane.
Abolish the income tax? Man, that be some good weed you're smoking.

Mister Agenda · 18th June 2008, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by jj

Socially liberal implies things like healthcare, firemen, policemen, an army, and welfare for those who can not work.

So no, it's hardly a libertarian position.

To the best of my knowledge, libertarians are not against having firemen, police, or a military (or healthcare for that matter, but I'm sure you mean publicly funded healthcare)...are you sure you're not thinking of anarchists? We want people who can not work supported as well, we just don't think the welfare system is the best way to do it.

Socially liberal and fiscally conservative is usually taken to mean one wants government, as much as is feasible, out of both people's private lives and their pockets. Sounds pretty libertarian to me.

It's your view so you get to do the interpretation, just pointing out how I could think differently.

Mister Agenda · 18th June 2008, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

You mean there's anything to the party besides fringe nutjobs?

I mean I really love the theoretical principles behind the Libertarian party, but they're really absolutely insane as it stands.

This page kinda illustrates the problem:

http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes

Cut taxes? Okay.
Eliminate a lot of wasted military spending? Sure.
Privatize the few industries our government still owns? I can buy it.
No bailouts? Sounds good to me.
Cut welfare because private charities do a better job? Uh, not what the evidence says.
Rich welfare workers? What? This is insane.
Abolish the income tax? Man, that be some good weed you're smoking.

Moderation does seem to be anathema to the LP. It's like our principles have to be followed to the ultimate extreme to be valid.

jberryhill · 19th June 2008, 10:15 AM

I would like them to be made of a more lightweight, but still breathable material, with some stretch to them.

luchog · 19th June 2008, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

You mean there's anything to the party besides fringe nutjobs?

Not much these days, no; which is why I no longer support them, at least on the national level. The local LP hasn't gone completely bats**t yet; but some of them could stand to put down the bong once in a while.

My sentiments have been echoed by the vast majority of the self-described libertarians I know; but too many of them still insist on voting for the LP just so that it retains a semblance of viability (despite the fact that it really has none).

stevea · 5th September 2008, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

Alright, I've been an Independent most of my life

Like you I have no party. We share a lot of sentiment's tho' perhaps you are more socially liberal than I am. I have always been independent, I have an affinity philosophically for libertarianism, but the ALP are 50% nutjobs and I have suspicions about the other 50%.

The Dems aren't liberal at all except in the "new liberalism", social liberalism sense. If the US didn't have a bugaboo about the term the Dem party would be called the Social Democratic party, something like the UK Labour party. Liberalism is something quite different.
====
What would I change ?

Almost everything. I would like Dems to provide a more serious, less anti-free-market approach to fiscal policy and cut out the class-envy and tax pandering baloney. It's illogical to be pro-worker and anti-employer. I'd like the Reps to ignore the religious and especially anti-science zealots, curb their proclivity to use the military, and take a hard look at the bill of rights beyond the 2nd amendment. I'd like both to stop using Federal money as a pandering tool. That Reps are too far in bed with large-cap business is true, but the Dems are virtual poodles to the legal profession and unions ((see opensecrets.org)).

The only solution that I can imagine is the creation of a significant 3rd party.

If we had a 3rd party with even 5-8% of house & senate seats, (assuming there was no majority) then every issue would have to be negotiated; a compromise. Anyone who has been involved in negotiations realizes that you do NOT try to get the negotiation down to only one issue, since at that point there is no other thing left to bargain with. This is similar to what seems to happen in Congress - there is very little compromise from the two party positions so we have majority takes all solutions (why compromise if your party has the majority ?). With a third party and no majority there would necessarily be compromise.

I'm always cheered when a "gang of 14" or "gang of 10" cross party centrist group forms - it means compromise - but these tiny centrist coalitions always fall apart quickly. A 3rd party affiliation should prevent the early decay.

Our current 2-party system has the unfortunate property that when one party gets the presidency and 51% of Congress they play a "winner takes all/run the board" game, but these excesses are often diminished at the next 2-year or 4-year congressional election and reversed later. This keeps the pendulum swinging unnecessarily to ridiculous extremes.

How ?

Tsukasa Buddha · 5th September 2008, 01:36 PM

I would make the Democratic Party actually be Socialist and the Republican Party actually be small government.

And then I would have my own party for my run for Presidency.

Darth Rotor · 6th September 2008, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

Americans, What Would You Like to Change About Your Parties?
For background:
http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php
http://www.gop.com/images/2004platform.pdf

I'd have more exotic dancers, fewer party hats, and more quality Scotch. Also, all parties would permit smoking.

