Has the Western World Lost Moderate/Centrist Politics?

[Mattrek]

4 hours ago, Undrafted said:

Well, here's my simple question to you (and anyone else): why pigeonhole yourself as 'being on the left'?  Why should anyone "pick a side"?

 

We, the general public, have been manipulated by the political parties to "pick a side", in the hopes of bolstering party loyalty and reinforcing authority, as opposed to actually being informed on issues and making decisions based on that (and it wasn't always that way).  And for the most part, the general public has played along because it's EASIER than making informed decisions.

 

Currently, I find most political discourse, especially on the internet, to be as ludicrous (but less comical) than the "Left Twix vs. Right Twix" commercials.

 

Because that’s where my beliefs belong: paying more to help others less fortunate, investing in the future by spending on education, jobs training programs that take into account the new robotic/ai world soon to be replacing workers, arts and theater programs being funded and rewarded, looking at a universal benefit income, making sure no one gets left behind, protecting our environment, working to better people’s lives and an equal and just world that treats everyone the same. Those are not conservative ideals, those are progressive ideas. I want us to move forward together so that we all succeed in life.

[Undrafted]

15 hours ago, Mattrek said:

 

Because that’s where my beliefs belong: paying more to help others less fortunate, investing in the future by spending on education, jobs training programs that take into account the new robotic/ai world soon to be replacing workers, arts and theater programs being funded and rewarded, looking at a universal benefit income, making sure no one gets left behind, protecting our environment, working to better people’s lives and an equal and just world that treats everyone the same. Those are not conservative ideals, those are progressive ideas. I want us to move forward together so that we all succeed in life.

 

Upon reflection, it's fair to say that if you're basing things on today's current environment, I'd have to agree that progressive ideas have been abandoned by today's conservatives who, for the most part, simply oppose those ideas for the sake of being contrary to "the left".  However, it wasn't always that way.

 

Myself personally, the view I take is that NONE of the things you listed are left vs. right issues in and of themselves.  What would have fueled left vs. right debate in the old days would be the questions of how do we achieve those things and who is going to pay for it.

[189lb enforcers?]

I agreed with not picking sides, likely right up until when I saw a poster in a local BC school, put up by the white female principal who refused to take it down, telling White people (students) to recognize their Privilege, as she does (a white woman).

 

Nobody made her take it down and threats were made against those who sought to. (Just a little racist..., by definition at least, but apparently that’s not the way our BCTF or Government define racism anymore)

 

If that’s not bordering on actual Institutional Racism then I don’t know the definition of racism. Those who take action on prejudice against any race, majority or not, are not upholding the ideals of equality nor liberty. Hence the initial for discussing the benefits or merit of Equality of Opportunity vs Equality of Outcome, this, a staple in any debate of Left vs Right politics.

 

Since I am being demonized as some kind of undeserving white person, the majority population and culture, I now side with the Right as to oppose this crap. 

 

How one can side with such antics as posting that message in a school while proclaiming to subscribe to the “middle of the road” in their political beliefs, is beyond my comprehension.

 

Equal rights? What actual equality is there in endorsements for the undermining an entire race within the education system? Maybe this is where the West should seek to learn from itself. 

 

 

Racism, by definition, yet it’s called an education program. I don’t care to start down the road of debating White Privilege, but I thought I’d share what brand of politics and the messaging our kids are recieving in school, the ones paid for by tax payers, not tax recipients. The government is stepping well outside of its boundaries in this regard, much like it had when the pendulum was swinging wide around secular interests and reciting The Lords Prayer. 

 

Find me an an actual middle ground and I will stand there.  

[189lb enforcers?]

On 2018-08-09 at 10:27 AM, Warhippy said:

And this is what happens when every idiot that is barely capable of reading or conducting any argument past internet memes they don't understand gets to vote

 

 

But hey....nice hair though

 

[Mattrek]

9 hours ago, Undrafted said:

 

Upon reflection, it's fair to say that if you're basing things on today's current environment, I'd have to agree that progressive ideas have been abandoned by today's conservatives who, for the most part, simply oppose those ideas for the sake of being contrary to "the left".  However, it wasn't always that way.

