If you could be the founder of your own political party...

[Buck_Godot]

@ILikeForeignLanguages

5. The party would also promote patriotic propaganda in which in would remind the American people constantly of great US feats: Winning the Revolutionary War against Britain, winning the Mexican War against Mexico, overcoming the division of the Civil War and emerging as a once again victorious nation, winning the Spanish-American War against Spain; we would also encourage the people to take pride in our participation in both World Wars, especially the Second World War in which we defeated Hideki Tojo in the far east, and also helped the other allied powers to defeat Hitler in Europe. We would put special emphasis on General Eisenhower orchestrating important battles in Europe which helped lead to the Nazis’ defeat. Flag waving and singing of the national anthem would be celebrated activities.

Wait, think that the current level of American arrogance and exceptionalism is too low? :eek:

[Velocity]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Yours isn’t particularly serious either to be frank.

That said, without much further ado, the Platform of the National Progressive Party

1. The party’s guiding principles are those of republicanism, liberalism, nationalism, and social democracy. The party takes the best from the American political tradition including the lofty Enlightenment humanitarianism of Thomas Jefferson, the economic nationalism of Alexander Hamilton, the radical democratic views of Thomas Paine, the ideal of a supreme national Union as envisioned by Abraham Lincoln, the racial egalitarianism of the Radical Republicans, the nationalistic reformism of the progressives, and above all the vision of the New Deal liberals to guarantee the American Dream to all citizens.

2. The fundamental revision of the antiquated elements of American government-abolition of the Electoral College, make election to the House of Representatives based on mixed-member proportional representation, redraw subnational governmental boundaries based on socioeconomic realities, reduce the Senate’s powers and make its representation reflect the new subnational boundaries, and seriously look at changing over to a parliamentary system. Obviously, campaign financing should be completely reformed, with all private funding banned while Election Day should be a national holiday.

3. Reform the tax system to make it simpler and fairer. Raise income tax rates modestly for upper income brackets but at the same time eliminate most loopholes with a few exceptions such as the child tax credit. Raise the estate tax. Equalize tax rates for capital gains with those for income. Impose a national Value Added Tax excepting foods and other necessary goods. However at the same time abolish all state and local taxes which tend to be regressive and have the federal government redistribute tax revenue on the basis of population and economic conditions.

4. Reform the American welfare state. Seriously consider replacing much of the welfare state with a minimum income. If this isn’t the case at least roll back “welfare reform” and increase the generosity and length of unemployment insurance. With regards to Social Security, remove the regressive payroll tax cap and establish a retirement age formula based on income, type of job, employment status, health etc.

5. Impose the German model of multi-payer universal health care where a compulsory health insurances is provided through private non-profits with price negotiations revised to bring down health care costs. This would be funded by employer/employee taxation with subsidies for those who are low-income. Focus on preventative medicine.

6. Revitalize unions by repealing the Taft-Hartley Act. Encourage the unionization of the service sector, to establish a force that can be an effective counterweight to big business. Establish by law a thirty-eight hour work week, guaranteed vacation of at least two weeks, guaranteed sick days, and maternity/paternity leave. Raise the minimum wage to 12 dollars (with adjustments for local cost of living) and tie it to inflation.

7. Pursue demand-side/Keynesian economic policy. Continue quantitative easing, while avoiding austerity measures that will reduce employment and consumer spending.

8. Implement a massive infrastructure-energy-environmental plan. Improve the state of existing American roads, airports, ports, bridges, tunnels etc. to make sure they are second to none in quality. Massively expand funding for local mass transit, encouraging light rail and subway construction in particular while striving to bring down prices. Expand national Amtrak service whilst constructing a national high-speed rail system. Change urban planning policy to encourage mixed-use areas and high-density construction. Severely restrict the construction of new sprawl. Reform municipal government to put entire metropolitan areas under one government with common law enforcement, schools, public transportation etc. Reverse white flight by encouraging the colonization of not just young single urban professionals, but by middle-class families of inner cities who naturally will tend to put down stronger roots in the community. With regards to energy, aim to completely phase out coal by a targeted date. Encourage domestic natural gas production and approve the construction of Keystone XL. Embark on a program of massive nuclear power plant construction with a view to doubling nuclear energy. Impose a gasoline tax.

