 |
The Modern Whig Party |
Conservative Liberals?
Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, and Millard Fillmore to name a few.
"The party was conceived in 2007 by active-duty service members in Iraq and Afghanistan, who then started recruiting nonmilitary members when they came back home. They resurrected the old Whigs' symbol, the owl, and chiseled out a platform centered on fiscal responsibility, energy independence, education, states' rights, separation of church and state, and support for veterans. In other words, a Republican head with a Democratic heart." Andrew Dubbins - Slate.
The Modern Whig Party: A few thoughts.
Whigs do not argue about whether government should be “big” or “small”, but whether it is doing its job.
Idea parties have failed, personality parties have failed, so we designed a process or "methods" party to minimize that chance.
The owl throughout history has had powerful meanings. The owl represents knowledge, wisdom, foresight, and intelligence, something Washington and American politics in general seem to lack.
Independent Thinking, Meritocracy, and Integrity
1. Fiscal Responsibility
2. Energy Independence
3. Inward Economics
4. State's Responsibility
5. Social Acceptance
6. Education & Scientific Advancement
7. Veteran's Affairs
8. Electoral & Government Reform
A Few Highlights
Affirmative Action: should be based on income level, not race, ethnicity or gender.
Church & State: The business of forcing Christmas trees and reindeer ornaments off of city hall property is ridiculous, at the same time, government cannot favor one religion over others.
Fiscal Responsibility: Neither government nor corporations or households can be exempt from the basic rules of accounting.
Health Care: Should be available, portable and affordable for all citizens... we do not believe recent health insurance reform legislation will reduce health care costs. More research and work needs to be done on this subject, and legislative changes will have to be made.
Reproductive Rights: It should be handled at more local levels of government where common ground might be more easily found.
Same Sex Relationships: Each state can determine the extended rights of same sex couples based on their own local values.
Taxes: The tax code needs to be drastically simplified and made more equitable... passive income should be taxed at the same rate as earned income above a certain income threshold.
These highlights are significantly condensed from the Whig positions. I'm not trying to frame them, merely conserve space. By all means, please go here: http://www.modernwhig.org/ and read it all.
Cheers!
~FINNTANN~
57 comments:
My advice is to wish themwell and forget about them. Because of the looming debt crisis, there is no time to develop a viable third party. America will be a long way down the tubes befre that ever happens.
"Affirmative Action: should be based on income level"
Would you care to expound upon that further? Meaning, just how would that work with the simple premise of personal responsibility?
If now is not the time COF, then when? Couldn't one argue that it was the two party system that got us into this mess?
Great post Finn, would you mind if I stole some for a cross post. Proper credit will be given of course.
I am so sick and tired of this projection of personal insecurity from the Right:
"...a Republican head with a Democratic heart."
Most scientists vote Democrat. Most idiots who believe the Earth was created 6 thousand years ago vote Republican. Nuff said.
JMJ
Now Jersey, if democrat ideas were actually working anywhere, you'd have a point.
Look to Greece. That is where liberalism takes society. Rather, look closer to California.
Well, we're certainly due for a fresh approach. Dumbo and the Ass have just about worn out their welcome with thinking people -- I hope.
I kinda like the Owl -- wise, slightly comical, a little bit frightening, and all that, but the image probably reminds the common Folk a little too much of stuffy old "egghead" professor types. They long for something more "exciting" -- like a PTERADACTYL, for instance.
Points in the piece that raised questions -- possibly hackles:
3. Inward Economics
What is that supposed to mean?
4. State's Responsibility
I'd prefer " Restore State Sovereignty" and independence
5. Social Acceptance
Of whom and to what degree? The implications are clear as mud. It sounds like it might be code for enforced acceptance of all kinds of people as absolute equals. If that's what it means, to hell with it. Un unstratified society would be dull as bricks.
A) Affirmative Action: should be based on income level, not race, ethnicity or gender.
Why have Affrimative Action at all? If you believe in true meritocracy, the cream WILL rise to the top.
B) Church & State: The business of forcing Christmas trees and reindeer ornaments off city hall property is ridiculous, at the same time, government cannot favor one religion over others.
Why not? Each community should be able to decide this ON ITS OWN. Most people still identify as Christians by at least a two-thirds majority.
C) Health Care: Should be available, portable and affordable for all citizens...