DR

DanishDynamite · 6th September 2008, 01:15 PM

Glad to finally see an American realizing that perhaps there might be a need to change the pseudo-democratic system whereby the US citizens have been living for so long, all assuming they lived in a democratic society.

stevea · 8th September 2008, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

Glad to finally see an American realizing that perhaps there might be a need to change the pseudo-democratic system whereby the US citizens have been living for so long, all assuming they lived in a democratic society.

Finally ? The difficulty isn't realizing there is a problem, but changing the situation. The realization has been here for half a century at least.

The parties have evolved in that time, but not in any coherent way. In any case neither patry lives up to it's image and platform when we get down to specific cases.

14th June 2008, 12:54 AM	#1
IchabodPlain Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,252	Americans, What Would You Like to Change About Your (Political) Parties? Alright, I've been an Independent most of my life (before recently changing to Republican), mostly because I'm split on the issues between them (I tend to be socially and economically liberal). Example: Democrats are protectionist on trade Republicans are fence builders Now that I am affiliated to the Republican Party, I feel it is totally my place to lay out what I would change about the party. 1. I am completely disgusted with the compassionate conservative/evangelical wing of the party. I understand the logic behind playing to them to get "value" votes, but most evangelicals are big government when it comes to economic issues, which divides the Party -- especially now that it's transparent that they aren't going to overturn Roe v. Wade. Is a constitutional amendement banning gay marriage and vacuous rhetoric about abortion enough to keep these voters from changing Parties? 2. I wish to high hell that the Republican Party of today would remember the lasting lesson of the bearer of my sig and reclaim the conservative = conservation on environmental and energy issues. McCain has done a better job of this than most, but the environmental movement of today is much different from the movement in the 70's, in that it has found the way to make conservation economical as well. Environmentally friendly, and energy-efficient products are making their way into consumer purchases at a growing rate and it is the perfect opportunity to seize upon this with a government policy that sees us importing more fuel-efficient cars (in the US we have two 40mpg cars on the market as of 2007, compared with over 100 in Europe), and offering tax deductions for energy-star rated purchases. But this leads me to wonder; what would you change about the Major Political Parties in the US? For background: http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php http://www.gop.com/images/2004platform.pdf
	__________________ ...and with the joy of responsibility comes the burden of obligation. ~ Hank Hill Last edited by IchabodPlain; 14th June 2008 at 02:12 AM. Reason: Pre-emption

14th June 2008, 01:37 AM	#2
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 10,379	Originally Posted by IchabodPlain Alright, I've been an Independent most of my life (before recently changing to Republican), mostly because I'm split on the issues between them (I tend to be socially and economically liberal). Not to derail, but if you're economically and socially liberal, why are you a republican? I think the dems are fairly obviously more socially liberal and it's arguable big-government-wise but I think they're the more liberal economically of the two.
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea. Last edited by quixotecoyote; 14th June 2008 at 01:40 AM.

14th June 2008, 02:03 AM	#3
IchabodPlain Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,252	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote Not to derail, but if you're economically and socially liberal, why are you a republican? I think the dems are fairly obviously more socially liberal and it's arguable big-government-wise but I think they're the more liberal economically of the two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism ETA: I suppose I am using an arcane version of liberalism to describe myself.
	__________________ ...and with the joy of responsibility comes the burden of obligation. ~ Hank Hill Last edited by IchabodPlain; 14th June 2008 at 02:14 AM.

14th June 2008, 03:19 AM	#4
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 5,918	Call me a stary-eyed idealist, but what I would most like to change about both is their god-awful (good term!) must-win attitude. There are times when the pendulum swings, and to insist on winning above all else when the pendulum is not in your yard is not only a classic fail but a guaranteed lose of integrity in the effort. There is much to be said about a loyal opposition and grace in loosing that the parties need to take to heart. Yes, that means that some political careers have to go into eclipse at times, and perhaps there will be more turnover of experienced politicians as against those who are not so experienced in beltway politics, but I don't think that is an evil thing. Every novelist who mentions about Washington in the periphery of his writing does so, as far as I can determine, citing the absolute corruption , the cynicism and basically hateful way of the area. No one sees elected government service as a healthy environment, and I don't think that's right. As I said, an idealist, but you asked. I'd sure like to see the high road once in a while. Neither party appears capable of it.
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 5,918

