What are your problems with the presidential candidates?

[Wolf]

There really are tens (if not hundreds) of tiny little political parties in America. You don't need a "new" third party - you already have plenty of them. What you need to do is to convince the parties who hold very similar views to band together and unite into a larger third party. For example, there's a large number of socialist parties. They really need to get their act together and join up into one single party. After that, they could forge a coalition with the Greens, get Ralph Nader to join them, persuade Kucinich and Dean (and their supporters) to split with the Democratic Party and join this new coalition, and voila! You have a group capable of winning the elections.

Yes, Edric, I know. I thought I made that clear when I talked about the disparate American moderates and non-GOP and non-Dem people uniting. In fact, that's exactly what a lot of Americans are hoping for.

That's a good point -- and contributes to our troubles. The politics are actually not that different -- which is why I say it is paradoxical. And I know that the American standard is different from the European one -- which makes this whole discourse somewhat more difficult. This adds to the whole problem; the parties that should satisfy the left and right standards don't. Moderates feel left out because they cannot overtly support political parties; their rhetoric is different from the party rhetoric, and unless the rhetoric matches, you don't get party support. Conservatives and Liberals feel left out because even though the parties spout their rhetoric, they don't feel satisfied with the reality. The result is a dissatisfied country. So, I suppose true "moderates" get what they want, but they, too, are excluded from the political process. In fact, everyone is in some way excluded. That, I feel, is one of the main problems.

[TMA_1]

if you want to form a powerful third party, this is what you do.

You get the support of the evangelicals and penticostals.lol that may sound funny but oh no it isnt. If you want to win, you get all of the wasps on your side. I know this might sound weird but they are still a majority however small tehy may be, other demographics would be bound to have many join as well, but if you get that vote you would win, not some leftist or rightist stuff.

thats what I think anyways.lol

[Wolf]

The problem, though, is that, if I may use the term, WASPs, aren't that unified in the first place. White Anglo-Saxon Protestants form the backbone of both major parties, and most other interest groups (except those which necessarily preclude them).

[DukeLeto]

Kerry:

-Misses too many votes

-Too much money to be "real" democrat

-No identifiable sense of humor

Bush:

-Iraq.  Need I say more?

-1.4 Billion dollars in Saudi oil money, a lot of it from the Bin Ladins.

-Wants to reinstate the draft

-Too easily swayed by special interests

-Still no sign of capturing Osama Bin Ladin, possibly because of point #2.

-Uses religion as a fundamental part of his policies

-Missing military service

-Worthless tax cuts for the working man, while the rich benefit rather handsomely

-Cheney

-Ashcroft

-The DHS is nothing mare than an excuse to give Tom Ridge a job; there are no signs of anything productive coming out of them

-He has alienated all of our allies

-Constanly defies the UN

-Did I mention Iraq?

-Largest national debt ever

-Biggest deficets since Hoover

-Speaking of Hoover, first president since Hoover (or was it Harding?) to miss the NAACP conference

-Wants to expand draft to include women

-Supports a universal, no-excpetions-whatsoever ban on abortion

-I meantioned Iraq, right?

-Totally clueless.  (EG: When did Saddam try to kill his dad again?  I must have missed that.)

-He looks like a monkey, and has about the vocabulary of one, too.

-Support for anti-American terrorists has increased exponentially since Bush has been in office.

-Spends millions of dollars running attack ads against Kerry.

-Has repeatedly lied under oath.

I'm certain I'll think of more.

[Edric O]

I want to reply to a few older posts in this topic:

It was so close in Florida, if even a very few people who voted for Nader (and actually had their votes counted) had voted for Gore instead it would have been enough...

Of course, but the same applies to the people who didn't vote at all - and there were far more of those than the people who voted for Nader!

If you want to blame anyone for how the 2000 elections turned out, blame all the Gore supporters who never bothered to vote.

Nader:

[...]

-Abandoned the Green Party, show's how much of an environmentalist he was...

Nader didn't abandon the green party, They didn't pick him to be there canidate...You cant abandon a job you didnt get picked for.

Here's the official explanation from Nader's own website regarding his reasons for running as an independent rather than a Green candidate:

So why would Ralph run as an Independent now?

