╌>

The Sad State Of America's Political Discussion

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  perrie-berlin  •  8 years ago  •  229 comments

The Sad State Of America's Political Discussion

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you. 

When I turn on "Meet the Press" every Sunday morning, I am shocked at the political discussion, or lack thereof. I see the full spectrum of both the Democrats and Republicans representing their opinions. But where are the independents? How can we have a meaningful political discussion without 43% of the electorate? Where are their voices? Maybe that is the bigger question. 

Over the last 8 years, this country has become more and more polarized and as this has happened the press has presented only the most extreme views. Why? For three reasons. The first is that the extreme views make better news. They are more sensational. The second reason is that due to the sensationalism of the press, the extremes have seized the discussion. And finally, the middle, who has grown disgusted have disengaged from the political arena.

As an independent, I can understand this to a point. In this country we only have a two party system, and as such, we only have two choices. There is no other realistic party to chose from. So they throw their hands up in the air and think why bother. I have had these moments, too. But then I think about history. 

Adolf Hitler came to power with only 1/3 of the electorate. Most Germans thought he was either to be too fringe to be a viable candidate and abstained from the elections, and many others didn't care enough to vote. We all know how that ended up. Now please don't get me wrong, I don't think that any of our candidates are an equivalent to Hitler, but I do think that the mood among our independents is pretty much what most Germans were feeling at the time of Hitler's election. Step back and watch the madness because I can't be heard. But is that the right action to take? I would argue no. It's now that we should be speaking up. It's now that we should be taking action. 

The American political system is broken. Our parties are run by corporations and our candidates are bought. There is no reason for them to work together. They know that the party loyal and a few stray independents are all they need to win an election. All they have to do is motivate their most reliable and we either get someone from the two parties. That works well for them, but it doesn't serve the American people. Furthermore, the two party system has made it nearly impossible for a viable third party to exist nationwide. Many states doesn't even allow independents to vote in primaries. Talk about trying to drown out people from the process. 

But what makes matters worse, is that independents make no demands on the parties or the media. They tend to retreat into the background. Heck, I have seen indies advocate to do just that. It makes me want to scream. If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem, and if you feel disengaging from the political discussion is the way to go, then don't get high and mighty when you end up with some less than desirable person in an elected position and then say, "See, I told you so". No you didn't. You said nothing when it was needed the most. You are the flaw in the system as much as those parties are.

If you feel dispassionate, then don't complain about the state of the nation's politics. If you feel impassioned, then rise up take a stand and make things happen. Make yourselves heard. Write letters to the press asking them why  independents represented in the media. Work towards getting independents to be able to vote in primaries across the nation. Start a third party in your area. If there's one in your area, (don't be tricked by groups that are called independent, but are actually Tea Party movement's), join and find other third parties to work with. 

And finally don't remove yourself from the political discussion, no matter how unreasonable you feel the discussion is. If you keep your voice above the others, you will inspire others to join you. Don't resign yourself to being just another lemming. 


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.    8 years ago

[tapping the mic] Hello? Is this thing working?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   XXJefferson51  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

I'd like to reply to the part about primaries.  The purpose of one at all partisan office levels from President to a state assembly person or in some cases local offices, is for the members of a political party to choose candidates to represent them in the general election.  Anyone can join any party to participate in who it selects for its slate of offices.  I know that I would not want my primary vote contaminated and the process polluted by non party members having any influence at all in who we run in the general election against the other parties and their candidates.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson51   8 years ago

Typical party guy response. If indiependent vote, why presume that we would ruin your or the other party? We have one vote in a primary, like anyone else. If you are that fearful of us, you need to get over it. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   XXJefferson51  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

If one wants a vote in a political party's primary that a party uses to pick whom to represent it/us in a general election, its not to much to ask that all primary voters be members of the political party they want to affect the results of.  I'd say the same if I were still a democrat.  Registered independents are the sole reason both parties have moved further right and left.  Getting disillusioined and leaving, then not liking the results of running away is not a reason to give non party members any voting privileges in a party primary.  If one is truly a centrist opposed to an independent leaning right or left, either start your own party or join one of the two to attempt to moderate it from within. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
link   1stwarrior  replied to  XXJefferson51   8 years ago

Don't know which of the three comments this is responding to - since they are the same:

Independent -  An Independent candidate often has a more centrist or moderate viewpoint than the two main parties, and many people prefer the middle line. Still, they will have trouble voting for an Independent candidate in many situations, since it is very difficult to garner  ballot  access. The major parties like it that way and ballot access for an Independent has become more and more difficult to obtain over the years.