14th June 2008, 03:32 AM	#5
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 5,918	Originally Posted by IchabodPlain 2. I wish to high hell that the Republican Party of today would remember the lasting lesson of the bearer of my sig and reclaim the conservative = conservation on environmental and energy issues. McCain has done a better job of this than most, but the environmental movement of today is much different from the movement in the 70's, in that it has found the way to make conservation economical as well. There was a time, in the administrations of Eisenhower and Nixon (heaven help me) that environmentalism wasn't a nastified word like "liberal" was made to be. Both of those worthies supported conservation efforts - they extended funding of National Parks, they invested in scientific research on alternatives, even though the requirement that they do so (mainly OPEC and oil-countries' economic solidarity) was not yet a glimmer. The Kennedy, Johnson and Carter administrations further promoted conservation and research. Only when Reagan was elected was that research and environmental support deemed to be anti-business, and unworthy of government support. As much as I like a lot of what Reagan did, his turn-around of emphasis on this one point set the country's efforts to become energy independent back almost 30 years now, and set the gold standard for the Republican party. Conservation and research was equated with wasteful Liberals, and the rest is history. In a person anecdote, I was working in solar energy at the time (Carter administration) for a major aerospace firm. They (the industrial side of the M-I complex) were competing to create pilot solar power plants and doing practical engineering research. They had four major contracts - one with Spain, the rest in the US - and a plethora of IRADs (Independent Research and Development projects) in work. In the months after Reagan won election the word was being passed that there would not be any follow-on work after them. All the IRADs dried up as the company read the writing on he wall. The projects were delivered, and the company division closed down. The largest project, placed in Dagget, CA was run for 5 years, and then decommissioned as economically non-feasible by the customer. And they were right, it was, but then it was a pilot project - and it went to no avail. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=3...14269&t=k&z=16 So I agree with you, Ichabod, on that count (actually on the other as well, but I'm still an independent, so I'll not lean on that). Great thread.
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 5,918	Last edited by shadron; 14th June 2008 at 03:46 AM.

14th June 2008, 06:58 AM	#6
Oliver Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 17,396	Originally Posted by IchabodPlain But this leads me to wonder; what would you change about the Major Political Parties in the US? I would introduce a regulation into the "Communications Act of 2008" that instructs the obligation to air a balanced share of political ads during elections from all parties in the United States, prohibiting commercialization of election-ads that does nothing but limiting the democratic process and swepts third parties under the commercial carpet. After all, there is a reason why so many feel they have to choose between the lesser of two evils - and this reason is that the big 2 parties, as you pointed out, are devided based on their inner wings - and the third parties are pretty much ridiculed. So many people end up like you: "I have no real choice". Also the Delegate-system and nomination-process is completely out of date. Presidential candidates should register ONCE at federal level if they choose to run - and after that they should be on all states ballots automatically without having trouble with stupid individual state-election laws, which is nothing but chicanery anyway. And voters shouldn't have to register to a party to vote. They should be registered automatically to vote for whatever party they like, for example via their social security card/-number.

14th June 2008, 07:08 AM	#7
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by Oliver I would introduce a regulation into the "Communications Act of 2008" that instructs the obligation to air a balanced share of political ads during elections from all parties in the United States, prohibiting commercialization of election-ads that does nothing but limiting the democratic process and swepts third parties under the commercial carpet. After all, there is a reason why so many feel they have to choose between the lesser of two evils - and this reason is that the big 2 parties, as you pointed out, are devided based on their inner wings - and the third parties are pretty much ridiculed. So many people end up like you: "I have no real choice". Also the Delegate-system and nomination-process is completely out of date. Presidential candidates should register ONCE at federal level if they choose to run - and after that they should be on all states ballots automatically without having trouble with stupid individual state-election laws, which is nothing but chicanery anyway. And voters shouldn't have to register to a party to vote. They should be registered automatically to vote for whatever party they like, for example via their social security card/-number. Sorry Oliver, please try to stay on the topic. this is about what you would change about the political parties, not how you would rewrite the Constitution to make Ron Paul leader for life.
	__________________ Vive la liberté!

