Forward Party

[Random]

unfortunately, it is these words, that are responsible for corralling a large percentage of progressives into voting for lessor evil candidates but who get despondent and never act with sufficient vigor to hold the liars to account for their lies when their actions contradict their baiting electoral rhetoric.

Maintaining constant attention to the political scene is time-consuming and difficult. Only real wonks get into every law and regulation that is working its way through Congress at any time. Heck, that's why we have elected representatives in the first place.

Voting for the person whose TV ad says they support your beliefs, and sending them money, is one thing. Spending the next two years watching your Congressman to see they don't step out of line is quite another.

 

[Trakar]

If progressive Democrats form a new party and thereby split the vote, it will guarantee Republican wins all over the country. That's the worst case scenario.

Progressivism (which originally revolved around applying scientific principles and methodology to the field of politics) was originally a Republican variant of politics. My family had a long tradition of being "Bull Moose" Republicans, it has faded since the '80s both because the Republitard, and most of the Dimocrapic, parties have moved far to the right of working family/labor-focused Public Policy as well as a lot of socio-cultural cookie-cutter scrambling by both corporate parties.

 

[Trakar]

...Voting for the person whose TV ad says they support your beliefs, and sending them money, is one thing. Spending the next two years watching your Congressman to see they don't step out of line is quite another.

That (maintaining ideological/policy agenda adherence) was originally the only valid reason (that I could see) for having political parties! Currently however, with both parties captured by Capital's funding donations, neither of the parties work for the voters, merely the high dollar donors and their Political Nonprofits, Super PACs, Carey Committees, and assorted LLCs and shell companies. This is a massive roadblock to any reformation or major change initiatives within either of the current mainstream parties (as well as the formation of any successful third parties).

 

[Trakar]

That is completely backwards. You spend the most mental energy where you think it's worth your time. Change where you can effect it and write off where you can't. If you are investing time and mental energy into someone you don't think is worth that time and effort, you may want to reconsider your priorities.

The other side of the issue may well be that we notice it more when those we have a lot of agreement with reject and attack us than, than when we are rejected and attacked by those we disagree with on nearly every issue anyway.

 

[Trakar]

Bringing the Democratic party (^edit back) to the left is the far easier choice, even if can be incredibly annoying at times.

Very much this, but though this seems the easier choice, that is largely because we tend to underestimate the depth of the (largely "self-induced") corruption which the party leadership depends upon to keep the oligarch money flowing to satisfy their greed and secure their seats of power.

 

[tyr_13]

It's interesting that every time someone puts forward a 'new, moderate, third party between the two extremes of the others' their policy choices are nearly indistinguishable from the corprotist DNC type Dems.

How are they different from the Dems? They have even less spine, and are more intellectually cowardly, so they'll fight the radicals even less effectively than the Dems. Great argument.

 

[ahhell]

It's interesting that every time someone puts forward a 'new, moderate, third party between the two extremes of the others' their policy choices are nearly indistinguishable from the corprotist DNC type Dems.

How are they different from the Dems? They have even less spine, and are more intellectually cowardly, so they'll fight the radicals even less effectively than the Dems. Great argument.

Universal basic income is pretty different from the Corporatist Dems.

We could also talk about attempts at centrist third parties are actually kind of unusually. The closest thing to that with any success was Ross Perot's run. Otherwise its Greens, libertarians and even more quixotic parties.

 

[ahhell]

Progressivism (which originally revolved around applying scientific principles and methodology to the field of politics) was originally a Republican variant of politics. My family had a long tradition of being "Bull Moose" Republicans, it has faded since the '80s both because the Republitard, and most of the Dimocrapic, parties have moved far to the right of working family/labor-focused Public Policy as well as a lot of socio-cultural cookie-cutter scrambling by both corporate parties.

More accurate to say it was originally non-partisan or bi-partisan as the there were progressive wings of both the Dems and Republicans back in the day.

Also more accurate to say it was an attempt to apply psuedo sicence to government policy. or the most part it wasn't so much science as using the branding of science to give polices an air of legitimacy.

 

[Donal]

His version of UBI is essentially company scrip and shutting down all social services.

 

[ahhell]

That's why it's so easy to be an idealist, especially a proxy one for a third party. As long as your people aren't actually in power they are perpetually virginal and clean, their high and mighty morals never tested, never tainted by the real world game that has to be played to get anything done. It is so very, very, very easy to never compromise your standards when you're not doing anything. We're all vegetarians between meals after all.

But I'm sure as soon as they are in power the Squad will be able to just magically snap their fingers and make everything perfect and won't need any evil dirty corporate money or across the aisle deals with the other side to get it done.

I generally agree with you on your take regarding the progressive's attitude towards mainstream dems. There are basically two kinds of political parties, those that prioritize power and those that prioritize ideology. The Dems and GOP are the latter, the Libertarians and the Greens are the former. There is a reason that the Dems and the GOP are the successful parties.

The most vocal progressives don't seem to quite get that.

 

[Random]

Universal basic income is pretty different from the Corporatist Dems.

