Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #1 
Since I cannot seem to get agreement that we should be a Leftist party, it appears I am outnumbered and outvoted.   This party seems to be intransigently Left-Right -- whatever the hell that means, as I don't have any idea.  So we need to get started immediately on adding planks to the platform to address the needs of our Right-wing brothers and sisters.

All I am trying to do here is to be realistic.  It is clear I have lost the debate on this "issue."  Since many of you continue to proclaim that "we must all come together," and we must "split the difference," then we must have a platform that reflects this noble -- even if a bit incompatible -- objective.   To that end, I am soliciting ideas that will make the JP a truly Left-Right party.

What kinds of ideas do you have to bring the right wing in to our party?  For instance, would more tax cuts and reductions in government spending help to attract the right, and how would our more left-leaning members feel about this?  What about, perhaps, agreeing that women's access to abortions should be restricted by trimesters and parental consent; surely our feminist members would not object to right-wing planks like this since the JP advocates unity across the divide.

Remember, if they are all to stay with this group, both leftists and rightists, we must accommodate all of them in a single unified approach to compromise and appeasement that will satisfy everyone across the political spectrum.

NOW.   NOW, now am I getting this group correctly?   Or am I STILL off somehow?

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #2 
Where are the Left-righters here?   Where did you go, LOL?   I thought you wanted to talk about bringing people together.   So I finally relent and give in to your assertions that this is a goal of the party, but now no one wants to play anymore.

Cmon guys.  All I have to do is look back in the posts here to see who defended the Left-right everybody-on-board, one happy family position.   Your posts are full of these.

Letś talk about this, please.

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
Ajani

Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #3 

Intransigently Left-Right—probably people who lean right morally, but not so far to the right as to favor cutting (legally) so many of the social welfare programs we’ve come to depend upon. That is, stubbornly protective of their individual rights without advocating scary cuts in education, social security, and medicare. As a Left-Righter,

·         I would not favor abortion, but be hesitant to restrict it wholesale for others (so trimester regulation is good).

·         I would have less respect for our education system—assuming I weren’t rich—and would favor some degree of carefully regulated privatization, and at least some “last resort” voucher system which allowed my children to move if the district I were in sucked and I met the requirements for doing this (JP would need to specify those requirements in such a way as to prevent the total destruction of schools who are simply low performing for reasons other than administrative ones).

·         (As a more politically savvy Left-Righter), I would favor a crackdown on overspending in public utilities & municipalities, transparent web publishing of major lobbying groups in Washington

·         I would need someone to honestly “in plain English” explain to me what in the world certain key events in Washington meant for me as a normal person. (In the beginning, JP could do this itself, but in the event that the Party becomes bigger/tied to the very issues, it may push for the creation / funding of an party-neutral (DOE-run?) body whose sole purpose is to translate things like the fiscal-cliff, china debt, and the gun issue in terms relevant to the average person. This is a way to address the feeling of powerlessness among those who think Washington is full of stupid circular jargon.)

·         I would resent Obamacare until I got that refund check, then I would be fickle about where I stand on it, would know little about the politics which makes middle eastern affairs necessary, and would want to go green without wanting to pay the costs. I would be uneasy about same-sex marriage, but uncomfortable taking a stand on the issue since I probably know someone who’s non-heterosexual and I would probably claim to “treat everyone equally” (suggesting that JP initially does better as an explainer of these issues and a mouthpiece for those who are undecided, than a party who propagates a specific solution loudly.) Ultimately, “states rights” may be the ultimate save: States should be competitively rewarded for green initiatives, punished for practices which cost our health welfare systems money, allowed to regulate decide on their own border solution aware that inhumane solutions like deportation will bring the legal action on behalf of the federal government.

In general, I think JP can aid those slightly Left of Right by taking a broad “States Rights” approach, along with an “individual opinion w/ non-infringement” approach, and promote solutions accordingly: Educatin policy by those good at it; Abortion ok early, but not late, w/emergency exemptions; the right to apply for a “pause” in federal statutes while solutions to border wars are formally proposed (though the application may not be granted), and the general absorption of those Republican and Democrat plans which the people currently seem to back—for JP’s OWN published reasons. As a third party, JP does not need to carve out brand new territory. It just needs to check the reckless influence given to two parties steeped in old territory. It can side with the dems & GOP on some things, but it CANNOT divide itself in the beginning, nor separate its platform from what we normal people basically care about: Jobs, entitlements, taxes, (maybe our children's education), and where politics is concerned: as sense that my voice doesn't matter.

 

JoshuaBudden

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 89
Reply with quote  #4 

I do not want to be in a "moderate" or "centrist" party.  Not by American Standards of today.  This country is radically right.  Obama is a neocon.  We should most definately be to the left of him on most issues.