14th June 2008, 01:16 PM	#8
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: In 2.5 million spinning tons of metal, above Epsilion Eridani III Posts: 7,958	Originally Posted by Oliver I would introduce a regulation into the "Communications Act of 2008" that instructs the obligation to air a balanced share of political ads during elections from all parties in the United States, prohibiting commercialization of election-ads that does nothing but limiting the democratic process and swepts third parties under the commercial carpet. You mean, you'd amend the constitution to remove Freedom of the Press? Quote: After all, there is a reason why so many feel they have to choose between the lesser of two evils - and this reason is that the big 2 parties, as you pointed out, are devided based on their inner wings - and the third parties are pretty much ridiculed. So many people end up like you: "I have no real choice". Well, when they present an attractive neough pattern to enough people, they have a choice. Until then, I will just note that Americans unlike Europeans tend to vote by the one element in the party they like. Also, for third parties to really work, we'd need a Parlimentary System. Quote: Also the Delegate-system and nomination-process is completely out of date. Presidential candidates should register ONCE at federal level if they choose to run - and after that they should be on all states ballots automatically without having trouble with stupid individual state-election laws, which is nothing but chicanery anyway. Sorry, there's this principle called federalism. In addition, it would require rewritting the Constitution (As for delegateS? That's up to the individual party. Fail.) Quote: And voters shouldn't have to register to a party to vote. They should be registered automatically to vote for whatever party they like, for example via their social security card/-number. They don't have to in national elections. Now, for what I'd change about the Democratic Party 1. I'd not have them so paranoid of big buisness. Sometimes, it's entirely right to suspect multinationals, but they take it to an absurd edge. (Or, yes, companies like Enron exist, but we shouldn't suspect say, General Motors of doing the same thing without evidence.) 2. GROW A SPINE. 3. Stop being so paranoid of nuclear power. Both times something went wrong were minor, and Chernobyl was when they disarmed every safeguard system ever. If you modernize our reactors, and add more, we wouldn't be so dependent on coal and oil. 4. Look, I realize things can go badly wrong with offshore oil. But can you at least give a reason besides 'it hurts the environment'? Most oil companies now have a vested interest in not doing that - the fines are large. 5. Re 2: If you want to get rid of the Patriot Act.. stop the war.. other things.. take the appeal to the people in more than just empty rhetoric by TRYING. Sure, Bush and the Republicans may vote it down. But if you try, you might just get a bit more approval, and you at least tried.
	__________________ Don't mind me. Last edited by KoihimeNakamura; 14th June 2008 at 01:23 PM.

14th June 2008, 06:43 PM	#9
Policenaut Infidel Defiler Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,191	How about both parties stop wasting time in Congress? They screw around with ******** instead of legislation, take vacations way too often, and ignore important issues all the while taking pot shots at one another like it is the end goal of a congressman to belittle the other side.

14th June 2008, 07:56 PM	#10
Madalch The Jester Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,763	I saw this as, "What would you change about your panties?"
Madalch The Jester Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 9,763	__________________ As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero. -Vaarsuvius It's a rum state of affairs when you feel like punching a jar of mayonnaise in the face. -Charlie Brooker

14th June 2008, 08:02 PM	#11
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 28,185	Originally Posted by Tokorona 1. I'd not have them so paranoid of big buisness. Sometimes, it's entirely right to suspect multinationals, but they take it to an absurd edge. (Or, yes, companies like Enron exist, but we shouldn't suspect say, General Motors of doing the same thing without evidence.) The market reduced thier debts to junk bond status at one point. I'm not sure that is a good sign.

14th June 2008, 08:07 PM	#12
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 28,185	Originally Posted by Policenaut How about both parties stop wasting time in Congress? They screw around with ******** instead of legislation, take vacations way too often, and ignore important issues all the while taking pot shots at one another like it is the end goal of a congressman to belittle the other side. It is. Those short 2 year terms mean that the spend the vast majority of the time in campain mode and the system of checks and blances means that taking pot shots and passing feelgood motions has a better risk reward ratio than trying to pass serious legislation.

