Were a Centrist 3rd party to form, would you support it?

[Statistikhengst]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

 

[Mac1958]

.

It would definitely get my attention, and I'd love to see it. The two "major" parties have gone so far into their own corners that this would be a good time to try it. There's plenty of room in the middle right now. But I don't expect to see it for two reasons:

First, the campaign/electoral system is simply not set up to support three major parties, and second, it's very tough for me to believe that such a party wouldn't be taken over by the same narcissistic sociopaths who have so damaged the two "major" parties.

.

 

[occupied]

The last thing this country needs is more corporatist politicians which would be the aim of forming a centrist party. Think about it for a moment, it would encompass the republican neocons and the "third way" democrats, not a one of those assholes is worth a single vote.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You don't need a centrist party when both major parties are to the right off where previous presidents have been.

How about we just demand that the money be taken out of politics and that campaigns be run with a higher standard for honesty and accuracy.

How about we demand that journalists ask follow up questions and stop the dopey effort to appear "right down the middle".

 

[Youch]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

Why do you think this? Do you think that only the extremes have something to contribute to the forward movement of US-American society?

 

[Wildman]

not if there are people like you and all the other liberfools on USMB !

 

[Statistikhengst]

Oy, Gewalt.

Now, back to the OP itself...

 

[Youch]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

Why do you think this? Do you think that only the extremes have something to contribute to the forward movement of US-American society?

I disagree with the context of the question. Conservatism isn't extreme, it is natural, as it allows people to pursue their own life, and does not grow a centralized government to lord over us, paid for by confiscatory policies. Modern liberalism (not classical liberalism) is a vehicle to expand government, in a sense, a self-serving governmental construct that creates the much-needed dependents to feed and support it.

But don't take my word for it (few do). Just draw from the vast wealth of knowledge that history gives us. Liberalism ALWAYS leads to tyranny, everywhere and every time it has been tired. Conservatism is the attempt at an antidote, and most eloquently inculcated in our Constitution.

I love this topic. Anyone who wants to discuss in detail, turn me on....

 

[Mac1958]

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

A partisan is someone who goes through life with only one eye open, making them half blind. They avoid all ideas that conflict with their narcissistic world view and immediately spin, deflect, divert and outright lie for what they perceive to be their "side", regardless of the ramifications. They are incurious. They are a big part of the problem.

We could use far fewer partisans and far more inquisitive minds.

.

 

[Youch]

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

A partisan is someone who goes through life with only one eye open, making them half blind. They avoid all ideas that conflict with their narcissistic world view and immediately spin, deflect, divert and outright lie for what they perceive to be their "side", regardless of the ramifications. They are incurious. They are a big part of the problem.

We could use far fewer partisans and far more inquisitive minds.

.

Ha.

One, the term "partisanship" comes from party politics, and thus far nobody has mentioned or inferred political parties in this discussion (my part of it, anyway) until you injected it as a distraction.

Two, please explain how "inquisitive minds" can conclude the fence-sitting position of a centrist?

If you are aware of a "side" of political philosophy not heretofore mentioned, please elucidate. I await....

 

[rightwinger]

In talking about a third party, seizing the center is the only way to succeed. Far right or far left will only ensure victory to the opposite side

By getting just 10% of the vote, a central party could decide all major issues as each side would have to cater to the center to get legislation passed

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yeah! Inquisitive like Mac. He inquires about how everyone but him can be so fucking clueless.

He wonders how we all didn't get outraged when the president suggested that we didn't build the road that connects our house to our place of business and then to our customers.

He opines about why only white people get accused of hate crimes.

He's a deep thinker, don't ya know! He is very curious.

 

[Mac1958]

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

A partisan is someone who goes through life with only one eye open, making them half blind. They avoid all ideas that conflict with their narcissistic world view and immediately spin, deflect, divert and outright lie for what they perceive to be their "side", regardless of the ramifications. They are incurious. They are a big part of the problem.

We could use far fewer partisans and far more inquisitive minds.

