• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Fed up with the 2 parties, a group of centrists rises up

N

Newenglanddeac

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
13,135
Reaction score
390
“As our country has regressed over the past two decades into this combative, polarized environment, the structure of the government is just not functioning as it needs to and we have incredible problems to solve as a society,” Merrill said in an interview. “I’m really in it for the long run. I don’t really care who solves the problem. I just want our country to have more effective governance.”


https://www.yahoo.com/news/fed-up-with-the-2-parties-a-group-of-centrists-rises-up-120032723.html
 
If you go all the way back to the AOL boards, a third party is what I've said we needed. The problem is in the US third parties have started at the top rather than at local and Congressional levels. What we really need is to have a true third party that gets about 12-20 seats in the Senate and about 35-55 seats in the House. This would make compromise happen.
 
RJKarl said:
If you go all the way back to the AOL boards, a third party is what I've said we needed. The problem is in the US third parties have started at the top rather than at local and Congressional levels. What we really need is to have a true third party that gets about 12-20 seats in the Senate and about 35-55 seats in the House. This would make compromise happen.
Click to expand...

you-serious-clark-o-s.gif
 
we need about eight legit parties. common in much of west europe. Coalitions of parties would prevent one party from adopting an exclusively obstructionist policy which can bring down the govt. also would combat the rigged elections we commonly call gerrymandering.
 
What we need is one strong leader and an aristocracy to choose and rear the successors
 
One of the big practical issues facing any group like this is the difficulty of getting on the ballot if you are not a candidate of one of the two major parties. Most states have pretty high bars for third party candidates to meet.

It doesn't help that at the moment individuals elected as "independents" are effectively Democrats, only without the "D" behind their names. The examples are the two "independent" Senators and the "non-Democrats" on the DC city council.

The DC city council has two at large seats reserved for individuals who are not members of the party in the majority on the council. Currently both are held by people who left the Democratic Party after losing primary elections, and then running as "independents" in the general election and winning.

This may make more moderate Republicans wary of joining the venture.
 
Why do I get the feeling this group of centrists are all going to be socially liberal and economically moderate/conservative. Am I wrong? Isn't this just an amalgamation of the most commonly held modern political viewpoints? How is centrism a platform?
 
Doesn't your second to last question answer your last question?
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Why do I get the feeling this group of centrists are all going to be socially liberal and economically moderate/conservative. Am I wrong? Isn't this just an amalgamation of the most commonly held modern political viewpoints? How is centrism a platform?
Click to expand...

add me to this group
 
Seems to me rather than trying to start a third party we would be better off having states pass non partisan redistricting laws so that we could end Gerrymandering. The way things are districted in NC now with all the safe districts, it plays into the extreme candidate from either side. Elections should be about ideas not ideology.
 
I've never understood how someone can be legitimately socially liberally and fiscally conservative -- can someone explain that to me?
 
Shooshmoo said:
I've never understood how someone can be legitimately socially liberally and fiscally conservative -- can someone explain that to me?
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by socially liberal. If you mean that the government should lift up the disadvantaged than it doesn't work. But libertarianism is basically a socially liberal, fiscally conservative ideology.
 
There are too many structural barriers in the way to a meaningful third party emerging. I believe any third party that begins to emerge with meaningful electoral support would simply provide for realignment of the current two party system.

Plurality-rule election greatly hinders the formation of a meaningful third, fourth, fifth, etc. party.
 
Shooshmoo said:
I've never understood how someone can be legitimately socially liberally and fiscally conservative -- can someone explain that to me?
Click to expand...

Plenty of people view themselves as "socially liberal" because they support same-sex marriage, are pro-choice, believe in equal rights for people of color etc. and these beliefs are compartmentalized from what people view as fiscal/economic options like taxes, views on the free market, etc.

Of course this compartmentalization is just a tidy way to view things and doesn't address the intersectionality of issues like welfare or the practical consequences of taxes on poor people or people of color which manifests itself more in the "social" ballpark rather than strictly the "fiscal/economic" ballpark. This is where I tend to agree with Shoo that these people are not "legitimately" socially liberal and fiscally conservative, but this is an accepted framework for describing one's viewpoints where people know broadly what you mean so to that extent I think it could be described as "legitimate."
 
TownieDeac said:
The problems are bad, but the causes, oh the causes are very good.
Click to expand...

I think it's a naive faith in free markets to generate social change without government.
 
MysteryMen said:
Depends what you mean by socially liberal. If you mean that the government should lift up the disadvantaged than it doesn't work. But libertarianism is basically a socially liberal, fiscally conservative ideology.
Click to expand...

See, I wouldn't agree that libertarians are truly socially liberal. They might think they are, but they're not.
 
He's saying that there are plenty of areas where those two statements are actually at odds which one another so he doesn't think you can be both. If you want lower taxes you're actually being socially conservative in many regards due to the impact lowering taxes may have on different groups. Just for an example
 
Shooshmoo said:
See, I wouldn't agree that libertarians are truly socially liberal. They might think they are, but they're not.
Click to expand...

I am not sure i understand your point. I consider myself closest to a libertarian (social liberal and fiscally conservative). essentially a lot of social issues should not be regulated (or legislated) by the government (like abortion, gay marriage, etc.). Personally I am pro-life but vote pro-choice and i believe every person should be able to marry anyone they want "in the pursuit of happiness".

freedom of religion - the founding fathers were not all really "Christians" as the Right would like you to believe. They were Deism, Unitarian, Atheists...along with Catholics and Christians. They came to this country because of religious persecution (along with not wanting to pay taxes, or whatever). They did not want Religion in the Government.


“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
~Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top