15th June 2008, 11:09 AM	#13
IchabodPlain Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,252	Originally Posted by shadron Call me a stary-eyed idealist, but what I would most like to change about both is their god-awful (good term!) must-win attitude. There are times when the pendulum swings, and to insist on winning above all else when the pendulum is not in your yard is not only a classic fail but a guaranteed lose of integrity in the effort. There is much to be said about a loyal opposition and grace in loosing that the parties need to take to heart. Yes, that means that some political careers have to go into eclipse at times, and perhaps there will be more turnover of experienced politicians as against those who are not so experienced in beltway politics, but I don't think that is an evil thing. Every novelist who mentions about Washington in the periphery of his writing does so, as far as I can determine, citing the absolute corruption , the cynicism and basically hateful way of the area. No one sees elected government service as a healthy environment, and I don't think that's right. As I said, an idealist, but you asked. I'd sure like to see the high road once in a while. Neither party appears capable of it. [idealist] It isn't so much that I want the parties not to adopt a must-win attitude, so much as I want them to recognize and admit failures, and say "Hey, I screwed up.". I am fine with the competition, I just want integrity. [idealist/] Quote: In a person anecdote, I was working in solar energy at the time (Carter administration) for a major aerospace firm. They (the industrial side of the M-I complex) were competing to create pilot solar power plants and doing practical engineering research. They had four major contracts - one with Spain, the rest in the US - and a plethora of IRADs (Independent Research and Development projects) in work. In the months after Reagan won election the word was being passed that there would not be any follow-on work after them. All the IRADs dried up as the company read the writing on he wall. The projects were delivered, and the company division closed down. The largest project, placed in Dagget, CA was run for 5 years, and then decommissioned as economically non-feasible by the customer. And they were right, it was, but then it was a pilot project - and it went to no avail. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=3...14269&t=k&z=16 Cool. I completely agree with your assessment of Reagan. I liked much of his economic policy but his stance on the environment (and the WoD) was appalling. I am half-tempted to start a solar power thread now, but I'll save it for another time.
	__________________ ...and with the joy of responsibility comes the burden of obligation. ~ Hank Hill

15th June 2008, 11:26 AM	#14
Newtons Bit Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 10,016	Originally Posted by Policenaut How about both parties stop wasting time in Congress? They screw around with ******** instead of legislation, take vacations way too often, and ignore important issues all the while taking pot shots at one another like it is the end goal of a congressman to belittle the other side. What you want to do is change how VOTERS think, not how the parties work.
	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

15th June 2008, 11:27 AM	#15
IchabodPlain Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,252	Originally Posted by Tokorona Well, when they present an attractive neough pattern to enough people, they have a choice. Until then, I will just note that Americans unlike Europeans tend to vote by the one element in the party they like. Also, for third parties to really work, we'd need a Parlimentary System. I know you were responding to someone else, but I wanted to avoid Parliamentary discussion. Primarily, my reasoning is it is a lot easier to change the party than it is to change the system. Quote: 1. I'd not have them so paranoid of big buisness. Sometimes, it's entirely right to suspect multinationals, but they take it to an absurd edge. (Or, yes, companies like Enron exist, but we shouldn't suspect say, General Motors of doing the same thing without evidence.) That is probably the #1 thing I would like to see change in the Democratic Party. It's an easy vote-getter to blame big, bad corporations for all of our woes, but I think it is vitally destructive. For one, they usually aren't usually the evil culprit they are made out to be, but I also think it gives people an excuse to feel powerless. "Oh, there's nothing I can do about the price of gas, exxon and GM made it so. They fixed the price so they could make profits". Quote: 2. GROW A SPINE. Heh. Quote: 3. Stop being so paranoid of nuclear power. Both times something went wrong were minor, and Chernobyl was when they disarmed every safeguard system ever. If you modernize our reactors, and add more, we wouldn't be so dependent on coal and oil. 4. Look, I realize things can go badly wrong with offshore oil. But can you at least give a reason besides 'it hurts the environment'? Most oil companies now have a vested interest in not doing that - the fines are large. Yes, definitely. Quote: 5. Re 2: If you want to get rid of the Patriot Act.. stop the war.. other things.. take the appeal to the people in more than just empty rhetoric by TRYING. Sure, Bush and the Republicans may vote it down. But if you try, you might just get a bit more approval, and you at least tried. Wow, Tokorona, we are 5 for 5 here . The only thing I would add is that I dislike the protectionist stance on trade by many Democrats. Trade strengthens ties between allies (or would-be allies) and improves the standard of living for the countries involved, even if it causes some short-term harm at home.
	__________________ ...and with the joy of responsibility comes the burden of obligation. ~ Hank Hill

15th June 2008, 12:53 PM	#16
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,577	Originally Posted by Tokorona Well, when they present an attractive neough pattern to enough people, they have a choice. Until then, I will just note that Americans unlike Europeans tend to vote by the one element in the party they like. Also, for third parties to really work, we'd need a Parlimentary System. No you'd need proportional representation, that's a completely different thing.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,577

15th June 2008, 05:05 PM	#17
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: In 2.5 million spinning tons of metal, above Epsilion Eridani III Posts: 7,958	The way Congress works, I'm not sure that'd work without a change or reason to work together. IchabodPlain: After seeing the wreck NAFTA and other freetrade deals have made of several fields? I feel a limited protectionism policy is worth it. But yes, the edge they talk that.. sighs In any case, yeah. I don't get the congressional dems at all at times. If they ran on this platform, why don't they just do it?
	__________________ Don't mind me.

