That’s Joe today with Waterbury Mayor Michael J. Jarjura.
Yesterday, I raised the question of whether Joe Lieberman, Independent, was ready for the Unparty. I probably worded that backwards — what I really meant to ask was, is the Unparty ready for Joe?
In other words, is he — as the nation’s most prominent viable independent seeking office — someone our loose, yet-unformed affiliation could endorse for U.S. Senator from Connecticut?
I got a lot of responses — 57 so far, which is nowhere near the 302 on this one, but pretty good for one day — but I’m left with another question: Whose comments should I particularly heed as I work on my column on the subject for Sunday (which I’m supposed to be writing right now)?
Who are the real Unpartisans? I figure I can count Paul DeMarco, and Herb, and maybe SGM. How about Randy E, or Ervin Shaw? I don’t know.
Similarly, I figure I can count out Mary Rosh, Lee, LexWolf, bill, and maybe Ready to Hurl.
But help me out here (and quickly, because time’s awastin’ on this column) — do you consider yourself to be potential Unparty material — or definite Unparty material? Mind you, I’m not asking anybody to sign a blood oath to something as presently ill-defined as this nascent movement. I’m just asking whether you want to be part of helping to shape this thing.
There’s really only one thing that would disqualify you — if you still identify with either major party.
Short answers are best on this one: Are you in or are you out?
Related Posts
My party affiliation is the American Pragmatist Party. Our motto is whatever works should be done. If a government solution works use it. If the private sector is the way to go do that. Hard line libertarians are far too rigid in their belief system. I don’t like the expression “getting things done”. That implies passing laws. On many issues, immigration being one, nothing really needs to be done. Other issues:
Iraq War – Pull out now
Health Care – Universal for All
Education – Who came up with this 94 minute A/B class schedule for Richland 1 ??? What a collosal, idiotic idea
Welfare – All Corporate welfare should be abolished
Energy – Spend at least 100 billion / year to find and implement non-fossil fuel stuff
Military – Reduce the military budget by about half.
Crime – Abolish the Death Penalty.
Abortion – Tough call. I’d let mother’s concience decide. But absolutely no government funding for the practice. The worst position is to outlaw abortion except in cases of rape and incest. That is a completely intellectually bankrupt idea.
Social Security – Increase payroll taxes and reduce benefits in tandem to pay for baby boomers. Perhaps an option for personal accounts could be added at some time after we get a handle on the deficit.
Medicare – With universal health care this could be dropped.
Sounds like you might be comfortable as a Democrat, bud.
But I like the overall concept — pragmatism. I’m just not sure I agree all of those things are pragmatic. But that’s cool. If you’re sick of the two party rat race, join us.
I’m with you on what you say about libertarians, too. The Unparty will have a huge tent, but those of strong libertarian leanings would probably be pretty uncomfortable in it. They’re more ideological than self-proclaimed “liberals” and “conservatives.”
Anyway, were you saying you’re in or you’re out? I’m not usually looking for yes/no answers to complex questions, but this time I am.
No, I’m not UNparty material because (as I’ve said before) the UNparty is nothing more than a joke. It’s a plaything of yours that you use to fill copy space.
By the way, in The State’s 2006 Election Survey, there are five candidates for “SOUP of EDU”. Party affiliation is not listed. Why not?
For this election cycle I’m a hard core Democrat. I voted for a third party candidate in 1996 (the Libertarian) and in 2000, Ralph Nader, and look where that got me. Once the edge is taken off the overly powerful Republican jugernaut then maybe I’ll reconsider.
If having an ideology based on personal responsibility makes one ineligible for the Unparty, I guess I can’t join.
