Creation of a Moderate Party

Ok I know and realize that no one ever posts in here; but I am so ready for the creation of a moderate party system that I can scream. I am sick and tired of this one way or the other BS. America is based on being either or. Everything is not black and white and this way of thinking is extreme and ruining our country. Has anyone ever done any research on the creation of party lines? How would one go about the creation of a Moderate party? I think it's unfair that everytime I want to vote in a primary I have to vote either Repub or Dem. Maybe I want to vote for one on both sides for a particular position. So what can we do.

Calling all moderates...get your behinds in here!!!!

btw....moderate does not equal independent party...not even close.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by zenlover28]

Come on now. Giving into people who do not agree with you is counterproductive. The moderate party would just be a way to ensure nothing productive ever got done in government. We have moderate morons from both sides in there now preventing progress as it is right now. Introduce a way to give them control...the moderates, and you intorduce a way to hamper decision making, extend the time taken to make and pass laws, and hinder the voice of those who actually believe in something.

See that's where you are wrong. I believe in something and I use MY mind to find what I believe in. I don't believe in something just because I was taught to be this way or that way. Do you have any idea what moderation even is? Some balance would do this country way more good than this bullcrap extremism where nothing gets done because of fighting and fussing.

The main problem with a "moderate party" is where would they stand?

I think of myself as a "Moderate", but then many other people place me on the right or left wing of politics and this would happen with the party. What is moderate to me, is not to you and so on and so fourth.

However, I am all for a party in the U.K. and/or U.S. which begins to take the vote of the population into account, Pro-Choice, Pro-Gun, etc, etc, party would likely do fairly well.

Sight2reality, where do you base your idea from? Would you rather we have a much more "Right" or "Left" Wing Government? Or that people did not challenge the idea members of Government put forward? In fact, there are several Nation's like those where members of the Government never question anything - ever thought of moving? I hear Dictatorships are lovely this time of year.

A moderate party would never get anything done. End of story. Whenever you introduce a middle ground, and try to get there, that means you are conceding. A conservative may believe that you need to accomplish something. The liberal across from him may feel the complete opposite. Introduce a moderate party and you eliminate both ideas, whether right and wrong. You do so in favor of doing it halfway.

When you bake a cake, is it OK to bake it at half temperature, or for half the time? Can you substitute some of the sugar for salt? Mabe add a little pepper onto the bill? Do you build half of a house? Or even a whole house ignoring firecodes?

You can't agree on everything. However, that does not mean you do half a job. Like pulling out of Iraq right now. Moderates.....

Sight2reality, a moderate Party should hold views from both the Left and Right Wings of Politics, that is the basic idea and not just More Guns, More Gun Laws and so on and so fourth.

You bake the cake with the best recipe. not too much of one thing and not too little. That's the whole idea but the problem is, nobody can decide which aspect should be moderate.

Should they be Anti-Gun and Anti-Abortion? Which is aspects of both.
Pro-Gun and Pro-Abortion? And the problem gets larger and larger. In reality, the best moderates are the Swiss Ones. Whose Government allows moral laws to be passed by the people, not by the Government and allows the Government to take care of technical laws.

Originally posted by Odium
Sight2reality, a moderate Party should hold views from both the Left and Right Wings of Politics, that is the basic idea and not just More Guns, More Gun Laws and so on and so fourth.

You bake the cake with the best recipe. not too much of one thing and not too little. That's the whole idea but the problem is, nobody can decide which aspect should be moderate.

Should they be Anti-Gun and Anti-Abortion? Which is aspects of both.
Pro-Gun and Pro-Abortion? And the problem gets larger and larger. In reality, the best moderates are the Swiss Ones. Whose Government allows moral laws to be passed by the people, not by the Government and allows the Government to take care of technical laws.

I know what the intent of a moderate party would be. Just as I know what the intent of a communist society would be. Both share the same outlook however, and that is that they are unobtainable.

People disagree on things. They want there way. Liberal, and conservative (though conservatives for some reason don't fight as hard) work to obtain what they want. The parties have goals, but even in the party circle, people may disagree on them in specifics. We all are aware of this. Individuality dictates it.