16th June 2008, 05:27 AM	#18
Rob Lister Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,504	The parties.
Rob Lister Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,504

16th June 2008, 08:13 AM	#19
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,647	Less cake, more pastries.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

16th June 2008, 10:20 AM	#20
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,320	More women, less clothing.
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,320	__________________ This is a sig file. Does anyone even read this stuff?

16th June 2008, 10:52 AM	#21
jj Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 21,381	I just want a party that socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and that gives two (bleeps) about civil liberties.
jj Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 21,381

16th June 2008, 12:49 PM	#22
Mister Agenda Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 3,139	Originally Posted by jj I just want a party that socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and that gives two (bleeps) about civil liberties. You mean what the Libertarian Party SHOULD be?

16th June 2008, 11:18 PM	#23
jj Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 21,381	Originally Posted by Mister Agenda You mean what the Libertarian Party SHOULD be? Socially liberal implies things like healthcare, firemen, policemen, an army, and welfare for those who can not work. So no, it's hardly a libertarian position.
jj Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 21,381

17th June 2008, 02:51 PM	#24
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Well, I'm not a member of any party; but I'm probably closest to the Libertarians, so what I'd like to see for the LP: 1) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs. 2) Ditch the ridiculous revolutionist attitude, and move to a gradualist position, focussing on the battles that are winnable now, and save the grand schemes for the future when you actually have the ability and support for them. Stop driving away your supporters with this all-or-nothing nonsense. 3) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs. 4) Get some candidates who actually have some political savvy, and a realistic idea about how the world works. Harry Browne was a decent candidate; but he was the last decent candidate you idiots managed to produce. Stop driving away your supporters with moonbat nominees. 5) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs. 6) Repeat after me: "Minarchist, not Anarchist", "Independence, not Isolationism", "Constitutional test for all proposals, even your own", and "Progress is made in small steps in a focussed direction, not great leaps at random". 7) STOP PANDERING TO #!&$ING FRINGE NUTJOBS! No single-issue idiots, no drooling potheads, no whacko tax protesters, no anarcho-capitalists, no radical Randroids, no conspiracy-theorist moonbats; no extremists of any sort, regardless. You don't need them, and they'll only hurt your cause in the long run.
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

18th June 2008, 12:18 AM	#25
IchabodPlain Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,252	Originally Posted by luchog Well, I'm not a member of any party; but I'm probably closest to the Libertarians, so what I'd like to see for the LP: 1) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs. 2) Ditch the ridiculous revolutionist attitude, and move to a gradualist position, focussing on the battles that are winnable now, and save the grand schemes for the future when you actually have the ability and support for them. Stop driving away your supporters with this all-or-nothing nonsense. 3) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs. 4) Get some candidates who actually have some political savvy, and a realistic idea about how the world works. Harry Browne was a decent candidate; but he was the last decent candidate you idiots managed to produce. Stop driving away your supporters with moonbat nominees. 5) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs. 6) Repeat after me: "Minarchist, not Anarchist", "Independence, not Isolationism", "Constitutional test for all proposals, even your own", and "Progress is made in small steps in a focussed direction, not great leaps at random". 7) STOP PANDERING TO #!&$ING FRINGE NUTJOBS! No single-issue idiots, no drooling potheads, no whacko tax protesters, no anarcho-capitalists, no radical Randroids, no conspiracy-theorist moonbats; no extremists of any sort, regardless. You don't need them, and they'll only hurt your cause in the long run. Absolutely. I often find myself being asked "so, are you a libertarian?" because of some of my political views, and I always have to disassociate myself with libertarians; mostly because they're such fringe nutjobs! Abolish the FDA? What? Abolish the Dept of Education? Huh? Abolish the National Parks System? Go to the corner. If the libertarian movement was much more moderate, I might possibly support them.
	__________________ ...and with the joy of responsibility comes the burden of obligation. ~ Hank Hill

18th June 2008, 04:50 AM	#26
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 38,527	Originally Posted by IchabodPlain But this leads me to wonder; what would you change about the Major Political Parties in the US? Being a closet green, I'd only invite strippers who have not been surgically adjusted to my political parties. My major political parties tend to be when we have some of the guys over and shoot at pictures of politicians with BB guns in the back yard, burn some meat on the grill, and suck down beer and whiskey. That's a political party more folks can enjoy.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