Throughout American history third parties and independent candidates have pushed the agenda toward the just needs of the people and changed one or more of the major parties on many important subjects

[HasimirFenring]

"Of course, but the same applies to the people who didn't vote at all - and there were far more of those than the people who voted for Nader!

If you want to blame anyone for how the 2000 elections turned out, blame all the Gore supporters who never bothered to vote."

True, but Nader siphoned off those liberals who were motivated enough to vote.  Nader is a wonderful candidate with respect to the issues, but NOT with regards to the way he has helped bush.

[Wolf]

Nader did not wake up in the morning and say, "You know what, I'm going to help George W. Bush!"

[Edric O]

if you want to form a powerful third party, this is what you do.

You get the support of the evangelicals and penticostals.lol that may sound funny but oh no it isnt. If you want to win, you get all of the wasps on your side. I know this might sound weird but they are still a majority however small tehy may be, other demographics would be bound to have many join as well, but if you get that vote you would win, not some leftist or rightist stuff.

thats what I think anyways.lol

I wanted to reply to this because it is a point I've often thought about. It seems many white anglo-saxon protestants in the lower and middle classes vote Republican - because of the social issues! It would be in their own interest to vote for a liberal (or otherwise left-wing) economic agenda, and they know it, but they are drawn to the conservative side because they oppose liberal social policies (gay marriage, abortion, etc.). The American left-wing needs to do something about this. Right now it insists far too much on social issues and far too little on economic ones. IMO, it should be the other way around.

[TMA_1]

I totally agree there.

You see I am socially conservative but economically liberal. I am very "socialist" in my economic views but when it comes to moral views like abortion and whatnot I am somewhat conservative. I think that point of view best matches what the bible says. To care for those who cannot take care of themselves as easily, and to help others who need it without lack of trust or faith, and without being snooty and looking down on others who are poor. To really understand the plight of the poor in society, as I have grown up poor with my sister and all. We needed socialist programs in order to survive and they saved our family, they have all but been raped now after the clinton administration, and Bush hit the last nails in the coffin which really ticks me off, like the tax reduction. By the way we didnt get any money from the tax break because we were too poor.lol we dont pay income tax because we dont own a house and we are elligable to be able not to pay it. so you see the working poor are pushed more and more into oblivion because of lack of government spending and lack of jobs, while the upper middle class and higher ups get much of the breaks. it just makes me sick.

On the other hand I am very conservative when it comes to many social issues.

does that make any sense edric?

[HasimirFenring]

Clearly there is a niche for a third party there, if someone had the will to start one.

[Edric O]

Clearly there is a niche for a third party there, if someone had the will to start one.

On the contrary. What the Left needs is unity, not further division. Today's American Left is far too sectarian, and far too entrenched in their social views to realize that the economic issues ultimately matter a hell of a lot more than the social ones.

To understand the political spectrum better, take a look at the Political Compass. Most liberals, social democrats, socialists and communists (i.e. most leftists in general, including myself) are in the Libertarian Left quadrant. However, there is also a distinct group of leftists, particularly working class Christians with conservative social views, which belong in the Authoritarian Left quadrant. They include figures like Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa - and that's where TMA belongs, too.

We have ignored these leftists for far too long, and we've pushed millions of potential socialists in the arms of right-wing conservatives, due to our stubborn fixation on social issues that are far less important than the economic ones. This practice must stop NOW.

I appeal to all my Libertarian Leftist comrades (especially American liberals) to implement a capitalism first policy: Our first enemy is capitalism. Our primary goal is to overthrow capitalism and establish a free, democratic and equitable socialist system. All other concerns are secondary. Many of our social problems can be traced back to the economic issues of poverty and income inequality. Economic issues must be given priority status! And we must draw all economic leftists to our side. In particular, we need to regain the support of all working class people, including the socially conservative white Christians that we've neglected for so long.