Americans tend to believe they are center-right because the right wing media machine has done a very good job of demonizing the left. But when asked issue by issue Americans tend to be more progressive.  We need to focus on the issues and on justice.

And I would say absolutely not to privatizing schools, or any other thing that belongs to the commons. Private schools are already being bought by foreign investors.  And as vouchers funnel taxpayer money into private companies, resources will be pulled from public education.  If your children are in a district with a school that needs improved, work to improve it. Don't turn your back on it and ship your kid of elsewhere. Stay vested in your community. Your children will have to live in a world with people educated in those schools.  Unpatriotic selfish people want to opt out.  If senators had to send their kids to public schools, public schools would be fixed in a flash.

Ajani

Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #5 
I actually agree with you on these issues. A full voucher system, for example, destroys the schools that need it most. Issue by issue Americans are more progressive. But when it comes to what the country believes collectively, we don't like to be completely trapped in schools that don't work. To a person who thinks she's center-right, even a restricted voucher system is better than none. Of course we are more liberal than our government projects, but that liberality seldom extends to our leaders. Except in war and protest, we like our systems to be more stable than we are. Unfortunately, as any peace-time election will show, that means we vote for the guy in the middle and steer very far away from fringe candidates who, say, get themselves arrested--even if we admire the principle. We just don't vote for folks who are as unreliable as we know we are.

There is a difference between what you and I believe personally and what's good for the country. Right now, more than any individual position, the country simply needs a third option. If JP is left of the President, it is too far left. If JP is right of Speaker Boehner, it is too far right. Doesn't matter if you favor abortion in the third trimester or believe in AK47s for everybody. Extreme parties repel people. I was just describing the folks I've met--the ones who voted for Romney because they were scared for their jobs or voted for Obama because they thought they saw solutions rather than bandaids for bigger problems. I want JP to be a viable party. But it can't do that without a stable platform broad enough to capture the "personally-progressive-yet-politically-moderate." Failing this, we can expect to be like the Green Party--sitting around in our own radical corner for years without anyone really noticing.
Robert

Registered:
Posts: 114
Reply with quote  #6 
Left of President Obama is too far left? I think it safe to say that the Justice Party is and will remain to the left of Obama. It may not win any elections but it certainly will stay to Obama's left. That doesn't mean the Justice Party will be extreme. There is a lot of distance to the left of Obama before you reach extremism. And sometimes today's extremism is tomorrow's mainstream. Just look at the Republican Party to see an example of that. The views of today's right-wing Republicans were considered kooky just a few decades ago. And now many of these people hold elected office, to the detriment of this country.
JoshuaBudden

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 89
Reply with quote  #7 



No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #8 
When I suggested that our feminist members be willing to support restrictions on abortion, I was being sarcastic.  I am sorry if that was not clear.   Same for giving even more tax loopholes to the wealthy.

Alan Maki's post (http://justiceparty.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1276412123&postcount=18) contains a number of excepts of Tommy Douglas standing up for solidly leftist values; in fact, not just leftist, but really socialist values.  Not once does Douglas waver or waffle, not once does he suggest compromising with the two big parties (at that time, mostly Liberal and Conservative).

Most outstanding, and the point I hope people HERE will take with them, is that never does he resort to cliche advice, equivocation, or dismissal of the fact that the Right Wing is the problem.  He recognized it, his party recognized it, and so have the people of Canada.  Maybe why the CCF/NDP still survives as a viable institution today, and maybe why it could become the ruling party in two years.  Compare that to some of the namby-pamby excuse-making we hear all around these political parties that are supposedly good for the Left in the US, like the Greens, and now the JP.

Do you think Douglas was speaking with some sort of forked tongue?  Do you think he would even once consider the notion of making peace with the people who were hurting the Canadian people?   I don't.  And that's the kind of leadership this (JP) or any other party will need if it is to become the relevant and outstandingly visible political party of the Left in the US.  Obama already tried the cliches, coming to the middle, compromise, negotiation ... take your mouth off that fat ugly boobie and grow up already.

The American Left needs a party, one that can accommodate the workers, students, SS and Medicare recipients, and defend our planet from destruction.  Whining long tirades of cliches was unnecessary in Tommy Douglas' time; it is probably no more useful now.   (So, please....stop?)

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
Ajani

Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #9 
I'm not sure I understood your post, No Difference, but the idea was that people who think they're right of center tend to vote Right Wing whether or not it's true, and if the last election is a tell, that's about half the country. Speaker Boehner and Eric Cantor, for example, wouldn't say they were "for taxes on the middle class if the rich couldn't get theirs," but "against raising taxes on anybody" because the latter is more level-headed sounding. And people down here in notoriously red Texas, at least, were sold on that spin.

