Let's start the Pragmatist Party

[Crawtator]

You don't have a 'well-formed opinion', yet you say it 'appears to be, at first blush, hypocrisy'.

hypocrisy
1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel.​

Where is the hypocrisy?

You can't read. Hypocrisy of the states in holding strong beliefs. Just because I don't have a strong belief, doesn't mean I can't recognize hypocrisy in others.

And both Emily and I have given the evidence concerning how a state that has a large majority of its constituents that are in favor of propositions in favor of abortion are still states with fetal infanticide laws. These seem to be mutually inconsistent.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How do we feel about comic monkeys?

Or history monkeys?

Any other kind of monkey is okay at present. Although all monkeys ought to consider themselves on notice.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You can't read. Hypocrisy of the states in holding strong beliefs. Just because I don't have a strong belief, doesn't mean I can't recognize hypocrisy in others.

And both Emily and I have given the evidence concerning how a state that has a large majority of its constituents that are in favor of propositions in favor of abortion are still states with fetal infanticide laws. These seem to be mutually inconsistent.

This is delving in to semantics. I don't think it's necessarily hypocrisy. But it's certainly an inconsistency.

Part of why abortion tends to be such a difficult topic. If the parent (either of them, not just the mother) wants the infant, it's a human and a baby. If it's not wanted, it's a lump of semi-inert flesh. Sentiment ascribes additional value, dependent upon circumstance.

 

[fuelair]

What would our basic positions be? What would we negotiate?

To seed discussion... Abortion. I can see the perspective of people who think that abortion is murder. I don't agree, but I get where they're coming from. So... If they want to place limits on abortion... then they have to let gay and lesbian couples adopt children and they have to make contraception easily available. Seems like a reasonable starting point.

Anyone else want to play? Maybe if we get enough of a reasonable platform, we can go live with this before 2020!

Sorry, but on abortion I accept nothing less than abortion freely available to any woman wanting one at any point in the pregnancy. It may help to know I made that decision in the mid 1950s when I was around 9-10 years old and first learned about abortion. And I love kids!!!

 

[fuelair]

Oh, that should be easy. Your new party only needs to get a super majority of the seats in both houses and take the White House. ('cuz you'll need to both amend the Constitution and have a new majority on the Supreme Court who currently take a dim view of limiting one's freedom of association through spending limitations)

And while they are at it, crushing the Electoral College thus ending the much too much influence of certain very backwards thinking states!!!!!!!!!

 

[mgidm86]

That takes care of abortion. Woohoo!

Next!

Finally! A thread where we are supposed to think critically! We will all finally agree!

Didn't think so. You shouldn't have started with abortion!

But since you did - abortion is a special circumstance (because woman's body etc) that people can't agree on, and for that reason (if for no other) I default the decision to the mother. My stance is simple.

Also, no matter how I may feel about it morally, I know that at my age if I got someone pregnant I would be thrilled if they wanted an abortion.

Additionally, if men could get pregnant this controversy wouldn't even exist. Abortion would be free.

Next...

ETA:
I think the Pragmatist Party would decide on the abortion topic quickly.

 

[oopsboom]

My main issue with abortion arguments has always been that they seem to be based on the idea that the government has a duty to step in and protect a 'child' (assuming definition for sake of this side of the argument here) from the actions of the parent.

*IF* you are prepared to make that jump for 9 months of pregnancy then you can't ignore it afterward. The child can either speak for themselves, or they cannot. Legally, they cannot, until age 16 or 18 or whatever the law says for that location. So you have to be prepared to care for that person until then.

Anyone who is 'pro-life' must, by definition, be for a wide range of programs such as welfare, public schools, public school meal assistance, activity programs for those children, etc. As well as necessary tax increases if needed to pay for those things. Yet they frequently aren't. That's the real hypocrisy of 'pro-life', babies must be born, but after that eh~ who cares.

That's also what i would ask for from a 'pragmatist' party. Internal consistency in our laws instead of just pandering and talking points that self-contradict when you actually look at them.

 

[portlandatheist]

For this theoretical party, I'd suggest we do two things with one stone in regards to climate change and universal basic income. That is we should have a revenue neutral fee(not a tax, a fee) and dividend on carbon as promoted by James Hanson and Climate Citizens Lobby:
https://www.ted.com/talks/james_han...climate_change/transcript?language=en#t-23570
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
In addition, this program should remove the subsidies we have for wind and solar. This fee and dividend would make provide money to the poor and would take advantage of the free market solutions while simultaneously reigning it in in terms of carbon emissions. It would provide real incentives to move beyond a carbon intense economy, and we could ratchet it up as time goes and if the economic price is too much to bear, then we could ratchet it down. This in practice would function as a type of universal basic income.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sorry, but on abortion I accept nothing less than abortion freely available to any woman wanting one at any point in the pregnancy. It may help to know I made that decision in the mid 1950s when I was around 9-10 years old and first learned about abortion. And I love kids!!!

Well, that's not particularly pragmatic.

