PRIVATE - Old Moderate Party HQ

[unmerged(10971)]

Moderate Party

Note: The communication office can be found here

Our campaign headquarters is here.

Tired of all the radical parties around? Even those who claim to be centrists seem to be radicals in sheep's clothing. I most certainly will not allow them to get away with this.

I call for a party founded on one single principle: rationalism. Let the others tear their country apart with their strange ideals.

I, for one, say this country has been doing well. Everyone wants things to change. Change is only inevitable to a certain extent. Unfortunately, all these people would have you believe that it is inevitable in all areas. Even the conservatives, long defenders of the status quo, have gone far too reactionary.

I call for a new party. Yes, this is likely not the best time for this, but I feel this needs to be done now. Let us find a system proven to work and stick with it--no useless experimentation.

That is all I have to say. If you value your reason, come with me.

What does the Moderate Party believe?

The Moderate Party believes in a policy of dynamic conservatism, defined as a deep belief that the government has a role in providing for the protection and welfare of its citizens, but that government must act wisely and prudently, not engaging in reckless legislating or spending.

Government is inherently neither good nor bad, but a tool that can be used well or poorly. We strive to make sure that when it is used it is used responsibly.

Public policy should be results-driven, not ideologically driven. Eutopia is a well-governed, healthy nation and its strength should not be threatened by radical change that could upset what we have accomplished. The government should constantly look for ways to improve the lives of its citizens, but must be able to show that the benefits of change outweigh the risks of change and change simply for the sake of change shall be rejected.

What does this mean in terms of specific policy?

* The Moderate Party condemns the use of violence as a means of political expression. Freedom of speech, expression, and assembly are all treasured rights, but the willful damage and destruction to property and threat of violence against fellow citizens is abhorent.

* The Moderate Party supports the current constitutional republic and opposes rewriting the founding documents of our nation in order to restore the monarchy. All men [and women-JM] are created equal and their success should rest about their abilities and their deeds. The best government is one that is not only chosen by the people but is regularly held accountable by the people and can be changed by the people if it fails in its duty to them.

* The Moderate Party supports pragmatic public policy over ideologically driven crusades. Proposals for change should be judged on a case by case basis to determine if they are cost-effective. Obviously some causes will serve a greater purpose that overrides a cost-benefit analysis, but others may have several hidden costs that could burden Eutopia for years if not corrected early in the process.

* The Moderate Party supports legalization of abortion. Persons seeking abortions will get them whether they are legal or not, so the government should ensure that the abortions will take place in a safe, sterile, environment. On the other hand, we should allow for education programs so that persons may be counseled so that they are sure of non-abortion options, as regards to pregnancy. Of course, changes should be incremental.

Any other possibilities as to the platform may be given in this thread.

Party Members:
John O'Floinn (Phalanx) - President of Eutopia

Judas Maccabeus
Rev. Jack Teano (heagarty) - Party Chairman
D. Yuber Harding (UberYuber)
Charles Morgan (Hajji Giray)
Timothy Wellesford (Timothy) - Deputy Chairman
Lawrence Chatefield (Arkestra)
Michael von Streusser (von Streusser)
P. Petrus (Petrus)
Ivan Urvanov (LordScod)
Josef Collins (Sandolfon)

 

[unmerged(228)]

I find this to be a laudable initiative, but your party is (at the moment) based only on a call for reason. There are many questions to be asked, but at the moment I'd really like to know how you feel about the economy (should it be free-market, or is some government influence desirable)? And what about the government? Should it take an active role in facilitating the needs of the people, or should it hang back and trust the system, only to intervene if things get real bad?

 

[unmerged(4271)]

I agree with reason but I also agree that what some people find reasonable others might find radical.

Do you have a platform in development or a set of guiding principles?

You may feel that each issue should be examined and evaluated in a pragmatic way and judged on a case-by-case basis, without any absolute positions, but surely there must be some boundaries defining what is rational?

Please give us more information, and you may find a lot of willing recruits.

 

[unmerged(10971)]

Originally posted by heagarty
I agree with reason but I also agree that what some people find reasonable others might find radical.

Do you have a platform in development or a set of guiding principles?

You may feel that each issue should be examined and evaluated in a pragmatic way and judged on a case-by-case basis, without any absolute positions, but surely there must be some boundaries defining what is rational?

Please give us more information, and you may find a lot of willing recruits.

"Rational" means that slow, careful steps must be taken in any direction. We must change a small amount, then see how everything reacts. Then change a small amount again, &c. If some problem shows up, it is small and easily dealt with. If you make sudden and large changes, the problems become large and highly damaging in turn.

I do not want too much of a set platform because this is a party whose main base is careful planning and a moderate speed of application. However, I will give you my beliefs on any area you wish, but I prefer that everyone who wants to be part of this party give their input before we make a set platform.