Sounds perilously close to Marxian-Fabian socialist ideology to me. The COST! The COST! The COST!!!
D) Reproductive Rights: It should be handled at more local levels of government where common ground might be more easily found.
Should be handed PRIVATELY -- PERIOD! Neither genital expression or the consequences thereof should be subject to LEGISLATION.
E) Same Sex Relationships: Each state can determine the extended rights of same sex couples based on their own local values.
A bullshit issue. People always have -- and always will -- do what they want to do. This cannot be legislated any more than "taste" or "appetite."
F) Taxes: The tax code needs to be drastically simplified and made more equitable... passive income should be taxed at the same rate as earned income above a certain income threshold.
The goal should be do pare down the size of government in order to make it affordable.
What do you mean by "passive income?"
Could that be code for INVESTMENT income -- or PENSIONS? Those sources of income should not be taxed at ALL, because they were derived from AFTER-TAX SAVINGS, and because INVESTMENT always implies RISK of LOSS.
Again the lingering Spectre of Socialism lurks behind some of these words -- or so it would appear.
That said I like the idea of a fresh approach and fresh images.
~ FreeThinke
McJones,
"Most scientists vote Democrat"
Ever hear of "Climategate"?
Real science is not based on consensus but rather on exhaustive efforts to disprove or alternatively prove out any one theory.
So on your proclamation that so-called scientists vote one way is to capitulate that they hold no desire for truth of factual information.
Actually the ones you speak of desire money (taxpayer-funded grants), or better said yet another group of takers.
That said, you yourself have made the projection of ignorance not only onto them but that of yourself and of course, as stated and defined as - takers.
Reality is not subjective, JMJ. Are you talking "real scientists" orgovernment funded hacks?
@silverfiddle --- Look to Greece.
---------
Please stop.
Does Greece control the world's demand currency? The comparison is asinine just like this mumbling about the newly discovered debt crisis.
The right seems content to cast themselves as candidates for The Maury Show.
The Whigs do have some good common sense points.
"Whigs do not argue about whether government should be “big” or “small”, but whether it is doing its job."
There's the rub. We have trouble defining the nature of the "job".
@ Christopher Conservative Perspective
Why yes I have heard of Climategate! Did you know that the only "EXPERT" witness called by the Republicons was Non-scientist Non-Lord Monocton? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/gop-chooses-lord-hitler-y_b_565126.html
Shocking how they couldn't get any scientists to testify!!!
Most scientists vote Democrat.
I suppose if you derive your livelihood from the pursuit of government research grants...
...and so NOW we begin to fathom some of the underlying deficiencies in our current interpretation of the American "system".
Sure Ducky, we can just continue printing money forever...
It's all good now... Until the economy improves and interest rates rise.
Not to worry. The magnificent one has it all figured out. He now wants to raise taxes on just those making over 250k a year and he will discuss cutting spending later. How long will that 42 billion in increased taxes last.
He is bound and determined to spank small business for their success.
Go back to the Clinton tax structure, after all in the election he ran as Clinton and the left would be all for it since it was the serial rapist's plan.
Hey, the RNC GOT the message...
If it bleeds, it LEADS!
@How long will that 42 billion in increased taxes last.
Not quite 4 days
@ Grung,
Thank you. Lord Monkton is just as the others McJones cited, non-scientific.
The difference was/is that Monckton is showing what I described, failure to be scientists, again being there is no such thing as consensus among real scientists when based only on theory (see above).
Now beside the Puffington Host, can you come up with an original thought, or just re-utter the dribble you get from the MSM?
Ducky: "There's the rub. We have trouble defining the nature of the "job"
I didn't have any trouble finding the job description.
"form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"
@America will be a long way down the tubes befre that ever happens.
I disagree, you're 16 Trillion in debt, how much further down the tubes do you wish to go?
@Would you care to expound upon that further?
Well you could've just gone to their website, but...
"In keeping with our meritocratic philosophy, Modern Whigs oppose all forms of favoritism or discrimination based on arbitrary factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, etc. We reject identity politics and race-based affirmative action programs. Affirmative action should be based on income level, not race, ethnicity or gender."
http://www.modernwhig.org/handbook/who-are-modern-whigs/where-we-stand/affirmative-action
@"I am so sick and tired of this projection of personal insecurity from the Right"
Take it up with Andrew Dubbins over at Slate... it's a quote. He's a Slate intern and as likely liberal as conservative.