What are you willing to give up in order to get that?

 

[Emily's Cat]

And while they are at it, crushing the Electoral College thus ending the much too much influence of certain very backwards thinking states!!!!!!!!!

You realize that there are just about as many "blue" small states as there are "red", right?

 

[BobTheCoward]

My main issue with abortion arguments has always been that they seem to be based on the idea that the government has a duty to step in and protect a 'child' (assuming definition for sake of this side of the argument here) from the actions of the parent.

*IF* you are prepared to make that jump for 9 months of pregnancy then you can't ignore it afterward. The child can either speak for themselves, or they cannot. Legally, they cannot, until age 16 or 18 or whatever the law says for that location. So you have to be prepared to care for that person until then.

Anyone who is 'pro-life' must, by definition, be for a wide range of programs such as welfare, public schools, public school meal assistance, activity programs for those children, etc. As well as necessary tax increases if needed to pay for those things. Yet they frequently aren't. That's the real hypocrisy of 'pro-life', babies must be born, but after that eh~ who cares.

That's also what i would ask for from a 'pragmatist' party. Internal consistency in our laws instead of just pandering and talking points that self-contradict when you actually look at them.

One could take the position as simply "don't murder" and not have any obligation for future protection.

 

[Varanid]

What's the effect of no abortions? More unwanted babies pregnancies.

FTFY. Big difference.

Why on earth would you start a pragmatic/practical/centrist party platform discussion by bringing up one of the most contentious cultural issues of the last several decades?

If you really want to make a centrist-type party, you kick the abortion can as far down the road as is humanly possible.

A few other thoughts with respect to the entire thread:

-Start with "patriotic" causes that still appeal to left-leaning voters, such as a relatively robust posture against Russia, an appeal to the rule of law and a slight draw down of many of our current military engagements.

-Cannabis decriminalization/re-scheduling at the federal level would probably draw support from a majority of voters.

-Clamp down on the uber-wealthy. I'm not talking about crippling taxes, but making them a little higher.

-Modest middle class tax breaks obviously appeal to the majority of voters.

-Increase funding for education across the board. As long as inner-city and rural public schools are getting better funding, I'm fine with Richy McMoney Bags getting vouchers to send his kid to a private school that teaches about the baby jesus. Everybody wins.

-Two years worth of free college would probably get widespread support. Two years isn't enough for most people to get a really good job, but I'd appreciate the value of a better-educated populace.

-I'm a slightly bristly atheist, but I don't agree with some of the posters here suggesting that religious issues be tackled head-on. I think time, patience and education are far more likely to be successful than a frontal assault.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, as a center-left American.

 

[Ziggurat]

FTFY. Big difference.

Yes, there's a big difference, but you have it backwards. Abortions do not prevent unwanted pregnancies. The pregnancy is, in fact, a precondition of an abortion. Abortions reduce the number of unwanted babies, but their availability very well may increase the number of unwanted pregnancies (since they reduce the cost of an unwanted pregnancy and thus may lead to riskier behavior).

If you really want to make a centrist-type party, you kick the abortion can as far down the road as is humanly possible.

I agree about that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why on earth would you start a pragmatic/practical/centrist party platform discussion by bringing up one of the most contentious cultural issues of the last several decades?

If you really want to make a centrist-type party, you kick the abortion can as far down the road as is humanly possible.

Because if we can't pragmatically address one of the most contentious issues in a reasonable and practical fashion, we're doomed from the get-go

Pragmatist isn't populist. Starting with the things that most people support isn't changing anything. Appealing to stuff most people already want isn't evidence of making practical, well reasoned decisions with the common good in mind. Coming up with a least-objectionable solution for highly charged issues is what being pragmatic is all about.

 

[quadraginta]

Because if we can't pragmatically address one of the most contentious issues in a reasonable and practical fashion, we're doomed from the get-go

Pragmatist isn't populist. Starting with the things that most people support isn't changing anything. Appealing to stuff most people already want isn't evidence of making practical, well reasoned decisions with the common good in mind. Coming up with a least-objectionable solution for highly charged issues is what being pragmatic is all about.

According to quite a few people, "least objectionable" is how we ended up with Trump as POTUS.

I'm not sure what is pragmatic about that.

 

[Varanid]

Yes, there's a big difference, but you have it backwards. Abortions do not prevent unwanted pregnancies. The pregnancy is, in fact, a precondition of an abortion. Abortions reduce the number of unwanted babies, but their availability very well may increase the number of unwanted pregnancies (since they reduce the cost of an unwanted pregnancy and thus may lead to riskier behavior).

I see where you are going with that, but I don't care. We should do what we can to better educate the populace about sex issues, but that doesn't mean I want to infringe upon the rights of citizens.

Unwanted pregnancies can be very detrimental to a woman's quality of life. And I'm talking about educated, safe, working, married/committed women, not welfare moms.

It is her body. Until the fetus is viable (give or take), it is a parasite living inside her body. I don't mean this as necessarily crass, but a person's rights outweigh a potential person's rights.