.

Ha.

One, the term "partisanship" comes from party politics, and thus far nobody has mentioned or inferred political parties in this discussion (my part of it, anyway) until you injected it as a distraction.

Two, please explain how "inquisitive minds" can conclude the fence-sitting position of a centrist?

If you are aware of a "side" of political philosophy not heretofore mentioned, please elucidate. I await....

Not sure I understand the questions, but I'll try.

The two parties are, by their very nature, partisan. They are inhabited and controlled by individuals who are partisan. Am I missing something there?

A centrist party, by its nature, would (theoretically) not subscribe to the partisan doctrine of either "major" party - this doesn't mean that it wouldn't create and subscribe to some OTHER partisan doctrine, and that's a danger.

Not sure why you think I injected my comments "as a distraction". You pointed out your perception of centrists and I pointed out my perception of partisans. The attraction of a centrist party is the theoretical probability that it would be less polluted by the partisans who are causing this country so much damage.

.

 

[Youch]

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

A partisan is someone who goes through life with only one eye open, making them half blind. They avoid all ideas that conflict with their narcissistic world view and immediately spin, deflect, divert and outright lie for what they perceive to be their "side", regardless of the ramifications. They are incurious. They are a big part of the problem.

We could use far fewer partisans and far more inquisitive minds.

.

Ha.

One, the term "partisanship" comes from party politics, and thus far nobody has mentioned or inferred political parties in this discussion (my part of it, anyway) until you injected it as a distraction.

Two, please explain how "inquisitive minds" can conclude the fence-sitting position of a centrist?

If you are aware of a "side" of political philosophy not heretofore mentioned, please elucidate. I await....

Not sure I understand the questions, but I'll try.

The two parties are, by their very nature, partisan. They are inhabited and controlled by individuals who are partisan. Am I missing something there?

A centrist party, by its nature, would (theoretically) not subscribe to the partisan doctrine of either "major" party - this doesn't mean that it wouldn't create and subscribe to some OTHER partisan doctrine, and that's a danger.

Not sure why you think I injected my comments "as a distraction". You pointed out your perception of centrists and I pointed out my perception of partisans.

.

Since you are being kind, I will do the same. A welcomed sight on this forum, from my limited experience here.


You keep describing partisanship and parties. I agree that those are very much integral to our political process.

Many ways to address your point. Perhaps the least of which might be the fact that third parties have always failed miserably in this country. But more to my point, and I will try to answer your question here...

There are basically two major political PHILOSOPHIES in the world. Aristotle, among others, originally defined them for us, but certainly history as clarified the differences for us.

As a caveat, I am attempting to be brief here, as this discussion could be expounded to volumes and I'm merely making a quick post. So please forgive me for making this quick.

And this is to you alone. Behind both political parties has historically been two vastly different philosophies. One advocates that government is the solution, and the other believes government is the problem. Again, I'm being very succinct here. The two major political parties in our country, have since Lincoln generally represented these two OPPOSING philosophies. Since Wilson, then Roosevelt, then Johnson and now Obama, one "party" has naturally taken an extreme position away from established social construct that is our founding documents (conservatism) and is pushing an agenda away from our Constitution. There is no middle ground. A centrist has no historic position, no direction, no kinship to either side of the larger debate. Either you advance the failed and historically dangerous notion of a strong, centralized government, or you advocate the precious thing known as liberty.

Sorry, perhaps I made that too thin, but time is precious.....

 

[Mac1958]

There are basically two major political PHILOSOPHIES in the world. Aristotle, among others, originally defined them for us, but certainly history as clarified the differences for us.

I don't really disagree with any of your post. The problem as I see it is not so much the overall philosophical differences between the two parties, as it is the behavior of the two parties over the last ten years, give or take, which has driven them even further apart, leaving a clear and increasing chasm in the middle.

The behavior has not been the same, by the way: The Republicans have become far more absolutist, the Democrats have become more willing to (finally) admit what they're really after, a Euro-social democracy. No thanks to both, in my opinion. I can't endorse either party with my one little vote.