With that aside, I think I can go to Timothy's questions.

Originally posted by Timothy
how you feel about the economy (should it be free-market, or is some government influence desirable)? And what about the government? Should it take an active role in facilitating the needs of the people, or should it hang back and trust the system, only to intervene if things get real bad?

1. There should be some government influence, but the ability of people to make money without the government causing it to be a pain is necessary as well.

2. The government should take an active role in helping people, but should not just hand them money unless they are proven to be unable to get a decent living. Education and career planning programs are the most useful.

DISCLAIMER: These are my personal beliefs. However, this party does not need to follow them to the letter. That is not its intent. I am merely tired of all the radical, "change all this stuff as soon as possible" parties. That is the intent of this.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Sorry to barge into your HQ uninvited. As RD-Spokesperson, I'd like to formally welcome your party to the political scene of Eutopia.

Originally posted by Judas Maccabeus
"Rational" means that slow, careful steps must be taken in any direction.

If I may be permitted a nitpicky comment, incrementalism might be a more appropriate term for this stance than rationalism. While there is much to commend incremental approaches to policy-making, they can also result in inconsistent, contradictory, and piecemeal policies (i.e., "irrational" policies) and in politics driven by the imperative of "muddling through" rather than by a coherent vision. Caution is certainly necessary in deciding the fate of our citizens, but caution for caution's sake will simply produce stagnation. And stagnation is something many of our citizens can ill afford.

 

[unmerged(228)]

There is still one major question on my mind about your party. Do you see it as neccesary to 'pave the way' for the economy. By stimulating certain branches of industry that are desirable for example, or by creating infrastructure and planning in an area so that enterprizes can operate more easily in the area, or do you let the economy 'come to you' with it's problems?

 

[unmerged(10971)]

Originally posted by Melanchthon
If I may be permitted a nitpicky comment, incrementalism might be a more appropriate term for this stance than rationalism. While there is much to commend incremental approaches to policy-making, they can also result in inconsistent, contradictory, and piecemeal policies (i.e., "irrational" policies) and in politics driven by the imperative of "muddling through" rather than by a coherent vision. Caution is certainly necessary in deciding the fate of our citizens, but caution for caution's sake will simply produce stagnation. And stagnation is something many of our citizens can ill afford.

Ah, here may be the problem. What is a "small amount?" Perhaps a "moderate amount" would be a better term (and fit better with the party name). Not too small, of course, or nothing will ever get done (as you say). But my point is, if we went the wrong way the first time, then of course fixing the problems that causes will be contradictory. Of course, we're not going to make an about-face unless we did something really bad. This party is based on "caution for the people's sake".

Do you see it as neccesary to 'pave the way' for the economy. By stimulating certain branches of industry that are desirable for example, or by creating infrastructure and planning in an area so that enterprizes can operate more easily in the area, or do you let the economy 'come to you' with it's problems?

Hmm. I think a mix of both is desirable. We should invest somewhat in other areas, but not to the point where we stifle growth in others. If everybody wants to start one kind of business because it's easier/you get money from the government/whatever, we would have overcompetition in that area and undercompetition in others.

But I repeat, this is not necessarily the party's stance. It is just mine. I want us to come together to make a platform, not have one dictated. As long as it has the central tenet of moderation in all areas, that is what matters.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

A Modest Proposal

(...that doesn't have anything to do with babies in Ireland! )

Maybe I can offer another way to approach this:

1) It sounds like the best way to counter extremism may not be to try to define "moderation" or "reason" because all sides will likely claim they are moderate or reasonable. Perhaps the best way to do this is to cite cases of extremism that should be opposed?

2) Another approach might be to cite the good and the bad of the existing political parties and draw clear contrasts between what exists and what a proposed alternative should include.

3) Developing a platform using either approach will best increase the leverage of individuals who identify themselves with the new party. Failure to do so will likely result in being labeled unfavorably by existing parties.

4) The benefit to a political party such as this would be that, through some sort of coalition agreement, it could gain seats in Parliament or at least share some ministry appointments with a larger party. Another option, though, is to form simply a caucus of moderate voters that members of all existing parties and unaffilliated citizens can join. It wouldn't win representation in its own name, but perhaps if it could reach consensus on some key points it could be effective in standing up to extremism or advocating for government action or inaction in appropriate areas. Mr. Fitzpatrick's civic movement would be a comparable model for this.

I'm not sure if this is the direction you want to go, but I offer it only as a suggestion. Even if this is simply an exercise to discuss what we like and don't like about the existing alternative it should prove useful.

Regards,

Jack Teano +

 

[unmerged(4271)]

For the sake of argument, let's not even use the word "extreme" or "extremist"....oh what the heck, I know I will sooner or later, but I'll do my best to avoid it for now.