Centrism is a political ideology based on reason and pragmatism considerate of short and long term thinking - Centrism is not defined by compromise or moderation, it is considerate of them. Centrism is about achieving common sense solutions that appropriately address current and future needs; support the public trust; and serve the common good with consideration of risk and capacity in context of these needs.

Libertarian -  Philosophical  principle  that suggests that a  government's  involvement in civil  economical  and social  matters  should be  limited , and that the  issues  should be settled amongst civilians. Libertarianism seeks to  provide  free-will  participants  the  ability  to make decisive  decisions  without the government determining or influencing the outcome, as  long  as it does not  harm  other  individuals . Libertarianism is based off the belief that each individual owns every aspect of their lives and thus should have the ability to  control  it.  Libertarians strongly believe that through these shared  principles , they are  able  to  establish  a more fruitful and peaceful society. Libertarianism traces its roots back to the early 1890s as societies tried to escape anti-anarchist  laws  in France.

Read more: 

So, Centrists, moderates and Libertarians are Independents - but, are they separate parties or just thought processes?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   XXJefferson51  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

If one wants a vote in a political party's primary that a party uses to pick whom to represent it/us in a general election, its not to much to ask that all primary voters be members of the political party they want to affect the results of.  I'd say the same if I were still a democrat.  Registered independents are the sole reason both parties have moved further right and left.  Getting disillusioined and leaving, then not liking the results of running away is not a reason to give non party members any voting privileges in a party primary.  If one is truly a centrist opposed to an independent leaning right or left, either start your own party or join one of the two to attempt to moderate it from within. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   XXJefferson51  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

If one wants a vote in a political party's primary that a party uses to pick whom to represent it/us in a general election, its not to much to ask that all primary voters be members of the political party they want to affect the results of.  I'd say the same if I were still a democrat.  Registered independents are the sole reason both parties have moved further right and left.  Getting disillusioined and leaving, then not liking the results of running away is not a reason to give non party members any voting privileges in a party primary.  If one is truly a centrist opposed to an independent leaning right or left, either start your own party or join one of the two to attempt to moderate it from within. 

 
 
 
My 2 Cents
Freshman Silent
link   My 2 Cents  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

Perrie,

It's good to be back, I like the new site!! Great job!! You make valid points, and I think a great many of us ask the same questions you do.  I think part of the issue goes hand in hand with the old saying, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  As of right now, the left and the right, generate the most attention (aka...drama) and therefore receive the most camera time.  I also think, (and I bet most of us agree silently on this) it's so much the lack of an independent candidate...it's the fear of venturing away from our own base.  We don't want to admit there might be someone better that doesn't have a D or R after their name.  My own opinion, the independent party needs to be taken seriously and not passed over, as it appears has happened. 

 
 
 
Dowser
Sophomore Quiet
link   Dowser  replied to  My 2 Cents   8 years ago

My 2-cents, I agree with your statement.  This election, there is no one that I want to vote for-- they are all either too much one way or the other.  Why has my country abandoned me?  I am one of the backbones of the country, too.  I work, pay taxes, and am loyal to my country.  Yet, since the 1980s, I haven't had a fair shake.

The very least that anyone could do is listen to what the majority of us want.

 
 
 
My 2 Cents
Freshman Silent
link   My 2 Cents  replied to  Dowser   8 years ago

You sir, are not alone.  I too feel like that.  Unfortunately, like I said, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  So, what do we do?...we need to be the voice that is being heard.  Understand, this is a long hard row to hoe, but it can be done. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson    8 years ago

... then rise up take a stand and make things happen.

I agree entirely. Standing by... remaining inert... not getting involved... are slow death to the nation and to the individual.

IMNAAHO, this is particularly a problem for the self-proclaimed "independents". Very often, they avoid taking a position, saying "both sides do it"! Whether conscious or not, this is a cop-out. 