Now, if we take that reality, and introduce a "moderate party", we only cause problems. I would argue that many people would switch to this party. Many people who are at heart conservative or liberal. The types of candidates that would be generated would be ones who could have NO SOLID GROUND. NO SOLID IDEAS. Much like John Kerry, they would have to be flip flopping like a fish pulled out of the water. They wouldn't have a choice, because there party would consist of liberals and conservatives who disagree with the main party on small issues. Everything would be a concession. Even our constitution.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by Sight2reality]

So, what... you prefer that our government be ruled over by extremists?

Look here.. back two hundred years ago, the Founding Fathers of this nation were composed very much of what we'd consider moderates today. Many of them were educated and took to heart much of what they learned growing up, forging their ideas into a nation of freedom and liberty.

Extremism damages, it never helps. Having two sides that are disparate to eachother is harmful, because in *ANY* relationship, and you should go ask any professional about this... *ANY* relationship requires COMMUNICATION and NEGOTIATION. Otherwise it is merely dictating to others what must be done.

Sometimes Dictation is necessary too, when people can't agree. You should ask King Solomon about that one.

A moderate, to me, is someone who uses their brain to find the best possible solution to a problem... and doesn't let emotional drivel or religious zealotry to get in the way of making the best decision. It isn't about switching your positions on a dime, it is about knowing in your heart that making the best decision relies upon knowing the people you work with and being able to hear the sides of things you don't want to consider.

To be moderate is to be fair to the american people, not just your constituents.

I am a moderate and I am all for having a moderate party!

Contrary to popular belief a moderate is not someone who is wishy washy and isn't sure of what they believe in. Me personally, there are some conservative ideas I am in favour for and some liberal ideas I am in favour of and I strongly believe that if both sides would communicate better and put their heads together, there would be a solution that would suit everyone, and that takes a lot of hard work and doing. It's easy to sit around and argue with eachother and point fingers like the Democrats and Republicans do to eachother.

A Moderate Party currently exists! Check out The Moderate Party

They have a great platform, besides other things, on their site that explains what they stand for and it goes along with what moderate politics should be.

As well, if anyone else is in the dark about what moderate/centrist politics can do, visit my blog, The Centrist Solution for some insight.

Yes, i'm aware of the Mod Party now and I am attemtping to volunteer and help them. Thank you for bringing it up though!

[edit on 12-7-2006 by zenlover28]

Looks to me the "moderate" partry is just another extension of the Leftwing...

Tell me where the difference on the main issues are...

Gun Control- No difference in the mainstream lefts ideas
Abortion- Same as the liberals
Tax- Flat tax??? LOL. That way the poor pays what 200% more then the wealty?
International Relations- LOL its main role as peacekeeper, yeah thats how this nation became so great.
Religious Freedom- ALl they talk about is seperation of Church and state. Which i BTW not even in the Constitution.
Their view on firearms- is gonna land parents in jail for their childs stupidity.
GAYS- CIVIL UNIONS... also a dominate Left idea.
Environment- Same as the current view of the LEFT




How is any of this "moderate"?

Clearly, the republican party has the mantle of the moderate party right not, or at least that of the centrist party. The GOP has won the past two presidential elections and control of congress because it is able to appeal to the center on the critical issues, and also able to mobilize its base and fringe. THe democratic party has lost the center, and lost its own fringe, and only has its base to support it.

If we're talking about creating a new party, what would be the point? A moderate party that only has the support of the center will simply have to appeal to either of the sides in order to win any elections or enact any meaningful policies.

Better, at this point, I think, to support good policy, rather than worry about creating a centrist party.

As an aside, I suppose its possible that centrist and moderate aren't synonyms, and that Moderate politics doesn't, infact, appeal to the political Center too, in which case a truly Moderate Party would be really doomed.

a moderate Party should hold views from both the Left and Right Wings of Politics,

Thats not true, that'd be a comprise party or some such. A Moderate Party would have its own ideas, and those ideas would have nothing to do with the extreme left or extreme right.

But its all theoretical anyway. Better to look at a specific party.
With that, lets look at the Moderate Party

The Moderate Party supports the creation of civil unions to provide economic and familial benefits to mutually consenting adult couples.

