NationStates Jolt Archive

There seems to be a wave of NS-member-made third parties going up around here, so I thought I'd hop on the bandwagon and write up my own. Realistic? Probably not. A good idea? I thought so.

THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY (open to other names as well; this one isn't all that original)

Fiscal: Responsibility and Necessity. Full-employment balanced budget, minimal debt, minimal pork-barrel spending. Also, the wealth of private individuals is not synonymous with the property of the government to use as it wishes - when we institute or raise a tax, or spend that money on something, it needs to be cautiously, thoughtfully, responsibly, and with an eye to necessity. Responsible centrism.

Economic: Free Market. Minimal regulations on what corporations can and cannot produce and market, what they can pay their people, etc. etc. Protection of market from competition-killing predator monopolies. Basic safety and anti-fraud strictures only.

Environmental: Proactive. Global warming exists and is at least in a significant portion caused by us. It may be irreversible as a trend, but anything we can do to alleviate it should be done, because it will cost us and our economy more if LA is underwater or Florida has a malaria epidemic than to cut emissions.

Personal Liberties: Freedom. Privacy, liberty, and autonomy are the fundamental rights of the people that no government can take away. No breach of privacy, no cessation of civil liberties because of some war, all rights are assumed to be given to the people at the expense of the government unless there is immediate neccesity and democratic legality to the contrary.

Education: Effective Solutions. The current system is utterly broken. More math and science teachers and focus on those subjects, end of teacher tenure, free-market Darwinian competition between schools via pervasive charter schools and school vouchers, split academic paths in high school based on capabilities, subsidies of teacher education, frequent tests of teacher fitness and competence.

Technology: Hands Off. Technology is the future of the country and the world. Allowing religious types, bureaucrats, and special interests lobbyists to attempt to strangle technologies they don't like, such as everything relating to the biotech industry, is unconscionable and illogical. For the sake of our science, economy, progress, and people, no restriction of technology.

Social: (That hasn't already been covered) Reason. Religious texts, gut reactions, and feudal morality are not a basis for decisions. All relevant subtopics will be analyzed and concluded upon based on a logical and reality-founded view of the issue.

Ethics: Honesty and Integrity. Strong controls on lobbyists, special interests, and corporate donations. Politicians should not be in the pockets of companies, and corruption should not be a word ever applicable to our nation's Senate. By the same token, the ideals of a democratic government and honesty to the nation's people should be upheld over personal political gain and agendas always.

Illegal Immigration: Get the Hell Out. There are many legal options for immigration to the United States, and illegal immigrants are not taking them. They're an albatross around the necks of Southwestern and Californian schools, a drain on the budget, and the effect on the economy, whatever it is overall, is in the components not all smiles. A version of the guest-worker program could be a solution that would keep the benefits and cut the losses, all legally.

ADDITIONS:

International Trade: It's a free global market. Yes, manufacturing jobs will be lost. Yes, economic structure and priorities will have to change massively. Yes, we will no longer be the sole, unshakeable economic superpower. But we're no longer a planet of isolated kingdoms with government-mediated international trade and a few rich economic hotspot region in a vastly poorer globe. Barriers are being broken down and the market is expanding. Trying to impede that out of a misguided policy of protectionism is just fear of change and upheaval.

That said, certain trade policies practiced by nations in Asia, especially China, are unfair, abusive, long-term-detrimental, and take unethical advantage of the current, changing global economic situation, and I would put pressure on them to clean up their act in that respect.

Sounds like a good platform, but something I myself wouldn't jump onto considering there are many more parties probably better suited to my political tastes, unless you're open to minor to somewhat major changes in a couple areas.

I like it ;)

I might have some questions later if that's okay.......

I have a few questions regarding the Manifesto:
- What is your stance on Gay Rights?
- What is your stance on the division between Church and State?
These first two were easy and seem obvious from the rest of the manifesto. However:
- What is your stance on international issues (such as UN and ICJ)?
- What is your stance on fiscal policy and sustainability? Especially related to retirement etc?
- What is your stance on legal immigration?

And finally, as far as I know, these are NS elections, so what do Californian schools have to do with this? (trying to poke at American ethnocentrism).

Generally, I must say that your party seems to be looking in the right direction, though...

edit: Isnt this party quite like a traditional "Liberal Democrat"-kind-of-party? Maybe you should called it that. The LibDems or something...(or NSLDP)

except for immigration your a liberal. congrats.

I would join though I would reconsider the economic side of things.

A trully progressive and reasonable party would never tie themselves solely to the free market; they would maintain a flexible and pragmatic economic policy that reflects the circumstances of a situation rather than a rigid ideology.