FT. Have you gone to their website? This is an article on Whigs, not my personal beliefs.
Hence the link: http://www.modernwhig.org/
FJ. You can't have your cake and eat it too. A losing platform is no good to anyone. We have four years to put together a winning one.
You know what? I think this is a great idea!
Excellent post. And lots to consider.
A losing platform is no good to anyone. We have four years to put together a winning one.
...and Nothing builds a winning platform like a little gyno-pandering!
Uterus uber alles.
Still reading over at the MWP website. Interesting, but like FT I'm a bit queasy about some of their positions.
@ and Nothing builds a winning platform like a little gyno-pandering!
Yeah FJ... keep'em barefoot and pregnant, right?
You know what they call a team that keeps running the same play over and over again?
Losers!
Adapt or die.
Viburnum... is there a party who doesn't have at least some positions that make you queasy?
@Finntann
Not unless there's one that wants to annoint me Emperor
Et tu Brutus?
On the contrary. I'd be a most enlightened constitutional monarch. Guess which Constitution?
;-)
FinnTann, great article, mate.
@Silerfiddle -- It's all good now... Until the economy improves and interest rates rise.
------
Yup, that cuts it back.
The Whig Party has a sound platform and agenda, as does the Libertarian Party. Both make more sense than either the stale moldy platform and agenda of both the dEmocratic and rEpublican parties.
Maybe that's why the American electorate won't give either a serious look.
We simply want our cake and be able to eat it too.
Go Galt I say!
Not impressed.
Anyone beginning with the premise that the founding father of gay marriage Mitt Romney emerged as the standard-bearer and Presidential candidate of a Republican Party that has moved "too far to the right" is probably hitting Silverfiddle's stash of stanky dank too hard.
"The Owl Is Coming" looks a bit like a cross between Batman and the Bald Eagle. Not a bad combination.
Remember this one from the 60s ==>
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb... "
Heh.
The Whiggers should produce a cartoon owl that calls out "Goo-Goo!"
"Anyone beginning with the premise that the founding father of gay marriage Mitt Romney emerged as the standard-bearer and Presidential candidate of a Republican Party that has moved "too far to the right" is probably hitting Silverfiddle's stash of stanky dank too hard."
Where in this piece did Finntann even mention Romney?
Meth fumes getting to you?
Where in this piece did Finntann even mention Romney?
I'm guessing pop-up books scare the shit out of you.
Perhaps you should click through Finntann's links.
"Immediately after the election of November 4, 2008, a push began to attract moderate/conservative Democrats and members of the Republican Party (GOP) who felt disenchanted with both the GOP's failings and its perception as moving further to the right."
I'll let you grab some granola and munch yourself down from the blunt so your short-term memory remembers last week a little more clearly.
Ask the many people who call you stupid to your face all day while you're away from the internet why anyone would juxtapose "Mitt Romney candidacy" with "percieved movement further right."
Meth fumes getting to you?
You pulling another all nighter? No, genius. I can't really smell you over a satellite modem.
Finn,
You leave me with the same question.
I need not a stetement from a website but rather you thought, as I know you are capable of one.
So again:
"Affirmative Action: should be based on income level"
Would you care to expound upon that further? Meaning, just how would that work with the simple premise of personal responsibility?
Try now if you would to square that with your own perspective, please.
@"Immediately after the election of November 4, 2008..."
I'm sure you've seen the bumper stickers... ROMNEY 2012?
Only 28% of the electorate is conservative on social issues.
43% of the electorate considers themselves fiscal conservatives, 36% consider themselves fiscal moderates, and only 14% consider themselves fiscal liberals.
Ask yourself, where's the wedge?
Socially liberal and fiscally conservative voters vote Democratic. Why? Because social issues have a more immediate effect on people's lives than an esoteric 16 Trillion in debt does.
Earlier this year, a Reason poll showed that 61% of people aged 18-29 would be open to electing a president who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
One-third of independents are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
Only 14% of the electorate identifies themselves as fiscally liberal.
Fiscal conservatism isn't scaring off potential voters, the social conservatives are.
You can be free and legislate a budget, you won't be free when you legislate morality.
Christopher, I'm not a Whig and have only recently come across them. I thought their perspective and some of their positions were rather interesting.