Very few human activities are binary (yes / no, hot / cold, on / off, ...). Almost all are sliding scales (1 to 10, "very little" to "a lot", tiny to huge, ...). Reducing a sliding scale to binary is profoundly false.

Person A lies 90% of the time. Person B lies 10% of the time. The sentence "They both lie!" is "strictly" true, but very very wrong if the objective is to describe reality. 

Important note: This is a great way to lie to oneself!  If I do not want to believe something, I need only find a single contrary instance in order to say, "It's sometimes the other way!" I can avoid taking a position... 

To be intellectually honest, one must look further than "both sides do it". One must decide: which side does it more?

(Also: there's something wrong with the formatting of your article, Perrie. The text is way to the right -- some words are truncated.)

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell    8 years ago

 

(Also: there's something wrong with the formatting of your article, Perrie. The text is way to the right -- some words are truncated.)

Not on my screen. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell    8 years ago

We need to somehow get back to a time when elected representatives vote their conscience on individual issues and not just as they are instructed to by the party leaders or special interest groups. Absent that development, we NEED polarizing parties in order to achieve anything in Congress. 

There was a time when a Senator or congressperson could be liberal on economic issues and conservative on social and foreign policy issues , or some other combination of those tendencies, and they could not only survive, but thrive in Congress. Someone like Sen. Howard Baker from the 70's and 80's comes to mind. Today, Baker would be "primaried" by the political "right" and probably lose his seat. He wouldn't be pure enough. 

When "independents" don't vote in the primaries, they leave the field open to the zealots. The independents "disgust" becomes part of a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell    8 years ago

You, Perrie, should declare as either Republican or Democrat in the New York state primary and vote for the candidates that you believe best represent your beliefs. Staying home as an "independent" is not the answer. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

In NYS I have to declare a party to vote in the primaries. There is no independent party. That's wrong. Either let independents vote during primaries or let us have a recognized third party. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

Then declare as Republican or democrat for the purposes of the primary. It doesnt make you any less "independent" in the general election, and you might be able to get more moderate candidates onto the ticket if there were enough of you. 

When you dont vote in the primaries, you guarantee that "primarying" of a candidate by the extremes of the parties will work. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
link   1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

When living in Florida ('92 - '08), I wasn't allowed to vote in any of the Primaries 'cause I wouldn't declare Repub/Dem.  Haven't had that issue in NM.

 
 
 
Dowser
Sophomore Quiet
link   Dowser  replied to  1stwarrior   8 years ago

It's the same way here, 1st.  Not only that, but they hold the Republican primary on one day and the Democratic primary on another day, several weeks later.  You have to be a registered Republican to vote in the Republican primary, etc.

We do have Independents that run, but no one has ever heard of them, and they're running for offices that aren't all that important.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

John,

That is what I am stuck doing at present, but that isn't what I want. I want a third choice. In simple terms, right now we have a political monopoly. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   XXJefferson51  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

Those who are truly centrists should create their own party if they think that one party is too far left and the other too far right.  Or they could join an existing major party in an effort to pull it toward the center.  If one is leaning right or left but is independent/ decline to state they need to suck it up and join a party to vote in the primary. Those who are "independent" and out of a major party or centrist not starting a middle of the road party are most responsible for the left and right drifts of the two parties

 

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
link   PJ  replied to  XXJefferson51   8 years ago

I don't want to misinterpret your points. 

If one is leaning right or left but is independent/ decline to state they need to suck it up and join a party to vote in the primary.

Are you saying:

Independents that have a preference to the right or the left need to choose so they are able to vote in primaries?

What do you mean when you say:

Those who are "independent" and out of a major party or centrist not starting a middle of the road party are most responsible for the left and right drifts of the two parties

 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   XXJefferson51  replied to  PJ   8 years ago

I am saying that those who are centrist who don't create a 3rd party or join one of the two existing parties and those who are independent who might lean any direction and don't join a major party to influence it or create a 3rd party are the biggest reason for the polarizing of the two parties.  John said something similar from his perspective earlier.  Independents leaving the major parties and not participating in primaries as a result are primarily responsible for the rightward drift of the GOP and the leftward drift of the democrat party.  