18th June 2008, 05:38 AM	#27
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 30,425	Americans, What Would You Like to Change About Your Parties? More chicks makin' out with other chicks. That wasn't in vogue when I was a teenager or in college. I missed out on life, man!
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

18th June 2008, 10:20 AM	#28
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 9,436	Originally Posted by jj I just want a party that socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and that gives two (bleeps) about civil liberties. That in the fewest words possible is what I would like also. I would also like a party that is not dominated by lust for wars in the middle east. My wild ass guess is that such a party would manage to get about 20% of the vote nationally and it might get as much as 40% of the vote around here (In a race with the Republicans and the Democrats). Today neither Republican nor the Democratic Party is a very close fit for someone with those ideas. The Republican Party has betrayed fiscal conservatives to advance their corporate cronyism, fiscal irresponsibility and lust for war. The Republican Party continues to try to attract the fiscal conservatives with hypocritical rhetoric but the anti-science, pro-war, fiscally irresponsible wing of the Republican Party now dominates. Today, the Republican Party is not necessarily a better fit for the secular, economic conservative, social liberal/moderate portion of the electorate than the Democratic Party is. While there are elements of the Democratic Party that appeal to voters like me, in my view, the country would be poorly served if the Democrats get enough power to fully implement the worst of their ideas. And for awhile, that is very likely to happen given the abandonment of anything resembling good governance by the Republicans over the last seven years or so.
	Last edited by davefoc; 18th June 2008 at 10:22 AM.

18th June 2008, 12:38 PM	#29
DrBaltar Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 861	Originally Posted by davefoc I would also like a party that is not dominated by lust for wars in the middle east. Being attacked by al Qaeda tends to bring that out in us. Now if we weren't so dependent on oil in the mid-east, I think things would greatly improve if we left them alone to implode with their dark-ages mentality. I think we should drill offshore while transitioning to clean alternative fuels. Today you can modify a Lincoln Continental so that it gets 100 mpg, has twice the horsepower, is 80% cleaner, and runs on a wide variety of fuels. (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...tml?page=0%2C0) Somehow we live in a strange alternate reality where ideas like this are not immediately adopted. Originally Posted by davefoc The Republican Party continues to try to attract the fiscal conservatives with hypocritical rhetoric but the anti-science, pro-war, fiscally irresponsible wing of the Republican Party now dominates. Today, the Republican Party is not necessarily a better fit for the secular, economic conservative, social liberal/moderate portion of the electorate than the Democratic Party is. I agree in part with what you say, but the Democratic Party doesn't attract the secular, economic conservative either. Originally Posted by davefoc While there are elements of the Democratic Party that appeal to voters like me, in my view, the country would be poorly served if the Democrats get enough power to fully implement the worst of their ideas. And for awhile, that is very likely to happen given the abandonment of anything resembling good governance by the Republicans over the last seven years or so. I agree with what you say about the Republicans, that they have not lived up to their smaller government hype at all. But I do not see them as obsessed with war in the mideast. There was a cause (9/11), which is followed by a response (war in the mid-east). Yes, we went to Iraq too, perhaps for the wrong reason, if you just look at the WMD issue, and don't consider that any WMD had been trucked to Syria before the attack (They did trace a LOT of nerve gas that was going to be used against Jordan from militants in Syria to Iraq. Naturally this received little press.) Or perhaps for the right reasons if you consider there might have been a larger strategic plan for the mid-east. Iraq would certainly have been working against us, and by being in Iraq we are close to a lot of potential enemies, like Syria, Iran, and militants from Saudi Arabia.
DrBaltar Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 861

18th June 2008, 12:43 PM	#30
ZirconBlue Sole Survivor of L-Town Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Lexington, KY, USA, Earth Posts: 13,760	Originally Posted by luchog Well, I'm not a member of any party; but I'm probably closest to the Libertarians, so what I'd like to see for the LP: 1) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs. 2) Ditch the ridiculous revolutionist attitude, and move to a gradualist position, focussing on the battles that are winnable now, and save the grand schemes for the future when you actually have the ability and support for them. Stop driving away your supporters with this all-or-nothing nonsense. 3) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs. 4) Get some candidates who actually have some political savvy, and a realistic idea about how the world works. Harry Browne was a decent candidate; but he was the last decent candidate you idiots managed to produce. Stop driving away your supporters with moonbat nominees. 5) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs. 6) Repeat after me: "Minarchist, not Anarchist", "Independence, not Isolationism", "Constitutional test for all proposals, even your own", and "Progress is made in small steps in a focussed direction, not great leaps at random". 7) STOP PANDERING TO #!&$ING FRINGE NUTJOBS! No single-issue idiots, no drooling potheads, no whacko tax protesters, no anarcho-capitalists, no radical Randroids, no conspiracy-theorist moonbats; no extremists of any sort, regardless. You don't need them, and they'll only hurt your cause in the long run. I agree with this 100%. The "Libertarian Party" as it exists today takes what I feel are noble ideals to such ridiculous extremes that they have become a laughing stock.
	__________________ Religion and sex are powerplays. Manipulate the people for the money they pay. Selling skin, selling God The numbers look the same on their credit cards.