 

Myself personally, the view I take is that NONE of the things you listed are left vs. right issues in and of themselves.  What would have fueled left vs. right debate in the old days would be the questions of how do we achieve those things and who is going to pay for it.

 

Very true. I wish those days were still here, but alas they are a time forgotten.

[canuckistani]

Late entry, but i will say a resounding YES to the OP. 

The western world, in the last decade and half or so, has lot centrist ideals.

I describe myself as a liberal person, with center-left political, social and economic idea. I believe in helping those who are underprivileged, based on economic criteria ( other criterias are mostly made up nonsense) but also rewarding the innovative, high-risk, high reward ideals of capitalism.

 

The eastern in me aspires to the balance/harmony/yin-yang principles, which pretty much is encapsulated by the principle of 'everything(almost), in moderation, except perhaps (with rare exception), moderation itself'.  Same applies to politics/economics for me. 

 

And as a non-white person, i will say that the left is fast losing many,many regular folks by their new version of institutional racism, aka anti-white racism. This is why we see the rise of far-right in the western world, primarily because the far-left is too busy trying to portray itself as some sort of goody-goody history-reverser ( as if that is even feasible) saviour of non-white, non-cis-gendered people and many regular caucasian people are feeling similarly disenfranchised. 

 

The fact that this is a major malaise in western leftist-ism, can be decisively confirmed by me ( via anecdotes, social control experiments, etc), since i can say the exact same thing and not get a hostile reaction from overwelming majority of the left here, yet if a white person says it, they get called racist before one can say 'danger will robinson'. 

Edited August 12, 2018 by canuckistani

[Ilunga]

On 05/08/2018 at 1:39 AM, Undrafted said:

Is that a general question or a personal question?

 

If you're asking in general terms, left/right strictly refers to positions along the modern, post-WW2 political spectrum, so it's impossible not to include people's political views.  The political spectrum itself has collectivist statism at the extreme left and plutocratic libertarianism at the extreme right.  In more general terms, the left believe citizens and society benefit most with more government involvement, whereas the right believe too much government interferes with the prosperity of it's citizens, especially when it comes to the free market.  Most centrists/moderates basically seek a workable balance between the two sides.

 

Left and right are also relative, comparative terms: for example, in the US, the Democrats are on the left compared to the Republicans, but along the political spectrum itself, the Democrats closer to the centre-right, not the left at all.  That is why the "centre" in the US is not actually in the centre of the the political spectrum itself; with the Republicans moving towards fundamentalism and the far-right, the space between the Democrats and Republicans is solidly right of the political spectrum.  In Canada, things are similar to a lesser degree--the Conservative party shifted much further to the right than their predecessors in the Progressive Conservative party, while the NDP on the left softened from it's hard-left, socialist-statist position to a more centre-left position (it's impossible to say where the federal Liberal party stands except somewhere vaguely between the two--the truth is that they rarely stand for much of anything).

 

Generally-speaking, MOST people define left-leaning vs. right-leaning relative to which party they support.  For example, in the US, Republican supporters will deride Democrat supporters as "left-leaning", in spite of the fact that the Democrats are technically NOT on the left of the political spectrum.

 

---

 

If you're asking me how I personally define a left-leaning person vs. a right-leaning person, the answer is that my standard is the political spectrum itself.  I consider myself centre-right because I believe in the old conservative axiom of "fiscal responsibility leads to smaller, more efficient government, which further leads to a freer market and less taxation". 

 

My criticism of current conservatives is based on how they've strayed from that axiom in a number of different ways, ranging from including social conservative causes into their platforms (it's more than fair criticism to say that it's hypocritical to claim want less/smaller government interference while at the same time, trying to legislate Christian-based "morality laws" on a secular society) to being completely fiscally irresponsible when they've been in power.  But perhaps my biggest criticism about the current conservatives is that they no longer accept criticism--today's conservative parties have become authoritarian and autocratic, stressing party loyalty above all else.

