Organize Now. Candidates Later

Some question our suggestion the Future Party start with building organizations in every state led by experienced political workers supported by eager volunteers.  Once established, candidates can then vie in the conventions for the party’s Nominations.  We are well aware of the fact that successful new parties have been built around a personality such as Macron in France and Beppe Grillo in Italy.  The problem is we already have gone down that road with Donald Trump’s take over of the Republican Party.   We feel the best counter to a personality cult party is to offer an alternative. Instead of a disruptive erratic leader, offer quiet competence and solid policies.  After four or god forbid eight years of constant noise and acrimony on both sides, the country just might be tired of it. The better bet for a new party is to offer something quite different.  Further, whatever name personalities out front in the beginning may define the party in ways that turn off would be adherents. The better way is provide a framework potential candidates can see themselves coming out on top in what would initially be three-way races.  If potential candidates see a path forward they will come.  Think of each our two major parties as rivers fed by an extreme stream and a more moderate stream.  Now, mainly do to the primary system and extremes dominating the media, the moderate streams are dammed and out of the flow. Like water, the build up of blocked talented people will find somewhere to go if exists.  We just have to provide a way for these moderate streams to come together to form a mighty new river.

Another criticism is the lack of a statement of principles or platform.  We believe people will gravitate to the Future Party because they are convinced their present extreme parties are headed in the wrong direction and are incapable of solving our pressing problems. Many present independents have already came to that conclusion. Out of control spending, a badly broken immigration system, individual concerns over healthcare and parental leave issues and our political and economic relationship with the rest of the world are just some issues the two present parties have failed to positively address. On these issues there is wide agreement on general principles needed to resolve the problems.  Better to let the new party members themselves come together on a platform they feel they can succeed on. By coming together they would show they can come up with workable plans.  This could appeal to a majority of American and would show the nation who the adults in the room are.  Also, if we set forth a platform in advance we stand to turn off a wide swath of potential party members.

Continue reading

The Future Party 4

Chicken or egg, where does a new party start?  Worldwide many parties have started around charismatic leaders but given Trump already has the Republican Party do we really need another cult masquerading as a political party?  Yet without a viable candidate can a party get off the ground?  In 2016 the Libertarian Party on paper had a viable ticket with two successful former governors.  The reality of the top of the ticket’s  unfamiliarity with Aleppo, a Syrian city then under bloody siege exposed a lack of knowledge or staff work or both.  Libertarian disinterest in foreign involvement was exposed in the most unsettling manner.  Even against maybe the two most disliked Presidential candidates, the Libertarians made hardly a ripple.  While on the ballot in all states, no mean feat, they just didn’t  have the organization and financing to be competitive. Without it they couldn’t attract winning candidates.

The young Republican Party didn’t come into existence just to elect its first presidential candidate, John C. Fremont. Rather, it was founded over opposition of slavery’s extension into new territories by disgruntled Whigs and free soil Democrats not being heard by the two dominate parties at the time.  First they organized at the state level starting in 1854 and then held their national conventions in 1856 nominating Fremont as their first  Presidential candidate. This gave a home for those politicians uncomfortable or overlooked in their old parties to have a path forward in the new party.  This  empowered  legions of voters not aligned with the agrarian slave holding interests.  The last truly successful party was built from the ground up. It found its leaders along the way.

Continue reading

Of Pizzas & Cakes

The Supreme Court decision in favor of the owner of the Masterpiece Bakery who refused to bake a custom designed wedding cake for a gay couple.  He had explained his refusal on religious and free speech grounds. His victory wasn’t based on any rights but turned on the animus of the commissioners. As such it settled nothing. This got us to thinking about our 4/2/15 post We’re Confused about Indiana.   Re-reading this post  relating to  a persecuted pizza shop, we still think we were on the right track but realized we had missed the major point.  Simply, the vast majority of these types of cases should-be been immediately tossed out of court.  Hear us out.  In April, New York attorney Steven Molo turned down a request to represent President Trump.  A top-notch attorney was needed to replace the then lead attorney John Dowd and the well credentialed Molo fit the bill, but he said no. He didn’t have explain.  Even the President couldn’t demand his personal service  No was sufficient. Now imagine if President Trump had approached clothing designer Calvin Klein to design his inauguration wardrobe and Calvin said no.  Could the President sue to compel  Klein’s performance in his service?  Obviously not!  There never was a “meeting of the minds” so no contract.  Further the 13th amendment precludes involuntary servitude and even if the President really pushed, coercion doesn’t work under our law. Simply in either case, you can’t demand personal performance.  They could just say no and that’s the end of it.  Did Molo and Klein have to give any reason for their refusal?  No, unless they wanted to but it would be immaterial. Even the President isn’t legally owed an explanation. No is no and that’s the end of it.  But what if either or both said they refused on religious grounds? Say, they’re Catholics and Trump  is unrepentant Presbyterian. Could the President then take his case to the local civil right commission?  Of course not.  This would mean people could be stripped of their right to say no simply because they mentioned 1st amendment rights.  This would lead to the absurdity of losing a right simply by bringing up another constitutional right.  This would be turning the law on its head. Yet, this is exactly where we are. Now, the President has every right to go to Amazon and purchase any book on the law or anything else Molo wrote or go into Macy’s and purchase Calvin Klein branded clothes.  These are offered to all for sale and cash payment completes the contract.  This is general commerce and Molo and Klein can do nothing legally to prevent these sales.  However,  general commerce is different from personal unique services and products and we have always recognized the difference.  One apples and the other oranges.

