[davesimondotcom]

What do you guys think of Unity '08?

Unity08 believes that neither of today’s major parties reflects the aspirations, fears or will of the majority of Americans. Both have polarized and alienated the people. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money.

For most of the 20th Century, the contest for the U.S. presidency was waged over those “in the middle.” Recent Presidential elections, however, have not been focused on the middle but on the turnout of each party’s special interest groups – with each party’s “base” representing barely ten percent of the American people.

We believe that, while the leaders of both major parties are well intentioned people, they are trapped in a flawed system – and that the two major parties are today simply neither relevant to the issues and challenges of the 21st Century nor effective in addressing them.

As a result, most Americans have not been enthusiastic about the choices for President in recent elections, the key issues they ran on, or the manner in which the campaigns were conducted.

That's their "What we believe" statement. Most of it "clicks" with me.

I think that their goals are worth persuing but I wonder if anything is going to change in 2008. I'd love to see it though.

They aren't a political party, really, just a group of people that want to make an impact on the system by "rocking the boat." Because they aren't a party, per se, they don't really have a platform or specific positions on the issues. They just want to shift things back towards the middle.

Unity08 on the Issues

Unity08 divides issues facing the country into two categories: Crucial Issues – on which America’s future safety and welfare depend; and Important Issues – which, while vital to some, will not, in our judgment, determine the fate or future of the United States.

In our opinion, Crucial Issues include: Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.

By contrast, we consider gun control, abortion and gay marriage important issues, worthy of debate and discussion in a free society, but not issues that should dominate or even crowd our national agenda.

In our opinion – since the disintegration of the Soviet Union – our political system seems to have focused more attention on the “important issues” than the “crucial issues.” One result: The political parties have been built to address the interests of their “base” but have failed to address the realities that impact most Americans.

Again, most of this clicks with me. Notice they don't take any specific stands on these crucial or important issues, but they do make a distinction that needs to be made.

I like it. I'm going to follow their progress and who knows, maybe I'll get involved.

Personally, I think both parties are being controlled too much by the extremes. Certain issues that continue to divide us are used by both because they stir up passion, get their "base" out and get them donation money.

Anyone else think this sounds worth following/joining? (I'm guessing that as divided as this board is, a thread about something called Unity '08 might be interesting to talk about, instead of the evils of Canada , Israel vs. Palestine, etc.)

I can wish for a Guliani/Leiberman ticket or something, can't I?

[BRussell]

It sounds fine, but I agree with most of that stuff, and they're all reasons that I'm a Democrat.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

It sounds fine, but I agree with most of that stuff, and they're all reasons that I'm a Democrat.

I think the point is to bring together Republicans and Democrats towards common goals. There are those common goals that we all have, but they get ignored in favor of left vs. right.

Basically, they are saying about the and and it makes them or so they want to bring people together rather than pushing them apart.

[subego]

What a disgusting little fascist marketing virus.

Most of it is blather. A bunch of inarguable, and hence totally useless, information.

Unable to disagree with something bereft of content, the "host" is in prime condition to receive uncritically the one actual piece of information encoded within:

By contrast, we consider gun control, abortion and gay marriage important issues, worthy of debate and discussion in a free society, but not issues that should dominate or even crowd our national agenda.

In other words, the "free" in "free society" can go **** itself.

Of course, this nauseating concept isn't introduced directly. It's presented as three distinct and separate issues. Reinforced by their seemingly intractable nature, each issue is intended to fail inarguably in comparison with their "Crucial" counterparts.

Long-term exposure to this could very well cause your immune system to expel a foul septic mucus.







I'm serious.

[RAILhead]

Well, I farted about halfway through the babble, so you may be onto something.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by subego

In other words, the "free" in "free society" can go **** itself.

I don't see what you are talking about here.

They are simply saying that right now, gun control, gay marriage and abortion are pet issues of both extremes that are brought out to motivate the extreme bases to donate money and get out the vote.

Yet, none of them are really all that important compared to the "crucial" issues they list. Issues where most Americans could find some middle ground that can be agreed on.

They are just trying to steer the direction of the debate towards the middle - bring people together in order to motivate people to vote instead of polarizing them.

I don't see how that is fascist.

[black bear theory]

gay marriage will not bring down the country, guns will not destroy US and abortion will not cripple america. i'm all for looking at the issues that could bring US down which, imo, will be related to energy and our economy.

this is not a political party? if they don't have some candidates and a couple million (billion?) dollars they won't stand a chance in our political system. they will be quickly marginalized by the political parties that do have that clout despite focusing on the middle and the issues that really matter.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

gay marriage will not bring down the country, guns will not destroy US and abortion will not cripple america. i'm all for looking at the issues that could bring US down which, imo, will be related to energy and our economy.

this is not a political party? if they don't have some candidates and a couple million (billion?) dollars they won't stand a chance in our political system. they will be quickly marginalized by the political parties that do have that clout despite focusing on the middle and the issues that really matter.