Here's how it manifests: Most Americans are not hardcore partisans, they're not going to agree with/defend to the death their party on every issue. Different overall philosophies? Sure, great. But from an independent perspective, I can tell you that both parties look like wild-eyed zealots right now and are not very attractive.

And by the way, I agree, finding reasonable conversation here can be a challenge!

.

 

[Youch]

There are basically two major political PHILOSOPHIES in the world. Aristotle, among others, originally defined them for us, but certainly history as clarified the differences for us.

I don't really disagree with any of your post. The problem as I see it is not so much the overall philosophical differences between the two parties, as it is the behavior of the two parties over the last ten years, give or take, which has driven them even further apart, leaving a clear and increasing chasm in the middle.

The behavior has not been the same, by the way: The Republicans have become far more absolutist, the Democrats have become more willing to (finally) admit what they're really after, a Euro-social democracy. No thanks to both, in my opinion. I can't endorse either party with my one little vote.

Here's how it manifests: Most Americans are not hardcore partisans, they're not going to agree with/defend to the death their party on every issue. Different overall philosophies? Sure, great. But from an independent perspective, I can tell you that both parties look like wild-eyed zealots right now and are not very attractive.

And by the way, I agree, finding reasonable conversation here can be a challenge!

.

So isn't the answer proper education?

Do you not think liberty is amongst humanities most important concepts? If so, then OBVIOUSLY liberalism is not the answer.

Political parties act independently of political philosophy, as the motives are very different.

 

[kiwiman127]

A centrist is a person who lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter. So, no, I would not vote for anyone who does not understand political philosophy.

Considering that moderates/centralist are known to be pragmatic, saying that they "lacks conviction, knowledge or a moral compass.....a fence-sitter" demonstrates someone drinking way too much of the daily partisan Kool-aid. In actuality, the opposite is true.
Strong partisans have a high tendency to go with whatever rigid stance their ideology dictates to them. That approach is lazy and very, very narrow-minded, it also lacks the usage of using one's grey matter. It lacks looking at issues objectively. In other words, it's the easy way out.
Without objective and inquiring thinking, the simple wheel wouldn't of ever come to existence. The Constitution would not have been born.
The only way to solve a problem is putting your hands around it, looking at the entire problem from all angles and dissecting the problem to find the best solution. Problems are not solved by just looking at one side of the problem.
How long did civilization think the world was flat? It took centuries for someone to challenge the age old theory that the world was indeed flat because people were content to believe what was fed to them. Every successful company is successful because of the usage of objective thinking to further their success.
A pragmatic individual studies the issue and comes to a conclusion. A follower just accepts what they are told by their small minded leaders.
Thinking out of the box is the perfect approach to any problem, thinking within a box leads to certain failure.

 

[Disir]

Just curious.

This could be an interesting discussion.

People would probably be interested in defining "Centrist".

Also, you might want to count in the personality factor. Were a really well known American to decide to take an independent run for the White House, would you support that person?

Nope. I am Independent.

Any third party has to jump through hoops at the state level. States don't run their game the same way.


U. S. Electoral College Who Are the Electors How Do They Vote

I'm not seeing too many on the right able to move to the middle. In fact, I see entirely too many on the alleged left that are technically right of center. So, over the past 25 years or so, the center has shifted right. It's become an elitist target with the level of propaganda that is supposed to be pushing people in that direction.

'

I look at platforms and I'm disgusted. This is what I want to see: Tell me what you want to accomplish. Tell me how you are going to do it. Tell me what your obstacles and limitations are. Tell me how you can work through those obstacles or handle those limitations. Tell me what you can't accomplish. I'm not joining a damn thing until these folks get a clue.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If you insist that President Obama was issuing an insult to business owners and entrepreneurs when he uttered the words ".....you didn't build that....", you are not a centrist. You are too stupid to be called a centrist.

What you might be is a whiner and a malcontent.