As a person who knows he's right of center, I think the current Right Wing GOP is a problem, but I'm not here to make trouble or anything. Nor am I a member of the Preseident's fan club. But I will show respect towards the people we've elected, regardless of party, and will not pretend that they have been entirely useless--because you know that's just not true. I just wish that, as a pro-choice, anti-voucher, anti-big-government, low-gun, pro-social-equity voter, I had somewhere to go other than to the massive eye of big brother Democrats--not on all isues, but at least in a party system with checks and balances. I came to the JP site hoping to find a focused alternative because I think that, at the core, all of us want the country to succeed--which really does mean accepting the good parts of what the big two are doing. I would hope that principles need not imply JP define itself by exclusion, and that the party will give my state a reason to stop voting for the lesser of two evils. I'd like to see JP appear on the ballot in (very conservative) TX in 2014 and not get killed because it makes even the Dems look conservative, and am sure you'd agree that a platform which is less inclusive might be less effective than a more inclusive one. It was, after all, the centrist-looking platform of the old site--"Justice for all"--that got us moderates talking about JP as reasonable. But if my views are offensive or untenable here, I apologize. Nevermind.
VioletKnight

Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #10 
Economic nationalism is a right wing philosophy, but it has been embraced by lefties because it helps Americans and is bad for corporations. Some libertarians and paelo-conservatives support economic nationalism so maybe we can get their support.

Gun rights are another issue. Many gun nuts would be very progressive but lurve their guns too much. It is true that most gun control legislation won't affect them, but let's face it, there's no use reasoning with them, and I'd rather have them with us than against us. And gun laws are practically useless anyways in curbing violence. People will find a way to get an assault rifle whether it is banned or not.

Affirmative Action based on gender, race, or ethnicity, should be left to the private sector.

When it comes to abortion, I honestly want them to be publicly funded. Government funded abortions could be a state issue.

Right wingers tend support the nuclear family and marriage. I think we should get rid of things like no fault divorce which weaken the institution of marriage, as well as give tax incentives for parents. Hopefully we can convince homophobes that divorce, not homosexuals are the real threat.

__________________
"In my view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."

-Rosalind Franklin
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #11 
So, e.g., what position should the JP take to accommodate the Left and the Right?  If the JP takes your position (which I agree with), then most RWers will be offended and may not support JP.  

What this topic was trying to do is point out that there is no way to bridge the divide between the Right and the Left (I am using the classical definitions of these, not ones some people have made up here on the forum and in the MSM).  The Left in the US badly needs a Left Party of some kind that has the size and strength to oppose the Democratic-Republican Duoparty.  This would be something like the Canadian NDP, which looks like it could make government in a couple of years, deposing Harper and neocon dreams of a North American super-nation.

Anything less is watered-down nonsense and echolalia, wishful thinking, and a waste of my time.

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
VioletKnight

Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #12 
Are you talking to me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Difference
So, e.g., what position should the JP take to accommodate the Left and the Right?  If the JP takes your position (which I agree with), then most RWers will be offended and may not support JP.  


Which ones?

Quote:

What this topic was trying to do is point out that there is no way to bridge the divide between the Right and the Left (I am using the classical definitions of these, not ones some people have made up here on the forum and in the MSM).  The Left in the US badly needs a Left Party of some kind that has the size and strength to oppose the Democratic-Republican Duoparty.  This would be something like the Canadian NDP, which looks like it could make government in a couple of years, deposing Harper and neocon dreams of a North American super-nation.


I think this party should be a populist one, and continue focusing on persecuting people responsible for economic injustices and support unions and co-ops. This is something many people agree even if they disagree on various social issues.

__________________
"In my view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."

-Rosalind Franklin
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #13 
If you want a populist party, why not join the Democrats?  They seem to want to accommodate the whole political spectrum, from the far left (socialists, communists) to the middle left (liberals, progressives) to the right (so called "Centrists," a liars word if there ever was one).  You could continue banging your head against the wall over there rather than waiting for this party to congeal.
__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
VioletKnight

Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #14 

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Difference
If you want a populist party, why not join the Democrats?

 


__________________
"In my view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining."

-Rosalind Franklin
No Difference

Registered:
Posts: 155
Reply with quote  #15 
I don't get the joke.  You seem to be in agreement, along with everyone else here, that there really is no substantive difference between what the JP -- with its arrogant and dismissive ignorance of the need for universal equality -- is promoting and what the DP is promoting.  I conclude you are laughing at yourself, which makes no sense to me.  Please let me in on it.   And be quick about it, please, because I am packing my stuff and checking out of here shortly.  The endless spew of nonsense, conflated ideologies, and equivocations (despite how many times it is pointed out) is a waste of my time.

You wouldn't stay at a hotel crawling with cockroaches and other scary stuff if you were paying enough for a better room somewhere else.  Neither would I.

__________________
Cooperation, coordination, and clarity are essential to creating a political party based on equality. Cliches and equivocations will not move this or any other party forward.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!