The terms left and right when applied to politics originated in France during the revolutionary period, the aristocrats sat on the right of the king and the commoners sat on the left. The Aristos wanted to keep their power and wealth,the commoners wanted change. You talk about fiscal responibility,I believe this is not spending more than you earn, both as a government or person. The systems that are in place encourage people to spend money they do not have. I cannot find the link but I have read somewhere that it was in the late 60's,early 70's that Citibank wanted to create more debt, in a fractional reserve banking system that is how wealth is created,their mortgage market was growing however they wanted more so they took an existing idea the diners club credit card and for want of a better term weaponised it to create personal debt in a way that had not been seen previously. Today in my country this has resulted in personal debt levels that are unstastainable.Between 1995 and 2015 the ratio of household debt to income has doubled 104 percent to 212 percent. Even more important than this is the distribution of wealth, in 2017 82 percent of the wealth went to the wealthiest 1 percent. According to Oxfam at no point point in our history has the division of wealth been so one sided,so much going to do few,so little going to so many. Since 1950 the ratio of CEO to worker pay has increased by a thousand percent. Since the GFC their has been not only a stagnation in wages for the average worker but also a dramatic increase in the number of people who are working multiple jobs and are still struggling to pay their bills. I was thinking about how the middle class was created and it seems to me the beginnings of this was when Henry Ford first mass produced cars,he had a goal of making a affordable car for everyman. On January the 5th in 1914 Ford doubled his workers pay. There have many debates as to why he did this but what is certain is that other car manufacturers did this as well as the manufacturers of other goods. Ford noted that this created more purchasers of his cars. Quoting from a Matt Anderson article,"better wages combined with affordable goods created by the assembly line are cornerstones of the prosperity that has characterised American life for so many of the past 100 years". Fast forward to today  Amazon, one of the largest companies in the world today, their business model compared to to existing retail is to hire only one third of the workers,their biggest acquisition last year was a robotics company, was that that tell you. This is happening in most economic sectors. When the teller at my bank encourages me to do my banking online I tell her if everyone did this you would not have a job. What has this to do with the left or right of politics you might ask, well I believe that both sides of politics have been bought and paid for by the people who own these corporations. Left, right, it does not matter, those with wealth have always wanted more, they used to just shear the sheep now they are slaughtering it.

[Rob_Zepp]

On 8/11/2018 at 1:02 PM, canuckistani said:

Late entry, but i will say a resounding YES to the OP. 

The western world, in the last decade and half or so, has lot centrist ideals.

I describe myself as a liberal person, with center-left political, social and economic idea. I believe in helping those who are underprivileged, based on economic criteria ( other criterias are mostly made up nonsense) but also rewarding the innovative, high-risk, high reward ideals of capitalism.

 

The eastern in me aspires to the balance/harmony/yin-yang principles, which pretty much is encapsulated by the principle of 'everything(almost), in moderation, except perhaps (with rare exception), moderation itself'.  Same applies to politics/economics for me. 

 

And as a non-white person, i will say that the left is fast losing many,many regular folks by their new version of institutional racism, aka anti-white racism. This is why we see the rise of far-right in the western world, primarily because the far-left is too busy trying to portray itself as some sort of goody-goody history-reverser ( as if that is even feasible) saviour of non-white, non-cis-gendered people and many regular caucasian people are feeling similarly disenfranchised. 

 

The fact that this is a major malaise in western leftist-ism, can be decisively confirmed by me ( via anecdotes, social control experiments, etc), since i can say the exact same thing and not get a hostile reaction from overwelming majority of the left here, yet if a white person says it, they get called racist before one can say 'danger will robinson'. 