9. Generally pursue a policy of free trade but at the same time be more cautious in signing such deals with Third World countries or harsh competitors. Encourage an export-oriented economy and revitalize America’s key heavy industries (steel, automobile, aerospace etc.).

10. Education policy from the pre-k to postgraduate level must be fundamentally reformed. The gross inequalities in funding of public schools based on geographic locale must be ended by making public school funding come from the federal coffers while private schools should be prohibited from charging tuition or discrimnating on what sort of students may enroll in order to end the fundamental inequalities in American education. Furthermore, there should be universal daycare/preschool for all American children. Teaching should be considered a respectable professional job equal to doctors, engineers, and lawyers, with a much higher salary. Vocational education should be encouraged for students who show aptitude in that area, while college tuitions should be lowered and subsidies increased especially those intending to pursue careers in teaching, medicine, science etc. There should be no public funding or accredation accorded to any college that discriminates applicants on the basis of race or their parents’ alumni status.

11. Immigration policy should be considered flexible and be adjusted according to the needs of the nation. However, at the same time the illegal immigrants already present should be given a path to citizenship for the lack of any better alternative. At the same time further illegal immigration should be discouraged in the future through better border security, ending the War on Drugs, severly penalizing employers using illegal immigrants, and by raising the minimum wage. Additionally, there should be no second-class Americans as would exist under a “guest worker” program. Assimilation should be encouraged for immigrants by making English the official national language of the American Republic.

12. Reject the obsession with a handful of divisive social issues that has bedeviled American politics for the last generation and let party members voice their conscience on social issues. That said the following policies will be recommended by the founder
    Abortion-The author of this post strongly believes that the right to life occurs at conception and thus that abortion besides to save the life of the mother should be prohibited. However, the party welcomes people on both the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the issue by pursuing policies that will reduce abortion such as alleviating poverty, encouraging child subsidies, and increasing access to birth control/sex education.
    Censorship-Censorship by the FCC on broadcast TV should be reduced in general, as long as appropriate warnings exist.
    Crime-Strengthen police forces while at the same time pursuing economic policies that will reduce poverty and thus the root causes of crime. At the same time allegations of police brutality should be strongly scrutinized and steps taken to demilitarize the police to build trust in the policy among minority communities. The death penalty should be reserved only for cases of multiple murder, treason, and espionage and carried out by guillotine or firing squad.
    Drug Policy-Legalize marijuana and other soft drugs on a federal level and impose a federal tax. Decriminalize most other drugs. The age of purchase for alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana should be regularized at 18.
    Gay Rights-Let local jurisdictions decide on gay marriage. However guarantee “household rights” equivalent to marriage to all individuals nationally, while prohibiting discrimination in employment for both homosexuals and transsexuals. Address in particular the condition of transsexuals in the United States who are disproportionately in poverty and in danger of exploitation.
    Gun Control-Impose universal background checks but otherwise do not pursue any further gun control legislation. Handling guns safely should be taught in public schools from an early age just like any other safety procedure.
    Prostitution-Focus on prosecuting the pimps rather than the prostitutes
    Women’s Rights-Pass the Equal Rights Amendment.

13. While national security is of key concern to all Americans, the excesses that have occurred since 2001 must be rolled back. Existing national security legislation such as the Patriot Act should be thoroughly reviewed to eliminate all that is unconstitutional and/or unnecessary.

14. A policy of “national cohesion” and “national community” should be introduced. This should be done by creating a Department of Culture which will seek to expand cultural opportunities for all Americans. Funding for PBS and NPR should furthermore be greatly expanded to encourage more original programming and reduce dependence on local donations. With the expansion of the Internet, something like the WPA should be revived for aspiring artists, actors, writers, filmmakers etc. to encourage the production of free, educational, and quality art. Of course, the government should not blindly fund all artists, especially those who create degenerate, deliberately shocking art that tends to taint all publically-funded art. In addition to making English the official language, other national symbols should also be encouraged or introduced. For example, the much more singable “Battle Hymn of the Republic” (or at the least “Battle Cry of Freedom” or “America the Beautiful” if the first song should be too religious) should replace the “Star Spangled Banner” as the national anthem while public holidays such as Independence Day should feature much more elaborate events such as military parades. Racial divisions should be discouraged by implementing economic policies that benefit all Americans, thus getting rid of the need for race-based affirmative action.

