Storage Development Engineer, Dell Computer

This conversation is closed.

A new political party needs to be formed in the US that focuses upon the commonalities between the left and the right.

There are many shared goals between the left and right political agendas in the US, but contemporary media ignores this truth in order to perpetuate conflict for the purpose of monetary success. We need strong leadership from both sides to bridge the divide over the issues that perpetuate an ineffective goverment such as corporate sponsorship of politicians and no term limits. Both are examples of issues where you will find a great degree of popular support for change from both sides.

  • thumb
    Oct 29 2011: I think you're right. What I'd like to see is a leader from the Occupy Wall Streeters meet with a leader from the Tea Party and search for common ground. It's time. If these two sectors could come together on even just a few things, it could be a start.
    • thumb
      Oct 29 2011: "a leader from the Occupy Wall Streeters meet with a leader from the Tea Party and search for common ground."

      not a bad idea might i say.
  • thumb
    Oct 29 2011: I fully agree, Michael. A new party, or more, is necessary to break the polarization in America. I differ with you slightly in that I think it's the parties themselves that perpetuate the conflict, not just the media. Clearly, the pundits are no help, however. Not to mention, campaign finance reform. It's encouraging to see citizens beginning to get the full picture, however. It seems to me the spin is losing its sparkle, and reasonable people are beginning to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    I hope the day soon comes when we're willing to collectively take an honest look at the complexity of how the machine runs, from a systems perspective while eliminating ideologies. It seems so obvious, yet insurmountable.

    I've spent years facilitating the most polarized of conflicts - between environmentalists, public lands ranchers and Native American tribes, or opposing political groups, labor and corporations, community conflicts, etc. I am continuously baffled when remembering how often I was called in by congressional representatives to resolve conflicts between polarized groups, who said their primary goal and concern was finding solutions that worked for the whole. It sure doesn't seem they feel that way now.
  • Nov 5 2011: The only shared goals of the majority of politicians is greed. There are only a handful of honest ones but the agenda does not server the public at large. So long as Lobbyists and PAC's influence politicians there will never be public interests served first and foremost. It is not about party - it's about the policies that have been promoted behind closed doors which serve corporate interest. Whether it's a CEO, CFO, Hedge Fund Manager, Oil/Gas/Nuclear Executive or Politician who gets things done for them, it is the greed of these individuals who drive current policy The everyday people need to make things happen because history has repeated itself.
  • Nov 1 2011: The largest problem with the whole system is that we can only vote for 1 of 2 leaders come election time for president, and the fact that the president, who we choose as our leader, is mostly a pawn.
  • Oct 31 2011: I agree. I started 2 new political parties. One is called the PARTY PARTY and one is called the POWER PARTY. You are cordially invited to join either or both. We are running one male and one female to be CO-PRESIDENTS. Feel free to make nominations. Hey, it's a big country.
  • Oct 31 2011: Hi Michael!
    Question, if the left and the right have shared goals, then why are they fighting so much? Why are we always so close to a government shut down? In this day and age, only a dork, would believe the media. WE need a leader, that can be strong enough, to not be bought! $$$$$ (yes or no?) It comes down to power. A human gets a taste of it and said human goes vampyre. :) With Respect to You!
    • Nov 1 2011: My point is that if there is a group that hasn't been bought by the companies that have already bought the Repubs and Dems, they can do whats right for the good of the country. The "Left and Right" only share opposing views because of what companies are in their wallets. I agree that money is what changes politics to working for the few rather than the many.

      I also firmly believe that any leader that isnt bought, will not be very liked by those with money and will probably end up like JFK and Lincoln.
      • Nov 1 2011: Well, I can't argue with any of what you just said!! It kinda makes ya think, that maybe a government isn't really a government but a corporate institution, with corporate holdings from all over the world? (does that make sense?) :)
  • Oct 30 2011: The problem with political parties, is that as soon as one has an idea that is worth consideration and could give a party the edge over another party, it will automatically be shut down by other parties. Whether there are 2, or 10, people will always oppose that which makes others look successful. That is exactly why we are in the problem we are in today.

    As people try to introduce new parties that could be successful, they are automatically labeled as "communists" or "Nazis" by people like Ann Coultier or other media profiles that try to keep their party alive.

