It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem
In the Post-Election Report to the National LP, there are numerous problems pointed out with the NLP, and co-operation with the Badnarik Campaign, as well as our wonderful Vice-Presidential Candidate.
1)Do you consider yourself a "Moderate" or "Purist" Libertarian? (a.k.a. Should the party's platform be progressive eventually attaining the libertarian ideal, or should the platform be purely the libertarian ideal?)
2)Are you going involve yourself actively, by going to a State/National Convention?
Originally posted by Amuk
I am already active in both local and National levels and will continue till I die
Originally posted by radardogI have to disagree with the premise that having a strong ideal different than the current status will result in automatic problems for your party. In fact, as people and things get out of hand, populations tend to go with major political shifts. Some quick examples are the National Socialist party in 20th century Germany, and the Communist Party in 20th century Russia. The former was even elected democratically!
Originally posted by LostSailor
I involve myself by putting doubts into the hearts and minds of other voters. I have found that intellectual discussions and debates do much more on an individual basis than mere gatherings of like minded folks or carrying around a sign. Nay, politics is a mind game, and you have to play on that court. It is just sad to see that 3rd parties are typically unable to play -- TV debates of all candidates running rarely occur.
I don't mean to rain on your parade but:
1) Hitler was not elected, his party got a very small fraction of the votes and claimed a few seats on their equivalent of a congress.
2)The communist took control of Russia by leadinga revalution of the people against the monarchy during WW1. When did they get "elected" outside of their own "one party" elections?
Originally posted by radardog
The problem of becoming moderate for many 3rd parties is that their platforms are easily 'gobbled' up by the larger parties. Those hanging on the a thread to the LP agenda are easily swayed when another party, who in their minds have a better chance of winning, adopts the moderate ideas. The major parties, however, stand little chance of adopting the more ideological platforms of the LP party, and as such, that is what distinguishes the LP party and makes it viable alternative in any political race.
To answer the question, I am more of a "purist," but I recognize most changes have to be done in steps.
The moderate's goals typically fall short of what the philosophy covers. That is, while the philosophy may require small steps to get the ideal goal, a moderate's goal is one of those small steps.
It is here we can really point out that a half-assed political system does not get us very far.
I involve myself by putting doubts into the hearts and minds of other voters. I have found that intellectual discussions and debates do much more on an individual basis than mere gatherings of like minded folks or carrying around a sign.
Nay, politics is a mind game, and you have to play on that court. It is just sad to see that 3rd parties are typically unable to play -- TV debates of all candidates running rarely occur.
Originally posted by radardog
"The moderate's goals typically fall short of what the philosophy covers. That is, while the philosophy may require small steps to get the ideal goal, a moderate's goal is one of those small steps. "
What I mean by this is that a moderate platform usually lists a specific step as the platform goal. While a realistic purist will put on the platform the purist goal and steps needed to obtain it.
Ironically, as the republican and democrat platforms get more moderate to include as many voters as possible, they are starting to sound much more alike. If you noticed in the Kerry and Bush economic debates, they did not disagree much with respect to future policies!