Let's start the Pragmatist Party

[superfreddy]

$16 dollar minimum wagesingle payer healthcare
stop teh War on Drugs
get money out of politics
reform the democratic party
gun neutral

Enough of the politically correct BS and incrementalism

No minimum wage.

 

[Varanid]

So what trade-offs are you willing to make?

On abortion? Not many. Hence my earlier comments.

 

[Varanid]

Centrist <> Pragmatic.

I initially granted you that point, but the more I think about it, I think that may be a distinction without a difference. But perhaps I'm being woefully naive.

After all, in their opening paragraph, the Centrist Party states:

Centrism is a political ideology based on reason and pragmatism considerate of short and long term thinking

Similarly "reliable Dem" is pretty much NOT middle of the road .

From an American point of view, I don't necessarily think this is a contradiction. Anymore than a "reliable Republican" could also be centrist.

I'll give some examples further down.

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 ?

Yes, I agree. Let's start by not considering the most contentious issue of our time. There are plenty of topics that don't generate mind-melting levels of emotion. Abortion is arguably the most emotional issue in public discourse.

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.

See, you've lost me. If my wife is suffering because of a proto-human, I'm siding with her and her doctor. And **** anyone who says differently.

I'm guessing those on the opposite side are just as emotionally invested in their arguments.

I, nor "they," don't care about your compromises on this issue, BECAUSE ABORTION IS TOO *********** EMOTIONAL A TOPIC TO BEGIN A PRAGMATIC DISCUSSION.

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

As I said, there are few compromises I'm willing to make regarding the sanctity of my wife's (or any other adult woman's) body. It is hers to do with as she wishes, at least until some point at which we agree on viability. End. Of. Story.

BUT!!!

I'd live with tax cuts for the rich. I'm ok with pretty lax gun laws (although the gun show loophole needs attention). I'll live with vouchers, assuming public schools receive a boost in funding. I think single-payer is probably the fairest health care approach, but I'm fine with affordable, guaranteed-issue, private health care. I don't support a minimum wage increase.

How's that for concessions?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Pragmatist Party was tried here. It is called the Lib Dems, who when offered power in 2010 showed their true spineless nature. I suspect an American equivalent would fold quite quickly.