15. In foreign policy a course of liberal internationalism should be pursued. America should make as a cornerstone of its foreign policy, a commitment to preventing genocide by any means necessary wherever it may occur in the world. There should be some modest cuts in military spending but at the same time, we must guard against any excessive reduction in military spending and readiness that will harm the cause of liberal democracy throughout the globe. To counter Sino-Russian aggression, the United States should expand NATO to cover all of America’s allies (such as South Korea, Japan, and so forth) and correspondingly increase its scope. At the same time, military buildups by American allies including Japan should be encouraged to reduce America’s share of the burden. The Ukraine (excepting the now lost Crimea) should be brought under this protection to prevent any further Russian aggression while at the same time pumping aid and natural gas to that country to prevent austerity measures that will harm the current government. In the Middle East, the US must wage a full-scale air war (and commando operations) if necessary to utterly annihilate the savagely barbaric ISIS hordes, seeking nothing less than its complete destruction. With regards to Israel, the US should seek a two-state solution with an Israel having 1967 borders plus all of Jerusalem and some settlement blocks and a demilitarized, secular Palestinian state. A policy of alliance with India and Brazil should be pursued to break-up any further alliances among the BRIC countries. Similarly, the US should seek to reconcile with left-wing Latin American states such as Cuba (ending the embargo there), Venezuela, and Bolivia.

The Union Forever! Fair Columbia Endures! Long live the Republic!

I don’t agree with all of this but it’s superbly detailed. Well written!

[Velocity]

@ILikeForeignLanguages

I’m having a hard time figuring out whether or not this is satire.

It’s serious.

[AHunter3]

The Cautious Radical Party

1. The party is dedicated to the principle that individuals and society all benefit when individuals are involved, consulted, and their voluntary participation and consent obtained to the maximum degree possible, this being the meaning of democracy.

2. In accordance with observations about the progress of increasingly democratic forms of government over long periods of time, the party takes it as self-evident that the most democratic government possible is not something that will be the same in perpetuity but rather will always be in the process of change, itself.

3. As a corollary to the second principle, the party dedicates its interests in change to a cautious and experimental model, devising environments in which new and promising increases in democratic participation while preserving stability and structural integrity in the ongoing government, implementing and integrating verified new processes gradually.

4. At this time, the United States of America and its territories and possessions shall be the operating environment of this party. The CRP is dedicated to a state of peace and mutual cooperation globally and respects the right of all peoples worldwide to self-determination and maximum democratic participation in the governing of their own affairs, and, by extension, the right of their chosen forms of government to act autonomously to secure those ends. The CRP restricts consideration of the use of military force to circumstances of defense from external aggression and circumstances of liberation of people from nondemocratic oppressive governmental forms. The CRP is not dedicated to the preservation or continuation of separate nationalities on principle and, within the constraints of dedicated democratic principles described above will work towards global democratic egalitarian solutions in cooperation with other interested peoples and governments worldwide.

5. The CPR holds that all existing economic structural arrangements interfere with democratic principles. The United States of America is a capitalist environment with moderate redistributive ameliorative taxation policies and will remain so for the foreseeable future in accordance with principle 3 described above. Experimental alternative economies will receive serious consideration as we work towards a long-range solution to the problems posed by economies.

6. Communications technology being an essential tool in increasing individual participation in decision-making processes, the CRP will support existing communications infrastructures while extending them, with a goal of establishing networked communication on an egalitarian basis as an absolute right of all participant citizens. The first subgoal of the effort to increase democratic participation will be transparency and fully informed observational participatory representative democracy and the extension of official reaction response by citizens to legislative and executive functions as they take place in governmental business.

7. The structure of all enforced laws affecting individuals’ behaviors shall be required to derive their authority to restrict behaviors from a clearly delineated model showing how such restriction enables people and benefits them directly. No individual behavior may be rendered illegal for any other reason, nor any law purporting to do so allowed to stand.

8. The structure of all correctional legal remedies associated with law enforcement shall be geared towards integration of individuals and other offending parties into the law-abiding community or towards reduction of the rate of violation, and no practices not corresponding to these principles shall be permitted as corrective responses.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Of the various lists presented, I find myself agreeing with two or three items, needing clarification on four or five, and saying “are you fucking kidding?” on at least one.

[Knorf]

@PorchePine

1. Abortions for some
2. Miniature American Flags for others

I voted for Kodos.

