etvart back from working, time for reading!
I’ve got no name for this.
I think it’s more of a political philosophy that could be taken alongside any other party allegiance… although it would be a rejection of any and all party allegiance, in the first place.
It’s all based on progress.
It makes me sick to my stomach that we “have a two-party system” in the USA because we’ve “always had a two-party system.”
Isn’t it obvious, then, that this is part of why we make little progress?
Right calls left “left” as an insult.
Left calls right “right” as an insult.
These blows don’t hurt…
...but if you’re neither one—whether you’re a moderate or out of the picture all together, you’re still attacked ad hominem.
If you’re a moderate, you’re called a “moderate,” and criticized for not picking right or left.
If you’re out of the picture, not right, left, or centered, then you’re (“some kind of”) “radical.”
The last insult stings the most because you are much more progressive than right or left, and right and/or left wants to destroy you for that because they are so afraid of progress.
My political “party” would probably be considered just an adverb added in front of another party name.
The two-party system doesn’t work… and could only work if there was only ONE issue people were voting on. Some people do that, of course, but it is out of ignorance; “I only care about this” implies, indeed, that “I don’t care about anything else.”
Apathy is often ignorant.
The two-party system could only work if there was only one issue.
One party would take one stance on the issue, we’ll say “Yes,” and the other party would take the opposite stance.
That would work. It currently doesn’t.
As it stands now, a party is a strange collection of “Yes” and “No” answers.
As an individual, you are very unlikely to share the arrangement of opinions that a party advocates.
My “party”, my adverb in front of the party name, shakes the pressure to fall directly within party lines.
It might end up destroying an individual’s party allegiance in the first place… but that is progress.
The nation is full of moderates and radicals as well as “liberals” and “conservatives.”
I aim not to create a “moderate” party, as views there would be muddy, and there’d just be so much in-fighting.
I aim not to create a “radical” party, as no matter how progressive I may be, there is still so much resistance to change.
...the resistance to change, by the way, the practice of holding so tightly onto the past, is based on the idea that looking back, we have some idea of “what the hell was really going on.”
Well, prove it.
Can you?
Thank you…
My main personal, not “party,” belief in politics is that:
We are living in an anarchy in which many people don’t believe we’re living in an anarchy.
The main party belief would be a loosely related idea of mine, that:
We are moving forward, for better or worse.We often don’t know until very late, later, whether we’ve done better or worse.
Attempting to truly progress is all we can do, actually.
After we’ve attempted to, then we can check if we were right.
We will be wrong some of the time.
How do you like that: a political party that will admit that they could possibly be wrong?
The stance that “things are getting better” is not completely true or false.
Neither is the opposite stance that “things were so much better.”
We cannot change the past for the better, though, so this party of mine will attempt to change the future for the better.