Aristotle said that, or something.

 

[Varanid]

Because if we can't pragmatically address one of the most contentious issues in a reasonable and practical fashion, we're doomed from the get-go

...snip...

Coming up with a least-objectionable solution for highly charged issues is what being pragmatic is all about.

My bolding.

Yeah, I think you've already missed the mark, then.

I'm pretty centrist for someone who is a reliable Dem, but you've already lost me. That's just not a good sign. I find your suggestion highly objectionable.

If you are going to take on the god-awful problem of abortion, I'd recommend trying to agree on a point at which a fetus is viable. Outlaw abortions after that point in time, unless the health of the baby or mother is in jeopardy (and that is ultimately decided by the mother, anyway). I doubt many left-leaning voters would object. Right-leaning voters could at least take comfort in the fact that X number of babies weren't being "murdered."

I'm not trying to get into a whole abortion debate; rather, I'm trying to demonstrate that I'm not even a crazy-(American) leftist, abortions-on-lunch-breaks type of voter. I just think you should've started elsewhere.

Like I said, "patriotism," decriminalization, middle-class tax cuts and increase in education funding (including providing some form of vouchers).

Now you just need someone who didn't go to Russia on his honeymoon and isn't older than Yoda (praise be unto him) to represent said party, and you'll be in business. A woman is probably a good choice. I don't personally care the sex/gender/sexual orientation of a leader, but I just feel like that's the best way to capitalize on public emotion.

But what the hell do I know. I thought Bernie was un-electable because of the "socialist/Russia" stuff. Who'd have thought politics was so complicated?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Because if we can't pragmatically address one of the most contentious issues in a reasonable and practical fashion, we're doomed from the get-go

Pragmatist isn't populist. Starting with the things that most people support isn't changing anything. Appealing to stuff most people already want isn't evidence of making practical, well reasoned decisions with the common good in mind. Coming up with a least-objectionable solution for highly charged issues is what being pragmatic is all about.

The only pragmatic solution to abortion is that if a baby is old enough to survive outside the womb with medical assistance then it has minimal rights as a (admittedly potential) independent minor. Minors don't have full rights anyway, but this provides a pragmatic sliding scale that also allows some wiggle room for a caring doctor and a caring parent to interact on the "exceptions" type things, like medical necessity endangering the mother and/or child's life...

 

[Emily's Cat]

My bolding.

Yeah, I think you've already missed the mark, then.

I'm pretty centrist for someone who is a reliable Dem, but you've already lost me. That's just not a good sign. I find your suggestion highly objectionable.

Centrist <> Pragmatic. Similarly "reliable Dem" is pretty much NOT middle of the road .

Having strong opinions about a lot of topics, but having them spread across the line doesn't make one either practical or pragmatic. Pragamatism means making tradeoffs in order to increase the overall benefit. That doesn't mean you pick a topic and dig your heals in. It means you pick your battles and you give on some things in order to get others - actual collaborative negotiations, you know ?

If you are going to take on the god-awful problem of abortion, I'd recommend trying to agree on a point at which a fetus is viable. Outlaw abortions after that point in time, unless the health of the baby or mother is in jeopardy (and that is ultimately decided by the mother, anyway). I doubt many left-leaning voters would object. Right-leaning voters could at least take comfort in the fact that X number of babies weren't being "murdered."

Yes, some reasonable agreement about viability is probably required. But beyond that you're still going to get a pile of voters who object to ANY point at which abortion is considered illegal. And you're going to get wildly different views on where that line is between fetus and baby. That's where compromise and negotiation comes in. If the other side wants to reduce the threshold (to first trimester, for instance), then they have to give something else up. I suggest that we negotiate other issues that touch on babies - adoption and contraception being at the top of the list.

I'm not going to take a stance that says "I want abortions on demand whenever a woman wants them, and I want fully available contraception whenever it's wanted at no cost, and I want gay and single people to be allowed to adopt babies, and I'm not going to give an inch on any of those things!". That's not pragmatic, nor is it going to be successful.

So what trade-offs are you willing to make?

By the way, if your answer is "none" - if you're not willing to consider any compromises at all - then I'm not letting you into my party, because you're clearly not very pragmatic

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't mean this as necessarily crass, but a person's rights outweigh a potential person's rights.

But that's precisely the bone of contention. Is it just a potential person? Or is it an actual person? There is no agreement about that. That is ultimately a moral judgment, there are no purely objective criteria for providing an answer. Yes, if your answer is that it's just a potential person, then it makes sense to allow abortions. But if it's not just a potential person, if it's an actual person, then it makes sense to prohibit abortion. There will not be agreement on the question of whether or not to allow abortion because there is not agreement on the question of whether the fetus is a potential person or an actual person. Your conclusion isn't universally shared because your premise isn't universally shared. There is no "pragmatist" answer to this issue.

Which is why kicking it down the road is the sensible pragmatist party approach.