But you are correct, it is a little confusing. I think the confusion stems from them trying to equate affirmative action with merit based policies. Obviously they are opposed to affirmative action in the traditional sense.
To give an example, I think they are saying it is more important that someone who is intelligent and does well in school gets into college than someone who is simply either gay or black. That privilege is based on merit, the best qualified candidate gets the advantage.
As far as personal responsibility goes, I think they are saying if you demonstrate the capability and aptitude... that is showing personal responsibility. A poor kid who gets good grades is a responsible kid, his disadvantage is through no fault of his own.
Hope this helps.
Cheers!
"Now Jersey, if democrat ideas were actually working anywhere, you'd have a point."
One thing I'll say for the Democrats, consistently over the past century, they've been a little better than the Republicans with bad ideas, and OBVIOUSLY better with successful ideas.
In FACT, Democrats have served during more positive growth periods than Republicans, and have inherited bad problems from the Republicans far more often than the opposite.
This is math, Silver. And all FACT. Look it up.
We have to have balance. Classic Laizzez Faire is stupid, especially in the complex world we have today.
JMJ
It's only "complex," as you call it, BECAUSE we abandoned laissez-faire Capitalism, which WAS the force that made us great and powerful.
The concept of a HOMOGENOUS society stinks to high heaven.
Much better simply to let the Natural Order take over, let the cream rise to the top, and let the Devil take the hindmost -- he will anyway no matter how you try to juggle the books.
The old ways may have been far from perfect, but they were a helluva lot better than they've been since the "Progressives" took over.
@ Jersey: "This is math, Silver. And all FACT. Look it up."
It's amusing when progressives with liberal arts degrees invoke "math" and "science," thinking that shuts down the argument.
Yeah, Carter was a real winner for America...
Bill Clinton was smart enough not to mess with Reagan's economy, so he gets credit for that.
If it's FACT, Jersey, then you should be able to easily explain it with some links to sources, otherwise, it's just Jersey's OPINION.
Socially liberal and fiscally conservative voters vote Democratic.
ROFLMAO! What, the fiscally conservative Medicare junkies or the fiscally conservative "tax businesses out of existence to pay for unemployment programs" crowd?
Why? Because social issues have a more immediate effect on people's lives than an esoteric 16 Trillion in debt does.
Let me see if I can follow your "argument" without the requisite copious amounts of heroin in my veins. We need to raise taxes to bring down the debt because millions of potential future taxpayers need to be aborted each year. We need to legalize marijuana and force Catholic hospitals to dispense it as medicine as long as nobody ravages a bag of Doritos or other snack deemed unhealthy by Michelle Obama. We should outlaw gun ownership because it it invokes an unhealthy sense of private property.
You can be free and legislate a budget, you won't be free when you legislate morality.
Why would the immoral concern themselves with debt, much less laws?
As the old saying goes...the moral majority is neither.
If you had anything beyond the memory of a field mouse (and I'm probably insulting field mice), you would know that my position is that the government should no more be legislating your rather dusty 2000 year old morality than providing abortions to people who don't understand the concept of 'consequences'.
As the left has redefined liberalism, so has the religious right redefined conservatism, American conservatism used to be about preserving life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the rights of 'englishment' so to speak, not your evangelical christian sense of morality. You ought to read more, the majority of our founders would have held you and your religion in contempt.
And...there will be a full post on this in the near future.
American conservatism used to be about preserving life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the rights of 'englishment' so to speak, not your evangelical christian sense of morality.
Wake me up when people are being dragged before tribunals to recant their beliefs under pain of death.
Oh wait, we're not in Catholic Venezuela. One wonders if they'd have even morphed into a communist shithole if questioning authority was ever part of their sociology.
You seem awfully eager to blame "evangelical Christian morality" for the decidedly non-Christian status quo in America...
So Venezuela is a Catholic state reviving the inquisition?
Damn. I guess I haven't caught that from reading the news from South America.
Thanks for the heads up!
You seem awfully eager to blame "evangelical Christian morality" for the decidedly non-Christian status quo in America.
No, but I'm willing to blame them for electoral losses with idiots like Akin running around.
The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality - George Washington
This country was born of the Enlightenment, not Puritanism, now go read Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, your revisionist fantasies are begining to bore me.
So Venezuela is a Catholic state reviving the inquisition?