Great post.   It appears you may be a younger poster like myself...I identify with the "2/3 of younger voters who would like a more centrist option" no matter where we are in the world though he speaks of the US specifically:

 

2/3 of younger voters tired of traditional "right versus left"

 

How a Centrist Billionaire Can Win the Presidency in 2020

 

Laurence KotlikoffContributori

Retirement

When I ran for President as a registered write-in candidate in 2016, the press had one question, "How much money do you have?" I said, "I'll have plenty if you cover my campaign." The reporters smiled politely, wrote, at most, a single article about my candidacy and its centrist reform proposals and went back to their addiction -- covering the political food fight.

Ah, if only I had been a billionaire. But while big money is surely a necessary condition to be elected as an political outsider in our country, is it sufficient to be elected as a centrist?

 

Clearly not within the two parties, both of which are dominated by their extreme wings.

 

The reason for our political polarization is what economists call a coordination failure. Those with extreme views feel strongly enough about those views that they vote in their parties' primaries no matter what anyone else does. In contrast, party members with centrist views have less political fire in their bellies -- what one would expect of people predisposed to be moderate. This lack of political ardor make centrists more apt to sit out the primaries and to correctly assume that other moderates will do the same.

 

Stated differently, electing a centrist is a public good for each centrist -- something they can all benefit from no matter who does the work. Hence, there is an incentive to free ride and let other centrists save the day. But since other centrists make the same calculation, free riding is endemic and centrists ignore the primaries. If centrists could coordinate their voting, i.e., vote collectively, there'd be no problem. But they can't. Moreover, since would-be centrist candidates realize centrist voters won't show up in the primaries, they don't run for office. The result is a country that actually does need to be made great again -- not that either party can make that happen with their polar -- government does nothing and government does everything -- positions.

 

Younger generations get our two-party problem. Almost two thirds of millennials say they want a third party, by which they mean they want a third party with a viable centrist Presidential candidate, by which they mean they want a third party with a viable centrist Presidential candidate who can instantly get press attention, by which, thanks to the press' "show me the money" requirement, they mean they want a third party with a viable centrist Presidential candidate who is a billionaire. Fortunately, we have lots of American billionaires -- over 500 (Forbes has the list). Most are surely centrists. We also have a centrist third party -- The Modern Whig Party -- that's shopping for such a candidate.

 

Whig stands for a proponent of representative democracy. The name recalls the 1648 Whiggamore raid by Scotts who rose up against the autocrat, Charles I of England. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton all called themselves Whigs.  The British Whig party was instrumental in securing Britains basic rights. Without its influence, we might still be a British colony.

 

The Modern Whig Party (MWP) was founded in 2007 by Iraq and Afghanistan vets who realized that politics as usual wasn't working. They established the MWP to restore common sense (a term used by another whig, Thomas Paine) to nation's affairs. As in the past, the Whig Party membership is largely composed of those who serve -- vets, active military, police, firefighters, EMTs, and other first responders.

 

The MWP’s historical roots is interesting. Its membership is commendable. But can a third party produce a new American revolution, one that will put an end to the pretense that we Americans are inextricably divided between left and right and, these days, need a demented dictator to order us around?

 

The answer is just across the ocean – in France, our oldest ally. Less than two years ago, Emmanuel Macron started his En Marche! (Let’s Go!) third-party movement. Today, Macron is President of France. Macron is no billionaire. But he didn't need to buy, effectively speaking, press coverage. French law gives all Presidential candidates equal time on tv and radio.

In electing Macron, the French rejected not just extremism, but also business as usual. Macron is making major and eminently sensible policy reforms – reforms that are decades overdue, but which the old political system could never produce. Our country’s two-party system can’t deliver sensible policy either. It can’t fix Social Security, which is 34 percent under-financed. It can’t provide universal healthcare, which all other developed countries offer. It can’t fix our taxes without catering to the rich. It can’t fix our financial system without selling out to the banks. It can’t improve public education, which is a moral disgrace. It can’t resolve immigration in a humane manner. It can’t balance the budget, whose shortfall is exponentially raising federal debt and, in concert with our ever growing off-the-books, unfunded liabilities, bankrupting our children. It can't keep us safe from rouge nuclear powers. And the list goes on.

