UPDATE: The wacky date on this post is intentional. It's going to stay at the top of the first page for a while.
It's starting right now. Current membership: Me, Pylorns, Peekah
I touched on it last week and the idea just won't leave me alone. You see, I want a political identity. I want to be a part of a group of like-minded folk. I know they're out there but they're in the same boat as I am - unable to fully identify with either of the majors or stubbornly claiming independence.
Here are the issues that need to be addressed, the forces that are making this party not only welcome but needed:
Bi-partisanship just doesn't work well. There are two big parties in the country that decide everything. In many areas key to their very identities they oppose each other. Each party is desperately trying to push their agendas. When they get a window (read: majority) they do so relentlessly. When they are in the minority they fight tooth and nail against the other. This is unbelievably inefficient. It's also incredibly costly to the citizens of America not only monetarily but with the ever increasing restrictions on their rights.A buffer is needed between these two. A group that can mediate and facilitate as well as reign in the excesses of both parties. A relatively small percentage of this third party could do this, provided they get elected.
Existing minor parties are ineffectual. Take a look at a list of existing parties in America and you'll see a distressing constant. They are formed around some amazingly partisan agendas. They are so focused on a tight group because they need the full support of a tight group in order to exist but these extreme stances make them completely unpalatable outside of their narrow focus.
A successful third party must be inclusive, not exclusive. Narrowly defined partisan platforms automatically exclude any minor party from the national stage.
The left gets lefter and the right gets righter. This last election cycle has brought it out for everybody's attention but the increasing bend to their party fundaments has been going on in both major parties for quite some time. This is leaving moderates from both sides frustrated and defensive. Or jumping ship.
A valid party has a massive resource here. People feel locked into the two majors. Remember that old adage about "wasting your vote" by voting for a third party candidate. That's a genuine feel. Many people are siding with one or the other majors simply because they can have some say in it if they vote blue or red. They are picking the lesser of two evils.
The absolute most foolish cause of division in politics is the legislation of morality. Morality doesn't come up in the Constitution and there's a really, really good reason for that. It is absolutely none of the government's business.
The majority of parties have exceptionally rigid ideas about morality. This is plain stupid. By making morality a part of your party's platform you are instantly alienating possible supporters based on something that shouldn't be in politics anyway.
And here's a reiteration of the party principles:
1: Government exists to protect the rights of its citizens.2: Legislatures should be
moreas concernedaboutwith removing bad lawsthanas creating new ones. There are huge numbers of laws on the books that are improper, outdated, contradictory or simply dealing with things that the government has no business dealing in.3: Morality must not be a political topic and should not be regulated.
4:
Just about anyMany services provided by the government can be done better and more efficiently by private industry.The Intelligence community and the Armed Forces being the sole obvious exceptions here and even they could use some privatization.Movement must be made towards turning these services over to public markets and to eliminating the government from competition with the public.5: The law (especially the Constitution) is not to be
fuckedmodified for partisan agendas. See #3 above.6: Pork projects and riders on bills are the most insidious evil ever created by the bipartisan government.
So why the "Nationalist Party of America"? Well, nationalism is fine in my book. This party is being formed partially because of pure nationalist intentions. It also hasn't been taken by any crackpot groups that I could find. I'm not married to it though. Maybe just "Nationalist Party" would be better? Or if somebody comes up with a better name I'll be happy to modify it. It's okay, I haven't printed up any fliers yet.
And I need some help. The first thing I need is somebody with some grasp (or willingness to learn) the complicated morass of political party laws. What legal requirements do we need to start up this party? What do we need to avoid so we don't go to jail for crossed "I" or a dotted "T" or any of the other myriad retarded laws that have been implemented in order to keep the two big parties big and the rest small?
I need feedback on the principles. Serious feedback. What's good about them, what's bad, do they make you wet? Do they adequately define what I'm trying to form here? Would YOU belong to this party?
Right now is your chance to get in on the ground floor of something that could possibly make a difference. Given enough support and the right guidance this party could become a success and modify American politics for the better.
You have some issues that will alienate people. Plank #2 for example: Legislatures should be more concerned about removing bad laws than creating new ones. This needs more explanation. Often the creation of new laws is very important. If a legislature misses the boat on something important, your party will be blamed.
