A new political party needed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_II

Guest
Let’s do a thought experiment. If you could start up a new political party, let’s suppose you would want to combine the best elements of the Republican and the Democratic parties. What would be the traits from each party that you would like to see combined in one party? What are the elements in each party that you would try to keep out of the new party? Do you think such a party is needed at this point in American history?

Thanks for your thoughtful (name removed by moderator)ut. 👍
 
Thank you for your thoughtful question!

I have a theory. The Democratic Party promises Peace with Prosperity, but cannot deliver. So, the basically lie to the American People and promise both anyway, and yet poverty and war both remain. The Republican Party is more realistic. They basically, say, the machinery of the world is what it is; it has been this way for a very long time, and we cannot change it. But we will attempt to make the best of it. You could say that the Republican Party stands for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. (Like Superman.) One friend of mine said that politics these days is a lot about perception and “brands,” and that I had captured the idea of the brands fairly well.

Pope Leo XIII wrote a lot about politics and social justice, and the role the Church ought to play. But his theories of ideal government have not yet been actually tried in the world. There has not been, at least in the United States, a truly Catholic leader, willing to govern — without any violation of the Constitution, but upholding it as written — according to strictly Catholic principles.

I propose the Catholic Party.

Peace, Prosperity, Truth, Justice, and the American Way, all in one package. With a deep encouragement to make prayer a way of life.
 
The problem the Democratic Party would rather ignore is, Peace is bad for business. War generates revenue. That is why they cannot offer both Peace AND Prosperity.

But what I propose is different. Peace. Voluntary Poverty. Prosperity on the condition of conversion from sin. That is, I believe, what God is offering the world, and the Catholic Party can incarnate that ideal, if it can find a truly Catholic candidate.
 
Love

I propose the Catholic Party.

Could a Catholic party win elections? Would it get financial support from anyone other than Catholics? Would the non-Catholic parties (Protestant majority) gang up on the Catholic party? Would the Catholic Party be a violation of separation of Church and State? Etc.

:confused:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Love

I propose the Catholic Party.

Could a Catholic party win elections? Would it get financial support from anyone other than Catholics? Would the non-Catholic parties (Protestant majority) gang up on the Catholic party? Would the Catholic Party be a violation of separation of Church and State? Etc.

:confused:
Click to expand...
I’m not sure a Catholic party would get support from all Catholics,much less a majority of American citizens,sorry to say.😦
 
The concern for the poor and social programs of the Democratic Party, and the social teachings of the Republican Party.

Universal Healthcare, traditional marriage, welfare and charity, pro-life laws, and anti-obscene material laws.

Not necessarily what I believe, but what’s listed above is based off of Church doctrine.
 
At the moment, I would want either an ever-changing group of political parties each time, or I would forbid anyone to identify a political party. I bet the votes would be very different. People would either have to “guess” or actually have to pay attention to candidate promises. I might require a law to hold promises to the winning candidate too.
 
Peace is bad for business. War generates revenue
Click to expand...
War isn’t that big of a business. I doubt we’ve had enough war to seriously impact the economy since WWII (maybe Vietnam).
 
MarcoPolo said:
At the moment, I would want either an ever-changing group of political parties each time, or I would forbid anyone to identify a political party. I bet the votes would be very different. People would either have to “guess” or actually have to pay attention to candidate promises. I might require a law to hold promises to the winning candidate too.
Click to expand...
The big downside to this is the Media would have even more power to tip the scales…

Not mention their favored politicians faults/actual views while misrepresenting the opposing candidate’s views (I guess not to different from what goes on now)
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Love

I propose the Catholic Party.

Could a Catholic party win elections? Would it get financial support from anyone other than Catholics? Would the non-Catholic parties (Protestant majority) gang up on the Catholic party? Would the Catholic Party be a violation of separation of Church and State? Etc.

:confused:
Click to expand...
Pope John Paul II insisted that priests not serve in political office. as a result Fr. John Drinan (D-Mass.) did not to run for reelection.

I wouldn’t vote for or financially support a Catholic party. the Church has a long and mostly ill history of playing politics.

F/
 
what everyone can agree on is morality, or at least the majority of americans would vote for a moral candidate, if i can put it like that. protestants, catholics, muslems, jews, buddhists etc., etc. all agree with the moral decision on any issue.
so in a new political party all the candidates must physically sign a contract to uphold the moral right in any political matter. as soon as they publicly break their moral contract they lose their position and a vote is held to replace him/her.
 
Paddy_Walker said:
what everyone can agree on is morality, or at least the majority of americans would vote for a moral candidate, if i can put it like that. protestants, catholics, muslems, jews, buddhists etc., etc. all agree with the moral decision on any issue.
so in a new political party all the candidates must physically sign a contract to uphold the moral right in any political matter. as soon as they publicly break their moral contract they lose their position and a vote is held to replace him/her.
Click to expand...
you can’t unelect an elected politician by contract.
 