 

Churchill said that “Americans will do the right thing after exhausting all the alternatives.” We’ve exhausted the alternatives. The two parties are taking us to a place our founders feared and fled. Overcoming the centrists' coordination problem and leading a third party to victory in 2020 is actually easy. All we need is a dynamic, competent and charismatic billionaire to do what another Whig, named Lincoln, once did -- join a fledgling political party and win the Presidency.

[Russ]

On 30/07/2018 at 11:40 AM, Rob_Zepp said:

Canada is a curious case as the furthest "Right" party is probably what the Democrats in the US used to be and the Liberals in Canada have taken over the left agenda - leaving the NDP where exactly is hard to know.   Germany doesn't have anyone in the middle.   

The Federal NDP is in a funny spot right now.  After some comments a while ago from Jagmeet, I remember reading some "opinions" from papers, etc. where people were complaining that they weren't farther left than even the Liberals and they were getting bashed because of it.  I am really interested to see when the next federal election comes around where the NDP fall in the pecking order on topics.

 

But yea there is next to no central anymore.  I get bashed by both the right and left friends all the times because I try and take a more central stance.  Theres lots of good things about left and right that I like, but there are also tons of things that are wrong.  If you're right, you must be a wealthy person who wants all unions and fair wages gone, etc. while if your left you must want open borders and to just let anyone into the country and give people stuff because they were born and are entitled to all these various rights.  I really hate the political spectrum, I am more on the right personally that left, I most likely will go conservative next election unless they do something to make me decided opposite but I will try and stay as central as I can.  I like to hear what the other side says and like to have healthy conversations but these days its getting harder and harder to have good conversations unfortunately. 

 

I fear the extremes are going to get even worse from the USA and spill into other places around the world and create even more of a divide which we most definitely do not need because all its going to do is come down to more violence among citizens.  

[Rob_Zepp]

7 hours ago, Russ said:

I get bashed by both the right and left friends all the times because I try and take a more central stance. 

Interesting...I find both extreme ends always claim that you are the other end as they have lost the concept of what centrist means....it is either "you agree with me or you must be totally against what I am saying".

 

I find it humourous at times but also I worry how binary and intellectually weak society is coming whereby labeling has become more important than a good discussion on a topic.   It is like the Trump thread on CDC and similar, no one really wants to discuss the issues (well, a few do, WH and Jimmy come to mind for sure) and allow a "agree to disagree" work versus become like a petulant child.   

 

Cheers.   

 

 

As if on cue, point perfectly proven!   

Edited September 4, 2018 by Rob_Zepp

[Rob_Zepp]

I quite liked this article....seems a sane voice 

 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/02/27/in-defense-of-centrists/

Alice M. Rivlin

Senior Fellow - Economic Studies, Center for Health Policy

In a recent New York Times column, Paul Krugman rightly charges Republicans with hypocrisy for espousing fiscal responsibility while adding trillions to the national debt, but adds “my anger isn’t mostly directed at Republicans; it’s directed at their enablers, professional centrists…” I rise to the defense of the centrists.

 

I consider myself a moderate Democrat, not a centrist. I was proud to serve in two Democratic administrations (Johnson and Clinton), but I don’t think either party has all the right answers, especially on economic policy. Indeed, I believe the polarization of the electorate into warring red and blue tribes makes bipartisan negotiation leading to a centrist economic agenda more, rather than less necessary.

 

In this divided country, if the two parties do not work together to find common ground, we are doomed either to gridlock or wild swings in policy—and we will never address the hard challenges of climate change and rising debt, which demand bipartisan consensus to share the pain as well as the benefits. Moreover, I believe that sensible, fiscally responsible policies exist that moderates in both parties would buy into, if only they could break out of their tribal compounds and work with each other. Sadly, party leadership and congressional rules increasingly thwart bipartisan negotiation.