Also in plank #5, you need to seriously remove the word 'fuck'. Use of that word in any kind of official capacity is inappropriate. If you want inclusiveness, using that word works against you.
I have some small issues with number 4, but only because we've privatized some things here in FL and I just shake my head sometimes. The private corporations appear to try to hide their problems more than the government did.
Other than that... I am an independent. If a 3rd party were to form, I'd be all for it. The problem would be getting people like me to register for it over Rep or Dem. You can't vote in FL in the primaries unless you're registered to a party, which is why even though I'm an independent, I picked a party. (I picked the party that appeared to have the fewest number of local dirtbags, in the case of my county, it appeared to be the Republicans.)
I've voted for a 3rd party candidate before. I get a lot of comments on my blog and I see them on others, that there are grunches of people who have come to abhor both parties... the whole left is lefter, right is righter thing...
Garret - Good points. There's no place for flippancy here if I want people to take this seriously. I've removed the profanity. I've also expanded #2 and clarified it a bit. I agree that some new legislation is valuable and even necessary.
Boudicca - Registration isn't going to be a big issue in the beginning. The votes and support are independent of it and we won't be in the position of needing primary run-offs for a while yet. I've modified #4 for clarity and to get rid of the petulant tone.
One more note: The language 'messed with' might be better written as 'altered' or 'changed'. Your current terminology is still somewhat colloquial.
Got it.
I'm in.
One of the principles of USURP is that once enough people again prove that they can properly bear all the responsibility related to their own lives, as well as the lives of the family and those in their local community, much of which they currently eschew, choosing instead to shift the responsibility for such upon the government, then the need for governance will disappear.
Additionally, another tenet of my own personal belief is that our government should never give anything to anyone for absolutely nothing. While I believe it may be necessary and proper for the government to supply the necessities of life to certain segments of its society, I do not believe it is fair or beneficial of those segments of society to get such necessities supplied gratis. I propose a modified sociali[s]t-style system, where the government operates certain facilities, utilities, hospitals, and other necessary services on a non-profit basis, where the underprivileged segments of the society solely have to pay their share of the actual cost of such benefit. Where a family falls to a point at which they are completely unable to sustain itself at even non-profit levels, then I propose that we establish self-supporting camps at which these families can voluntarily enlist to become members, gaining necessary family support, training in life and labor market skills, and allowed to save a small weekly stipend to build a nest egg. Once it is thought that they have accumulated what is needed to return to life in the real world, they are free to leave.
Ok, this is a relatively minor quibble, but---maybe it's just me, but "nationalist" party reminds me too much of National Socia1ist Party. How about reviving an oldie-but-goodie? The Federalist Party....?
I like your ideas. I am a bit concerned with the privatization part; I'd like to know more about what you would privatize and how to ensure that those who do need help get the help they need.
I'm not married to Nationalist but I couldn't go along with Federalist. Too many connotations of a big centralized government. If we want thing to be more efficient that's definitely not the way to go.
Rachel Ann - Privatization should immediately happen in service segments that the government cannot provide adequate service, provides grossly overcost services or competes with private businesses in order to provide service. An excellent example I recently ran into is unemployment benefits.
I have been paying mandatory unemployment "insurance" fees for 20 years. In that time the amount I've put into the system even with the most meager accumulated gains would amount to well over $28,000. When I lost my job I was entitled to a pittance of $300 a week. This amount of money was just shy of absolutely useless. Like many Americans I have a car payment and a house payment. Utilities, food, dependents, etc. Because benefits do not start when you become unemployed I actually collected benefits for only three weeks out of the 2+ months that I was without a job.
I absolutely guarantee that this money could have been handled better by any entity other than the government. Why is it mandatory? If I don't want to buy life insurance nobody questions my right not to do so but I am forced to pay every week for this utterly broken system. Why not let me decide?
Even if I had been able to put that money in a regular savings account with the restriction that it could only be dispensed upon the condition of unemployment we would be in worlds better financial shape than we are now. In fact, we'd be in healthy financial shape instead of the straights we're in at the moment.
A quicker example - in Georgia all liquor is sold only by the state. Why? Beer and wine are available in the supermarkets. Why do I have to buy whiskey at a state run package store? There is no reason for the government to be interfering with this private industry sector.