Economics is a means, not an end. That end is the collective happiness of the people, not the level of GDP per capita.

This one is hardly "progressive", as it would have quite different economic rules then. With "minimal" regulations only, you'll have lots of nasty mega-corps soon which treats their workers as disposable "human ressources". Also, you won't be able to do a thing against those "competition-killing raptors".

Education would need to be changed as well. Science is fine as it is already, but there's already a clear too much of maths now, so it should be *reduced* to make room for *useful* stuff like foreign languages!
Also, religion should be completely kicked out. It has no place in schools!

You *really* need a different name for this.

Sounds like a good platform, but something I myself wouldn't jump onto considering there are many more parties probably better suited to my political tastes, unless you're open to minor to somewhat major changes in a couple areas.

I like it ;)

I might have some questions later if that's okay.......

Sure. Ask or propose away.

However:
- What is your stance on international issues (such as UN and ICJ)?

It depends. The Rome Statute as it is is dangerous, a threat to independence, and unconstitutional. The UN is a great idea, but the organization needs a major revamp.

- What is your stance on fiscal policy and sustainability? Especially related to retirement etc?

I'm not sure whether you're asking about welfare or fiscal philosophy in general here. As far as the former goes, I'm not a huge fan. Within limits, certain parts of it, especially healthcare, are good; lots of subsidized handouts are bad. Fiscal philosophy is what is NECESSARY. A centrist, I suppose: I'm not a "cut absolutely everything and have a sales tax only" Republican, but I do support exercising control and responsibility in how much you're going to take and spend.

- What is your stance on legal immigration?

Wonderful, positive, etc.

And finally, as far as I know, these are NS elections, so what do Californian schools have to do with this? (trying to poke at American ethnocentrism).

Oops. Sorry. Californian schools are full to the brim with non-English-speaking children of illegal immigrants who have to be given special considerations, slow down classes, and whose parents don't pay most taxes anyway.

edit: Isnt this party quite like a traditional "Liberal Democrat"-kind-of-party? Maybe you should called it that. The LibDems or something...(or NSLDP)

Not really. Watered down socialism and shopping-spree tax-and-spend don't appeal to me much.

I would vote Democrat in most contemporary American elections because the Republicans are Bible-thumping, corrupt populists who have a) sold their souls to the Christian fundamentalist movement, b) become the party of tyranny and subversion of civil and political freedoms, c) abandoned their original conservaive principles, and d) gone irrationally overboard with things like the Bush tax cuts. That doesn't mean, though, that I'm some huge fiscal-economic leftie. If anything, I'm sort of a centrist libertarian.

A trully progressive and reasonable party would never tie themselves solely to the free market; they would maintain a flexible and pragmatic economic policy that reflects the circumstances of a situation rather than a rigid ideology.

It's a principle. You have to have them to live by. Of course you have to evaluate the application of your policy, your principles, in the context of changing circumstances; that doesn't mean you have to lack integrity and have no principles. No government can function without them - it's like a computer functioning without instructions in code, or a house standing up without the central struts and foundations holding all the pieces together.

Education would need to be changed as well. Science is fine as it is already, but there's already a clear too much of maths now, so it should be *reduced* to make room for *useful* stuff like foreign languages!
Also, religion should be completely kicked out. It has no place in schools!

1) Wrong. I can tell you from experience that science education in the US is terrible, and the vast majority of nations aren't even that good. The ones that are beating my home country lack its enormous economic and political power, population, capital, etc., thus, for the vast majority of countries and people and in the case of the world's sole superpower, science education needs a major boost, especially since it, along with math, are among the most important areas of education.

2) Again, you're crazy. The US has fallen by enormous amounts in math rankings compared to other countries, and again, most again are still beneath us. You can't have engineers, chemists, computer scientists, etc. without advanced math. I'll agree that we need more foreign language study, though.

3) Agreed. Religion stays out of education.

You *really* need a different name for this.

Agreed. Suggestions?

Fiscal: Responsibility. Balanced budget, minimal debt, minimal pork-barrel spending.

I doubt you will find anyone who would actually put pork-barrel spending as a part of their platform. Stating ‘as little corruption as possible’ is a no-brainer. As far as balancing the budget and such, the issue is how to accomplish this – do you have higher taxes or lower services?

Improving the efficiency of government would reap major savings, but eventually you will have to make a decision as to which way you are more likely to lean when presented with a deficit.