[B.Serum]

@BrainGlutton

Not whether anything is right or wrong.

Terms like “right” and “wrong” are thrown around loosely by people with no standard for measurement. I think “harm” and “benefit” are more useful terms.

[BrainGlutton]

@B.Serum

Terms like “right” and “wrong” are thrown around loosely by people with no standard for measurement. I think “harm” and “benefit” are more useful terms.

Look, there’s an old technocratic slogan from the Progressive Era: “There is no Democratic or Republican way to pave a street.” It was always bullshit. You have to decide which streets get paved and which don’t, how they are to be paid for, who gets the contracts – all decisions which require value judgments and/or decisions between group-interests. There is no such thing as politically neutral or value-neutral public policymaking.

[B.Serum]

@BrainGlutton

Look, there’s an old technocratic slogan from the Progressive Era: “There is no Democratic or Republican way to pave a street.” It was always bullshit. You have to decide which streets get paved and which don’t, how they are to be paid for, who gets the contracts – all decisions which require value judgments and/or decisions between group-interests. There is no such thing as politically neutral or value-neutral public policymaking.

You misunderstand. This is not about neutrality — it is about rationality.

The Evidence Party would be vociferously passionate about issues that are bolstered with observable evidence. These positions would certainly align with one of the existing politically typologies from time to time.

[septimus]

I’ll sign up for Qin Shi Huangdi’s Party.

Qin, the First Emperor was a great leader but it’s hard to approve of his megalomania and book burning. Have you considered changing your user name to Cyrus the Great?

[Procrustus]

@septimus

I’ll sign up for Qin Shi Huangdi’s Party.

Qin, the First Emperor was a great leader but it’s hard to approve of his megalomania and book burning. Have you considered changing your user name to Cyrus the Great?

Just be glad he’s not Curtis LeMay

[Construct]

@B.Serum

You misunderstand. This is not about neutrality — it is about rationality.

The Evidence Party would be vociferously passionate about issues that are bolstered with observable evidence. These positions would certainly align with one of the existing politically typologies from time to time.

Policy-based decision making would subvert democracy by taking decision making out of the hands of the people and putting it in the hands of self described elites. The idea that evidence-based decision making would be free of bias is ludicrous; I’m sure the Soviets would have told you they made decisions based on the evidence.

But wait!, you say. “That wasn’t really evidenced-based decision making at all! that was just ideologues couching their biases in the guise of impartiality!” Well it doesn’t matter. Even if you had perfectly impartial policymakers, which you couldn’t, you still wouldn’t have perfect governance because decision making is based on preexisting sets of values. A libertarian may value freedom more than a humanist, who values the sanctity of human life more, while a religious person might find that public mores are more important than either. While there are certainly some good-government changes that can be adopted, you can’t make decisions without adopting a set of values.

Even ignoring the existential problems with an “Evidence Party”, there are more practical problems as well. Politically biased research outlets like Brookings and Cato put out reams of research every year. Is the research factually correct? Yes, in the sense that it’s not fraudulent, but the institutions selectively choose what to produce. Just looking at “the evidence” will lead you to make wrong decisions, because the evidence is not created equal.

Besides, an “Evidence Party” would increase the power of special interests who have the ability to create evidence, while leaving out those with lessor means. Count me out.

[WillFarnaby]

@B.Serum

The Evidence Party

[ol]
[li]All policy decisions will be based on the best evidence currently available, regardless of whether it aligns with any existing political ideology.[/li][li]See Point 1.[/li][/ol]

Evidence of what? Lol

Evidence the policies will save endangered species? Evidence that the policy will lower drug use? Evidence that the policy will benefit the poor? … That the policy will lower carbon emissions? …will stimulate the economy? … Will increase charitable giving? … Will increase creativity? …will feed the homeless? The answer to some of these questions lead to conflicting policies. There is a phenomenon in our universe known as opportunity cost. Frederic Bastiat.

Presumably you will use your many evidences so that your army of technocrats can increase the greater good. There are many problems with this, but I will simply point out that the problem eventually comes out to who’s good wins out over who’s good. Inevitably the answer boils down the the politically connected win out over the non politically connected. Congratulations, you’ve reinvented the status quo.

