My proposal for a new party
Submitted by Cassiodorus on Mon, 10/10/2016 - 10:30am
The Sensible Futures Party.
Our platform:
1) phase out fossil fuel production according to the general template given here
2) a community garden in every suburb -- use eminent domain to take over vacant lots
3) redirect the military toward climate change mitigation work
4) bring back equal time provisions in mass media reporting
5) repeal the Taft-Hartley Act
7) End marijuana and psilocybin prohibition
8) Support the College For All Act
9) Single payer health care
Comments
Since otherwise we'd just waste our time on debates
Let's do this instead.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Campaign Finance Reform?
Removing Corporate Personhood?
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
I've tried to limit the proposals --
to things which were 1) doable, 2) ideas which built upon the existing structure in transformative ways, and 3) ideas which addressed immediate needs. Campaign finance reform and ending corporate personhood are good ideas. But I've already suggested nine important planks. I suppose we could keep the number at nine (proposing too much means asking people to remember too much) if we eliminated one of those I've proposed above. What do you think?
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Until money in politics is dealt with you get nothing.
Until money in politics is dealt with you get nothing.
You might gain a temporary victory here and their, but it will only ever be temporary if it hurts the profits of some work of legal fiction.
Clearly
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
I see your points. But not sure if I agree.
I would also add opposition to TPP and support for Universal Basic Income.
Both of these ideas would have a lot of appeal but don't meet your criteria.
Separately, Green Party candidates refuse contributions from PACs and corporations. I find that very appealing.
Also, regarding your criteria, I would add that you should focus on planks which draw a lot of interest/passion and have a broad appeal. Avoid the pit the Greens have fallen into by focusing on broad appeal.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Eliminating the military is doable.
The American public will never vote for that. Removing foreign military bases, ending the revolving door, removing profit from the defense industry by building in-house. Those things are doable. Swords into plowshares is a pipedream. If nothing else, there are dozens of countries that want revenge on the USA.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I would bypass this party
The problem, in my mind, is that corruption is THE problem. None of the rest of your issues, or any other issues, will ever get the light of day without dealing with corruption.
If I don't see some statement about Gilens & Page front and center then I assume that the party/candidate represents the establishment.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
So what counts as "corruption" for you?
A definition might help. Quid pro quo arrangements?
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Loosely speaking it's money in politics
So I'd be looking at federal campaign financing, some focus on revolving door, an overhaul of the FEC, and of course, Citizens United.
I'm trying to make it so that the voice of the bottom 90% of income earners is heard. Because honestly, once we've won that we've automatically won so many other things. And if we haven't won that (and seeing as I'm in that lower 90%) then nothing else matters.
Think of it like the anti Gilens & Page plank.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
I Like The Platform
Especially when the proposed elimination of Citizens United and corporate personhood (suggested above me) is added.
I just can't get excited about the name. Historically, if someone poses as "sensible" or "rational", or "smart", it only invites snarky commentary and derogatory attacks from rivals. There has to be a better name which doesn't invite such calumny. I'd offer one, but I can't think of one at the moment. I'm sure smarter people than me here at The Caucus can offer good prospects.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Do you have a suggested alternative name?
That was what I could think of.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Like I Said
I don't. I will try to produce one if I can.
I did suggest that others here on The Caucus might produce a good name, so I watch as you will to see if something is introduced.
Besides, one has to start somewhere. Microsoft was originally something ridiculous like "Galactic Software Products" or something like that. There's no rush to have that killer name just yet. Let's give the Caucus time and see what they offer.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
How about the Seventh Generation party
where we promise to keep the future bright (or even brighter than it is now) for our descendants.
glitterscale
That's got my vote
Gets to the heart of the issue that the time is now or never.
Actually after reading the comment a second time, I misinterpreted why you chose the name, 7th generation, to mean that we are the 7th generation now and we have the responsibility to keep the cycle of 7 generations going. Maybe my interpretation of the Native American philosophy misses the whole point.
Beware the bullshit factories.
If it were me, I would call it the Party of the White Rose
in honor of the resistance party of that name which tried to oppose Nazi Germany from within.
You need a name that catches people's attention, like 'Pirate Party', that doesn't sound like yet more goo goo good government and doesn't sound like someone is lying. Unfortunately, most of the usual kinds of names, like Freedom and Justice do anymore sound like advertising slogans.