Here’s my litmus test:
Flat tax
Private Social security Accounts
Mother’s choice on abortion
Iraq withdrawal
Immigration: deport illegals, build a wall,
heavy fines for employers
Death Penalty
Guns if you want them, no guns EVER if
you commit a violent crime
Tort reform
– Having sat through two days in court
for the big maplractice case in
Lexington, I firmly believe that our
jury system for civil cases is
COMPLETELY broken
NASA-like program for alternative energy
– In fact, dump NASA altogether and
use that money for energy research
Stem cell research funded by gov’t
I guess if that “ideology” scares you, I’ll have to look elsewhere.
“As individuals and as a nation, we now suffer from social narcissism. The beloved Echo of our ancestors, the virgin America, has been abandoned. We have fallen in love with our own image, with images of our making, which turn out to be images of ourselves.” Daniel J. Boorstin
From his book,”The Image:A Guide to Pseudo- Events in America”
Although this is an old book it remains relevant.He writes about newspapers who no longer report the news but create it.
I’m sure he’d be rolling over in his grave,reading another “Unparty” column.
I’m not in or out of the “party” because I’m not living in your dream.
As much as I find the prospect of an Unparty attractive, I, too bow to pragmatism. The only pragmatic alternative I have is to remain a Democrat – despite the fact that this leaves me pragmatically disenfranchised in terms of County Council, the General Assembly and, most of all, in “RubberStamp Joe’s” Congressional district.
Count me out. Why would I want to associate with a party that stands for nothing? Other than hero-worshipping a handful of charismatic pols who have learned how to play the press like a violin.
In principle I’m for the “Unparty’, even though folks are saying (as above) it may be a “wasted” vote. I’m thinking back to the 1980 election and the “wasted” third party vote there for John Anderson. However in the meantime, politics seems to me to have become so partisan, that there is no way I can side with one party, or even promise to vote for one party. So yes, I think I’m in, but I’m not in the clear yet as to what that all will mean.
What I mean by it is that I want to be able to go by policy, not by party. I’m a little dense sometimes, but I think that is what we stand for. If we insist on certain policies, I may or may not be able to go with them. My allegiances put me all over the map as far as “left” or “right” is concerned, ultimately because I would like to see justice done, as much as is humanely doable in an unjust world.
The Unparty’s platform seems to consist of one plank: “Democrats and Republicans are big poopyheads!”
Maybe someone could form yet another party . . . the Un-Unparty.
Its platform could be “The Unparty is a bunch of even bigger poopyheads!”
I might add that the Old Testament prophets constitute for me the best standard as to what is “just” or “unjust”, keeping in mind Luther’s distinction between the responsibilities of the state on the one hand, and the kingdom of God on the other, (and the difficulty of “legislating righteousness”. At the same time for me as a Christian, Luther must be tempered by aspects of both the Calvinist and the Anabaptist positions, which I understand to insist that the distinction between church and state cannot be quite so clear cut. God has something to say to the state, and the state must listen. (I am not a “theocon”, by the way, as I understand the term.) That may be all a bit nebulous, but it is the best I can do in a few sentences and a short time.
The more I read about them, the more Un on the Unparty I am. Take me off the mailing list, please.
Doug, what’s the name of the party you’re fostering there? I’d go along with most of that except for a couple of issues.
I can’t go agree with the wall building as that policy is a bit too frosty. I also believe we should actually make a more concerted effort at advancing space travel. We should be ashamed as a country that we let the Challenger explosion steal our bravery and cast us in the role of Icarus.
Giant steps are what you take, walkin’ on the moon…
“Not a theocon . . .”
I hope I’m not a “theo-” anything in the political arena. Nobody can claim they are doing “God’s work” in the political realm. I believe though that Christians are still responsible to work hard and grope for answers, or at least good influence, on political issues.
kc, be real. While the Libertarians try real hard, nobody’s a bigger poopyhead than the Democratic and Republican parties.
Notice I said “parties,” not individuals. I know some very fine people who remain deluded.
You caught me at a bad time because of workload. I’ve got four blog entries that I’m trying to finish, but can’t squeeze in because of my job’s demands. I never should have taken that “indentured servitude” bonus without reading the fine print.