[Edric O]

You see I am socially conservative but economically liberal. I am very "socialist" in my economic views but when it comes to moral views like abortion and whatnot I am somewhat conservative. I think that point of view best matches what the bible says. To care for those who cannot take care of themselves as easily, and to help others who need it without lack of trust or faith, and without being snooty and looking down on others who are poor. To really understand the plight of the poor in society, as I have grown up poor with my sister and all. We needed socialist programs in order to survive and they saved our family, they have all but been raped now after the clinton administration, and Bush hit the last nails in the coffin which really ticks me off, like the tax reduction. By the way we didnt get any money from the tax break because we were too poor.lol we dont pay income tax because we dont own a house and we are elligable to be able not to pay it. so you see the working poor are pushed more and more into oblivion because of lack of government spending and lack of jobs, while the upper middle class and higher ups get much of the breaks. it just makes me sick.

On the other hand I am very conservative when it comes to many social issues.

does that make any sense edric?

Of course it does. You are a Christian Socialist.

Your views are shared by the majority of working class Americans, and it frustrates me to see that the leaders of the American Left fail to understand this. Capitalism and right-wing economic policies only benefit the rich, and if it weren't for their conservative social policies, the Republicans would be crushed into the sand. Roosevelt understood this simple fact, and that's how he crushed the right-wing almost out of existence (well, by American standards, anyway).

For my part, as you already know, I am an economic communist (which means far more left-wing than any liberal) and a social liberal (or a social communist - they mean the same thing, since liberals and communists generally hold the same social views). I believe this view is closest to that of the Bible, since God wishes us to be free to make our choices (for or against Him) in our personal lives, but He also wishes us to live in a harmonious society that cares for all its members, eliminates poverty, and achieves the greatest good for the greatest number.

However, as I explained in my previous post, I place maximum importance on economic issues. First we must unite to defeat capitalism and establish a socialist system, then we can continue our argument regarding social issues.

In general, economic issues are far more important than social ones. Poor gay couples care more about the food they have on the table than about any official state recognition of their relationship, and many single mothers wouldn't need to have abortions if they could afford to raise a child, or if they knew their babies would be well taken care of in a state institution.

The United States needs a Christian Left to take the place of the absurd Christian Right (which tramples on everything Jesus stood for), and it needs pan-socialist unity.

[HasimirFenring]

On the contrary. What the Left needs is unity, not further division. Today's American Left is far too sectarian, and far too entrenched in their social views to realize that the economic issues ultimately matter a hell of a lot more than the social ones.

To understand the political spectrum better, take a look at the Political Compass.

I agree that the left needs unity, but I also think that we need a third party (Democrats being only a shade better than republicans).  Great site btw, thanks.  It also put me in the libertarian left, although probably closer to the origin than you.

Many Americans disagree as to whether economic or social views are more important; to some, stopping abortion may be a more important goal than creating a welfare state.

[Wolf]

I will admit right now that a socially-right and economically-left political outlook do not look too bad to me at all -- as your average, middle-class American. As Edric knows, I am a Christian, and I have been exploring a new understanding of economics, if you will. I wonder if I am in the same boat as TMA?

If so, hey, TMA, let's start our own party.  ;D

[Edric O]

I agree that the left needs unity, but I also think that we need a third party (Democrats being only a shade better than republicans).

Well, you either need a strong leftist 3rd party or you need to take over the Democratic Party and move it over to the left, making it a party of the working class. I'm not sure which option is easier.

In any case, you don't need a new 3rd party. There are already plenty of those. What you need is to unite the socialist/green/leftist 3rd parties into a single force.

Great site btw, thanks.  It also put me in the libertarian left, although probably closer to the origin than you.

Well, my own score is the following:

Economic Left/Right: -10

Social Lib/Auth: -6.51

As far left as you can possibly go, and seriously libertarian too. :)

Many Americans disagree as to whether economic or social views are more important; to some, stopping abortion may be a more important goal than creating a welfare state.

Well, that's why I'm saying we (or you, since I don't actually live in the USA) need to persuade as many people as possible to put the economic issues first, and forge a united Left.

I will admit right now that a socially-right and economically-left political outlook do not look too bad to me at all -- as your average, middle-class American. As Edric knows, I am a Christian, and I have been exploring a new understanding of economics, if you will. I wonder if I am in the same boat as TMA?

