Modern Whigs

[B5C]

Remember a few months ago about a thread about the Modern Whigs. Well we had our first national meeting and reformed out principles to be more moderate and not be as radical as the Democrats and the Republicans.

Instead of issues we uses three interrelated concepts to form the Modern Whigs together. They are Principles, Structural, & Perceptual.

What do you think?


The Modern Whig Philosophy


I. Principles

The reality is these are critical to the welfare of the country and the Party. These principles bind us as moderates, unify us as Americans, and also serve to exclude extremes.

· FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY - Any action of the government must respect principles of fiscal responsibility and public accountability.

· ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - Develop practical domestic energy sources to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources.

· STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY - Each state can generally determine its course of action based on local values and unique needs.

· SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE - When the government is compelled to legislate morality, every citizen should be considered as equal.

· EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT - Increase public and private emphasis on math and science to promote American innovation to compete in the global economy.

· VETERANS AFFAIRS - Vigilant advocacy relating to the medical, financial, and overall well-being of our military families and veterans.

II. Structural

Structural Principles are the most important to the Party. Our structure is what makes us fundamentally different, non-ideological, non-partisan, and not confined by the political spectrum.

· DEVELOP REAL LEADERS - This central tenet of the Party is to help leaders both grow and to exhibit good citizenship through leadership.

· SELF DISCOVERY - As a Whig it is important to always be learning and growing. This means it is the Party's responsibility to pull information together and to help members discover for themselves their stance on any social topic.

III. Perceptual

We have become a reactive society. While there is little we can do about the underlying problem, as a Party we must always consider many perspectives, including a long term perspective.

· FOCUS ON LONG TERM PROBLEM SOLVING - We have developed into a reactive nation. The only issues being seriously considered are those who make the top of each media hour, however it is important to be talking about and solving issues that are foreseeable before they are major issues.

We developed a Membership primer for more detailed information about the party.
http://www.modernwhig.org/membershipprimer.htm

[Jabberwock]

I would like to see a party who is capable of solidifying its principles among its members. This party doesn't do that. It will create factions like the Dems, making them incapable of accomplishing anything, and get hijacked by an unwanted group similarly to the GOP getting hijacked by the religious right.

I see the Florida modern whigs advocate state sovereignty... seriously? How is that moderate? This is a good example. This party is all over the place. The National Committee or whatever needs to oversee the state parties to insure they are unified in principle. Otherwise, there will be conflicting ideas which will lead to inertia.

[B5C]

I would like to see a party who is capable of solidifying its principles among its members. This party doesn't do that. It will create factions like the Dems, making them incapable of accomplishing anything, and get hijacked by an unwanted group similarly to the GOP getting hijacked by the religious right.

I see the Florida modern whigs advocate state sovereignty... seriously? How is that moderate? This is a good example. This party is all over the place. The National Committee needs to oversee the state parties to insure they are unified in principle. Otherwise, there will be conflicting ideas which will lead to inertia.

That's is why the Florida Whigs were kicked out last month. The Florida Whigs are not members of the National Whig Party. They didn't fit our views and still kept their hardcore right wing attitudes. I will admit it will not be easy for this party, but a more moderate party is a key to help this nations between the GOP and the Dems.

[Jabberwock]

That's is why the Florida Whigs were kicked out last month. The Florida Whigs are not members of the National Whig Party. They didn't fit our views and still kept their hardcore right wing attitudes. I will admit it will not be easy for this party, but a more moderate party is a key to help this nations between the GOP and the Dems.

Oh really? I didn't know that about the Florida whigs. Well, that's good.

[Admiral Piett]

I was never a fan of Whig platforms as they have too strong an emphasis on social conservatism and historically the party was compromised of mostly people from the monied interests, a la the Hamiltonians and the speculators. Most of our weakest Presidents were Whigs. Don't know how different a modern Whig party would be from the Republicans since they share many of their common values and much of those platforms seemed to be pretty akin to McCain's platform.

[Barry Goldwater]

I was never a fan of Whig platforms as they have too strong an emphasis on social conservatism and historically the party was compromised of mostly people from the monied interests, a la the Hamiltonians and the speculators. Most of our weakest Presidents were Whigs. Don't know how different a modern Whig party would be from the Republicans since they share many of their common values and much of those platforms seemed to be pretty akin to McCain's platform.

Meh, I find the Whigs to be a nice, moderate (at least by American standards, not quite sure about the European ones) party.

And in defense of the Whig Presidents, the ones who were actually elected died within a year of taking office, maybe they could have turned out to be decent Presidents if they had more time

[Admiral Piett]

Meh, I find the Whigs to be a nice, moderate (at least by American standards, not quite sure about the European ones) party.

And in defense of the Whig Presidents, the ones who were actually elected died within a year of taking office, maybe they could have turned out to be decent Presidents if they had more time

You mean Harrison? That was only one.

Then you had John Tyler who alienated his entire party and became disaligned while in office. So far he is the only Independent president whom has ever served. After that was Zachary Taylor, whom is listed as one of the worst President, probably beaten only by James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce in that regard. Then Millard Fillmore.

I find the Whigs to be anything but centrist. Any party that pushes a social agenda isn't really centrist.

[Barry Goldwater]

You mean Harrison? That was only one.

Then you had John Tyler who alienated his entire party and became disaligned while in office. So far he is the only Independent president whom has ever served. After that was Zachary Taylor, whom is listed as one of the worst President, probably beaten only by James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce in that regard. Then Millard Fillmore.

I find the Whigs to be anything but centrist. Any party that pushes a social agenda isn't really centrist.