Here are some things that I would suggest help define a moderate position from one that might be "too activist" to some Eutopians.

• 
  
  * Advocating for armed revolt against the government.
  
  * Overturning our republican form of government.
  
  * Outlawing a widely accepted practice (such as prohibiting the sale or manufacture of liquor).
  

What gets a little tricker is the issue of legalizing a previously illegal practice. That may not be a "radical" proposal, and in some cases may have a lot of merit, but if it was illegal it should be studied and some consensus reached before legalizing it.

Obviously there are exceptions. For example it was right to outlaw slavery, even if it was a a widely accepted practice in the agrarian communities on our island. As times and conditions change, laws need to change, but change for the sake of change is not always a good thing. Sometimes well intended changes may bring about results worse than the original situation due to complications unseen at the time of the idea's adoption. For example: nuclear power has many benefits, but in many cases no one could foresee the environmental risks posed by waste disposal and the safety precautions needed. Many plants could have been made safer, and built cheaper, if these had been studied before mass adoption.

I would also argue that a central plank for any moderate party would have to be fiscal responsibility. A government must provide essential services for its people but it must also live within its means. Short-term government debt may be necessary to fund important public works projects, but deficit spending should be avoided.

Personally, I think that some ideas are, on their face, radical and would be opposed by a true centrist party, such as closing our border to immigration. Yet I realize that some might argue that legalizing abortion or homosexual marriage could also be seen as just as radical. Thus, a moderate party need not, and probably should not, take a position on every issue: it must leave many divisive issues up to its members individual consciences.

It all comes back to what each individual is comfortable supporting. Though I like many of the ideas espoused by the RD, some of their causes make me uncomfortable or at least, in my opinion, merit a more cautious pace. Likewise, some things put forward by the old FR and new CC are appealling, though some are frighteningly shocking. I am even sympathetic to the social welfare protections sought by the ERSP, I just don't like the idea of car bombs.

Whether these ideas merit a new political party or not, I'd been looking for a soap box upon which to vent them, so thanks for letting me rant!

 

[unmerged(10971)]

Mr. Teano, I believe you have stated goals for this whatever-you-want-to-call-it (I still say it's a party) far better than I ever could have. If you would like, we can begin working on a platform immediately. Any others who wish to join in may do so, by the way.

 

[unmerged(6657)]

This party sounds like a good idea. I believe that we can attract disgruntled members of the Left and Right, who are dissatisfied with the radical elements of their party.

I also believe that the party should believe in "Dynamic Conservatism" i.e. we will be conservative with money, but liberal with people.

Dare say, I would be willing to join this party, if a party was formed.
I believe that the final party platform should be decided by the founders of the party, before they are presented for public consumption.

 

[unmerged(10971)]

Hmm. Four people have shown interest. Coincidentaly, that is exactly the amount needed for the party to be considered. I think that we are getting somewhere.

I also believe that the party should believe in "Dynamic Conservatism" i.e. we will be conservative with money, but liberal with people.

Yes! Exactly! If you have any more ideas, feel free to send them this way. This party is forming slowly but surely. I wouldn't have it any other way.

All: If you want to formally join, just send a PM my way, and you'll be added to the list.

 

[unmerged(6657)]

A suggestion for the name of the party could be the Zentrum. This is German for Center, and is the name of an old moderate German party. Of course our party initial would be Z, which would make it stand out from the other alphabet soup parties.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by UberYuber
I also believe that the party should believe in "Dynamic Conservatism" i.e. we will be conservative with money, but liberal with people.

Sorry for intruding once again, but I'm genuinely curious: if fiscal conservatism and social liberalism are (to be) the core of the MP's platform, what distinguishes your party from the LP?

A suggestion for the name of the party could be the Zentrum. This is German for Center, and is the name of an old moderate German party.

I take it you wish to appeal primarily to German-Eutopian Catholics?

Of course our party initial would be Z, which would make it stand out from the other alphabet soup parties.

The party of Zorro? Gives a whole new meaning to the term "party whip."

[OOC:

In general, and if it can be avoided at all, party names shouldn't be consciously copied from RL-parties. However, if you were to use, say, "Centre" or a derivative thereof, that should be fine. Except that "Centre" brings up all kinds of unpleasant Nikita-connotations which, if I were a party member, I wouldn't be too keen on. But then, that's probably just me. ]

 

[unmerged(10971)]

Originally posted by Melanchthon
Sorry for intruding once again, but I'm genuinely curious: if fiscal conservatism and social liberalism are (to be) the core of the MP's platform, what distinguishes your party from the LP?

Actually, Rev. Teano and I are working on the platform currently, and Mr. Yuber is welcome to join in any time, as is anyone else interested in this party. We don't have our platform up yet, so please stand by

And it is called the Moderate Party for a reason: We strive for moderation in all areas.