If so, hey, TMA, let's start our own party. ;D

Actually, that might not be such a far-fetched idea. Starting your own party would be the wrong way of doing it, of course, since there are so many 3rd parties already, but perhaps it wouldn't hurt to raise awareness among the people who share your views. The Religious Right (and Christian Conservatism in general) is based on an unholy alliance between rich capitalists and middle class (or even poor) Christians. You need to talk to these people (in the latter group) and persuade them to join you in building the Religious Left (and eventually the united Left).

Besides those, there are many people who share your views (socially conservative, economically left-wing) but who just don't vote, because they feel unrepresented. You should talk to them too, and at least make them aware that they represent a specific political group, rather than being a strange combination (as many of them probably think of themselves).

And last but not least, we need a catchy name for this political orientation. ;D Hmmmm...

[Wolf]

You're right about me -- and probably others -- being under the impression that we are some strange combination of views. I think I said before in earlier posts or threads that people in the same situation as myself, or economically-right, socially-left individuals, for example, feel marginalized by the two parties.

And I agree, a catchy name is half the battle.  ;D

[Caid Ivik]

I'm reading now a book from one guy named Patrick Buchanan, who candidated for presidency twice against Clinton and even against Bush as a sole runner. He left Republicans because they did not seem enough radical. If I were an American, I think I would have a dilemma if he would be against Bush again  ;D

[Edric O]

You're right about me -- and probably others -- being under the impression that we are some strange combination of views. I think I said before in earlier posts or threads that people in the same situation as myself, or economically-right, socially-left individuals, for example, feel marginalized by the two parties.

Yes, and there are many more besides you and them. For example, there are many liberals who feel that the Democrats don't represent their views (which is a real problem, seeing how the Democrats are considerably more right-wing than their voter base), and there are even some conservatives who feel dissatisfied with the Republicans.

Beyond those, I suspect there are also plenty of socialists who don't even realize what the name of their political orientation is (since America is one of the few countries where socialism is not regarded as mainstream).

And I agree, a catchy name is half the battle. ;D

I was serious. You really do need to find a name!

I'm reading now a book from one guy named Patrick Buchanan, who candidated for presidency twice against Clinton and even against Bush as a sole runner. He left Republicans because they did not seem enough radical. If I were an American, I think I would have a dilemma if he would be against Bush again.  ;D

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Buchanan an infamous Far Right ultra-conservative?

I get the distinct feeling that you are my opposite in almost every way, Caid...

[HasimirFenring]

Yup, Buchanan is way out there Right, as I recall.  Luckily, I also think he got fewer votes than Nader.

[Caid Ivik]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Buchanan an infamous Far Right ultra-conservative?

I get the distinct feeling that you are my opposite in almost every way, Caid...

Fanatical antimarxist conservative christian crusader, hard to find a better one overseas  ;D  But let me quote a part of his last book, to correct it (my free re-translation; P.Buchanan: Death of the West, Mlada Fronta, Prague, 2004, p.66):

Many conservatives have been swayed to economism, mirror form of marxism, which is based on view, that human is an economical animal, free market and trade are way to peace, common richness and happiness, and if we would have a right to minimize taxes and abolish tax from capital incomes, the paradise - Dow Jones' index on 36 000 points - is at hand.

[Andoreion]

*snort* whenever someone talks about American Presidential election, I always think of the following quotation.  ;)

The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and prove it. (P. J. O'Rourke)

[Wolf]

Republicans have bad ideas, Democrats have no ideas.

[HasimirFenring]

Which makes the fact that we're stuck supporting the Dems all the sadder.

[Andoreion]

Don't feel too bad about it. It's worse in The Netherlands. Here we can either vote for a party that is evil incarnate, or one that is too stupid for words. ;)

Well.. or you can vote for the Social-Liberals (Liberal as in Liberalism), who are brilliant. Unfortunately, they only got little over 4% during the last national elections.

[Anathema]

Actually there are dozens of parties, some of them are pretty small but that doesn't matter because the Netherlands has a system of proportional representation, meaning even small parties can get a share of parliament seats. Sadly, D66 (one of the government parties) is trying to turn it into a district system, wich would mean that the smaller parties would dissapear because they can never hope to get the majority vote in a single district.

About how the actual government (the cabinet) is formed, that's complicated, but it comes down to that multiple parties have to form a coalition as to get a majority in the parliament (not entirely necessary, but more effective then so called "minority" cabinets).