Mary Bennett
Colors have political connotations
I think we need to avoid any tinting in the party name lest it be abused in some manner.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Future Party - We focus on long term populist policy to improve
your future.
Just drop the "sensible" and you have a name that I believe applies for all.
I liked Our Party. With the bird logo.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I like The Democratic Socialist Party
Nothing too flowery, invites comparisons to European-style politics, and puts the word "Socialist" right in peoples' faces.
I've always thought The Green Party was an ill-considered name because it suggests a singular objective, and doesn't even present a social reference point for it.
Don't think anyone here
is going to quibble much on the issues. In fact let me cherry pick some polls: 81% support a millionaires tax. 62% support single payer, 71% support the public option. 70-80% want big money out of politics. 75% suport increased infrastructure spending.
Ya see where I'm going?
As a sometime campaign manager, my take is about party building and having talented and skilled people in leadership positions that understand and have experience in creating and wielding political power. We have less than 3 yrs to do it. That means people/leadership based structure in all 50 states and at the national level for the 2017 cycle.
200+ million raised for the 2018 cycle. And this kind of money raised for the 2020 cycle:
https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/
Yeah a billion bucks.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
Social media needs to be a big part of it.
It's time for some new innovations on the internet. We need a new kind of social media network that organizes, informs and connects people. Democratizing the internet should be a big part of the party's platform.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Bernie hired Revolution Messaging
Their next gen social media platform was responsible for most of the over 200 million Bernie raised.
That and the onine organizing tools were not the next step compared to what Obama had, they are totally next gen cutting edge online tools. While Brand New Congress is already working on the next gen for 2018.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
I'm trying to go further here.
Note the proposal at the top on climate change, the community garden thing, and the redirection of the military.
Also I have no idea where you get the notion that "we have less than three years to do it." I vote for "whatever it takes."
And the money thing? The Democrats failed us because they always thought of money and not of what was actually going to be accomplished with it. See e.g. Ralph Nader's criticisms, developed through discussion with Marcy Kaptur:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/democrats-congress_b_4123609.html
Let's start with what precisely the money is going to buy and then think about how we're going to get the money.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Bernie Showed Us How
All we need to do is follow that same path and we can stand up to corporate money like he did.
Hey, it got him to the Convention before they could shiv him!
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
I'm down with every bit of this.
Where do I sign up?
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams
I suppose you first create the signature sheet --
And then you sign it.
I have yet to create a full business proposal behind this. I like the idea developed by Roger Fox in the comments above of getting talented people in leadership positions, but sometimes the leadership has to be developed rather than selected from the ranks of the veterans.
And sometimes leadership can come from horizontal structures.
We might start by finding sympathetic people who worked for Bernie. Your thoughts?
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
What future?
I do agree we need a strong PRAGMATIC third party.
?????
glitterscale
What a beautiful painting your avatar is!
The word PRAGMATIC, however, has been permanently poisoned for me.
I'm trying to prevent the words HOPE and REVOLUTION from joining it.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Very good so far. I could vote for that program.
Might I ask you to consider:
A new party must be a peace party. No more foreign interventions. Close most overseas military bases, and bring back our soldiers, marines, airmen(women) and sailors, not to be dumped out on the street, but to be put to work stateside on any number of urgent tasks. Some of those include, firefighting--we need at least twice as many firefighters as we have now, professionally trained, not jacks of all trades masters of none scraped up from barrios--, staffing inner city and rural schools and health clinics. Extending existing mass transit. Health care for all needs to be backed up with easily accessible clinics. Sorry, Zionists, but Israel is all grown up now, and needs to move out and get it's own place.
Foreign policy must be, IMHO, a three way cooperation between Russia, China and the US to maintain world peace and build prosperity for all. This would not necessarily be a net loss for the US, as some fear. China would have to accept some tariffs and restrictions on its habit of unloading excess population as well as shoddy trade goods in the US. Russia would have to accept repatriation of Russian gangsters currently living in the US. Both, as well as others like the KSA and European multinationals, would have to accept that they don't get to own American national resources. I don't know for sure, but I am willing to bet, that the three major powers working together might be able to rein in multinational corporations and force them to abide by reasonable laws. What is certain is that no one else can.