Economic: Free Market. Minimal regulations on what corporations can and cannot produce and market, what they can pay their people, etc. etc. Protection of market from competition-killing predator monopolies. Basic safety and anti-fraud strictures only.

At this point I would like to point out that natural monopolies are incredibly rare – they result from government regulation inhibiting competition. Poor regulations are what give rise to monopolies in the first place.


Environmental: Proactive. Global warming exists and is at least in a significant portion caused by us. It may be irreversible as a trend, but anything we can do to alleviate it should be done, because it will cost us and our economy more if LA is underwater or Florida has a malaria epidemic than to cut emissions.

So how much of the economy do you propose to devote to this? Are you saying we should immediately shut down all coal burning power plants? Acknowledging global warming is not exactly a platform position – suggesting how you will reduce emissions is the pertinent issue.

Personal Liberties: Freedom. Privacy, liberty, and autonomy are the fundamental rights of the people that no government can take away. No breach of privacy, no cessation of civil liberties because of some war, all rights are assumed to be given to the people at the expense of the government unless there is neccesity and legality to the contrary.

What constitutes a necessity? The divergence in personal freedoms in not caused because some people think that privacy and liberty are inherently bad things, it comes from disparate views as to what constitutes a necessary breach of those freedoms.


Education: Effective Solutions. The current system is utterly broken. More math and science teachers and focus on those subjects, end of teacher tenure, Darwinian competition between schools via pervasive charter schools and school vouchers, split academic paths in high school based on capabilities, subsidies of teacher education, frequent tests of teacher fitness and competence.

You do not need to subsidize teacher education. There are many people who would like to teach, and if education follows a free-market system schools will pay reasonable salaries to get competent people. A highly inefficient state-run institution which has constantly proven itself to be a very poor solution always appalled me. Arlington County in Virginia pays around $14k per student. You cannot tell me that you couldn’t find a much better private school for less than $14k per year.


Technology: Hands Off. Technology is the future of the country and the world. Allowing religious types, bureaucrats, and special interests lobbyists to attempt to strangle technologies they don't like, such as everything relating to the biotech industry, is unconscionable and illogical. For the sake of our science, economy, progress, and people, no restriction of technology.



Social: (That hasn't already been covered) Reason. Religious texts, gut reactions, and feudal morality are not a basis for decisions. All relevant subtopics will be analyzed and concluded upon based on a logical and reality-founded view of the issue.

Based on who’s reality? What you or I might consider to be rational and logical may not be the same as what someone else considers rational and logical. Religious responses should not be involved in politics simply out of a freedom of religion not imposing one value on another. Emotional reactions should likewise be disregarded in favor of logic, but emotion gets votes.

Ethics: Honesty and Integrity. Strong controls on lobbyists, special interests, and corporate donations. Politicians should not be in the pockets of companies, and corruption should not be a word ever applicable to our nation's Senate. By the same token, the ideals of a democratic government and honesty to the nation's people should be upheld over personal political gain and agendas always.

What platform states a basis of corruption and dishonesty? Saying you are going to be honest is what everyone does – this is not something you can state, it is something you must demonstrate. Ergo, it should not be included in a platform.

Illegal Immigration: Get the Hell Out. There are many legal options for immigration to the United States, and illegal immigrants are not taking them. They're an albatross around the necks of Southwestern and Californian schools, a drain on the budget, and the effect on the economy, whatever it is overall, is in the components not all smiles. A version of the guest-worker program could be a solution that would keep the benefits and cut the losses, all legally.

The simple fact of the matter is that the economy needs many more workers than are coming through legal channels (otherwise illegal immigration wouldn’t flourish). Therefore upping the numbers of work visas and withholding public services from illegals sounds like a good approach to provide the requisite number of workers while limiting the drain on public services.


The name Progressive Party has already been taken, and holds dissimilar positions.
I would suggest something with the word liberal in it, but unfortunately that carries completely different connotation in American politics than its actual meaning.

How about the Equalitarian party? It has a nice ring to it, and brings certain positive connotations. Or maybe the Latitudinarian party? (a cookie to whoever doesn’t have to look that one up).

I doubt you will find anyone who would actually put pork-barrel spending as a part of their platform. Stating ‘as little corruption as possible’ is a no-brainer. As far as balancing the budget and such, the issue is how to accomplish this – do you have higher taxes or lower services?

What platform states a basis of corruption and dishonesty? Saying you are going to be honest is what everyone does – this is not something you can state, it is something you must demonstrate. Ergo, it should not be included in a platform.