 

[unmerged(6657)]

OOC: The Z party is only a suggestion, as their is a literal alphabet soup of parties, and I think the party should stand out from MP, LP, CC, etc. Anyway, I don't think that the Universal Church has decided to set up a diocese on EUtopia.

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Originally posted by UberYuber
OOC: The Z party is only a suggestion, as their is a literal alphabet soup of parties, and I think the party should stand out from MP, LP, CC, etc. Anyway, I don't think that the Universal Church has decided to set up a diocese on EUtopia.

OOC: I'm venturing a bit off topic here, but the Roman Church DOES have Eutopian Diocese, or at least it did, but it seems to have lost its Bishop and faded from the scenes. You'll have to go back several days to find it.

Whether there's a religious aspect of the MP/Z is probably not as relevant right now, but maybe Mel was implying that we were forming a "Christian Democrats" type of party? Not sure.

Anyway, back to on-topic....

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Originally posted by Melanchthon

The party of Zorro? Gives a whole new meaning to the term "party whip."

Yes, the party of Zorro. 'Bout time someone stood up for the Latino-Eutopians. See that "Z" on the Monarchist's banner?

Originally posted by Melanchthon
Sorry for intruding once again, but I'm genuinely curious: if fiscal conservatism and social liberalism are (to be) the core of the MP's platform, what distinguishes your party from the LP?

So many critical questions, geez. I guess you guys feel the election is already over and you don't have to be nice to unaffilliated voters, huh?

Just kidding. I think there is a substantial difference but there may be some confusion due to the use of similar terms. I hope that these differences will be made clear when we unveil the core beliefs uniting the party, but for the sake of an immediate answer, let me offer this:

By fiscal conservatism, we don't mean "no government spending." By social liberalism we don't mean "no government regulation". We believe the government has a role in providing benefits for its citizens, in regulating business, and in policing individiuals. Government itself is not inherently bad or good, it is a tool that can be used poorly or well.

(OOC: I had typed out a much longer post, but decided it's probably better to further define this within the platform rather than here)


It means responsible budgeting. We are not in favor of simply lowering taxes to the barest level of governement functionality if that means having to sacrifice vital programs. Fiscal conservativism, I think as far as we define it, simply means exercising greater prudence and caution (i.e."Moderation) in policy making. It means conserving government revenues not necessarily slashing them. We don't want unneccesary, duplicative, or ineffective government programs, but we recognize the need for effective programs. We don't want to gamble with government revenues.


In terms of social liberalism, I do not think we mean "no government regulation of social affairs". To the contrary, I believe there is a recognition that government DOES have a role in providing basic services for its citizens and, when necessary, acting as a safety net. It also means policing individual behavior when such actions can be shown to be necessary for the common good. I do not think, for example, that it would be a priority of this party to legalize hard drug use. If you are thinking of social liberalism in terms of libertarianism, you are missing the direction of this party. I understand that what has been posted in these immediate discussions may not have been defined as clearly as necessary, but I hope that when you see a final document it will better answer these questions.

Just to make sure there is no doubt, there is, I believe, a vast difference between where this party stands and where the LP stands on a number of issues. But the same can be said of most of the parties. I think there are issues supported by the RDs we are strongly in favor of and others we are uncomfortable with, and the same would be true of the CC. That's why we have either left existing parties or never joined one.

It's our hope than some of us who have not found a party home that reflect our views can find the common ground necessary to form a new party. Please recognize that this is not a knee-jerk process and we need time to articulate our views. In due time we may deserve all the criticism you can heap upon us, but please recognize that what you are seeing so far is a work in progress.

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Originally posted by heagarty
So many critical questions, geez. I guess you guys feel the election is already over and you don't have to be nice to unaffilliated voters, huh?

My last question wasn't meant as a criticism. I appreciate you answering it in some detail. If this is indeed the direction the "party of Zorro" is going to take, I think there may be room for cooperation with the RD. I for one will follow your development with interest.

Whether there's a religious aspect of the MP/Z is probably not as relevant right now, but maybe Mel was implying that we were forming a "Christian Democrats" type of party? Not sure.

[OOC:

Not quite. Christian Democrats in Germany appeal both to Protestants and Catholics, whereas the old Zentrum was a Catholic party. I'm not implying that you are forming a religious or denominational party, I'm only implying that choosing a name such as "Zentrum" would, for historical reasons, suggest that yours is a Catholic party. In any case, as I said before, RL names should be avoided if at all possible. ]

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Based on the new rules, let's see if we can't rename this thread to allow it to be an outreach/recruitment thread and then create our own confidential HQ

After the elections, let's finish up our platform and see, based on the election results, what our next step should be.