 
 
 
One Miscreant
Professor Silent
link   One Miscreant  replied to  XXJefferson51   8 years ago

So the politically inactive are the problem? I call bullshyt. 

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
link   PJ  replied to  XXJefferson51   8 years ago

I agree that without the Independent voter participating in the primaries it does contribute to some lop sided outcomes but I'm not buying the "blame it on PJ" for the increased polarization of the parties.  I just got here!  It can't be my fault yet.  I think I should get a honeymoon period for at least a month before I'm blamed for anything as hugely major like the downfall of the free world.

In all seriousness I do understand your and John's point that in the absence of the moderate voice extreme factions were able to push their agenda's to the forefront with little resistance.  But I also think it was going to happen eventually anyhow maybe just not this soon.  So your point is well taken.   

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  PJ   8 years ago

PJ,

You are better than me. I didn't get all that from those comments until you made yours. (btw, I don't think they were directing that towards you alone). 

There are two different issues here. 

1. Yes, if moderates don't pick a side, a party can move more extreme. 

2. There would still be only two choices, which is really no choice at all. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson51   8 years ago

XX, 

Of course we want to create our own party. That is what this article is about. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

There is no independent party.

IMHO, "independent party" is a contradiction in terms. Someone can be in a party, or be independent.

 

let us have a recognized third party

That would be very nice... but the one thing in all of politics on which the Reps and the Dems agree is... they won't allow a third party to take root.

Still... As a thought-experiment, you might want to imagine would you would like to see as the platform of that party? What candidate comes closest?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Bob Nelson   8 years ago

Bob, 

I think you missed the whole point of my article. It isn't about which one of the two fits what I want, it is about having a choice of a third party. I don't want to play into YOUR game of which candidate fits my needs. We've been doing that for too long. 

The point of an independent or third party candidate is that they get to define their platforms... not the party. They might want to take what the party is suggesting, but ultimately, it falls to the candidate. 

 
 
 
Spikegary
Junior Quiet
link   Spikegary  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

Nothing says you can't have an Independent party, though the established parties will work against you-nothing unites the Dems and Repubs more than someone that would be a threat to their empires in a 3rd party mode.  You need ground-swell of common man (and woman) support to make it work.  And it costs money-you have to get that form somewhere to buy the air time you need to get your message out, besides social media.

It is sad that politicians now can't vote their conscience (even if they could locate it) because they would lose the support of their masters.

 
 
 
Jerry Verlinger
Freshman Silent
link   Jerry Verlinger  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

In NYS I have to declare a party to vote in the primaries. There is no independent party. That's wrong.

New York State is what they call a "Closed" Primary State, meaning you may only vote in a primary for the party in which you are registered. However, NY law provides a provision allowing parties to use a different method if they want. Currently, only the Independence Party * chooses to allow unaffiliated voters to participate in their primaries. 

*Political parties that appear on the current New York State Voter Registration form ;

  • Democratic Party
  • Republican  Party
  • Conservative  Party
  • Green  Party
  • Working Families  Party
  • Independence  Party
  • Woman's Equality  Party
  • Reform  Party

There is also the option of "Other" or " I do not wish to enroll in a political party".

There is (surprisingly) no Liberal Party, nor is there an Independent, with a 't', or a Libertarian Party, listed on the current NYS registration form, because none of those parties has had anyone that ran for governor of the state acquire more than 50 thousand votes under their affiliation in the last gubernatorial election.

There are currently only 19 states using the Closed Primary system, 26 states use the Open Primary system, allowing voters from any party to vote in their primaries. Five states use the controversial "blanket" or some other variation of a registration requirement to vote in a primary. [See Grass Roots Idaho GOP " List of States with Open and Closed Primaries "]

There was however, the American Independent Party , but they made the Tea Party look like moderates.