In one sense party affiliation is meaningless because:
In another sense parties are useful because they can provide voters with a general but quite subjective sense of what the parties’ candidates stand for. I stress “can” because Republicans used to have a reputation for being fiscally responsible.
As a guy who tends toward evidence-based policies, I’m conservative and generally vote for Republicans, even when they are idiots because their Democrat opponents are often bigger idiots. Libertarians usually just really want to take drugs, grow hemp, avoid taxes, ignore culture, and get all confused about foreign policy, so their candidates are usually irresponsible. In the rare case where they do get elected, then have to learn the way to the office anew each and every day.
An Unparty candidate would have to list his/her views on a variety of issues or provide a set of principles for me to evaluate in order to earn my vote. I’d vote for any candidate who committed to or had a record of the following:
I do look at the whole candidate; politics, after all, is the art of compromise. Given a Feingold / Lieberman contest, the latter’s my guy, and I’d not be miserable. What’s great about our country is that I don’t have to live in an area where a Boxer, a Feinstein, and a Pelosi represent me — I could move and take my heart with me.
Finally, I’ve mellowed a bit as I’ve grown older. For example, I’ve a more “liberal” view of Second Amendment rights. I used to believe that gun ownership is mandatory; I now hold that it’s optional if you can pass a performance-based self-defense test using knives and an axe. Re-test every three years. When you get old, gray, arthritic, and infirm, it’s time to git yer Smith & Wesson. That’s my definition of social security.
And all this time I thought the UnParty was a sort of metaphor, the bones to hang the meat of discussion on.
But if you’re actually serious, thanks, but no thanks. (Like the joke about “military intelligence,” it seems kinda self-contradictory to have people declare for the UnParty.)
So, no declared party affiliation for me; just like my dog tags always said, “No Pref”.
I will always listen to proposals or ideas from any quarter but the GOP is aligned enough with my beliefs at least for now. National defense, pro-life, pro-business growth, low taxes are the major planks for me. I think the Unparty would be all over the charts on those issues. I don’t vote straight party ticket so I want to hear what all have to say and then decide.
Sometimes the Unparty debate has a bit of a “I’m taking my toys and I’m going home” air to it. Why have the two parties abandoned platforms that many of the potential unparty members like? Because those platforms don’t have articulate, persuasive defenders in the party. How does striking off on your own help improve the situation? Joe Lieberman’s next few months will be instructive: will he prove to be a visionary leader or a lonely egomaniac?
I consider my vote very carefully before I cast it, which probably makes me a “swing voter” (not as much fun as it sounds, it turns out). But I confess I have never sought to take that independent viewpoint to one of the entrenched parties and worked to change them. Why? Too busy, got a job, got a family, the usual reasons…but even so, it makes it difficult for me to complain too much about party politics with a good conscience.
Afer reading these posts a question occurred to me:
Do political parties exist because groups of like-minded people want to work together, or because groups of differently minded people can’t? Question A makes the Unparty idea plausible; Question B makes it quite difficult.
I have never voted for a “party” I’ve always chosen by merit and what I thing they could do in office.
One fantasy I have, especially at election time, is that all advertising and ballots remain party affiliate free. I’d be so curious to see election results based soley on the individual merits, not party affiliatiion.
I once asked a friend, who did you vote for? He said he didn’t know, but he voted straight (fill in the blank) party. Some how I think that’s a common pratice.
I think I’ve always been “UNPARTY”
kc, be real. While the Libertarians try real hard, nobody’s a bigger poopyhead than the Democratic and Republican parties.
So that IS your platform. No issues, just name-calling.
Like I said, include me out.
“What’s great about our country is that I don’t have to live in an area where a Boxer, a Feinstein, and a Pelosi represent me”
That is, if you can’t afford to live in an area where a Boxer, a Feinstein, and a Pelosi represent you, there’s still somplace available for you to live.