No, not a party. Just a group of people in the "middle" hoping to motivate those within that middle to make themselves a political force.

[lpkmckenna]

This "movement" seems pretty directionless. They say they are against "polarization." What a meaningless platitude. "Polarization" is an anti-concept.

If you are pro-choice, you are pro-choice. That's not "sucking up to their base," that's called taking a stand. So it is with any "issue."

The first election campaign of Bush was anything but "sucking up to the base constituents." His so-called "compassionate conservatism" was a carefully marketed suck-up to middle-of-the-road voters.

This "movement" is pretty pointless. But I don't care anyway. Not my country.

[lpkmckenna]

The genius of America is that every generation redefines freedom in its own terms for its own times. Unity08, in a tradition as old as our country itself, is committed to still another rebirth of freedom.

When a "movement" claims it wants to "redefine freedom," look out!

[subego]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I don't see what you are talking about here.

They are simply saying that right now, gun control, gay marriage and abortion are pet issues of both extremes that are brought out to motivate the extreme bases to donate money and get out the vote.

Yet, none of them are really all that important compared to the "crucial" issues they list. Issues where most Americans could find some middle ground that can be agreed on.

Each of these merely "important" issues are civil rights issues.

While they correctly identify that any single "important" issue is less important than any single "Crucial" issue, this is an intellectually dishonest argument. None of their "important" issues are analogous in scope to their "Crucial" issues. The argument isn't "Abortion" vs. "The Global War on Terror", it's "Civil Rights" vs. "The Global War on Terror".

Further, they highlight the endlessly contentious nature of these non-analogous "important" issues. As if contentiousness was ever a reason to stifle genuine debate.

So, yeah. Civil rights are a secondary issue, and they should stay that way because people argue about them? Sounds fascist to me.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by subego

Each of these merely "important" issues are civil rights issues.

While they correctly identify that any single "important" issue is less important than any single "Crucial" issue, this is an intellectually dishonest argument. None of their "important" issues are analogous in scope to their "Crucial" issues. The argument isn't "Abortion" vs. "The Global War on Terror", it's "Civil Rights" vs. "The Global War on Terror".

Further, they highlight the endlessly contentious nature of these non-analogous "important" issues. As if contentiousness was ever a reason to stifle genuine debate.

So, yeah. Civil rights are a secondary issue, and they should stay that way because people argue about them? Sounds fascist to me.

No, they aren't saying that "civil rights" are a secondary issue. What they are simply saying is that terrorism, national security, the national debt, etc. are issues that should be in the center of debate, and they aren't.

They are pointing out that these are issues that we can come together on, rather than polarize with.

Meanwhile, these other issues - gay marriage, abortion, gun control - are issues that both parties use to "motivate the base" and serve to continue to polarize people.

Look at it this way - why did the Republicans do well in 2004? Was it because of a super popular President with coattails? A popular war? No, it was agitating their base and getting them out to vote using the "gay marriage" issue.

Abortion has been an issue in elections on every level - local, state and federal for as long as I can remember. My dad was defeated in the Republican primary for State Auditor because he is pro-choice. The State Auditor has never and will probably never have ANYTHING to do with abortion.

In truth, there are very few races where any of those three issues have anything to do with the actual race. So why should it even be an issue in those elections??

I have a hard time believing you really think these people are fascists simply because they see some issues as more important than abortion. Really? Are you serious?

[subego]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I have a hard time believing you really think these people are fascists simply because they see some issues as more important than abortion. Really? Are you serious?

This frames the debate in such a manner as to be inarguable. The statement "some issues are more important than abortion" is a given.

The reason this is a given, as I've been arguing all along, is that at least within the context of their proposed taxonomy of issues, "issue" and "abortion" is a false analogy. Abortion isn't the issue, abortion is the test for how one interprets the issue, which in this case is state's rights, the right to privacy, and in a general sense, the relationship between theology and law. That people tend to debate (and care) far more about the test than the underlying issue, often to the point of farce, doesn't make that debate have any less bearing on said issue. This is why political careers unrelated to abortion are judged by the candidate's opinion on abortion. It's not just because people can't help but be all pissy with each other.

Framing the debate in this way isn't particularly fascist on it's own, but when all the "issues" they propose as secondary turn out to follow the same pattern of "contentious euphemism for what is in practical terms a civil rights issue", I get suspicious.