Something to address the high costs of housing for the poor and working classes. I know of three methods, which are restricting immigration, rent controls, and confiscatory taxes on rentiers, especially absentee landlords. Perhaps someone here knows of a better way?
Farm policy which includes, reviving the antitrust suit against Monsanto, prohibition on any foreign ownership, including as part of a consortium, of American farmland, reinstatement of commodity price supports, and price ceilings to keep the likes of Goldman Sachs out of the commodity markets. Outlaw the dangerous chemical glyphosate, and declare a moratorium on any new approvals of genetically engineered food ingredients until they can be rigorously tested. For at least the next twenty years, no one who has worked in agribiz should be hired by USDA, EPA or the FDA. Immediately ban bee killing neocontinids and begin rigorous scientific testing of all other pesticides and chemical food additives.
Finally, I suggest that a new party must be a nationalist party. American governance and American leadership should promote the welfare of Americans. Give the Trumpist voters a program and candidates to vote for instead of crazy fascists. I know, internationalism sounds good. It is a very seductive ideology. As an internationalist, you get to feel like you belong among the greats--Plato and Shakespeare as your neighbors, instead of the snobs, slobs and nutcases who are your real neighbors.
Mary Bennett
See the proposal above --
about redirecting the military for work on climate change. Currently the military serves to indulge the fantasies of power and profit of the owning class. The military has a lot of supporters -- look for instance at the "support the troops" nonsense trotted out by the working-class Right in America. If you are to promote peace, then, you need a purpose for the military. I vote climate change.
The same principle should work with all of the other people who want war -- have them redirect their talents toward something better.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
The military ran the CCC, but then again the training those
civilians received prepared them to fight in WWII. But as you say, it can work both ways and we do need a WWIII approach to climate change.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
That doesn't really give a peaceful vision though.
glitterscale
Well, we could think of it as beating swords into ploughshares.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Many CCC workers had no high school education
They got a high school degree thru the CCC, the best students were put into free 2 yr colleges. Sound familiar?
A significant portion of them got degrees in electrical and mechanical engineering. They then designed and built stuff that won WW2.
In our case they'll be fighting to reverse global warming.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
Close the revolving door
between corporations and the regulators.
Close tax loopholes for the wealthy and enforce the corporate tax
albeit at a lower rate.
Enforce antitrust laws across the board in all industries especially the
media and silicon valley.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
New Party
I don't really see this as necessary or desirable. Please take a look at the following Wikipedia page:
List of political parties in the United States
In addition to already having five major parties (defined as having independent organizations in a majority of states), they currently list a total of 31 minor parties, as well as at least a couple dozen independent state parties, such as the Vermont Progressive Party.
Adding yet another leftist party into the mix only encourages more factionalism and internecine conflict among progressives. It would be better, IMO, to either work within an existing party, or else create a non-partisan organization dedicated to building public support for an agenda for fundamental and comprehensive change.
There's no shortage of candidates running for public office who have good ideas. The real difficulty is, and has always been, getting more than a tiny sliver of the population to pay any attention to them. The Sanders campaign already gave rise to the United Progressive Party (not included on the Wikipedia listing), and I've also seen mention of another new party called the Independent Progressive Party. But my question is, by what means does the UPP, the IPP, the SFP, or any other startup political party break through to engage the broad public conscious when so many others with virtually identical goals have tried and failed?
inactive account
The Republicans had, what, sixteen candidates this year?
None of them were any good. Same thing with parties.
The idea is, as you suggest, to create a party that's actually good, and not another haven for sectarian nonsense. In this regard it might be easier to create something that's new rather than relying upon something that's old and sectarian.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Well, good luck with that
Perhaps you should consider latching onto the United Progressive Party, whose Facebook page already has nearly 14,000 members. In any case, creating a new political party is the easy part. Getting more than a few hardcore leftists to pay the least bit of attention to it is where things tend to get sticky. Have yet to see any explanation from you or anybody else as to exactly how that will be accomplished. And it's not like it hasn't been tried. What exactly do you propose to do differently?
inactive account
I suppose we will need a business proposal --
containing a plan for how we will avoid the sectarianism (or, in the case of the Democrats, the selling-out) that has plagued the other parties.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
I have a lot of ideas about that
but I just came out of a weekend of sheltering a ton of hurricane emigres, and tomorrow I'm closing on a house, so now is a really bad time for laying the ideas out.