Uncle Elmer, the verdict is already in.
Holy Joe showed his “principles” when he was rejected by Democratic voters and decided that he was so special that he gets a second chance.
Where were Holy Joe’s vaunted “principles” when he voted for Alito, a far-rightwing reactionary who thinks that President Bush should “more equal” than the other branches of government? Where were Joe’s “principles” when he voted to approve Gonzalez, the lawyer who justified torture as a legitimate and legal policy of the government, as chief law enforcement officer of the Federal government.
The reaction of Joe (and the entire entrenched Washington establishment) has been one of horror. The thought that grassroots democracy has actually succeeded terrifies the punditocracy, entrenched incumbents and career political operatives.
Joe’s primary principle is keeping Joe in office. Running for senate and vp simultaneously perfectly illustrated Joe’s “principles.”
The crows are coming home to roost. Here’s to Lieberman’s political career being the first of many deserving corpses to follow.
Anyone else feeling very “mid-90’s” right about now?
Capital A, let’s not get too excited just yet. The Dem primary could turn out to be a Pyric victory if Lieberman pulls it out in the fall. In that scenerio the Repugs win twice. The Dems lose a seat in the senate and the Bushies can proclaim their stay-the-quagmire (in Iraq) approach really is supported by the people. Complacency has lost the battle before, let’s not let it happen again.
Brad, I’ll emerge from my self-imposed hiatus to weigh in on your party…I definitely believe it would be great to have many more political parties, or none for that matter. So in that sense, go Unparty. What you’re talking about seems to be a kind of Scoop Jackson Democratic party. “Scoopcrats?” I’d like to see a more vigorous Green Party, Libertarian Party, and so forth, also.
I’ll go with all of Bud’s points, which probably does explain why for now I generally vote for Democrats, though I have no particular love for the party as an entity per se. Mike C’s “Recognizing the importance of culture in sustaining a society” is music to my ears too.
Hey, wait a sec…it seems awfully polite here…no posts from Lee, LexWolf, Dave….has the screening begun?
Sorry, Dave, I just saw your comment earlier in the thread. Anyway, you’ve usually been more civil to us lefties than L & L. Glad you’re still here.
RTH,
Please, I am no Joe Lieberman supporter. And sadly it’s not because of his positions, rather it’s because of his joint Senate/VP run, which I thought was a damnably cynical act. Since then I am never sure how much we are hearing from him that he actually believes or how much is just an attempt at manipulation. Brad seems confident he can winnow the true from the false, though, more power to him. For myself I have doubts.
Certainly Lieberman has convinced Connecticut he’s worth the risk three times now. It’ll be interesting to see how the Connecticut voting public responds to his independent run.
Brad,
Looks like the UnParty is pretty UnPopular on the blog. For what it’s worth, I’m still interested.
The character of good public servants has always mattered more to me than any one position they hold. A senator makes thousands of decisions in his term; I can’t keeep up with them all. So my approach is to vote for people whom I trust and whose basic philosophy seems most consistent with mine.
Currently the core of the Republican party is too far right and the core of the Democratic party is way too far left for me. I despise the practice of ostracizing a candidate for a single “unauthorized” position.
Dismissing a candidate off-hand because they are a pro-choice Republican or a pro-life Democrat is easy but not always in the best interests of the district. It seems to me that politicians who have thoughtful, nuanced positions and can communicate them well are best suited to represent us all.
Certainly there are some issues that are make or break for some voters and obviously the war in Iraq is top on that list for Lamont voters in CT. There’s nothing wrong with voters sending a message like they did to Lieberman.
The problem is that there is no viable place for politicians like Lieberman to hang their shingle. Whether you agree with him of not, his is a voice that ought to have a platform. That’s what the UnParty would provide. A place where candidates could evaluate issues on their merit and hold some traditionally Republican positions and some traditionally Democratic positions without their character being assassinated.
