We need a new political party.
Feb. 14th, 2005 11:08 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dsrtaoOut with the old, in with the new.
We need a new political party. A properly liberal party, which practices as well as preaches the values that America needs. Tolerance, integrity, honesty, proportionality, justice, and reform. An agreement that taxes are the contribution of citizens to provide services that are better provided en masse than by a market; that our own dignity requires the redistribution of some wealth to support those who are temporarily and/or permanently economically disadvantaged; that even and especially in government and corporate endeavors, personal responsibility is attached to authority. That the purpose of our penal system should be primarily rehabilitation, and that is failing. That a law which everyone ignores is not a good law. That a law which no one knows about is no law at all.
That weapon ownership is a right, but not an absolute right. That the freedom of the press is everyone's right, as is the freedom to assemble, which implies the freedom to travel both in and out of the country without identification. That abuse of monopoly powers is a criminal matter. That tax codes which are overly complex benefit no one save politicians and accountants.
More as things gel.
We need a new political party. A properly liberal party, which practices as well as preaches the values that America needs. Tolerance, integrity, honesty, proportionality, justice, and reform. An agreement that taxes are the contribution of citizens to provide services that are better provided en masse than by a market; that our own dignity requires the redistribution of some wealth to support those who are temporarily and/or permanently economically disadvantaged; that even and especially in government and corporate endeavors, personal responsibility is attached to authority. That the purpose of our penal system should be primarily rehabilitation, and that is failing. That a law which everyone ignores is not a good law. That a law which no one knows about is no law at all.
That weapon ownership is a right, but not an absolute right. That the freedom of the press is everyone's right, as is the freedom to assemble, which implies the freedom to travel both in and out of the country without identification. That abuse of monopoly powers is a criminal matter. That tax codes which are overly complex benefit no one save politicians and accountants.
More as things gel.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-18 05:49 pm (UTC)I have zillions of opinions on this, having been thinking about it for a long time. Point Number 1, and by far the most important: this party should start out focused on the grassroots, *not* the bigname national politics. Most third parties get sucked into the Presidential Election, and wind up in the thrall of some egotistical boob. (Cf. Perot, Ross.)
Instead, it makes far more sense to focus very tightly on the small scale, and to leverage that. An ideal goal (still ambitious, but within the realm of the plausible in five years or so) is to go after a small number of key seats in the House of Representatives, allowing the party to become a power-broker between the Big Two. This would let such a party magnify its image and influence greatly, emphasizing that it is the sensible median between the extremists on both sides. Play that card well for a few years, and people start taking you seriously on the large scale. *Then* you go after the larger prizes.
An alternate plan is, instead of creating a "party" per se, create a cross-party caucus, and try to pull in politicians from the sensible middle of both big parties. After a while, if you get enough critical mass, convince them that they have more in common with each other than with the loons who run their parties. Requires enough organizational chops to make this line plausible, which isn't easy, but again it's a possible way to get around the two-party system's inherent bias against third parties...