NationStates Jolt Archive

In contemporary times modern Democrats have been centralising, and Republicans split between traditional Republican issues (money) and what I call modern Republican issues (morality). Republicans who are more concerned with fiscal spending and small governments tend to be against Bush, just as many Democrats who are concerned with "traditional morals" could be seen as voting for Bush.

So I propose for discussion (I wish I had more influence) that the two following party's could be formed:

The Moralists' platfrom would be protection of traditional morals, Proud America type stuff. THey would probably be more Pro-Iraq war for one. They'd probably be pro-capital punishment, pro-life, pro-heterosexual marraige and some more.

The Democratic-Republicans' platform would be more secular, freedom oriented. They would try to be for a tighty but efficient budget (which includes definitely cutting out funds to the Iraqi war, and perhaps some of the tons of foreign aid sent). They would probably be against the death-penalty, unless it became more cost-efficient. They would definitely be pro-choice because they like smaller government. Sorry modern Dems, but you'd probably allow guns because of freedom, but would push for better regulation. They wouldn't promote religion, and other stuff too.

If you're interested maybe you would like to throw some things on to the two party's platforms that I didn't include.

I think in general the Moralists would take the now Republicans spot and the Democratic-Republicans would take the now Democrat spot. I'm all for this idea, as it seems these parties better represent the new factions of opinion in modern American society. What do you guys think and do you think these one of these two parties would better represent you?

AS a note, please don't bring discussion about third parties into this. I'm talking about the two party system, which is what we basicaly have in reality. I know idealistically it may be otherwise, but please keep this to two-party system talk.

No, Bush is anti-Moral. The party that supports Mr. Bush is certainly not "Moralist," or else hopelessly deluded.

You're just switching the parties to be split more on the north-south axis instead of the east-west, "left-right" one. You basically made an authoritarian party and a libertarian party, with few exceptions. It wouldn't be that much of a difference.

This is already happening. Republicans are becoming increasingly concerned with outlawing gay marriage and less concerned with abolishing welfare or social security. Likewise most modern Dems are giving up on guns (in fact, many of the new Dems emphasize their support for gun rights). As well, even the modern Democrat Party supports "welfare reform".

The realignment that began with the Progressives and continued with the Dixiecrats is nearing culmination.

No, Bush is anti-Moral. The party that supports Mr. Bush is certainly not "Moralist," or else hopelessly deluded.

Well I think people like Bush would readily adopt the title Moralist, and the Democrats who now need more people under their umbrella would probably like becoming the Democratic-Republicans.

I just thought of titles for the parties that the parties themselves would like.

bump

there doesnt seem to be as much split in the republican party as the democratic

they are the only "left wing" alternative to conservatism, though they cover people from progressive conservativers to socialists.

This is a lot due to the republican move to the right with the neo-conservative doctrine. They need to be united or else they have crossed the floor (see my above mention of progressive conservatives) its part of neo-con policy to be togeather and strong.

unless the democrats can find a way to appease all the people left of republican party, they have become useless.

Well I think people like Bush would readily adopt the title Moralist,
Of course he would, he wants "votes" for his campaign against Christianity.

bump

plus I'm hoping for some more constructive criticism

What if we're pro-moral and anti-spending? I'm pro-life, pro-capital punishment, but also for constricting the budget and not expanding the government with things like national healthcare.

What if we're pro-moral and anti-spending? I'm pro-life, pro-capital punishment, but also for constricting the budget and not expanding the government with things like national healthcare.

I suppose you would join the Moralists then. They are pro-life, pro-capital punishment, and pretty much open to discussion on budget issues.

Constructive criticism? Well, I would start with your restriction to the two party system. If third parties didn't become popular, then there would be no reason for the major political parties to shift their alignments. Much of the democratic party's current platform (like social security) is in response to the socialist party. And the party that you named the Democratic-Republican party (inappropriately, since that actually was a party in the past) is almost exactly the Libertarian party. So, while third parties may not win many elections, they're responsible for most of the changes in politics.

The United States has a two party system. One is a corporately controlled party that is pro-life on abortion and the other is a corporately controlled party that is pro-choice on abortion.

Welcome to the beginning of the Rollerball nation (the '75 version, not the '02 version).

I suppose you would join the Moralists then. They are pro-life, pro-capital punishment, and pretty much open to discussion on budget issues.
Then don't you see an inevitable conflict? A good number of voters, particularly poor minorities, base their votes on big economic programs that the Democratic party currently offers. If the Moralist party adopts these programs on their platform, many current Republicans would have no home. If they don't, many current Democrats would have no party.