There are excellent reasons for this distinction. It protects both parties. It protects people from unwarranted demands for their personal skills.  Also, it protects people from foolishly forcing the produce of people who have less than their best interests at heart.  Imagine a President Trump on inauguration day realizing he’s being mocked for an ill-fitting ugly suit.  Worse being perp-walked out of the white house after impeachment and realizing Nolo just might not have given his best advice and efforts.  Further, it prevents the inevitable litigation that would arise and that certainly is in the courts interest.

Continue reading

The Future Party 3

How realistic is it a new successful major party could actually come into existence?  With any new product, the first question, is there a market for it?  While on the surface overwhelmingly Republicans appear to be Trump supporters.  The Wall Street Journal /NBC polling put Trump’s approval rating among Republicans is 80% to 15% disapproval.  Looks as if Republicans and Trump are synonymous. However, the poll dug deeper to show only 54% favor Trump over party while 40% favor party over Trump.  While Trunpists are clearly a majority of in the party, a sizable put party above Trump.  Conversely, The Liberal dominated Democrats are near unanimous is their opposition to Trump 91%  to 7%. Yet while those Democrats considering themselves liberals has grown to 51%, 47% consider themselves moderate/conservative.  Serious minorities in both parties are less than enthusiastic Trumpists or liberals even though they’re not dominant in either party.  This means the candidates put forth by the dominant wings of their respective parties may not reflect their views and desires.  Given the extreme wings control of primaries they aren’t likely to get such candidates reflecting them  any time in the future.

So what, you might say.  They’re just minorities and minorities don’t win.  Remember we’ve just mentioned Democrats and Republicans, but according to the latest Gallup Poll, Republicans make up only 24% of the population while the Democrats are marginally better at 29%.  Fully 45% are independents. These are people refusing to identify with either party let alone with their extreme wings. Taken together with the party minorities it appears there is major part of the voting public not fully served by the candidates of the two major parties.  This is a market worth pursuing.

Continue reading

The “Future Party” Continued

Given our two major parties either are in alignment on major policies or in silent agreement to keep certain hot button issues at the boiling point, a little competition might be expected to come in to take advantage of an under served market. There actually are people who have noticed continuing down our present fiscal path can only end in disaster.  The only question is when.  Maybe they’ve noticed our rapidly aging population and realize it is also on the verge of declining.  Just to keep our social programs going we need more not fewer people.  Free markets have raised millions and millions of people out of grinding poverty and some recognize this and fear the effects of a reversal.   We live in a shrinking world and it’s unreasonable to think we can be a walled off “Big Switzerland.” Most don’t want to be asked if they’re pro-life or pro-choice when they’re actually somewhere in the middle.  Instead of endless fruitless fighting  about guns many are asking if all these people knew the perpetrators of these mass murders were disturbed or had mental problems why was d nothing was done?  All these people just might be asking “where do I go to find somebody to represent my views?”

Progressives may feel they have won the culture wars, but the backlash has contributed mightily to the fact Democrats control very little that matters.  Further it has greatly contributed to the nations ugly divide.  An update of William Graham Sumner’s “Forgotten Man” might be illuminating.  In his 1876 essay he put it in algebraic terms,

As soon as A observes something which seems to him wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X, or, in better case, what A, B, and C shall do for X… What I want to do is to look up C. I want to show you what manner of man he is. I call him the Forgotten Man. perhaps the appellation is not strictly correct. he is the man who never is thought of…. I call him the forgotten man… He works, he votes, generally he prays—but he always  pays…”

Continue reading