Author Topic: Transparty coalition  (Read 2794 times)

collaborational

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Transparty coalition
« on: June 13, 2016, 01:40:58 AM »
Idea: Multiple people run on this same platform in as many parties as possible, perhaps all in a "Voluntarist coalition".

Each person should have an affinity and sympathy with their chosen party, and would try to use the language and priorities of their chosen party's base to communicate the ideas of freedom and respect in a way they can more easily relate to.  Essentially, in the language of Marshall Rosenberg's "nonviolent communication", each would focus mainly on the fundamental human needs that stand out most strongly in each party (as well as focusing on the party's favorite issues).  These people could also do events together, trying to show the common ground between the parties.

If I were to run, which is unlikely, perhaps I could run in the Democratic party.

zenturtle

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +9/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Transparty coalition
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2016, 08:23:07 PM »
This is a wonderful idea, the thing that bothers me is your very last statement.  Why would you suggest such a good idea and then end it by claiming that you would not want to participate in it yourself:

'If I were to run, which is unlikely, perhaps I could run in the Democratic party.'

Tell us more about how you would spread the message of freedom in the Democratic party.  Because this is good, get people to run for positions in their local districts.  I would run as Libertarian myself and have already started looking in to the possible positions I can run for in Austin Texas.

If you were to run as a Democrat what would your positions be?  What would your campaign's goal be?  How would you hope to change the current Democratic platform?

collaborational

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Transparty coalition
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2016, 01:52:20 AM »
I have lots of ideas that I do not implement, due to preferences, priorities, and energy and time constraints.  If conditions are right and my higher priorities are met, then I may consider enacting this plan.  (Or it might be more worth my time to simply offer more support to Adam than to run as another candidate.)

The point of running in a specific non-libertarian party is that
1)  (most) political parties are not based on philosophy, especially the Democratic and Republican parties of the US — they are broad coalitions of very different groups with some overlapping ideas and goals — so one can enter with a different philosophy and try to show how the true goals can (only) be met via different means, and, in doing so, show how to clarify or improve the ideas common to the party;
2)  people often see political party more in terms of identity and in-group / out-group than in terms of philosophical foundation, and so using the party label and concerns in a genuine way gives one an “in” to the group, to be taken seriously as a real human, rather than as the enemy or some alien outsider;
3)  the US political system is set up in a way that if you use the “D” / “R” labels, you can more easily get on ballots, and more easily get into debates, and so even if Adam is the best proponent out of a set of voluntarists running, it may be one of the other “D” or “R” candidates who finds more electoral success (but that’s not guaranteed).

Disadvantages of running in a standard party:
1)  some people will still probably attack you as being an outsider, a poser/poseur, or someone who should be running in a different party;
2)  the party may find many ways to subvert you from within the party (but this could still be better than the myriad ways they subvert you outside of the major parties);
3)  …?

With respect to the Democratic party:
1)  I don’t want to work right now on precisely how I would construct my arguments, but I’m certain I could construct them by teasing out what I think are the fundamental needs that democrats are trying to meet (which lean more toward community, feelings and acknowledgement of connection and understanding, expressions of support and solidarity, certain kinds of safety, etc), and showing how government methods often end up subverting these needs and that there are voluntary methods that can meet these needs *and* other important needs.
2)  My campaign’s goals (phrased genuinely in a way that Democrats would pay attention to) would be to create a better world with more compassion, fairness, justice, peace, health, and prosperity.
3)  As an individual, I wouldn’t hope to change the Democratic party platform.  I’d prefer to dismantle governments and unprincipled political parties.