Time for a new political party?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ansel123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ansel123

Guest
Say there are two candidates in a race: (1) Candidate A, who is pro-life, but pro-death penalty, and supports the use of war NOT as a last resort, and (2) Candidate B, who is pro-choice on abortion, but against the death penalty and war.

Obviously, Candidate B is out because of his stance on abortion.

But should Catholics and other morally strong groups seek out and promote a Candidate C, who is pro-life, and against the death penalty and war?

Is it time to scrap the binary choice between what is usually two very morally deficient candidates, in favor of a candidate or a new party that is pro-life (against abortion, the death penalty, and war), and gives real attention to poverty issues like hunger?
 
Given the fact that the two party system is so thoroughly entrenched in the US, and the rather abysmal failure of recent years to start a third party, I wouldn’t get too excited about the issue. The third party has been seen as less effective in getting their point across than they have in granting success to the party they are most in opposition to. In other words, they are seen as counter productive to their purpose.
 
I understand your point, but do we have an obligaiton to try and create a political force that more accurately reflects our beliefs on human life and dignity?

Although Nader was clearly a failure, I would put Ross Perot out there as someone who actually had some real momentum and could have established a viable third party had he not wavered in and out of the 1992 race. He took a big chunk of the 1992 electorate. So I don’t think creating a real alternative is necessarily a dead issue.
 
The only situation in which I wold ever vote on a third party for a national office is where both canadites were pro-aborts.

I don’t rember the precent, but if a thrid party were to get a certian percentage of the popular vote in a presidental race, then they get to take out of the government’s poloticial welefare fund next time around.
 
Oh yeah…now I remember what this is called…its called wishful thinking…that is of course if you think the 3rd party candidate will be elected.
 
starting a new party and asking Catholics to vote for it equals voting democrats.

btw Repulican’s policies are perfect for me.
I’m pro life
I’m pro death penalty
I’m pro the liberation of Iraq
😃
 
Third party candidates have no chance of being elected so long as people continue to kowtow to the established two parties. Face it, neither party has done anything real for life and the repubs are standing at the edge of a cliff regarding judges, if they failt to do anything real, then they are worthless regarding life issues…just like the dems.

This is a matter of conscience, and for me I cannot continue to vote parties that have no intention to do anything real.

Bring on another party, and keep bringing them on until one takes hold.
 
40.png
ansel123:
Say there are two candidates in a race: (1) Candidate A, who is pro-life, but pro-death penalty, and supports the use of war NOT as a last resort, and (2) Candidate B, who is pro-choice on abortion, but against the death penalty and war.

Obviously, Candidate B is out because of his stance on abortion.

But should Catholics and other morally strong groups seek out and promote a Candidate C, who is pro-life, and against the death penalty and war?

Is it time to scrap the binary choice between what is usually two very morally deficient candidates, in favor of a candidate or a new party that is pro-life (against abortion, the death penalty, and war), and gives real attention to poverty issues like hunger?
Click to expand...
I even coined a word for the proposed third party: The Neoprogressive Party. *Neoprogressive *because we’d be regarded as progressive on issues like combatting poverty, hunger, unjust discrimination, unjust war, the death penalty, greed, and out-of-control capitalism (a.k.a. neoliberalism), yet pro-life also on abortion and euthanasia.

Euthanasia is for cats and dogs, not for men and women.
 
To say that a viable 3rd party is an impossibility is to lose hope in the idea that as Catholics, we can actually have candidates that are wholly acceptable to vote for, not just the lesser of two evils.

I threw Ross Perot out there and I think this is a good example. There are plenty of other examples throughout American history. I am not saying a real moral party is something that will happen tomorrow, but if you take the long-term historical view, its obviously something that is possible.

Also, can someone explain to me how Catholic views (besides anti-abortion doctrine) are consistent with the Republican Party? John Paul II condemned the war in Iraq and the Catholic Catechism states that the death penalty should be used only when there is no other way to deal with the offender. Furthermore, I don’t see how any moral person could condone a method of punishment that is marked with so much racial bias and error of judgment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top