|
Post by POA on Apr 11, 2004 17:28:18 GMT -5
Re: Political Parties-- the downside is, that once you create one, just as soon as it becomes a factor, it will be co-opted by the same players. The Players will co-opt it. As to the moniker "liberal"-- what does it mean, really? Since it has allowed to be defined by The Players, I'm not sure it has any authentic meaning. It would be good to know what positions/principles you hold dear, and then maybe come up with some new monikers for these. The meaning of liberal has changed several times since it's invention. The original meaning that it had referred to individuals who supported capitalism when it was a novel economic/social system and also opposed aristocracy/traditionalism. Their intellectual descendants call themselves 'classical liberals' or libertarians now. The definition of liberal as it's commonly used in American politics I would say first started existing in the 1960s or so, and that's when conservatives (which, curiously, always seems to have been much more clearly defined, although logically and ethically incoherent) seem to have turned it into an insult. I would say that what was meant by liberalism then was support for multilateral approaches in foreign policy, reform of domestic problems, progressive taxation, et cetera. I'm not sure what the antecedents of liberalism called themselves before then-"Progressives" or "New Deal Democrats", perhaps, to distinguish themselves from Democrats who supported corruption or supported the segregationists. The biggest problem that 'liberal' seems to have isn't that the definition has changed, as much as the fact that there have been so many political reversals associated with the word that it's been cheapened. Was LBJ a liberal? In terms of some of his domestic policies, you concievably could make a case for that. (The civil rights act, the promotion of Thurgood Marshall-which was also a recess promotion as well, et cetera). In terms of his foreign policies? No, he wasn't. He lied the US into war just like Bush did (although at least he didn't go on vacation all the time), and at least one coup against a democratic government occured during his time in office. I do see the point in not having a single word to describe ourselves that could be pinned down (although I liked the 'new democrats' for an alternate party), because eventually people tend to become more interested in defending the word and less interested in the position itself.
|
|
|
Post by POA on Apr 11, 2004 17:41:20 GMT -5
The 2 party system is not reprensative of American society anymore and hasn't been for a long time. America is not a nation. America is many nations. Face it. Welcome to the new USSR, made in Amerika. The Revolution will not be televisedI was thinking about that too...theoretically, I suspect that even if the USA stayed unified (not a guaranteed conclusion), really there could be four or five major political parties that would have some measure of support: The Republicans would probably split into two or three different parties-a neoconservative/Southern conservative party (and some of the DINOs would follow, like "Zell the Smell" Miller), a libertarian party much larger than it is currently, and a 'moderate' party. The Democrats would split into a DLC/DNC hardliner group and a party (or group of parties working together) that have closer affinity to our sentiments here; no support for Israel, ending militarism, and doing something productive about our real, underlying problems beyond breaking the two-party stranglehold.
|
|
|
Post by Jay Berner on Apr 11, 2004 18:30:35 GMT -5
"The 2 party system is not reprensative of American society anymore...
Ahem....
I think you mean "1.3 party system."
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 13, 2004 11:19:31 GMT -5
Yes and these monikers are used to manipulate people. You can see that at work on SC. They begin "we liberals" or "we progressives" and then go on to define a party line of some kind. Likewise on the other side, it is used to redefine or ill-define the issues. Again, the Playahs establish the labels, define the terms , frame the issues and manipulate the debate throughout the political spectrum. Realizing that they have driven everyone out of the two political parties, they are now trying to do it to independents. I heard one of them on the radio (perhaps the author of "Radical Middle")-- they are trying to coral the unaffiliated on behalf of the neo-con agenda. "We centrists" he began, want free trade, but want to be fair to the workers through retraining programs, etc etc. In other words, the same d**n agenda gets reworded for both parties and the unaffiliated, in a very manipulative manner, using the person's personal identification with a certain moniker.
|
|
|
Post by Jay Berner on Apr 17, 2004 7:30:25 GMT -5
Every day this week I made up my mind to call the FEC to find out about registering a new party, and every day it slipped from my mind in the blur of work. Every lunch I took was a hurriedly eaten burrito while driving like a madman to meet with somebody somewhere about something...
I really, really want to do this, though, and I was talking to my mother about it a few nights ago. Up until a couple of years ago we were two peas in an intellectual/emotional pod, but these days she's dying of ovarian cancer, and her perspective on life and the world has changed significantly. The conversation went just about exactly like this:
"I want to start a new political party, Ma. 'New Democrats.' I figure we can ape the Greens' platform but recruit frustrated Democrats. We'll have three recruitment divisions - one for African-Americans, one for Indians, and one for Caucasians. Whaddya' think?" I said. She was quiet for about 10 seconds (which is a long, uncomfortable silence in any conversation) and then answered.
"It's hopeless. If I were you and Becky, I'd look for another country. Soon."
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 17, 2004 17:47:54 GMT -5
She may be right. You should probably do so, just in case. She may be in a position to see things more clearly-- less emotional need to cling to false hopes.
|
|
|
Post by stonefruit on Apr 19, 2004 19:19:14 GMT -5
Here's our platform, a quote from a longer article on my website. "The collective will of the people must not only refuse and resist these nefarious and grotesquely inhumane schemes by certifiable war criminals hell-bent on eliminating from the public's mind any hope for a peace dividend now that the Cold War is over and a post-industrial globalized world has emerged. We must demand this dividend and put it to productive purposes in the context of a systematic moment of national self-examination at this historical crossroads. This should include 1) the establishment of a credible and independent investigation into 911 and the anthrax mailings, 2) the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to examine and make known to ourselves and the world without fear or reservation the impact of our actions on a) indigenous people in areas now controlled by the United States, b) people involuntarily removed from Africa and forced to serve as slaves, c) political dissidents and other activists for labor, civil rights, human rights, the environment and other progressive causes, and d) foreign peoples and nations, 3) the amendment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act prior to the 2004 elections to ensure public oversight over open source code for voting machine software, or else Senator Chuck Hagel, the Ahmanson family and their cronies at Election systems and software/American Information systems, Diebold and Sequoia will continue stealing elections and putting the last few nails in the coffin of democracy, 4) campaign reform to rid politics of the influence of money, 5) elimination of the electoral college, 6) electoral and media reform to allow the emergence of alternatives to the RepubliCrat money party, 7) the radical diminution of the military intelligence complex, 8) the dissolution of media monopolies to foster the reemergence of actual news, better programming and more consumer choice, 9) the legalization of marijuana and other soft drugs, 10) an end to the immoral, unwinnable and hypocritical War on Drugs, 11) amnesty for political prisoners and all first-time non-violent offenders in for marijuana possession, 12) a moratorium on the construction of new prisons, and 13) wholesale reexamination of the prison-industrial complex with an eye to the creation of a massive amnesty program for first-time, non-violent offenders and an end to the criminalization of minorities and poor people. In an ideal world, this program for social justice could renew hope in the long-term survival of democracy and lay the foundation for a new and far more peaceful relationship between us and the rest of the world." | |