 

I am certainly not urging compromise on racial injustice or xenophobia. Nor am I talking about issues that stir deep religious and cultural passions and seem to defy rational argument, such as gun rights, abortion, and transgender bathrooms. But neither is Krugman. We are both economists focused on economic policy.

 

There are two reasons for creating economic policy through bipartisan negotiation. The first is that households and businesses need relatively stable policies that allow them to plan future actions. Frequent big swings in tax laws or public provision of retirement or health care benefits, for example, add to uncertainty and impede decision-making.  Since the electorate is roughly equally divided between Republicans and Democrats and tends to swing back and forth as hopes for one-party miracles are replaced with disillusionment, stable economic policy requires bipartisan buy-in.

In this divided country, if the two parties do not work together to find common ground, we are doomed either to gridlock or wild swings in policy.

 

We have seen the costs of partisan warfare over economic policy mount in the last decade. The two parties have battled almost continuously over the budget, often using continuing resolutions to fund federal activities for a few weeks (or even days) at a time; shutting down the government in hopes the public will blame the other party for this senseless act, and even threatening to default on the national debt to gain partisan advantage. Such dysfunctional governing is costly for both the government and the private sector and undermines confidence in American democracy at home and abroad.

 

We have also seen the enormous downsides of passing major economic legislation with the votes of only one party. Let’s try a thought experiment. Suppose the Affordable Care Act (ACA) had been the product of a good-faith negotiation between Democrats and Republicans aimed at producing a bill that moderates in both parties could support. Moderate Republicans could have supported income related federal subsidies for households purchasing health insurance in electronic markets, but might have insisted on penalties for non-enrollment, rather than a mandate, a less generous benefit package, additional flexibility for states to adapt the program to their particular conditions, or less reliance on expanding Medicaid. Right wing Republicans would still have opposed any expansion of federal subsidies for health care, and left-wing Democrats who favor single payer might have dropped out as well. But a centrist compromise with the support of moderates in both parties could have provided broader, more stable increases in health insurance coverage than the ACA. Bipartisan buy-in would have allowed the parties to fix glitches in the law as experience revealed them and kept Republicans from demonizing Obamacare, misrepresenting its faults, preventing its improvement, and sabotaging its implementation.

 

Similarly, a genuinely bipartisan tax reform negotiation could have produced far more stable, pro-growth tax policy than the recent Republicans-only tax bill without ballooning future deficits. Many Democrats supported corporate rate cuts accompanied by broadening the corporate tax base to reduce revenue loss and would have supported many of the Republican cuts in individual taxes if the total package had been less egregiously tilted toward the very rich. However, since Democrats were not allowed in the drafting room and none of them voted for the bill, they are now demonizing it, much as Republicans did Obamacare, and exaggerating its faults. Democrats are alleging middle-class taxpayers will not benefit, although they actually will, if the cuts for them are extended beyond 2025, which seems likely. Unfortunately, the one-party action not only adds trillions to the debt, but continuing partisan rancor fosters uncertainty about future tax policy, which makes planning harder for households and businesses alike.

 

The other reason why major economic policy requires bipartisanship is that meeting the big challenges facing our economy, such as reining in the projected increase in national debt, requires sharing the pain as well as the gain. Austerity is bad economic policy in a recession; so is adding massively to deficits at full employment and continuously growing the debt faster than the economy. Current policies will likely produce higher interest rates that restrain private investment, rising debt service costs that drive out public investment, and growing risk that our creditors will lose confidence in us.  Restoring fiscal responsibility requires reducing the growth of entitlement spending or increasing the growth of tax revenues or both, and neither will happen until both Republicans and Democrats are willing to take ownership of a bipartisan plan.

 

Other looming challenges, such as shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy to mitigate climate change, also involve near-term pain, such as dislocation in the oil and coal industries. Without bipartisan ownership of both the pain and the gain, these necessary adjustments will be politically impossible.

We have seen the costs of partisan warfare over economic policy mount in the last decade.