18th June 2008, 01:21 PM	#31
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,149	Originally Posted by luchog Well, I'm not a member of any party; but I'm probably closest to the Libertarians, so what I'd like to see for the LP: 1) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs. 2) Ditch the ridiculous revolutionist attitude, and move to a gradualist position, focussing on the battles that are winnable now, and save the grand schemes for the future when you actually have the ability and support for them. Stop driving away your supporters with this all-or-nothing nonsense. 3) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs. 4) Get some candidates who actually have some political savvy, and a realistic idea about how the world works. Harry Browne was a decent candidate; but he was the last decent candidate you idiots managed to produce. Stop driving away your supporters with moonbat nominees. 5) Stop pandering to fringe nutjobs. 6) Repeat after me: "Minarchist, not Anarchist", "Independence, not Isolationism", "Constitutional test for all proposals, even your own", and "Progress is made in small steps in a focussed direction, not great leaps at random". 7) STOP PANDERING TO #!&$ING FRINGE NUTJOBS! No single-issue idiots, no drooling potheads, no whacko tax protesters, no anarcho-capitalists, no radical Randroids, no conspiracy-theorist moonbats; no extremists of any sort, regardless. You don't need them, and they'll only hurt your cause in the long run. You mean there's anything to the party besides fringe nutjobs? I mean I really love the theoretical principles behind the Libertarian party, but they're really absolutely insane as it stands. This page kinda illustrates the problem: http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes Cut taxes? Okay. Eliminate a lot of wasted military spending? Sure. Privatize the few industries our government still owns? I can buy it. No bailouts? Sounds good to me. Cut welfare because private charities do a better job? Uh, not what the evidence says. Rich welfare workers? What? This is insane. Abolish the income tax? Man, that be some good weed you're smoking.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,149

18th June 2008, 03:56 PM	#32
Mister Agenda Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 3,139	Originally Posted by jj Socially liberal implies things like healthcare, firemen, policemen, an army, and welfare for those who can not work. So no, it's hardly a libertarian position. To the best of my knowledge, libertarians are not against having firemen, police, or a military (or healthcare for that matter, but I'm sure you mean publicly funded healthcare)...are you sure you're not thinking of anarchists? We want people who can not work supported as well, we just don't think the welfare system is the best way to do it. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative is usually taken to mean one wants government, as much as is feasible, out of both people's private lives and their pockets. Sounds pretty libertarian to me. It's your view so you get to do the interpretation, just pointing out how I could think differently.

18th June 2008, 04:00 PM	#33
Mister Agenda Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 3,139	Originally Posted by GreyICE You mean there's anything to the party besides fringe nutjobs? I mean I really love the theoretical principles behind the Libertarian party, but they're really absolutely insane as it stands. This page kinda illustrates the problem: http://www.lp.org/issues/taxes Cut taxes? Okay. Eliminate a lot of wasted military spending? Sure. Privatize the few industries our government still owns? I can buy it. No bailouts? Sounds good to me. Cut welfare because private charities do a better job? Uh, not what the evidence says. Rich welfare workers? What? This is insane. Abolish the income tax? Man, that be some good weed you're smoking. Moderation does seem to be anathema to the LP. It's like our principles have to be followed to the ultimate extreme to be valid.

19th June 2008, 10:15 AM	#34
jberryhill Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 252	I would like them to be made of a more lightweight, but still breathable material, with some stretch to them.

19th June 2008, 12:38 PM	#35
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by GreyICE You mean there's anything to the party besides fringe nutjobs? Not much these days, no; which is why I no longer support them, at least on the national level. The local LP hasn't gone completely bats**t yet; but some of them could stand to put down the bong once in a while. My sentiments have been echoed by the vast majority of the self-described libertarians I know; but too many of them still insist on voting for the LP just so that it retains a semblance of viability (despite the fact that it really has none).
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.