The  American Independent Party  ( AIP ) is a  far right   political party  of the  United States   that was established in 1967 by  Bill Shearer  and his wife, Eileen Shearer of  California . It is most notable for its  nomination  of former  Governor   George Wallace  of  Alabama , who carried five states in the  1968 presidential election  running on a  segregationist  platform against  Richard M. Nixon  and  Hubert H. Humphrey . The party split in 1976 into the modern American Independent Party and the  American Party . From 1992 until 2008 the party was the California affiliate of the national  Constitution Party , with its exit from the Constitution Party leading to a leadership dispute during the 2008 election .
[ Wikipedia ]

 

 

 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.    8 years ago

Bob, 

I am well aware that both sides do it and that nothing is totally true or false. But when I look at our current field, I see a bunch of liars and obfuscators on both sides. And the issue becomes about their character and not what they stand for, since you don't know what they stand for, other than getting elected. That term "electability" must be used at least 20 times in 1 hour of "Meet the Press". 

And since the field is so limited you may feel that your team lies less, but the truth of the matter is, do the candidates lie less? That I am not sure of. 

As for the publications that are posted here ( I think that is where you are going), yeah some of them wouldn't meet the truth-o-meter, but hey, that is what the internet breeds; pandering and fear factor. All matters are given to hyperbole... including our weather. Did you ever hear of the "Polar Vortex" 5 years ago? Really belongs in sci-fi movies like "The day after tomorrow". 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson    8 years ago

Do you really see Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz in the same light? Seriously?

You can't have it both ways. You can't mourn "The sad state..." and at the same time, say "they're all the same". You have to reward whoever you think is most worthy of reward. You can choose Ted Cruz or you can choose Bernie Sanders... but you cannot say there's no difference.

 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  Bob Nelson   8 years ago

You can choose Ted Cruz or you can choose Bernie Sanders... but you cannot say there's no difference.

Of course. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

A centrist could say Sanders and Cruz are equally far from the center which would be true and likely what was meant.  You and I would be very happy with one and strongly dislike the other while a centrist would be equally unhappy with both.  An independent could be anywhere since they could lean right center or left while not being in a party.  

 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.    8 years ago

Of course there is a difference and how you see that difference is filtered by your political glasses. Neither represents my POV. Does one have some more of the views I find important, yes. Does he represent what i believe in... no. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
link   Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

We have danced this dance too many times already. 

If you refuse to see any differences among the candidates, then you must by satisfied with whoever wins -- they're all the same, after all. 

Trump or Sanders -- no difference. patience

I'm done here.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
link   1stwarrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

Of course I notice that "Billary" hasn't been included as the "potential Dem" candidate.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.    8 years ago

Odd, I have two partisans on here and no bloody independents, even though i know we have them on this site.

 

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
link   PJ  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

Here I am!!!!  huff...huff...huff.... sorry, let me catch my breath.  I ran all the way here.

 

When I was young I decided that I would not be boxed into one ideology or be forced to align with any one party.  There are issues that I am strongly conservative on and others that I am liberal on.  Perhaps I am my own worst enemy because of my stubbornness against being forced to choose a side.  I am an American first and foremost not a Republican and not a Democrat.  I look at those who choose sides and view them as weak, unable to walk their own path.

 Sadly, I am part of the problem because of my refusal to conform and I have been known to turn off the t.v. because I can't abide by the absolute silliness of the candidates and their flocks.

To Bob - yes, there is a difference between Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders and the difference lies in how much damage one can inflict on the American public depending on the issue.

I await my flogging

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  PJ   8 years ago

Bless you PJ, no flogging coming! You and I are on the same footing. (btw....glad you made it here). 

To Bob - yes, there is a difference between Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders and the difference lies in how much damage one can inflict on the American public depending on the issue.

And there you have it in a nutshell! Well said PJ

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
Professor Participates
link   Larry Hampton    8 years ago

"When any of us meet someone who rejects dominant norms and values, we feel a little less crazy for doing the same. Any act of rebellion or non-participation, even on a very small scale, is therefore a political act."

-- The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know is Possible

We are gonna have to do something to reverse the political morass, and we can count on neither side of the aisle doing anything to upset the apple cart too much, to make that happen. We need another voice; one more centered, and focused on SERVING the public interests. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
link   1stwarrior  replied to  Larry Hampton   8 years ago

I know one, but he's an Independent - will he still have a voice?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  1stwarrior   8 years ago

A little cryptic there 1st. I'm not understanding what you mean.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
link   1stwarrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

"We need another voice; one more centered, and focused on SERVING the public interests."