Traits I would like to see in the “new” party:
  • Fiscal responsibility
  • anti-abortion
  • anti-interventionism (i.e., no need to go to Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, etc)
  • anti-lobbyism (to the extent of making monetary donations to
  • pro-complete term limits (i.e., you get 2 terms total at any political level (Local, State, Federal))
  • pro-IRS-loophole closing (so that the few billionaires actually pay the 35% they ought to)
  • pro-research funding
  • pro-non-gas energy (mostly nuclear & geothermal)
There are probably a couple other traits that I would like to see and cannot think of at the moment, but I think that this is probably a good start of a platform.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Let’s do a thought experiment. If you could start up a new political party, let’s suppose you would want to combine the best elements of the Republican and the Democratic parties. What would be the traits from each party that you would like to see combined in one party? What are the elements in each party that you would try to keep out of the new party? Do you think such a party is needed at this point in American history?

Thanks for your thoughtful (name removed by moderator)ut. 👍
Click to expand...
I say it’d be similar to a Christian Democratic party (since that would combine the best traits from both parties :D):

It would be:

Pro-life
Pro-Marriage, meaning against gay “marriage” and civil unions
Against embryonic stem-cell research and cloning
Against euthanasia and assisted suicide
Against the death penalty
Fiscally responsible by not supporting deficit spending
For regulations in the economy to help workers and communities from being exploited
Pro-Union
Pro-Religion, with religion working with the state to alleviate problems in society (temporal and spiritual)
Pro-Small Business by not burdening them with pointless regulations
Strong social insurance system
For research into new forms of energy
Regulations to support clean air and water
Closing tax loopholes and making the tax system simpler
Against war and for diplomacy
Universal Health Care in a multi payer system
For reasonable gun restrictions, but not excessive
For immigration reform, so people can come here legally who aren’t just the rich
For education choice, favoring vouchers so kids can get quality education at religious schools
Against birth control and condoms, along with sex ed in schools (teach abstinence, not premarital sex)
For religious freedom
Against drug use for recreational purposes

I think especially keeping the government out of the wage negotiating process with businesses and unions would be good. If unions have the backing of the government with regards to workers rights so businesses can’t exploit them, strong unions will make sure workers don’t get cheated by businesses. But with government not defining minimum wages and other entitlements for the businesses, then the businesses won’t be hurt by oppressive policies that favor big businesses. There should be active regulations, but not intervention. The government is a referee, not a player in the game.
 
So I’d like to see the Republican more “prolife” aspects in the new party, with the exception of the death penalty, but without it’s favoring neoliberalism with a lack of regulation and guidelines for the economy. The Democrats have my support for a cleaner environment and (private sector) union support, along with regulation in the economy. But I don’t support their active intervention style a la Keynes choosing favorites, ultimately hurting small businesses. Both need to work on cutting spending. The rich should pay taxes without getting loopholes (Democrat) but the middle classes, especially the lower middle class, should get lower taxes (Republican). While not officially supporting it, Republicans should be against torture (waterboarding), but are doing fine with their support for faith-based initiatives and working with religious groups. While the ultimate goal is a confessional state that is Catholic, that can’t happen unless hearts are changed first, since the faith can’t be forced on anyone (not that it would be forced if the state was a confessional state, but to have the Church recognized legally souls would need to be accepting of it first).

That’s my two cents on good aspects and bad from both parties.
 
The Strengthen Marriage Party. Strong marriage, strong community, Strong country. How? Leave this discussion, emotional commitment, and action to the politician.
 
CrossofChrist said:
I say it’d be similar to a Christian Democratic party (since that would combine the best traits from both parties :D):

It would be:

Pro-life
Pro-Marriage, meaning against gay “marriage” and civil unions
Against embryonic stem-cell research and cloning
Against euthanasia and assisted suicide
Against the death penalty
Fiscally responsible by not supporting deficit spending
For regulations in the economy to help workers and communities from being exploited
Pro-Union
Pro-Religion, with religion working with the state to alleviate problems in society (temporal and spiritual)
Pro-Small Business by not burdening them with pointless regulations
Strong social insurance system
For research into new forms of energy
Regulations to support clean air and water
Closing tax loopholes and making the tax system simpler
Against war and for diplomacy
Universal Health Care in a multi payer system
For reasonable gun restrictions, but not excessive
For immigration reform, so people can come here legally who aren’t just the rich
For education choice, favoring vouchers so kids can get quality education at religious schools
Against birth control and condoms, along with sex ed in schools (teach abstinence, not premarital sex)
For religious freedom
Against drug use for recreational purposes

I think especially keeping the government out of the wage negotiating process with businesses and unions would be good. If unions have the backing of the government with regards to workers rights so businesses can’t exploit them, strong unions will make sure workers don’t get cheated by businesses. But with government not defining minimum wages and other entitlements for the businesses, then the businesses won’t be hurt by oppressive policies that favor big businesses. There should be active regulations, but not intervention. The government is a referee, not a player in the game.
Click to expand...
The problem with having such a long litmus test list, it’s extremely complicated and expensive to sell, and easy to overthrow. The foundation of society is marriage, and even if gay marriage slips in, we can’t throw out the good - even if it’s not perfect. The natural desire of men and women will win out and the only place we will see perfection is in the saints at the end of their lives. We need to pick one or two basic founding principles of society, and then build on it. Marriage and the protection of life?
 
Tim_AJ said:
The problem with having such a long litmus test list, it’s extremely complicated and expensive to sell, and easy to overthrow. …
Click to expand...
I like it. the longer the litmus test, the more likely it is to be a niche party, without any influence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top