I'd love to talk about it once I have more than 1/4 of my brain available. Later this week?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Hope to see you here then! (nmi)
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Republicans replaced the Whigs in just 4 years
The only time in US history a major party was replaced.
And it was done mostly from knowledgable people moving to the new party. So again, if you don't have the people with the skill set, it aint happening.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
this isn't a reason for not starting a new party
it's a reason for starting a new party in a different way, different strategies, and attention paid to different things, than has been done before. If it failed 40 times, then don't do it the same way the 41st.
The place Roger Fox and I come together is in his focus on infrastructure: people, organizations, networks, skills, money, information: getting the resources in place to do the work, not just getting some people together who believe in a set of ideas.
I'm really most with Thoreau: if you build castles in the air, that is where they belong; now build the foundations under them.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Well said
Is it called Party buildingfor a reason?
And yes, ideas are not a foundation. That means we dig ditches and pour concrete for foundations. We work, hard. Because afterall, great accomlishments require great inputs. And there are those who demonstrate they are not willing to do the heavy lifting.
The Sanders campaign was my 14th since 2004. I walk the walk. From Database creation and management, Field Ops, fundraising, communications, volunteer recruitment and training. I know how to create and wield poitical power and yes, frankly it has almost Zero to do with a set of ideas.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
So if you're going to suggest organization without ideas --
Yeah, I don't think you want to be hired by the next Jeb Bush for President campaign.
You want ideas too.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
No, no--
we don't want to choose between materialism & idealism. Obviously, we need both materials (interpreted broadly) and ideas.
They should come together as a strategy.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Come on dude
We've got the best ideas. Thats not the issue. for progressives we've got the best ideas and lot of them, so in relative terms ideas are cheap.
But without the leadership and infrastructure, those ideas are worthless. With good leadership and infrastructure and crap ideas you get the GOP. And the GOP is a competitive national party. With the best ideas and crap leadership and infrastructure you get 1-3% nationally.
The value of good leadership and infrastructure should be self apparent.
The Green Party has the best platform and they're a niche party.
The GOP has the shitiest platform and they are a national party.
Now go ahead and make the case that those great ideas have any freaking bearing on a party being a national party. Come on dude, for people like you and me, a good platform takes 10 minutes to write. You've just done exactly that.
Ok? Now that job is done, we have a great platform, so let me ask you whats next? My brother..... what comes next?
I lit dropped 6,000 house for McGovern in '72. Sanders was my 14th campaign just since 2004. Now I'm involved in #'s 15 & 16. I'm consulting with a town council candidate and I am campaign manager for a NY State Assembly candidate. And at my day job I work on a golf course.
FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.
I've already suggested it here --
You apply to "leadership" -- create a business plan for a new party, suggesting a way to avoid both sectarianism and selling out. You organize meetings, collect ideas, make alliances with people who are worth your time.
3-5% is what you get when the closest thing you'll see to any "leadership" that supports you says "sorry, we have to support Goldwater Girl this year because omigod Trump." They've of course said stuff like this since 1980. The Democratic Party is another party with "leadership" but without ideas. Its actual thrust is encapsulated in Doug Henwood's summary of Hillary Clinton's political career in his biography "Her Turn"
When I put out positions, then, I'm trying to make an effort to do things that do not follow the routine of "position production" a la Hillary Clinton, then, because the Democratic production of "positions" is all empty.
It's really been a mistake for "leadership" to limit its efforts to those taking place within the Democratic Party. The fact that the so-called "Left" spends all its time trying to take over said party also explains why there's so little "leadership" anymore. Only a very few people are interested in idea-less politics, and most of those are counting on getting paid for their efforts.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Interesting
I know you're aware that there is already a pretty high profile leftist party in place that has somehow managed to get their presidential candidate on the ballot in 44 states, and also that this candidate has to date been interviewed on major MSM television programs such as the PBS NewsHour, CNN, and Fox News, as well as by the editorial boards of such newspapers as the NY Times and Washington Post. She's also appeared frequently on Democracy Now, as well as having been featured in their virtual debates, in which she and her running mate have been spliced into the video feed and allowed to go up against the D and R candidates in front of a fairly large audience.