Both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats regard moderates who espouse bipartisan negotiation as wishy-washy opportunists willing to compromise their principles. But debates about economic policy generally do not involve absolute “principles.” They involve balancing competing preferences along a continuum of values, such as compassion v. personal responsibility. In general, Republicans favor smaller government with more limited powers, at least in domestic affairs, and more reliance on markets; Democrats favor a more activist government assuming greater responsibility for protecting the less fortunate and mitigating the risks of unregulated markets. Policy-making is normally about shifting the balance a little one way or the other. Moreover, the range of practical policy alternatives for the role of government is quite narrow in contemporary America. Neither communists, nor socialists, nor advocates of unfettered capitalism have significant political support—despite the stereotypes that each party hurls at the other in campaigns.

 

The recent two-year budget agreement illustrated that moderates in both parties could work together if their leadership would let them. The politicians recognized that the public was disgusted with partisan warfare and dysfunctional budgeting, and that there was broad public support for most current federal activities, as well as for sustaining popular safety net programs, such as the Children’s Health Program and Community Health Centers, and for strengthening military capability.  Debt worriers, including me, pointed out that the agreement added substantially to the debt, but a two-year agreement on appropriations was not the place to deal with the long-run upward trajectory of debt. The longer-run fiscal conversation must include entitlements and taxes.

 

Partisan Democrats criticize advocates of bipartisan economic policy for not aggressively calling out Republicans for causing the current breakdown in cross-party cooperation and civility. They are right that the confrontational actions of right wing Republicans bear most of the responsibility for recent debacles and that President Trump has brought partisan warfare to a new level of ugliness. But the escalation of partisan rivalry into tribal warfare was building long before Trump or even the Tea Party. Democrats are not entirely blameless.

 

The crucial point, however, is tactical. Neither party can hope to start a productive negotiation by marching into the room shouting, “It’s all your fault, so now let’s talk about a bipartisan deal.” Hope for bipartisan policy on the economy or any other topic depends on stopping the blame game, beginning to listen to each other, and rebuilding trust before working together to solve the problems that beset us.

[canuckistani]

On 9/3/2018 at 9:53 PM, Rob_Zepp said:

Great post.   It appears you may be a younger poster like myself...I identify with the "2/3 of younger voters who would like a more centrist option" no matter where we are in the world though he speaks of the US specifically:

 

2/3 of younger voters tired of traditional "right versus left"

 

Thank you, but centrists and centrism has existed before 'young voters' - maybe not in this part of the world but the world is a big place (my name should be an indicator that i am not born and raised here).

[Rob_Zepp]

2 hours ago, canuckistani said:

Thank you, but centrists and centrism has existed before 'young voters' - maybe not in this part of the world but the world is a big place (my name should be an indicator that i am not born and raised here).

It did exist - history shows that.   It is disappearing rapidly it appears as identity politics cannot seem to label things neutral - it has to be left or right.   

[Rob_Zepp]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/406296-carter-warns-dems-not-to-swing-too-far-to-the-left

 

Interesting article.   This guy seems to have some really good thoughts that both US and Canadian politicians should  pay attention to.   Europeans too.

 

Carter warns Dems not to swing too far to the left

BY TAL AXELROD - 09/12/18 01:15 PM EDT 111

240

 

 

 

 

 

 

Former President Carter warned fellow Democrats that pivoting too far to the left could endanger their support among independents.

“Independents need to know they can invest their vote in the Democratic Party,” Carter said Tuesday during an address at his post-presidential center and library in Atlanta, according to The Associated Press.

 

He urged the party to focus on moderate policies and said Democrats should not “move to a very liberal program, like universal health care.”

Carter, who supported progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the Democratic presidential primary against Hillary Clinton in 2016, said progressives would not sacrifice their goals by voting for a moderate and that only a Democrat would address their concerns. 

 

He also addressed concerns that moving toward the center would cost Democrats votes from the progressive wing.

 

“I don’t think any Democrat is going to vote against a Democratic nominee,” he said.