The "one" voice - I know one - will he be counted because he's an Independent???

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  1stwarrior   8 years ago

1st,

Who are you talking about?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
link   1stwarrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

Gary Johnson

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Larry Hampton   8 years ago

We are gonna have to do something to reverse the political morass, and we can count on neither side of the aisle doing anything to upset the apple cart too much, to make that happen. We need another voice; one more centered, and focused on SERVING the public interests.

Thank you Larry! Someone who gets it!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

I'm sorry, that is silly. You are proclaiming a "centrist" view as the only one that serves the public interest. Someone probably tried to talk the civil rights activists to be "centrists" for the good of everyone too. 

Sometimes a centrist proposal might be for the best, and sometimes it wouldn't be. 

But my main objection to a "centrist" political party is that it would stand for nothing, except maybe on a limited number of issues where the center is actually a policy choice. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

You keep thinking of centrist as being one thing. It isn't. It's just when you add up the issues, there is some sort of balance. Also a willingness to listen and discuss and compromise. Listening to what the people want, without super PACs and large donors... etc. It also would make the other two parties more accountable, since the pendulum effect is gone. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

I think I understand you, you want "peace". Which is fine.

What is your party's platform on abortion? Equal pay for women? Gay issues? ISIS ? National Security, NSA ? Solar energy ? Infrastructure repair ? Russia? Israel ? Income inequality? Minimum wage ? 

In a "centrist" party people would be all over the map on these issues. How could you even keep your own moderate voters in line at the ballot box if they didnt know that the party represented their beliefs on a majority of issues ? Are they just supposed to have faith in the "centrist" philosophy ?  It is not practical. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

John,

There are two schools of thought about a third party. 

The first is a true independent party. That means that each candidate would set their own platform and then independents could vote for who they felt was their best match. No party platform. 

The Second is a centrist party. That would have a party platform, that would be arrived at by consensus of the party. 

What I want is irrelevant to this discussion. It is probably what the other indies want either. The point of this is to get everyone off their butts and stop thinking that we only have two choices. We only do, if we do nothing.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

The first is a true independent party. That means that each candidate would set their own platform and then independents could vote for who they felt was their best match. No party platform. 

The Second is a centrist party. That would have a party platform, that would be arrived at by consensus of the party. 

Yikes. 

I admire your commitment to your ideal, which you have repeatedly shown over the duration of NT, but you are not describing a continuous political party. 

Your second alternative would not be practical once the voting started.

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
Professor Participates
link   Larry Hampton  replied to  JohnRussell   8 years ago

Ever wonder what would happen if when the potential candidates reach the final stretch to the election and begin to move toward the center as they always, inevitably do, there was already somebody there in the center counting all the votes? 

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   Uncle Bruce    8 years ago

Independents are just Democrates too ashamed to admit it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.    8 years ago

Bruce... then you are in deep chit man. 43% of Americans are dems then. Just add that to the 30% who are registered to the party.

Wanna rethink that? 

 
 
 
Uncle Bruce
Professor Quiet
link   Uncle Bruce  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

Fence sitters.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Uncle Bruce   8 years ago

Third Party! Third Party! Third Party!

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
link   Kavika     8 years ago

Independents can and do take what might be a good suggestion/policy from either right or left.

No fence sitting involved. It's the extremes on both sides that are one of the biggest problems, IMO.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kavika   8 years ago

Totally agree Kavika!

 
 
 
One Miscreant
Professor Silent
link   One Miscreant    8 years ago

I belong to the “Apolitical” party. We are sometimes confused for “Independents”. However, unlike all other political parties, “Apolitical” members are owing to no lobby or corporate manipulation. Any changes made to an “Apolitical” view or policy is strictly made on discussion alone and requires the approval of none but the individual.

A requirement of membership is a special aptitude to filter the extremes. Once the extremist position is noted, the “Apolitical” intonation of: “I call Bullshyt!” is explicitly invoked for all to see and hear.

An “Apolitical” party member appears, at times, to be apathetic. This stems from extremist rhetoric such as: “Those who are not for us are against us.” Truth be told, an “A political” party member will require more dialog or convincing than any ‘run of the mill’ political extremist sheep.