Re: point 6.
What about Pork rinds?
Pork rinds would be tolerated as a necessary evil. I am living in Georgia after all.
My g/f posted on her site about universal healthcare. While I am 60/40 on it, I think it would work as long as the government does not actually handle the cost of it.
Here are my two cents on it:
1. Regulate Medicaid and Medicare better - allow for updates in technology and stop paper pushing.
2. Stop the pharmacutical company hold. Drugs don't cost that much to manufacture.
3. Form laws about frivolous law suits that bring down the cost of mal-practice insurance.
4. Stricter standards for doctors that goes with those laws.
5. The cost of health insurance is through the roof. By lowering the drug costs and the malpractice, we may be able to bring down the cost of insurance.
The other thing is, we are pushing to privitize things away from the government - because everytime the government takes over certain aspects of business the costs are always underestimated and then grossly over-costed. Do we want to deal with Universal Health Care in the hands of the government?
How about mandatory health care for every person that has a job. Thats a start. Make the employers responsible, not the government - give tax breaks to the employers for helping out with health care - and force contract companies to also have health care - full or part time. This will stop them from outsourceing to contractors that they dont have to pay for benifits.
The next step is to keep the jobs in the US, so they don't try to get people in india to do the job for less. So we have to pass regulations that make it harder to have employees in another country do what Americans should be doing.
Jeez, am I eff'g invisible? Or has ever'one finally concluded that I am jes' a madman and it is better to jes' ignore me? USURP. 1) Takin' care of your responsibilities yourself so you don't need a government to do it for you. 2) Government supplied basic services on a low-cost non-profit basis, nothing is free. 3) Reeducation camps to assist the desperately destitute in gainin' the necessary skills to become productive responsible citizens, not long-term wards of the state.
You're not invisible, Tig, but I'm pretty sure you've confirmed as a madman. ;-)
#1 I fully agree with. #2 would depend on the services. Ideally I'd rather see government out of the service industries. #3 is a particular favorite of Dopple-G's. It'll be one of the first things he implements if he ever become dictator for life. Personally I look at that as a service, one that could probably be done better and cheaper by a private entity.
Not to be a downer, but what you have described here is basically small "l" libertarianism. Although the capital "l" Libertarians have usurped the basic concepts and added to them their own wacky agenda, basically, what you've got is it. Although I applaud it, you will not make much of a national splash because your own altruism would alienate most Americans at the most basic point, personal greed.
Your #1 point is the most dangerous and open to interpretation as to be almost worthless. Let's see, Democrats say that the government is here to protect the rights to "the pursuit of happiness," thus unlimited welfare should be available (Johnson's Great Society). Republicans believe that government exists to protect that same right by the DOMA.
Again, I applaud your sentiments, but I feel within the capitalistic framework of American economy, no one will be willing to play. We have our NIMBYism and our greed which will prevent us from allowing the monolith which is the American Bureaucracy from diminishing, regardless of who is at it's titular head.
Count me in... this has been a long time in coming and the time is now. Can this be something viable? All there is, is the chance... why not take it?
They're comin' to take me away, ha ha! ;)
I'm having trouble getting my brain around "the legislation of morality"
I realize this most obviously applies to the devide created by the gay marriage issue and abortion, but what other fairly important issues can be labled a moral issue in order for it just to not be dealt with?
Maybe I'm too far right to participate, but I am still reading...
FastFreddy, the Libertarian classics like marijuana, prostitution and gambling would be excellent examples. We have two types of illegal things in the USA - things that are illegal because they must be illegal from a humane perspective (murder, theft) and things that are illegal only because we have made them so. This latter class is chock full of morality laws.
More power to you, but I suspect you would be smarter to, instead of forming a third party, form an action committee that sponsors groups within the Democratic and Republican parties.
The American system can't support three parties. I know, I know, lots of people say I'm wrong--they've been saying it for 200 years.
The most effective political groups by far are those with connections deep in both parties.
The Libertariansn look like they're starting to get it. There's a Republican Liberty Coalition and a Democratic Liberty Coalition.
By the way, spontaneously, in both the House and Senate, there is something called the "centrist caucus," which have a number of members in both parties.
I mostly like your agenda. FWIW.