America Needs A Third Major Political Party----How About The Independent Moderate Party

I do not believe in political labels such as liberal and conservative, or left wing and right wing, as these terms can be very misleading with regard to the actual views of a given candidate for public office. The Democratic Party candidate, for example, is far too often expected and perceived by the public to be an individual who is "pro choice" and thus favoring abortion, while the Republican candidate is expected and perceived to be "pro life" and therefore against abortion.

From time to time, of course we see a republican who is actually pro choice regarding women's rights, thus supportive of abortion, and a democrat who supports pro life and is thus against abortion. Yet the public usually perceives just the opposite because of the above political labels.

Any candidate running for office should be judged on the totality of his or her views, and not on rigid party labels that can lead to false perceptions. All too often, perception becomes 90 per cent of reality, and while this should not occur, it frequently does!

With a third major political party which we would call "The Independent Moderate", the likelihood of false perceptions would be reduced. If a candidate runs as an independent and at the same time as a moderate, for example, he or she would be largely free of rigid perceptions as discussed above and he or she could support a strong national defense and a proactive policy to destroy global terrorism, for example, and still support a pro choice position, supportive of abortion, without being falsely perceived as a right wing conservative who is automatically against abortion.

The same would hold true for a pro life candidate who is against abortion running as an "Independent Moderate," who also emphasizes various social entitlement programs and who might otherwise be perceived as a left wing liberal who strongly supports abortion.

We need, therefore, to get away from labels that lead to false perceptions and rigid party platforms so as to reduce the abundance of confusion seen so often in our political process and discourse. Such a third party, named as suggested herein, would give the American people a wider variety of choice when deciding on a given candidate for public office, and limit blind loyalty to one party or another based on a possible false perception of the given candidate's overall viewpoints. Calling such a third party the "Independent Moderate Party" may be one way to accomplish this goal.

a reply to: kendix1960


I could get down with a "New World Order Party"! At least then the globalists who pretend to be Democrats or Republicans can join up and allow the Republicans and Democrats to find themselves again.....

a reply to: kendix1960

While I agree with the intent behind your OP.
I don't see it being a reality anytime soon. Our two part system has it's tentacles far too deep in everything to let it happen. Our nation is too corrupt from top to bottom and Left to Right.

If a third party did seem to be gaining a foot hold it would be co-opted and polluted by whichever party was in the best position to do so. See the Tea Party for example. It started out with good intentions but was quickly hijacked by Sarah Palin and her ilk.

Additionally, I don't think the lobbyists would let it happen either. They they spend enough paying off two parties, they're not going stand for having to pay off 3 parties.

The only realistic way that I can see to correct this would be an Amendment banning political parties. Even then it would have to be 20,000 pages to nail down all the loop holes so the scumbags can't worm their way through. And lets be honest with ourselves, there is no way our "Representatives" and I use that term loosely, are going to ban themselves for the good of the people.

TLDR version: Not gonna happen.

originally posted by: kendix1960
I do not believe in political labels such as liberal and conservative, or left wing and right wing, as these terms can be very misleading with regard to the actual views of a given candidate for public office. The Democratic Party candidate, for example, is far too often expected and perceived by the public to be an individual who is "pro choice" and thus favoring abortion, while the Republican candidate is expected and perceived to be "pro life" and therefore against abortion.

From time to time, of course we see a republican who is actually pro choice regarding women's rights, thus supportive of abortion, and a democrat who supports pro life and is thus against abortion. Yet the public usually perceives just the opposite because of the above political labels.

Any candidate running for office should be judged on the totality of his or her views, and not on rigid party labels that can lead to false perceptions. All too often, perception becomes 90 per cent of reality, and while this should not occur, it frequently does!

With a third major political party which we would call "The Independent Moderate", the likelihood of false perceptions would be reduced. If a candidate runs as an independent and at the same time as a moderate, for example, he or she would be largely free of rigid perceptions as discussed above and he or she could support a strong national defense and a proactive policy to destroy global terrorism, for example, and still support a pro choice position, supportive of abortion, without being falsely perceived as a right wing conservative who is automatically against abortion.

