I cannot tell you the number of times that I have found myself underwhelmed by the offerings of both parties. I have never been much of a joiner and only reluctantly joined the Democrats in time for the 2004 election.
I am very liberal on some issues and then fairly conservative on others. I am not an advocate for legalizing drugs and I never give spare change to the homeless who line some of our streets in the summer. I would bend myself in half to create more programs to help our children in schools and in the community but am repulsed by religious based charity programs. (That speaks to my own personal prejudice, I am afraid)
I would welcome a party that was far more fiscally responsible then either party has proven to be.
I would like to maintain a strong military but would make sure that they focused more on our own security rather then racing off to stick their nose into the business of other countries unless the needs were extraordinary.
I want the national debt paid down and for us to not find ourselves making policy decisions based on who we are beholden to rather then what is in the best interest of the country long term.
I want our education system revamped to provide more money for teachers who can deliver the goods in the classroom. Not just the academic scores but also the ability to help the troubled student, and student suffering abuse at home, and the child whose skills are in a different arena like art or music.
I want a party who sees itself as setting an example of democracy for the rest of the world. Not one that preaches freedom and then imposes its will on weaker nations.
I want a party that values honesty above all else. I have pointed out my frustration with our less then honest politicians. I don't want to hear that those are the rules of politics. Change the rules! It would be nice if our kids could once again look to the president as a beacon of honesty and integrity in this country.
I am sure I have more but I cannot think of any more right now. What do you think? What would you add or change?
P.S. My fantasy third party would also not wiretap the U.N.!
Speaking as a Libertarian, I would welcome the addition of a third party. My own in particular, if it would quit being so damn stupid on foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I'm liberal on some issues, conservative on others. Essentially, I'm pro-choice (be it having an abortion, taking drugs, or owning a gun) and pro-responsibility (welfare should be workfare, bad childhoods don't excuse bad behavior, etc.). I think people wanting to become citizens should A) enter legally, and B) be required to learn English.
Like you (and unlike many in my party) I view public education as part of infrastructure. We need both higher standards and higher pay for teachers, and a serious revision of the tenure system.
As far as charities go, as long as it's not public tax dollars being funnelled through religious-based ones, I have no problem with them, however. If a person's faith prompts him to give to those in need, I won't stand in the way.
I, also, would welcome with open arms a party more fiscally responsible than both of the current ones. I want the national debt paid down and the deficit eliminated. I want an end to pork (see Porkbusters).
I want a strong military, including better pay. And I want it to be used to preserve our national security in both obvious ways (such as guarding our borders) and more, shall we say 'nuanced' ones (such as imposing serious consequences on those who attack us or or allies, or give aid and comfort to those who do). I want it to undertake the humanitarian missions it's so amply and uniquely qualified for, like the Lincoln carrier group after the tsunami, the no-fly-zones in Iraq, and the long-overdue deposition of Saddam Hussein.
I want a party who sees itself as setting an example of democracy for the rest of the world. Not one that preaches freedom and then sits back and lets millions suffer and die under bloodthirsty, oppressive regimes because a communist dictatorship like China or a socialist idiotacracy like France won't issue a permission slip. I want a party that doesn't preach freedom and then try to browbeat a tiny, lonely democracy into dangerous concessions to its autocratic terrorist neighbors.
I want a party that values honesty and integrity. Not one that conspires with a major network on a hit piece based on forged documents. Not one that fields a rank opportunist given to collaboration with the enemy as its candidate for the highest office in the land. I want gone the politicians who engage in embezzlement, graft, and other hanky panky (yes, I mean both parties here) and the ones who abandon women to drown. I want a party and politicians I can be proud to vote for, not the lesser evil.
P.S. My fantasy party would absolutely, positively wiretap the U.N. They would also audit the U.N. thoroughly on an annual basis.
Well ahillea, I knew if you hung around long enough we would find some common ground. And that is nice to know.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I wonder if your idea of dealing with totalitarian regimes like China is militarily? Is that really a fight you would be willing to pick? Surely you are not suggesting that we invade and conquer the world to ensure that they practice our brand of democracy and human rights.
And if you still advocate bugging other countries and the U.N. does that mean you would suffer our being wiretapped as well?
I wonder if your idea of dealing with totalitarian regimes like China is militarily?
ReplyDeleteNice straw man, but I've never advocated dealing with China militarily (one of the main reasons I regard the Taiwan situation with misgiving). As much as China, and the world, would be better off with a democratic China, it's just not do-able ... militarily, anyway. Afghanistan was doable, so was Iraq. So was Kosovo, by the way.
Surely you are not suggesting that we invade and conquer the world to ensure that they practice our brand of democracy and human rights
Another straw man. Here's one back to you. Surely you are not suggesting we don't respond in any way to any humanitarian need unless we can respond to all of them all at once?
does that mean you would suffer our being wiretapped as well?
If you think that any country in the world with an intelligence service to its name isn't trying 24/7 to do that very thing, you're living in a fantasyland. That's why we have a bunch of people tasked with counter-intelligence. We have to suffer them trying, we don't have to lie back and suffer them succeeding. It's international espionage, sometimes with the fate of nations in the balance, not some 'I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours' game.
The main problem with third parties, as Europe found out in an unusually spectacular way, is that the more parties that are seen as viable, the more likely some of these parties will veer to the more extreme wings of the party. If all the libertarians leave the Republican party for a third party, it leaves the Republican party almost completely to the religious right, without weakening too much of their power. And that would be no good for either.
ReplyDeleteI would rather see libertarians and other types of moderates stop being so absolutist and work through compromises within their logical parties. It is this way libertarians and moderate Democrats can build influence and start to resemble real ideological forces within the established party. The Libertarian Party's stance of taking their ball and going home may be emotionally satisfying, but does little good in advancing libertarian ideals.
The more reasonable people that flee the two parties, unfortunately the stronger the Indymedia and Focus on the Family types get within their party.
So I think the two party system is best at maintaining moderation, I just think that moderates have recently been a bit too stubborn and has cost them influence.
Another problem with third parties (at least in the U.S.) is that historically, even when they are successful, that very success turns out to be their kiss of death, as one or both of the established parties would simply co-opt elements of the third party's platform into their own platforms, essentially pulling the rug out from under the third parties. (After all, why continue to vote for some whippersnapper third party when one of the Big Two already offers more or less the same thing?)
ReplyDelete