The Whig Party Returns!!

well I do not know if this is old news or not, but here you go: http://www.votegene.com/whig-party-revival-continues-with-announcement-of-two-additional-congressional-candidates/

edited 9th Feb '11 11:50:22 PM by NickTheSwing

These guys might just have my vote when I see their platform.. A veterans party.. Finally.

And getting a firefighter into office would be pretty sweet.

I don't have any illusions about them getting into office anytime soon, but the idea of a real vet in the oval office is appealing enough to me to throw my support to them.

Neat - sounds like a down-to-earth alternative for those that are disenfranchised with the Repubs, and don't want all the craziness of the Tea Party nutjobs.

I'll have to keep my eye on it.

Plus, "Whig" sounds groovily old-school.

I wouldn't vote for them, but at least they seem reasonable and rational.

Why wouldn't you vote for them?

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't vote for them because of all the Fair Tax stuff. It's an idea I really don't like because one of the obvious results of it would be to further inflate various investment bubbles, and I think that comes with a whole list of moral hazard issues. I think that overheating of investment markets puts unrealistic pressure on companies to have growth to match the bubble growth, which is often very difficult to do in a stable, reasonable fashion and this often has huge negative consequences for the economy at large.

Now a Fair Tax with a significant surtax on capital gains...we can talk about that :)

Because I'm not a moderate. I'm far-left.

I don't begrudge them. I just don't share their ideals, that's all.

First time I'm seeing a third party that's actually appealing. Hopefully they at least get elected at the city level.

This is everything the Tea Party movement is supposed to be.

I'm not a major US history buff, but weren't the Whigs originally less about ideology and more about keeping the presidential power in the hands of the wealthy, New-England types? (i.e. not Andrew Jackson)

The historical Whigs were about:

• Power to Congress, not the President (which would have put them at odds with Jackson, yes)
• Industrial modernization
• Economic protectionism
• Public education

Whereas the Modern Whig Party is defined by centrism and moderation.

The historical Whigs were arguably the progressive opponents to the conservative Democrats, but that's simplifying things and applying modern political ideas to 200-year-old politics.

^

This.

Regardless, their stance seems to be exactly what I've been looking for, and if they hold true to what they seem to want to preach, centrism and moderation, then they are already better than both alternatives.

A group that focuses on education, modernization, and also being as thrifty as possible with money? Hells yeah. That means we could have a party that cares about alternative energy, better manufacturing methods, and education of the masses, but wants to be realistic about it and avoid spending us into the ground.

So, I looked over their website and I'm not all that impressed. My first impression would be to think they are Tea Party Republicans in another guise. The thing about science education and support for veterans is nice, but all politicians already support that or at least pay lip service to it. And similarly, they do have a mention of the government staying out of personal lives, but that's also something that tends to be given lip service- not clear to what extent this party actually is more socially liberal than Republicans.

I also see a mention in the platform of a "productivity-backed currency". Am I misunderstanding, or is this likely the typical "return to the gold standard" craziness?

edited 10th Feb '11 9:12:25 AM by Jordan

Depending on how it's meant, it could also mean manufacturing. It's a weasel word.

Modernization of Industry is one of their goals, so that might be what they meant.

It's not that they will be more socially liberal than the Republicans, I think the Whig party will just be pretty much absent from opinions on social issues.

AND IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME! I'm sick of abortion and gay rights having the spotlight when way more important shit that could cause the country to fail goes along unnoticed.

Hear, hear!

Gays being barred from marriage may not destroy the country, but civil rights are always important. We're able to focus on more than one thing at once, after all.

Could have fooled me.

I'm still holding out for Guns 'n' Dope.

So we should just forget about civil rights until the economy is perfect and we're not at war with anyone?

Yeah, they might be the most important issue in the country if you're gay(and I support gay rights), but it'll never get resolved if our country goes fucking bankrupt and eats itself alive.

I care about social issues, but social issues aren't as important as crippling economic and foreign policies problems that the US happens. And one of the reasons these things are problems is because the American media, public, and politicians, have all been ignoring them in favor of social policy arguments because it's a simpler concept to stir the hearts of voters with.

Enough of this bullshit. Social issues can wait for a few terms, we need to regain our stability and get on track, or we don't have a future in the first place. All this focus on social issues ends up blinding the populace from the even more important issues because everyone argues and worries about those.(and as I've said, it's not that social issues aren't important, but our priorities are backwards)

So people pick a candidate with a social platform they like, even if the economic platform is a stinking pile of dogshit.

edited 10th Feb '11 11:01:48 AM by Barkey

That's not what I implied in the least, but when gay rights or abortion gets mentioned BAM it's the ONLY thing talked about EVER and anything else important that happens gets buried under the headlines of gay rights and abortion.

edited 10th Feb '11 11:01:35 AM by Bur

Yeah, for those of us who aren't gay or vehemently pro-life or pro-choice, this is obnoxious as fuck. It's like watching the entire nation sliding off the cliff while everybody argues about something else that has nothing to do with the cliff-sliding destruction-ness.

I'm sorry, but can you imagine if we put the Civil Rights Movement on hold until Vietnam was over? Or granted women universal suffrage only after World War I? It's really easy to say these things when you're not part of a marginalized group, but people outside your window are being oppressed, and we can't put their rights on hold. We are able to do these things while working on the economy and foreign policy.

"Or granted women universal suffrage only after World War I"

Uh, didn't we?

I agree with your point, but noticed that.

This is especially disturbing in campaigns. You can have a candidate who's a perfect glowing paragon of efficiency, squeaky clean background, someone whose charisma could raise the dead and agree with someone's every stance on every issue... except gay rights or abortion. And that will make that person vote for the other candidate regardless of what else they're like. It's a bit ridiculous.