However, when the extremes are equally “Bullshyt”, as well as FUBAR & SNAFU, a refusal to vote or an apathetic” Pffftt” is totally acceptable. For example, a broken political system cannot be fixed by voting candidates out of office. While a booted candidate will no longer be able to be part of the problem, the perpetuation of the dysfunctional political system continues, with or without all booted candidates. Those who remain will not be swayed by the removal of an individual or group. They will still function as directed by the firmly entrenched “rules” of doing the people’s business. Logic would dictate the rules used by congress should be changed or reset. The remaining officials opposed to a congressional rule reset should also be removed. Ethics, not straight up cash, should be the litmus test.

 

The “Apolitical” position would seek to nullify all outside political influences. Jefferson knew this and is quoted, The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.” He was not wrong. In the correspondence from which this quote is taken, he writes about rebellion as a necessary threat to preserve that which is our constitution. Others would argue that he is enamored with the anarchy of the times in Europe and America. It is neither to the “Apolitician”, it is merely the removal of outside influence to the political and governing processes and the corrupted notion of corporate person-hood.  A reset does not require blood. It does require an open mind though.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  One Miscreant   8 years ago

One,

Your "Apolitical" voter, sounds like a third party, independent voter. None of us want someone who is bought and sold already, but rather someone unsullied. Someone not backed by a big corporation and not afraid to not go with the flow. Someone smart enough to know that they don't know everything and is will to work with all. Does that sound like you?

 

 
 
 
One Miscreant
Professor Silent
link   One Miscreant    8 years ago

Kinda. However, no registration is required. Unsullied politicians can still be influenced by party lines, even as an independent.

So don't forget those pesky congressional rules, that make people vote 'yea' when they really mean 'nay'. New rules and unsullied is optimal.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.    8 years ago

One,

Sounds more like you want to take on the whole system. Not that I disagree, but I think of it as one step at a time. Let's break the monopoly of the two party system and go from there. I would be happy with just that... and that won't be easy to do. 

 
 
 
One Miscreant
Professor Silent
link   One Miscreant  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

Sounds more like you want to take on the whole system.

Bingo.

However, I'll accept that a total disruption, to replace congress and their rules, might not benefit us all in the short run. I see only sunny days to follow. Bills voted by their own merit, action not promises, ethics not constitutional bastardization. It may not require new folks on the hill, but then again I'm an idealist too.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  One Miscreant   8 years ago

 but then again I'm an idealist too.

That's a good thing to be!

 
 
 
One Miscreant
Professor Silent
link   One Miscreant  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

"But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn't work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic. Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get attention. Most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn't matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest." ~President Obama's 2016 State of the Union Address

I'd say the president agrees with us.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   XXJefferson51  replied to  One Miscreant   8 years ago

"A frustration with a government that has grown day after day, year after year, yet doesn't serve us any better. A frustration with the same, endless conversations we hear over and over again. A frustration with promises made and never kept.

We need to be honest with each other, and with ourselves: while Democrats in Washington bear much responsibility for the problems facing America today, they do not bear it alone. There is more than enough blame to go around.

We as Republicans need to own that truth. We need to recognize our contributions to the erosion of the public trust in America's leadership. We need to accept that we've played a role in how and why our government is broken.

And then we need to fix it.

The foundation that has made America that last, best hope on earth hasn't gone anywhere. It still exists. It is up to us to return to it. 

For me, that starts right where it always has: I am the proud daughter of Indian immigrants who reminded my brothers, my sister and me every day how blessed we were to live in this country. 

Growing up in the rural south, my family didn't look like our neighbors, and we didn't have much. There were times that were tough, but we had each other, and we had the opportunity to do anything, to be anything, as long as we were willing to work for it.

My story is really not much different from millions of other Americans. Immigrants have been coming to our shores for generations to live the dream that is America. They wanted better for their children than for themselves. That remains the dream of all of us, and in this country we have seen time and again that that dream is achievable.

Today, we live in a time of threats like few others in recent memory. During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation.

No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.