The same would hold true for a pro life candidate who is against abortion running as an "Independent Moderate," who also emphasizes various social entitlement programs and who might otherwise be perceived as a left wing liberal who strongly supports abortion.

We need, therefore, to get away from labels that lead to false perceptions and rigid party platforms so as to reduce the abundance of confusion seen so often in our political process and discourse. Such a third party, named as suggested herein, would give the American people a wider variety of choice when deciding on a given candidate for public office, and limit blind loyalty to one party or another based on a possible false perception of the given candidate's overall viewpoints. Calling such a third party the "Independent Moderate Party" may be one way to accomplish this goal.

The labels have been placed there for reasons beyond any moderates control. Any one that is pro-choice is automatically labelled pro-abortion. Where is the candidate that supports a woman's right to choose, a responsible social safety net, fiscal conservative, more logical gun control laws, etc. There is a lot of ground in the middle that no one seems to touch.

a reply to: kendix1960

Maybe we should....then again maybe we shouldn't...I don't know...I can't decide....

a reply to: kendix1960

America Needs A Third Major Political Party----How About The Independent Moderate Party

Isn't that how the T party started out, grassroots; Didn't take long for the GOP right wing to co opt the original intent...did it?


Politics will follow the money; just like everything else. Can I have the TIMP tshirt concession?

Besides people want labels; it satisfies that tribal instinct to feel special and demonize anyone that's different.

imo...you have no credibility. I've read your threads, you want a military ruled party...that's not moderate or independent.

a reply to: kendix1960
Agreed, we do need a new party!

Abolish the party system.

a reply to: olaru12

All I wish to do is to reduce the confusion over labels so people can vote for a candidate based on all of the said candidate's views without false perceptions and beliefs as to what the person running for a particular office actually supports or opposes.

If there are people who want labels so as to further their own agendas, it is unfortunate for those folks. But I think the rest of us want more clarity in politics rather than business as usual.

a reply to: kendix1960

I read some excerpts of Washington's final address a few weeks ago and considered posting it, but as usual i didn't. Certainly seems appropriate here. This is the entire portion of his 'warning on parties' I have hi lighted some portions but the entire speech is worth or reading to get a fuller context.

All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

18 However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

19 Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations, which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

wikisource

Washington knew of which he spoke and here we are. I see both parties in what he said.

What we need is to get rid of first past the post voting. It makes a 2 party system inevitable.

a reply to: liveandlearn

It seems like every president has warned us of what's looming on the horizon, and rather than educate ourselves and act we choose to ignore these warnings and continue our ignorant selfish lifestyles regardless.

a reply to: kendix1960

How in the world would you sell an independent moderate party. I mean what sound bytes would you be able to pull when the candidate is talking about real problems and a moderate approach willing to compromise and work through issues.

How rediculous.

I am kind of partial, to the pirate party myself.


But I also think our political system needs a tweak towards proportional reprsentation, rather than the two party, winner takes all system we currently have.

a reply to: Quantum12

Thank you, Quantum12.

Need to vote in the "Rent is too damn high" party...

a reply to: kendix1960
I'm afraid that the time for moderates has long since past.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

a reply to: onequestion

They were not without wisdom. Presidents have an inside view of the state of the country and all it's many workings and influences many of which we will never know until too late.

The problem, beyond trying to fit the US into two opposing boxes, is of course, the people who fail to question, who are moving on happily with their 'things'. This is probably by design.

I believe we need no parties because they all have a hierarchy not voted on by the public and all represent a minority. The majority are actually independent, without party affiliation, yet no party considers the majority.

a reply to: luthier

I'm not looking to sell anything. Just trying to avoid confusion and false perceptions, so as to make it easier for a candidate to be able to present his or her views without a presumption that any point of view is either favored or opposed solely based on the name of a certain political party.

a reply to: Diisenchanted

I choose to remain hopeful and and positive that we can do better than we have done to date.