Just out of curiosity, how long do you think before your hypothetical New Party candidates will eclipse the Greens as the party of choice for left-leaning voters inclined to opt out of the duopoly? One four year election cycle? Two? Three? Forgive me if I say I'll believe it when I see it. Talking glibly about employing superior organizing skills is one thing, actually making it happen is something else again. The Green Party has been walking the walk for over thirty years, and the fact that it has as yet failed to attract a massive following is in my view due to a large number of factors, many of which are entirely outside of its control.
HRC had a valid point when she stated, in so many words, that it takes the concerted efforts of an entire community to properly raise and socialize a child. By the same token, I believe it would take the concerted and coordinated efforts of a number of actors - such as academia, alternative media, the popular arts, and independent community organizers - to sufficiently raise the public consciousness that a substantial sub-set would finally be willing to break its longstanding allegiance to the much vaunted two-party system. To date, I don't believe such efforts have been forthcoming.
Personally, I would rather devote my own efforts towards helping an alternative party that's already achieved a fairly high level of public awareness take things to the next level, rather than starting from square one with an entirely new organization, that will realistically have a long, hard slog just to reach the level at which the Green Party is right now - if indeed it ever does. But hey, best of luck with your project. I'll be watching with great interest when your guy (or gal) goes toe-to-toe with Hillary and whomever in the 2020 debates.
inactive account
I'm not comfortable with eminent domain seizing
vacant lots. Think of all the places in NOLA where people hoped to return.
Instead, the land not in use could be borrowed for planting. Owners wishing to rebuild would need to post notification on the property that building would commence after the current growing season.
Those of poor or modest means are more often harmed by eminent domain than the wealthy who have the wherewithal to grease the skids to their advantage.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
I fail to see --
how an eminent domain seizure of a parking lot or vacant lot owned by a rich corporation (for a community garden to be tilled by poor people) is going to hurt poor people.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Many vacant lots used to be a single family home as in
New Orleans, Louisiana as I mentioned. If the family still holds title to the land rather than a big bank, then that family will be harmed. I said "apples"; you replied "oranges." I hope I've clarified my point.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Eminent domain seizure of empty lots,
could be tied to taxation. I have heard that often city authorities can't even find out who owns derelict properties for tax purposes. City authorities could send a tax bill to the last known address, and then proceed with ED if no satisfactory response is received. If you are a property owner, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to inform authorities of changes of ownership, not their job to have to look for you. Furthermore, responsible, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens should not have to live amidst derelict and dangerous surroundings just because some capitalists are waiting for the market to rise or went out of business and lost track of their properties. And, even more, absentee owners have the same responsibilities of property maintenance, not creating hazards or public nuisances as do resident owners and renters. There could be a procedure of fines leading to seizure if those responsibilities are ignored. Naturally, none of this should apply in cases of natural disaster, such as the flooding of New Orleans, but there derelict properties in every city, and most didn't get that way because of floods.
Something lefties could be doing right now, is using their awesome research skills to trace down ownership of derelict properties, including tax histories, and then makeing their findings public.
I wouldn't stop with community gardens either. Low income housing. Let the real estate interests scream. They had their chance to house the nation and they took the cash instead and left many homeless. Parks, with baseball diamonds, soccer fields and basketball courts. Branch libraries and internet access. Farm and craft markets.
Mary Bennett
Thank you.
This helps a lot.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Because its usually not
The corporations and the rich that get hit. Most widely it is regular folks who have managed to hold onto something. Just like the bankruptcy bill was sold as taking million dollar mansions from the rich when they filed but is most often used to take the paid for homes of people who are forced into bankruptcy by medical bills.
Thank you for helping to make the point that
eminent domain can hurt little people of modest means.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
So, shouldn't it be easy enough to figure out
which vacant lots are owned by whom?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It is supposed to be a matter of public record who owns what.
The owners should have been paying property taxes like everyone else has to do.
Mary Bennett
My experience in organizing a small national union is that
money issues prompt people to join and work to further the cause. I agree with your planks but initially I would emphasize Single Payer and College for All.
The "unfairness factor" is also important - maybe the next one down - and you've covered that with breaking up the big banks - especially if the very favorable treatment the Wealthers received vs the treatment ordinary people receive at the hands of the law is well publicized and it's clear equality before the law is what we advocate not the Obama/Clinton perversion of it.