 

The comments come as Democrats struggle to find a unifying message ahead of November’s midterm elections, one that goes beyond just opposition to President Trump.

 

A handful of progressive candidates have stunned the political world this year by defeating more established Democrats, including democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who beat Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) in a June primary.

 

 

[48MPHSlapShot]

If the Libertarian party could just get it's $&!# together...

[Ilunga]

On 14/09/2018 at 6:37 AM, Rob_Zepp said:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/406296-carter-warns-dems-not-to-swing-too-far-to-the-left

 

Interesting article.   This guy seems to have some really good thoughts that both US and Canadian politicians should  pay attention to.   Europeans too.

 

Carter warns Dems not to swing too far to the left

BY TAL AXELROD - 09/12/18 01:15 PM EDT 111

240

 

 

 

 

 

 

Former President Carter warned fellow Democrats that pivoting too far to the left could endanger their support among independents.

“Independents need to know they can invest their vote in the Democratic Party,” Carter said Tuesday during an address at his post-presidential center and library in Atlanta, according to The Associated Press.

 

He urged the party to focus on moderate policies and said Democrats should not “move to a very liberal program, like universal health care.”

Carter, who supported progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the Democratic presidential primary against Hillary Clinton in 2016, said progressives would not sacrifice their goals by voting for a moderate and that only a Democrat would address their concerns. 

 

He also addressed concerns that moving toward the center would cost Democrats votes from the progressive wing.

 

“I don’t think any Democrat is going to vote against a Democratic nominee,” he said.

 

The comments come as Democrats struggle to find a unifying message ahead of November’s midterm elections, one that goes beyond just opposition to President Trump.

 

A handful of progressive candidates have stunned the political world this year by defeating more established Democrats, including democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who beat Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) in a June primary.

 

 

I hope some one from the democratic party runs on a platform that basically states , do not spend more then we earn , cut military spending most importantly stopping the drone strikes that have been proven to kill more innocents than real enemies of the US ,spend that money on healthcare and infrastructure. Plot a path to real wages growth in full time jobs.

Some action, legislation regarding true equality for all Americans,women  black, white , Hispanic ,Muslim would also be a step forward for a country whose declaration of independence states all men are created equal.

 

[Rob_Zepp]

43 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

I hope some one from the democratic party runs on a platform that basically states , do not spend more then we earn , cut military spending most importantly stopping the drone strikes that have been proven to kill more innocents than real enemies of the US ,spend that money on healthcare and infrastructure. Plot a path to real wages growth in full time jobs.

Some action, legislation regarding true equality for all Americans,women  black, white , Hispanic ,Muslim would also be a step forward for a country whose declaration of independence states all men are created equal.

 

This guy, Carter, sounds like he was a good President.   Why can't the Democrat party find someone like him again?

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

This guy, Carter, sounds like he was a good President.   Why can't the Democrat party find someone like him again?

at the time he was slammed for being too weak on the Iran hostage issue and Regan beat him over the head with it to win the 1980 election, even though it was Carter that negotiated the release. Regan still gets credit to this day from Republicans for the release even though his administration had nothing to do with it. Right wing myth is hard to get rid of, maybe we need less of that? 

 

I do think there will be a couple of really solid candidates for 2020, probably one thats still off the radar at this point. 

[Rob_Zepp]

3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

at the time he was slammed for being too weak on the Iran hostage issue and Regan beat him over the head with it to win the 1980 election, even though it was Carter that negotiated the release. Regan still gets credit to this day from Republicans for the release even though his administration had nothing to do with it. Right wing myth is hard to get rid of, maybe we need less of that? 

 

I do think there will be a couple of really solid candidates for 2020, probably one thats still off the radar at this point. 

For the sake of sanity from the now second largest economy, I sure hope so 

[Ilunga]

5 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

This guy, Carter, sounds like he was a good President.   Why can't the Democrat party find someone like him again?

He had his good and bad points but I believe he cared for the people he was elected to govern.