Yeah, I wanted to cover Taylor as well, he only made it through the first 16 months of his term before he died. To be fair, although Tyler was an imbecile and Filmore wasn't exactly one of our greatest Presidents either, neither man (Harrison & Taylor) got enough time to get enough done to matter.

Anyway, the modern Whigs appear quite reasonable, they want to empower the states and keep the government away from morality:

• Fiscal responsibility – "The Modern Whig philosophy is to empower the states with the resources to handle their unique affairs."
• Energy independence – "Reduce dependence on foreign oil by developing practical sources of alternative energy. This will have the simultaneous effect of changing the national security dynamic."
• Education/Scientific advancement – "Increased public and private emphasis on fields such as space, oceanic, medical and nanotechnology. Also, providing common-sense solutions to enhance our educational system from pre-school to university-level studies."
• States' rights – "Each state can determine its course of action based on local values and unique needs."
• Social progression – "Government should refrain from legislating morality."
• Veterans affairs – "Vigilant advocacy relating to the medical, financial, and overall well-being of our military families and veterans."

(the Wiki link)

[chamaeleo]

Is there, by chance...also an Afghan Whig party? You know, for the beardless moderates who still like bhurkas and all that?

[Phier]

SELF DISCOVERY - As a Whig it is important to always be learning and growing. This means it is the Party's responsibility to pull information together and to help members discover for themselves their stance on any social topic.

What an odd statement. Reminds me of what some feel good college club you sign up for on the Quad on new student day would put on a flier.

I'm all for a new conservative moment but if its not done in the context of the republican party all that can happen is a guarantee of more socialism.

[B5C]

I'm all for a new conservative moment but if its not done in the context of the republican party all that can happen is a guarantee of more socialism.

Well this is not a NEW conservative movement. This is a moderate movement. Right now the Democrats are becoming too liberal and the GOP is being too conservative.

[Admiral Piett]

Tbh, the Republicans and Democrats now lack so much of their cohesiveness we really would be better off splinter both parties into ones more representative of the real political factions present.

[Phier]

Tbh, the Republicans and Democrats now lack so much of their cohesiveness we really would be better off splinter both parties into ones more representative of the real political factions present.

Which is not an stable strategy for either party, as the one who splinters LESS will always win. Nor am I particularly enamored with the European method.

The Republicans just need to put god back in the closet and remember what being fiscal conservative means.

[Admiral Piett]

I'd much rather sacrifice stability for more representation. In fact looking at countries such as Holland and Denmark which have a wide variety of parties find themselves more healthily represented in all their interests. Of course it would help if we had an instant run-off style of elections and if we had no EC, but I kind of accept no one is ever going to change that. For some reason we associate lack of stability with the 60s and instantly will chose stability over reform.

[chamaeleo]

I'd much rather sacrifice stability for more representation. In fact looking at countries such as Holland and Denmark which have a wide variety of parties find themselves more healthily represented in all their interests. Of course it would help if we had an instant run-off style of elections and if we had no EC, but I kind of accept no one is ever going to change that. For some reason we associate lack of stability with the 60s and instantly will chose stability over reform.

Therein lies the crux of the biscuit: our elected officials have the interests of their campaign contributors at heart...not their constituents! Just look at the Health Care debate: it is industry insiders that legislators listen to, NOT us.

If we could wean legislators off the corporate teat, we might just see the public being represented in our nation's decisions. Bribery is already illegal. Include campaign donations in its definition.

I don't expect to ever see a successful moderate party emerge from the bipartisan wreckage, especially one whose name reference only appeals to history buffs and self-described "Mavericks". You'll need something much snazzier to hook the drones with short political attention spans: "join the Smart Party...with Electrolytes!!!".

[Admiral Piett]

The only way any of that will happen is if we change the way we elect our leaders.

[B5C]

The only way any of that will happen is if we change the way we elect our leaders.

Also note we need to find away to force House and Senate members to have term limits and that will solve a good number of problems.

[Giuliano Taverna]

Also note we need to find away to force House and Senate members to have term limits and that will solve a good number of problems.

I'm more concerned about imposing spending limits, they shouldn't be allowed to rack up debt after a point, and I'd like to see more decisions put to a popular vote.

[Admiral Piett]

I'm more concerned about imposing spending limits, they shouldn't be allowed to rack up debt after a point, and I'd like to see more decisions put to a popular vote.

How could such a thing ever be enforced? I mean such a law in practice would have no real way of cutting spending. Would we limit spending within an x percentage of the previous year? Besides, all we need to do is to start dropping Hamiltonian fiscal policies and adopt more Jeffersonian ones. Focus more on internal production and not have all of our wealth concentrated on speculation and outsourcing. Nationalizing the Reserve would certainly help.

[Giuliano Taverna]

How could such a thing ever be enforced? I mean such a law in practice would have no real way of cutting spending. Would we limit spending within an x percentage of the previous year? Besides, all we need to do is to start dropping Hamiltonian fiscal policies and adopt more Jeffersonian ones. Focus more on internal production and not have all of our wealth concentrated on speculation and outsourcing. Nationalizing the Reserve would certainly help.

I view that as the exact opposite of what we need, the Jeffersonian agrarian view is a very old, very outdated concept, one that was already outdated in his time.

What we need is an expansion of domestic infrastructure and industry to bolster our exports and start to close the trade gap. We also need a much stronger more solvent central bank and finacial system.

On the subject of spending limits I'd cap the amount of debt we can accumulate and require budgets to produce a projected surplus within the span of one election cycle. That would force politicians to take responsibility for their actions and end this pass the buck approach to the national debt.