To me, the relative emphasis is important and I think you'll be more successful with Single Payer and free College for All at the top of the list than with community gardens.
Single Payer needs to be renamed - can't help here yet - so that both the advantage of the system and the stranglehold the Big Pharm and Insurance companies are highlighted.
My #1 is repealing Taft-Hartley but it's not going to sell because you first have to educate people what Taft-Hartley is and
then explain why it will help them. Perhaps it's better to advocate for EFCA, an Obama broken promise, because the unionization of workers, especially in the private sector, will make most of the rest of the organizing easier.
If there's room, you may consider a plank saying the party will be leaving NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, and the World Bank.
Nice work here.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
#1 and #3 (above) are the money issues.
And, yeah, I've suggested above that we need some sort of business proposal to avoid the sectarians-or-sellouts problem. Would you be willing to write any portion of it?
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
I would be willing to try. It would be with the proviso that
what I write is for use of the party and that it can be changed or discarded w/o my permission and I would be glad to have it considered as a rough starting point. I can turn around an assignment like this fairly quickly and have no ego involved.
Avoiding sectarianism is really important because too many nascent organizations fall apart this way before they really get started.
Some of these planks are beyond my experience and the best I can do is to - maybe - have an outline of a news release that can be improved upon. I do have experience with writing news releases as well as giving interviews on the radio and, a couple of times, national tv.
If you want to pursue this with me, send me a message and I'll give you my email address and we'll see what develops.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I'll get back to you on this --
Right now I'm a bit busy.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Corruption is the one issue
that is as viscerally important to people as the money issues--because people have figured out that the corruption of the government is causing them to get financially screwed, over, and over, and over again.
I think any party that does not strongly prioritize corruption is missing a serious opportunity. That's what Bernie based his campaign on, and look at the response he got.
His primary message was that the millionaires and billionaires have bought our government and that's why the government treats the rest of us so shabbily--ESPECIALLY on money issues.
People waited in line for 4 or 5 hours to hear an old socialist without much charisma give one speech.
Now that's a powerful campaign message. We shouldn't eschew it just b/c Bernie didn't follow through (I feel the same way, at a stylistic level, about the bird imagery).
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Great proposals
I like your ideas and agree they are needed to bring our country and planet back to a rational track. I have not compared each proposal, my question is how does this differ from the Green Party Platform?
Let's start with #1.
Does the Green Party get this specific?
And #3. I want to start with redefining the purpose of the military and go from there.
As for the rest of it, I suppose it doesn't. We'd want to avoid the sectarian cul-de-sac into which the Green Party has drifted, however.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
In April 2015 I wrote my priorities for the primary down:
Platforms are mighty tomes because there are so many issues to confront.
Green-Left populism has as good a chance as the right-wing kind
Drain support, loyalty, and legitimacy away from the gatekeeping people and institutions whose modus operandi is based on amassing centralized power, wielded in secrecy.
The IMF, globalization, and all the other losers
A case for why the end of growth equals the end of all centralization, including globalization
Well, if we put a strong anti-corruption plank in,
we could, once established, make a strategic alliance with those right-wing populists who also abhor governmental pay-to-play (they exist). As monumental as it is, launching the party would only be the first step. You'd also want to form a coalition, or network, of parties that don't agree on everything, but do agree on ending corruption in government, which could be made into maybe 3 specific, concrete policy assertions.
this is one of the things I think has been neglected the other 40 times people have invented new parties--if you want to invent one, then the temptation is to think the party itself is going to be The (Only) Solution.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
3rd Party
Simple, concise, well thought out. I especially like #3. Don't you wish we could actually choose our own, private utopia.
Laura Smith
Hey Smityrn!
Nice to see you here!
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
New Party Name
B-O-D-Y Party
aka: Basket Of Deplorable Yahoos
Kind of catchy, no?
Did not see this when it came out
But I followed your link from your comment in subir's diary today. I am convinced, partly by you and Mouselander, that a new party may be the right, maybe the only solution. But I don't see the point of the nine demands: what binds them together? Where are the fundamental ideas on which they are founded? These are just piecemeal reforms - all desperately needed - but they don't add up to anything that will prevent us from having to keep fighting this fight over and over.