1) You'd be very surprised. Plenty of politicians, when pushed, or in some cases on their own defensive initiative, actually openly support pork earmarks. When an anti-wasteful-spending group sent an "I will not indulge in pork" declaration around Congress, about a half a dozen of them signed on. And *everyone* is reluctant to come out and say "I am against pork barrel spending".

The same goes for special interests, lobbyists, corporate donations, and other legal forms of corruption - no one in Congress really wants to talk about it. No one in the administration, either - look at Cheney refusing to divulge who was in on the discussion when they decided what would be in the energy bill. cough*fossilfuelcompanies*cough*

3) You obviously don't understand how electoral politics works. It doesn't matter if I'm stating the obvious. If you think about it, stating that you're tough on crime is basically the same; is there anyone who *likes* crime? But the point is, if there's a problem in the country, and you pick it as a good one to make a key point of your campaign, you harp on it and the fact that you'll work to stop it, solve it, alleviate it, whatever, over and over and over again, regardless of whether its obviously a problem. Stating that you are vehemently opposed to "x", and that you will work to get rid of it, is important, even if the opposition itself is or should be a no-brainer. This is all especially true if most other politicians are avoiding the issue.

At this point I would like to point out that natural monopolies are incredibly rare – they result from government regulation inhibiting competition. Poor regulations are what give rise to monopolies in the first place.

True, but should a natural monopoly appear, statutes would be in place to do something about it. Also, this platform position also applies to trust-style monopolies - price-fixing associations between a group of companies in a single industry for mutual profit at the expense of any company in the industry but not in the group, and of the consumer.

So how much of the economy do you propose to devote to this? Are you saying we should immediately shut down all coal burning power plants? Acknowledging global warming is not exactly a platform position – suggesting how you will reduce emissions is the pertinent issue.

1) This is not a technical platform. I'm not going to post that we should devote .65% of sales tax revenue to subsidize high school anatomy teachers, and that we should shut down any energy plant with greater than 5 ppl of chlorofluocarbons, etc. etc. etc. This is a issue-position platform.

2) Setting mandatory emissions standards, providing tax benefits or other incentives to those who cut their emissions by a certain amount, providing grants for alternative energy R&D, removing the tariffs and quotas that prevent the largescale importation of sugar so that sugar-based ethanol can be made more cheaply, easily, and plentifully, using some of the extra agricultural produce we get because of our stupid farm subsidies to make ethanol, (if we can't actually just get rid of the subsidies altogether) and, most of all, expanding the nuclear energy industry. Loosen regulations, provide tax breaks, whatever. We haven't built a new nuclear power plant in two decades, and it's stupid as hell.

What constitutes a necessity? The divergence in personal freedoms in not caused because some people think that privacy and liberty are inherently bad things, it comes from disparate views as to what constitutes a necessary breach of those freedoms.

Martial-law-esque circumstances. Invasion, rebellion, imminent major terrorist attack. You should have been able to see my position on necessity from the rest of the paragraph - rights, liberties, and individuals come first, the government comes second. Also, legality has to be there, and defining necessity.


You do not need to subsidize teacher education. There are many people who would like to teach, and if education follows a free-market system schools will pay reasonable salaries to get competent people. A highly inefficient state-run institution which has constantly proven itself to be a very poor solution always appalled me. Arlington County in Virginia pays around $14k per student. You cannot tell me that you couldn’t find a much better private school for less than $14k per year.

No one wants to be a teacher in the areas of math and science, and teachers are paid terribly. Measures need to be taken to fix both. Yes, a free-market-like system is needed. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem: In this same paragraph, I talked about Darwinian competition between schools and various measures that would make the system more like the free market. End of teacher tenure, charter schools, school vouchers, tests of teacher competence, etc.

Based on who’s reality? What you or I might consider to be rational and logical may not be the same as what someone else considers rational and logical. Religious responses should not be involved in politics simply out of a freedom of religion not imposing one value on another. Emotional reactions should likewise be disregarded in favor of logic, but emotion gets votes.

Subjectivity has nothing to do with it. Numbers are objective. Logical principles are objective. Empirical reasoning is objective. Faith is not reality. Emotion is not reality. Debate over the reality of a situation is one thing, but ignoring the reality of it entirely in favor of faith-inspired decisions is unacceptable.

The simple fact of the matter is that the economy needs many more workers than are coming through legal channels (otherwise illegal immigration wouldn’t flourish). Therefore upping the numbers of work visas and withholding public services from illegals sounds like a good approach to provide the requisite number of workers while limiting the drain on public services.

Good ideas - that's the kind of thing the party would espouse. Keep the benefits, rid ourselves of the costs, keep it legal and controllable.