The Moderate Party does not support the termination of pregnancy in the third trimester except under circumstances in which the life of the mother is otherwise in danger.

The Moderate Party supports the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The Moderate Party supports the separation of church and state as the guiding principle that truly guarantees and enables religious liberty for all Americans

The Moderate Party opposes sprawl development by encouraging smart planning, livable neighborhoods, and historic preservation.

The Moderate Party supports a strong national defense. The safety and security of the United States is of utmost importance, including securing our borders.

The Moderate Party believes that the United States must return to its primary role as international peacekeeper[...]resorting to military recourse only in coalition with other nations in an action sanctioned by an international governing body

The Moderate Party supports a simplified tax code, including the Fair Tax or Flat Tax.

The Moderate Party supports lowering federal spending and paying down the national debt without compromise to individuals, families, and seniors of American citizenship currently in need of Federal assistance

The tax-spending policy is untenable. The foreign policy is outrageous and in conflict with the defense policy, and the marriage and abortion policy is conservative (ie, supports the status quo, which currently itself is a comprise).

I don't know if I'd call those policies Moderate, Compromise, Centrist, or whatever, but they're not particularly great.

To me, being a moderate is about having my own beliefs, thoughts and opinions, but i'm not so extreme that I become unable to compromise them for the 'collective whole' so as to completely impair the government from doing what it is supposed to be doing. So, in a way it is about compromise and changing your mind when something doesn't work and being flexible enough to try new things.

And, while I agree with you on some of the Moderate Party's current policies (especially they're foreign policy), i'm not convinced that it is as doomed as you may think it to be. But, only time will tell.

What we really need is the "Honesty Party". It makes little difference to me whether the people are getting screwed by a party calling themselves republicans, democrats or moderates.

Currently I am watching the unity08 organization which is seeking to elect a bipartisan ticket in 2008. The organization is composed of democrats and republicans seeking a middle ground. At this time I remain unconvinced that this isnt just an attempt by the demopublican leadership to neutralize any challenge from a 3rd party, but I am trying to keep an open mind.

Unity08 is a Centrist party that is looking to have a well-known moderate candidate from either the Republican or Democrat side. I look for this party to do extremely well in the '08 election. I don't think their intent is only to steal votes from either party as they would just pick some nobody candidate that is well-known for leaning on the edge of extremism.

As I understand it, unity08 is more of an organization than a political party in that they will be running a presidential ticket, but they will not have candidates for other elected offices. Should the ticket do well, it is entirely possible that it will evolve into a full fledged political party after 2008.

I will be very suspicious if the unity08 ticket is allowed to participate in the 2008 presidential debates, but 3rd parties are not included. At that point I would have no choice but to conclude the fix is in and that unity08 is nothing more than a demopublican proxy intended to keep the powers of the government in the same hands.

[edit on 13-7-2006 by df1]

Yes, thank you for correcting me on that. It is a centrist movement though and their website says they don't want to build a new party. I've been doing some more research and i'm finding some contradictions in terms of what it is that they are trying to do. I, for one, think I have read misinformation about them in the past.

How would you be able to be sure the ticket will consist of one Republican and one Democrat?

It is our plan that convention delegates would vote not for each office separately, but for the combined ticket. Each candidate for President would have chosen his/her candidate for Vice President before the balloting begins. (Independents may run for the nomination if they present a Unity Team from both parties.)

I'm going to research them more. I'm not understanding them now at all. Thank you for bringing my misinformation to light.

Originally posted by zenlover28
I'm going to research them more. I'm not understanding them now at all. Thank you for bringing my misinformation to light.

Just a quick note... As some of you may have noticed, there has been a lot changing with PTS, and we are gearing up for the mid term elections. I have been honored as the "Moderate FSME" for PTS, and we'll be working on trying to be more of a voice in the din of Right vs Left.

It looks like we have some sharp members who have what it takes to sit on the fence and take pot shots at both sides.

Mirthful, I for one am very proud to have you as our FMSE. However, I don't think there is enough drama here for people, so we may have to liven things up a bit.