In any case what you are proposing is a political ideology. Political theory is concerned with the proper use of violence in society. You are prescribing a rule for when government violence should be used, therefore it is a political ideology.

[B.Serum]

@Construct

Policy-based decision making would subvert democracy by taking decision making out of the hands of the people and putting it in the hands of self described elites. The idea that evidence-based decision making would be free of bias is ludicrous; I’m sure the Soviets would have told you they made decisions based on the evidence.

But wait!, you say. “That wasn’t really evidenced-based decision making at all! that was just ideologues couching their biases in the guise of impartiality!” Well it doesn’t matter. Even if you had perfectly impartial policymakers, which you couldn’t, you still wouldn’t have perfect governance because decision making is based on preexisting sets of values. A libertarian may value freedom more than a humanist, who values the sanctity of human life more, while a religious person might find that public mores are more important than either. While there are certainly some good-government changes that can be adopted, you can’t make decisions without adopting a set of values.

Even ignoring the existential problems with an “Evidence Party”, there are more practical problems as well. Politically biased research outlets like Brookings and Cato put out reams of research every year. Is the research factually correct? Yes, in the sense that it’s not fraudulent, but the institutions selectively choose what to produce. Just looking at “the evidence” will lead you to make wrong decisions, because the evidence is not created equal.

Besides, an “Evidence Party” would increase the power of special interests who have the ability to create evidence, while leaving out those with lessor means. Count me out.

There would certainly be a set of values. They simply wouldn’t be along a left-right axis. It would be along a scientifically-supported evidence axis. It adopts the rigor of the scientific method, which I has had a pretty good track record.

Let’s also please remember that we’re talking about a political party’s guiding principles, not a new system of government. I honestly don’t see how this is any more elitist than anything else in this thread, or what currently exists in the world today.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@septimus

I’ll sign up for Qin Shi Huangdi’s Party.

Qin, the First Emperor was a great leader but it’s hard to approve of his megalomania and book burning. Have you considered changing your user name to Cyrus the Great?

Maybe. He was a charismatic leader but Luther got him before he could really hit his stride. Plus, he was horrid at security.

Can you dig it?

[originaljbw]

How about the anti-party? Elect me and enough of my friends and we will abolish political parties.

All elections go to a run off style. No more endless primary season. Every person has to develop and spell out their ideas and actually get people to believe in them, no more voting for people merely because of the letter after their name.

[Little_Nemo]

@ILikeForeignLanguages

We would also recognize the independence of Taiwan.

What exactly would we be recognizing? Taiwan has not declared its independence and is unlikely to do so.

[Sage_Rat]

@B.Serum

Terms like “right” and “wrong” are thrown around loosely by people with no standard for measurement. I think “harm” and “benefit” are more useful terms.

But also not terribly useful.

Say that violence on TV is shown to increase aggressive behavior and aggressive behavior is correlated to spousal abuse, stress at the workplace, suicide rates, etc. However, it’s also correlated to technical advances, individual pride, meritocracy, and strong leadership.

Taking a purely analytical approach means that one day, the numbers come up saying that straight-up executing everyone implicated in a crime saves more lives and makes more people happy, than using any rigorous, evidence based process.

Human nature is complex and also ill-equipped for the world we live in. The best systems in terms of making the majority of the populace happy might mean regressing on many of our moral standards. Versus, actively seeking to achieve an infeasible aim might mean that we live a less satisfactory life, but rationally, we can accept that it’s the cost of the moral high ground.

[BlankSlate]

@ILikeForeignLanguages

10. One of the only major federal laws on this list which would trump state laws: There would be a renewed national ban on both gay marriage as well as marriage between first cousins (incest), which are both legal in certain states. I feel like these types of marriage would have been considered to be in the same category as pedophilia, bestiality and even closer incest than cousins (siblings, etc.), had it not been for the media normalizing one and some rural individuals embracing the other. My goal would be for every state case in which these types of marriage were legalized to be permanently overturned and the nature of such marriages to be de-normalized in the mind of the public.

Why stop there? Was slavery really all that bad? Maybe the states should decide. What about women’s suffrage? Are we really better off?

[ILikeForeignLanguages]

@BlankSlate

Why stop there? Was slavery really all that bad? Maybe the states should decide. What about women’s suffrage? Are we really better off?

False equivalencies. Slavery and abuse of women’s rights are not akin to a ban on perversions of marriage.