The name Progressive Party has already been taken, and holds dissimilar positions.

Really? What's it like? Is it still extant?

I would suggest something with the word liberal in it, but unfortunately that carries completely different connotation in American politics than its actual meaning.

You're telling me. Liberal=pinko commie in America. The fact that neoliberal=economic conservative is completely lost on most.

How about the Equalitarian party? It has a nice ring to it, and brings certain positive connotations. Or maybe the Latitudinarian party? (a cookie to whoever doesn’t have to look that one up).

Hmm. Those would work. What about the Rationalist party? The Neoliberal Party?

I think the balanced-budget aspect may need to be altered to "full employment balanced budget" because otherwise, the government will be unable to respond to economic changes through self-stabilizing fiscal policy and will pursue expansionary policy at times of growth and contractionary policy at times of recession, which can seriously hurt the economy. You have to allow room to run deficits, or a key part of macroeconomic stability is lost.

Also, what is your stance on international trade?

I think the balanced-budget aspect may need to be altered to "full employment balanced budget" because otherwise, the government will be unable to respond to economic changes through self-stabilizing fiscal policy and will pursue expansionary policy at times of growth and contractionary policy at times of recession, which can seriously hurt the economy. You have to allow room to run deficits, or a key part of macroeconomic stability is lost.

Agreed. I'm just saying that running enormous deficits and debts, not caring, and constantly making them worse, as we are right now, is stupid. A controlled, calculated deficit for macroeconomic stability is one thing. What we have now is quite another.

Also, what is your stance on international trade?

It's a free global market. Yes, manufacturing jobs will be lost. Yes, economic structure and priorities will have to change massively. Yes, we will no longer be the sole, unshakeable economic superpower. But we're no longer a planet of isolated kingdoms with government-mediated international trade and a few rich economic hotspot region in a vastly poorer globe. Barriers are being broken down and the market is expanding. Trying to impede that out of a misguided policy of protectionism is just fear of change and upheaval.

That said, certain trade policies practiced by nations in Asia, especially China, are unfair, abusive, long-term-detrimental, and take unethical advantage of the current, changing global economic situation, and I would put pressure on them to clean up their act in that respect.

Agreed. I'm just saying that running enormous deficits and debts, not caring, and constantly making them worse, as we are right now, is stupid. A controlled, calculated deficit for macroeconomic stability is one thing. What we have now is quite another.

Alright, I agree then. However, any balanced-budget program would have to specifically state the full-employment qualifier.


It's a free global market. Yes, manufacturing jobs will be lost. Yes, economic structure and priorities will have to change massively. Yes, we will no longer be the sole, unshakeable economic superpower. But we're no longer a planet of isolated kingdoms with government-mediated international trade and a few rich economic hotspot region in a vastly poorer globe. Barriers are being broken down and the market is expanding. Trying to impede that out of a misguided policy of protectionism is just fear of change and upheaval.

That said, certain trade policies practiced by nations in Asia, especially China, are unfair, abusive, long-term-detrimental, and take unethical advantage of the current, changing global economic situation, and I would put pressure on them to clean up their act in that respect.

I agree with this 100%. I'd join this party if I could, since the NCSL seems to be dead.

To Free Mercantile States.....

Well done. Well thought out and articulated. I agree with nearly all of it. I'll join. Where do I sign up?

Alright, I agree then. However, any balanced-budget program would have to specifically state the full-employment qualifier.

I added it in. Where does the term "full-employment" for that concept come from?

I agree with this 100%. I'd join this party if I could, since the NCSL seems to be dead.

What's the NCSL?

To Free Mercantile States.....

Well done. Well thought out and articulated. I agree with nearly all of it. I'll join. Where do I sign up?

[blush] Thanks.

I added it in. Where does the term "full-employment" for that concept come from?

Macroeconomics; as you know, full employment is the point at which there is no more cyclical unemployment and anyone who wants a job can get one given they have the qualifications for it. (around 4-5%) Using this data, the government will create a budget projection for itself to see how it is doing fiscally if distortion due to recession or overly strong growth occurs.

It's the same idea as adjusting for inflation; it removes the variability of the yearly budget by creating a benchmark to see how the budget is really faring, and can help policymakers determine whether surpluses or deficits are natural or discretionary in origin.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-26330

What's the NCSL?

I made a typo; it's actually the NSCL which stands for Nationstates Classical Liberals.

*bump* for visibility!

Seems like a solid political party with good ideas. Do you have room for one more?

Seems like a solid political party with good ideas. Do you have room for one more?

Absolutely. We're a very dynamic data structure - there's always room for more.