We could also talk about attempts at centrist third parties are actually kind of unusually. The closest thing to that with any success was Ross Perot's run. Otherwise its Greens, libertarians and even more quixotic parties.

I see no indication that the Forward Party is advocating UBI, even though Yang has in the past. A quick look at their website shows a pretty thin platform. Pretty much the only solid things they actually advocate are Ranked Choice Voting, Non-Partisan Primaries, and Independent Redistricting Commissions.

After that they have their "Three Priorities":

Three priorities will unite our broad coalition and serve as the springboard for policymaking by Forward Party candidates and leaders at all levels:

Free People: Revitalize a culture that celebrates difference and individual choice, rejects hate, and removes barriers so that each of us can rise to our full potential.
Thriving Communities: Reinvigorate a fair, flourishing economy and open society where everyone can live a good life and is safe in the places where we learn, work, and live.
Vibrant Democracy: Reform our republic to give Americans more choices in elections, more confidence in a government that works, and more say in our future.

It only gets more vague after that...

 

[tyr_13]

More accurate to say it was originally non-partisan or bi-partisan as the there were progressive wings of both the Dems and Republicans back in the day.

Also more accurate to say it was an attempt to apply psuedo sicence to government policy. or the most part it wasn't so much science as using the branding of science to give polices an air of legitimacy.

His version of UBI is essentially company scrip and shutting down all social services.

It's way closer to Nixon's plan for it than anything meaningful.

 

[Donal]

It really is crazy how Nixon and Eisenhower at one point pushed ideas like UBI and Medicare-for-All.

 

[Trakar]

More accurate to say it was originally non-partisan or bi-partisan as the there were progressive wings of both the Dems and Republicans back in the day.

Not sure that is accurate, as the Dim party was largely controlled and dominated by the Dixiecrats in the late 19th and very early 20th centuries. There may have been some democratic politicians and voters who were open to the advances of science and the industrial era changes but they were very few and far between.

Also more accurate to say it was an attempt to apply psuedo sicence to government policy. or the most part it wasn't so much science as using the branding of science to give polices an air of legitimacy.

At this historical point (late 19th - early 20th centuries) a lot of the science we are talking about (especially the soft sciences) were quite replete with a lot of what is currently, clearly pseudoscience. At the time, however, there wasn't a lot of available compelling evidence to allow the clear distinction between what was scientifically valid or invalid. Progressivism helped to push using the Scientific Method to help standardize the process and the data so that these processes could be applied more formally to studies and considerations of issues beyond the laboratory. At this early time there were a lot social/cultural myths that pervaded the state of the science, and most of these were eventually largely exposed and discredited with the assistance of compelling evidences acquired through the application of scientific principles and practices.

 

[Trakar]

His version of UBI is essentially company scrip and shutting down all social services.

destroying the social contract via cash-buyout/bribery

 

[Trakar]

There is a reason that the Dems and the GOP are the successful parties

Appealing to greed and avarice are usually more enticing than trying to appeal to altruism and selfless-sacrifice, regardless of the consequences, it's that old original sin hardwiring at play.

 

[Suddenly]

I generally agree with you on your take regarding the progressive's attitude towards mainstream dems. There are basically two kinds of political parties, those that prioritize power and those that prioritize ideology. The Dems and GOP are the latter, the Libertarians and the Greens are the former. There is a reason that the Dems and the GOP are the successful parties.

The most vocal progressives don't seem to quite get that.

It's just patronizing. Progressives understand that government is messy and you don't get what you want. What they understand is that you have to idealize both.

The GOP idealizes ideology. The party has been in the same purity purge for a generation and pursues highly unpopular policies and get away with it because they market it so well.

What else they do is they don't get in office and start worrying about Democratic backlash or if they will anger moderates. They hammer through their agenda understanding even if it costs them next time they've at least made the changes they want.

The Dems, well, no.

 

[Donal]

What else they do is they don't get in office and start worrying about Democratic backlash or if they will anger moderates. They hammer through their agenda understanding even if it costs them next time they've at least made the changes they want.

The Dems, well, no.

Some of those changes are meant to specifically cement their power.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Because Progressives are a political minority. I don't get why this concept confuses them so much.

The Democratic Party is the biggest party in the US. Not "The Progressive Party."

It's this "I'm obviously right by fiat, ergo the major political party who is closest to me has moral obligation to step aside and let me run it" attitude that's the problem.

Not true any more.

Congressional Progressive Caucus surpassed the New Democrat Coalition in seats.

While I want say they are the dominant caucus, they aren't some outlying minor component. There is some considerable and rational frustration in their being expected to have low expectations of infulence.

 

[Donal]

Yang was interviewed by Kim Acosta on CNN and got absolutely roasted for not having any actual ideas or positions. All he could do is repeat "Not left or right but forward" with no indication of what "forward" looks like. He just kept claiming they will defer to whatever the majority opinion is.

He has a high school sophomore's understanding of politics. It was like that Treehouse of Horror episode where Clinton and Dole were replaced by Kang and Kodos. "We must go forward not backward! Upward not forward! And always twirling twirling TWIRLING towards freedom!"