No, their sociological makeup via Catholicism just makes them culturally accustomed to being ruled by totalitarians.
This country was born of the Enlightenment, not Puritanism, now go read Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, your revisionist fantasies are begining to bore me.
Revisionist fantasies? Who's the one looking to blame evangelical Christian morality for Romney's inability to inspire most people in America to get rid of the socialist in the White House. Who's the one boiling social issues down to abortion and... wow, you don't even have the silhouette of a well-reasoned argument.
Aren't gun rights a social issue? Aren't property rights a social issue?
Um, hello?
If you're going to attack a strawman, Finntan, make sure it's not one that can whip your ass.
So are Venezuelans being dragged before tribunals to recant their beliefs under pain of death or not?
Get your story straight girl.
So are Venezuelans being dragged before tribunals to recant their beliefs under pain of death or not?
Only if they leave the eighth star off their flag.
Get your story straight girl.
Misogyny is really overkill in the demonstration of your lack of higher reasoning skills.
Gun rights and property rights are not a religious issue.
Strawmen? You're the king of strawmen:
"the founding father of gay marriage"
"fiscally conservative Medicare junkies "
"tax businesses out of existence to pay for unemployment programs"
"Oh wait, we're not in Catholic Venezuela"
"the decidedly non-Christian status quo in America."
"their sociological makeup via Catholicism just makes them culturally accustomed to being ruled by totalitarians."
And that's just in this post... I could go back to yesterday and pull all the foolish things you said in defense of Akin, or to any other of your posts.
As to whipping my ass, there is little chance of that, as you couldn't find your own with both hands and a mirror.
So dunk yourself in the bathtub, throw Inherit the Wind in the DVD and root for William Jennings Bryan.
Gun rights and property rights are not a religious issue.
Are they fiscal issues or social issues?
You're the amateur trying to conflate social conservatism with religion.
Go back to Silverfiddle's bong and see if you can smoke up a more plausible way to throw social conservatives under the bus since they won't climb up in Mitt Romney's dog carrier with you.
"Go back to Silverfiddle's bong "
The strawman cometh!
Funny thing is, you have far more in common with Romney than I do. The two of you typify everything that's wrong with the right today.
Me? I didn't vote for Romney, I voted against Obama. When you get under the bus say hello to Mitt for me.
Funny thing is, you have far more in common with Romney than I do. The two of you typify everything that's wrong with the right today.
The only thing I have in common with Romney is gray hair on my temples.
Me? I didn't vote for Romney, I voted against Obama. When you get under the bus say hello to Mitt for me.
How many votes did "Against Obama" get?
What is it with you leftists and your inability to construct rational arguments and defend them?
What are the social liberal and social conservative views on gun ownership?
What are the social liberal and social conservative views on property rights?
Education? Law enforcement? The environment? Welfare?
Do you even know?
We both know your "argument" is just a weak smear. Blathering idiocy you for some unfathomable reason find profound.
If anything, a few (but thankfully not enough) evangelical Christian conservatives bent over backwards to support Mitt Romney. There he was, Billy Graham lockstep with Lindsay Lohan all out for Mittens. Graham even scrubbed his religious websites of articles calling Mormonism a "cult."
Your message to social conservatives, which is a larger group than their religious subsets, is "we're going to keep running Mitt Romney style candidates, so fuck off."
Good luck winning elections with that.
Don't bicker over your proper labelling as a leftist, either. You bought the ticket, ride the train.
"Because social issues have a more immediate effect on people's lives..."
For the immediate effects on people's lives, you go left.
Totalitarian scum.
Graham even scrubbed his religious websites of articles calling Mormonism a "cult."
My how Christian of him (ROFLMAO)
How many votes did "Against Obama" get?
Undoubtedly millions, there is a significant portion of the Republican Party fed up with your theocratic bullshit costing us elections. Don't see too many soundbites of members of the Republican Liberty caucus being used in attack ads against the party, now do you?
Totalitarian scum.
Really? Coming from a Christian crypto-fascist that's kind of funny.
So exactly where in the bible does it say you get to tell other people what to do or how to live?
So pull the F'ing mote out of your own eye.
I'm the one saying you don't have the right to enforce your moral precepts on other people based on religious grounds... but of course you can't come up with a better argument than the Pastafarians can.
Me? I think Jefferson was right... you're full of shit.
Post a Comment