I think it needs to go deeper than that. It needs to begin with a statement of principle - an inclusive definition of justice that
Then follow that with a list of specific demands arranged in whatever priority seems to make sense. Something like the Leap Manifesto.
If there are more demands, it could help people see and understand how things fit together, as well as see themselves in it - like a teaching tool (and like the 'platforms' of the People's Party in the 1890s). If the demands are few (9 or less might be good here), they whole thing can be used immediately as a political tool, even before founding a party. It can be presented very publicly by constituents to their (would be) political representatives at every level, and they can be asked to - again very publicly - endorse those demands. If they consent, they can be held to account in the court of public opinion - next election cycle. If they refuse, they would look like the enemies they are.
Another virtue of articulating the basic principles clearly and broadly is that it makes the party portable. Anyone who understands the basic principles can see how to apply them to the local political situation, regardless of the locality or the level of government. E.g. the principles could be applied to local township concerns by the people who know and understand the local politics.
Well okay.
Here's the principle which holds them all together: ecosocialism. The problem is, of course, that you don't start with principles, because other people have principles too, and they might differ from yours but you might want some of them on your side before converting them to your philosophy of life. The "starting with principles" mistake is what gives us the Green Party, of which I have been a member since 1992. The "Leap Manifesto" thing is okay except for that problem. What I'm suggesting is that we call it the Sensible Futures Party, and then suggest some proposals to get people to focus sensibly upon what needs to happen if we are to have a planetary future. Let's not make it too New-Agey.
Mostly what I want to do is to join with a number of known-effective activists to create a party to replace the Democratic Party. So something like this would be the initial pitch we'd put forth in order to meet with the activists, and then we'd go from there. I think the whole thing needs a business plan, explaining how we're to avoid sectarianism and, equally important, to avoid selling out through the monetarization of party functions (the Democrats' big problem at present). The platform set forth in this diary is an attempt to provide a sort of Bernie Plus plan, because a lot of those activists are going to be onetime Bernie people.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
New-Agey - hah!
That would be my last choice - in life as in music. But I'm not suggesting copying the Leap manifesto, just employing the tactic of appealing to common interest in a way that provides the right framing - i.e. that gets away from the tired BS of the current parties that no one believes in anymore, and that contributes to a new way to look at ourselves and our common interests as a people. The demand is obviously there, across the current party lines. It waits only for the right words to bring it in focus.
I am not a "known effective activist", just a pedant. But though I don't have organizing experience, I do know a bit about the history of third party formation and insurgency (successful and unsuccessful) in the US. If demands are not grounded in some recognizable shared understanding of the situation, they will appeal only to the converted, and people will remain fragmented.
I don't think that's new agey at all: I think its what you are already doing when you say you would "call it the Sensible Futures Party, and then suggest some proposals to get people to focus sensibly upon what needs to happen if we are to have a planetary future." But you are not going to sell "planetary future" to dude with no job security and no college degree who has a family to feed. He will work on the oil pipeline, or in its security detail, and he will resent the people protesting it because they threaten the only shred of security he has.
Not that I am averse to eco-socialism! But that average American worker does not see himself and his problems in your concern for the planetary future - it's there of course, but he doesn't see it because he doesn't know how to, and we have to teach him. And as every teacher knows, you can't teach a person who is not interested in learning.
What the Leap Manifesto does right is it tries to clarify how and why its concerns are everyone's concerns. That's not new-agey; it's politics. And it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel to do this. What concerns the average joe/jane today is little different from what concerned that average American citizen 70 years ago when FDR delivered his "economic bill of rights" speech, or 105 years ago when TR addressed the crowds at Osawatomie, KS, or a hundred years before that. He expects to work - not too hard - and live a decent life, free of stress and conflict. And when he can't, he looks around to find who to blame (as he should), so he can hold him accountable (as he should). His instincts are correct; but his execution is wrong. As we saw Tuesday, and in the vituperative finger-pointing since, that is true for large numbers of voters on BOTH sides of the aisle.
I think we know what the right demands are. Plenty of groups have articulated them - each from their own particular angle of experience. Time to put all those lists together and find the principle that unifies them all: time to universalize the discourse. And don't we already know what that principle is? Class. The war on the climate is no less a class war than is the war on workers, or the war on the poor, or 'the war on drugs'. Power without accountability.
Anyway, that's my take, FWIW.