Forward: The new political party

Group of Republicans and Democrats form new political party to appeal to moderates

"A group of former Republican and Democratic officials [David Jolly, Christine Todd Whitman and Andrew Yang] are forming a new political party called Forward, in an attempt to appeal to what they call the “moderate, common-sense majority."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/28/politics/andrew-yang-forward-party-whitman-jolly/index.html

 

The new party, called Forward and whose creation was first reported by Reuters, will initially be co-chaired by former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and Christine Todd Whitman, the former Republican governor of New Jersey. They hope the party will become a viable alternative to the Republican and Democratic parties that dominate U.S. politics, founding members told Reuters.

 

I really liked Yang. He would have been my third choice had I been able to vote, but his books are excellent and his debate performance was refreshing: no attacking other candidates just to get a soundbite, every question answered within the time limits, and a cogent policy platform. I expected him not to win. What I didn't expect was for him to immediately run for Mayor of New York, a city he does not have deep roots to (he didn't know what a bodega was, hadn't ever voted for Mayor, and left for upstate during COVID.)

Rather than starting a third party which will effectively doom him to obscurity as a perennial candidate, I think he should be focusing his energy on supporting pro-UBI candidates from the two dominant parties while he angles for a position inside the government where he can help effect real change.

 

The winner-take-all structure of our Constitution inevitably forces the nation into a two-party system.

 

Yes, the parliamentary system gives power to third tier parties but not our system. In our system a third tier party gets practically zero power even if they have a few representatives. To tell the truth, I'll be surprised if Forward even gets that far to win a few seats. Of course, if Forward were really lucky then it might replace one of the two leading parties. I'd consider that highly unlikely though. Look at our history. Any period with more than two parties is very brief.

 

Big Eye Roll:
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/09/09/with_freedom_under_assault_we_re_told_we_must_moderate/

 

Whatever the argument, if it's worth anything, somebody other than Limbaugh would have made it.

 

Another Big Eye Roll. The argument is "moderation, per se, is illogical because there are clearly times when it's self-destructive or counter productive." He offers examples. A wonder - this Internet of things; It's not so easy to erase 'Wrongthink.' Maha Rushie's arguments remain whether you like them or not. <3

 

This rule when speaking about news works extremely well. For example, "I don't have to pay attention to media sources like social media or even Fox News because I read <highly regarded news source> and if it's real news I'll eventually see it in the <highly regarded news source>."

This type argument doesn't work quite as well with an argument though. Of course an argument is much less likely to rise to the importance of an important news story. If it did though then it would eventually show up in a good news media though. This is a different case though. This is the case of an 11 year old argument put forth by a now dead guy. What could be the point? Well a couple hours ago, Charles was kind enough to try to summarize it for us. It is not perfectly clear to me how the argument fits into this thread about the Forward party. I tried to read the Rush Limbaugh link. The first time it wouldn't load. I tried again recently and it did load. I started reading it and after a couple of paragraphs I decided it was too painful to continue. I decided I'd much rather wallow in my ignorance on the matter than suffer through reading the whole very long thing.

So in summary,

 

So, instead of dividing the country up into geographic districts, we would instead more like the parliamentary system divide up the seats to the parties based on the statewide votes?

That is an interesting proposal. I like it, in that gerrymandering would no longer be a thing. Gerrymandering is a very undemocratic custom.

 

Sorry the piece would not load. It was a retort to a WSJ Article that encouraged moderation and compromise. Rush often railed about moderates. 'mealy-mouthed, weak,-kneed, and lily-livered.' In this piece he argued moderation without principle is pointless. I ask - Should Nelson Mandela Moderated himself and compromised with Pik Botha et.al? Moderation and compromise are indeed too often both self-destructive and/or counterproductive. Perhaps I'm missing the point but, moderation and compromise seem to be the whole point of this new party.

 

Politics is the American national sport and like other American sports most of the population is spectators and the players go for blood. The concepts of civil discourse and rational compromise are foreign to the nation's psyche.

 

I like the idea much more now. Thanks!

The biggest stumbling block would seem to be the politicians? To implement it would require a strong grass roots push to force it. I'll be better prepared now should such a movement develop.

 

My assessment of Gary Johnson is not nearly as positive as yours. Otherwise, it's not a bad idea. Not because I like any of the particular ideas third parties have on offer. It's just seems right now we can use more democracy.

 

Um. He served eight years as Governor of my fair state. Believe me, he's not as nuts as he's painted to be.