At the same time, that does not mean we just flat out open our borders. We can't do that. We cannot continue to allow immigrants to come here illegally. And in this age of terrorism, we must not let in refugees whose intentions cannot be determined.

We must fix our broken immigration system. That means stopping illegal immigration. And it means welcoming properly vetted legal immigrants, regardless of their race or religion. Just like we have for centuries.

I have no doubt that if we act with proper focus, we can protect our borders, our sovereignty and our citizens, all while remaining true to America's noblest legacies.  

This past summer, South Carolina was dealt a tragic blow. On an otherwise ordinary Wednesday evening in June, at the historic Mother Emanuel church in Charleston, twelve faithful men and women, young and old, went to Bible study. 

That night, someone new joined them. He didn't look like them, didn't act like them, didn't sound like them. They didn't throw him out. They didn't call the police. Instead, they pulled up a chair and prayed with him. For an hour.

We lost nine incredible souls that night.

What happened after the tragedy is worth pausing to think about.

Our state was struck with shock, pain, and fear. But our people would not allow hate to win. We didn't have violence, we had vigils. We didn't have riots, we had hugs.

We didn't turn against each other's race or religion. We turned toward God, and to the values that have long made our country the freest and greatest in the world."      Nikki Hailey R-S.C.                                                It seems that the GOP agrees as well.  

 
 
 
retired military ex Republican
Freshman Silent
link   retired military ex Republican    8 years ago

Dam one miscrean you make a lot of sense.  I'm afraid idealistic but those who say what if often lead us in the right direction.

 
 
 
One Miscreant
Professor Silent
link   One Miscreant  replied to  retired military ex Republican   8 years ago

..you make a lot of sense.

Scary thought, but thanks.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell    8 years ago

Raven Wing -

 

Maybe so, everyone has their own viewpoint and some people don't want to mix it up. 

It is not about hate to me though. I do not hate anyone on Newstalkers. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
link   FLYNAVY1    8 years ago

Why can't we deal in facts, and not beliefs?  Can you imagine just how much further down the road our country could be in solving it's problems if facts ruled the day and not emotion or beliefs? 

Take this simple example that will draw heavy fire..... The facts of evolution vs. the beliefs of creationism.

Honest extrapolation from there yields a multitude of self-imposed hurdles as to why we have to bear the shrills from somewhere other than the center-moderates in America.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
link   1stwarrior  replied to  FLYNAVY1   8 years ago

As many of my former CO's and schools have taught me - give me the solution.  If you can't, you are the problem.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  FLYNAVY1   8 years ago

Why can't we deal in facts, and not beliefs?  Can you imagine just how much further down the road our country could be in solving it's problems if facts ruled the day and not emotion or beliefs? 

I think Fly that it is hard to tell the difference between an emotional call and beliefs from facts. For some, beliefs are facts. 

Take this simple example that will draw heavy fire..... The facts of evolution vs. the beliefs of creationism.'

Perfect example! I think evolution is a fact, but for Carson creationism is a fact. I think both sides have a hard time accepting that and so our political discussion goes downhill.  

Honest extrapolation from there yields a multitude of self-imposed hurdles as to why we have to bear the shrills from somewhere other than the center-moderates in America.

I am not sure I understand you fully. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

Perfect example! I think evolution is a fact, but for Carson creationism is a fact. I think both sides have a hard time accepting that and so our political discussion goes downhill.  

Are you trying to say everyone has a right to their own facts ? 

That would explain a lot of what we see here, btw. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
link   JohnRussell    8 years ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.    8 years ago

I am putting my foot down about this. The topic is the article and not the other members. All comments of topic will be deleted. If you want to argue, take it to HD. I see a big change in our future here on NV, and this is part of it. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
link   1stwarrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   8 years ago

Think you meant "here on NT" vice "here on NV" - correct???

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.    8 years ago

When people felt it necessary to fight and pollute the site with personal attacks. It was never allowed here and it sure won't be allowed on my article. Just that simple. And I will have no further debate about this ON my article. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.    8 years ago

Well, it looks as if this topic for now has run it's course. Thanks everyone for joining in and for giving such good comments. Be on the look out for more articles on this subject..... 

 
 

Who is online




Nerm_L


77 visitors