As to what isssues the UnParty would focus on, I suggest that rather than a complicated platform we keep it simple, with three or four main issues. It’s interesting that the discussion after the original Unparty column evolved into a discussion about health care. I would make universal health care the UnParty’s first priority.
Don’t be discouraged by the lack of enthusiasm for the Unparty or Lieberman by your blog regulars. Kathleen Parker wrote a nice column about Lieberman today and even the Orangeburg T&D wrote an editorial decrying the partisanship that makes independent thinkers like Lieberman difficult to find on Capitol Hill.
I say you declare the UnParty a going concern and endorse Joe-how could we go wrong with a guy who coined the term “Jomentum”!
Kathleen Parker wrote a nice column about Lieberman today…
And, Karl Rove called to offer help. And, Dick Cheney bemoaned the loss of the last Dem who didn’t want OBL in the Oval Office. And, Sean Hannity… And… And… And…
Do you see any pattern here?
The ever-solicitous Repubs who only recently decided that Lieberman was a “principled statesman” piously cluck their tongues. They santimoniously slag the opposition for being “soft on terra” because Dems agree with 60% of the nation and probably 70% of CT residents that invading Iraq was a strategic blunder that only weakened us in the war against radical Muslim fundie terrorists.
Once again, Kathleen Parker, GOP hack and kulture warrior, plays her minor role in echoing the GOP theme du jour. It’s “rip and write” commentary. She rips the RNC fax off the machine and punches out a 500 word rehash before afternoon cocktails.
Lieberman voted for partial birth abortion, against tax cuts, against Sam Alito, and for all intents and purposes is a died in the wool liberal democrat in a solidly blue state. He doesn’t own that Senate seat but 7% of the state’s population shouldnt be able to bounce him out. Since a GOPer at this time is unelectable in CT, Joe is coming back to the Senate as an independent. The independents like him and many Repubs will vote him back in. The thing is he will now remember the anti-Semites and backstabbers who turned on him. He actually may wield more power in the Senate as the GOP will court his vote and he can now stray from the party hard liners with no ill effects. IN fact, CT may see more federal dollars coming their way. Its a win all the way around. Win for CT, win for Joe, and win for those who favor a strong national defense.
….except for the Nutroots.>br>
Give it up already, Brad. There will never be an Unparty or even a successful moderate party, at least not on the national level. Has there ever been such a party?
And how could there be one? After all, a political party absolutely requires a number of people who are committed to common goals and a common philosophy, and who are willing to work hard to achieve their goals. What are those goals for moderates – whatever everybody else wants? What is that philosophy for moderates – we don’t know what we want? How do moderates work for their goals – by waiting for that last TV commercial to make up their mind for them before they go into the voting booth?
Moderates or your Unparty just doesn’t have what it takes to succeed in politics.
Dave, Connecticut isn’t worried about federal handouts they way South Carolina is. Living where you, in a place where the whole structure of the state is based on racism and handouts, has made you think that everybody lives that way, but they don’t. Citizens of Connecticut rely on their own intiative and industry, which is why Connecticut is superior to South Carolina in every respect.
Mary, you obviously are ignorant of the ongoing battle in CT (Danbury for one) where the Guatemalans have moved in in droves and are ruining previously nice neighborhoods. Oh, but the Danbury people arent racist, that only happens in the south. Do you have any idea how the all white labor unions kept minorities out of good paying union jobs as longshoremen, steelworkers, carpenters, etc? No, you don’t, since you only read the NY Slimes.
Nor do Mary and the other lefties know the racist origins of the minimum wage.
Danbury was a nice blue-collar town of Italian hat makers. Intense competition from impoted Italian shoes and hats killed the town. Union Carbide moved their HQ from Park Avenue there, and the execs bought up the town.
Please enlighten us “lefties” about the “racist origins of the minimum wage,” Lexie.
Please try make your explanation non-fiction, unlike the fairytale about how the resurgence of the Republican Party in the South was untainted with racism.