    I have long imagined a new party named "The Founding Sons". A party that concentrates on bringing the country back to where it was during the age of our founding fathers. Concentrating mainly on the ideas that George Washington put forth during his Farewell Address that we were too quick to abandon. I have hopes that this party will accept zero contributions from corporations so the decisions made are based solely on the idea of helping the majority. With technology today, getting your political views, ideas, and future policies out through Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and other social media makes campaigning easier than ever.

    Some people would look at this as an immature way of campaigning but it is the campaign of the future. No mroe need for billion dollar campaigns. I could do a country-wide tour for under a million dollars and get all of my beliefs out to my followers just through the internet, only holding speeches so that I can be asked questions in person, on the dot. But i could also answer questions through internet conferences also.

    The 2 party system needs to be changed, and introducing a new party will help, but it needs to be done by an organized mass, like those who organized OWS and the Tea Party, but without the inability to compromise.
  • thumb
    Oct 29 2011: I have been thinking about political parties in America and anywhere in the world for a while now and I believe there is no need for them. Yes, there is no need for political parties. The reason is that citizens should be open minded about a canidate and the canidate's ideas. When we group people into parties we automatically create a bias against that person (good or bad). This can prevent canidates who obviously are much more qualified to become a leader from actually being a leader. If I am part of an unpopular party at the time, then of course people will be naturally less likely to vote for me.
    • thumb
      Oct 30 2011: There is great merit to that idea, but there is a risk that a cult of personality might arise from it. I suggest maybe having parties that define themselves in other ways then left/right Democrat/Republican. Although the problem is always that people are secretly allergic to change.
    • Oct 31 2011: That solution is not an option in US politics. Parties are considered free speech and cannot be removed without an unpopular constitutional change. I do particularly agree that primaries detract from the function of choosing the right candidate and some states have been successful in removing them.
  • thumb
    Oct 29 2011: it is an inspiring idea- though both sides are guilty of ideological disagreement, that is, disagreement for the sake of disagreement, not because you genuinely think that the idea is a bad one.
    Think of Obama's healthcare bill, the very same conservatives who oppose it today put forward an idea very much like it in response to Hillary Clinton's attempt to create a public healthcare option.
    In the UK, I have seen David Cameron say something general and optimistic like 'Let's show the world some fight' and left-wingers will bash it just because it came from his mouth.
    How do we get around this?
  • Oct 29 2011: Modern political language is riddled with double and opposite meaning words so much so that they hardly should be called ‘words’ at all.
    Until we get the language sorted it’s like asking two people at the tower of Babel to have a chat to sort things out. If two people at Babel had a chat in different languages and they knew they were talking different languages they could communicate using sign language and the like. But if they were using the same language and understood different meanings for the same words – what we have now – then this really does mess up communication. The ancient Greeks had it that “Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad” the Old Testament in the tower of Babel story had it : Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first wrecked their language
  • Oct 29 2011: I always have problem with the words “Left” and “Right” when used in politics :
    Politics is mainly split between Centralisers and De-Centralisers (Big Government and Small Government). They say that Hitler was Right wing but he was well into big Government of the order of Stalin and the likes – who they tell me is left wing. For two such equals, if you are to have a political language that is fit for purpose, then that language needs to be using the same word for both of these blokeseverytime all the time - Given that Hitler left the word “Socialist” inside the name of his NAZI party : “The National Socialist Party” it is arguably better to call Hitler a left winger – however as the words Left and Right are so empty now because of years of mis-use it’s just better to drop using them all together and use words and maybe even whole sentence and pictures to explain what you mean when you say something.
    If the people you suggest should talk do talk – if they use the old language (left right etc) they will tell each other that they disagree with each other when might actually agree if they understood what the other was really saying – and they might tell each other that they agree when they disagree : The word “Freedom” is one of these “false agreement” words : Everyone says they agree with it but one person thinks they should have the “Freedom to do what they want to whom they want” - Freedom to run drugs and control ‘their street’, freedom to kill or harm members of ‘their’ family – wife beatings – my wife , “honour killing” – my sister, abortion – my baby… Others will use the word Freedom in it’s original sense : “Freedom from” being hurt, frightened or killed rather than “Freedom to” hurt frighten and kill – so here again we need a ‘New’ word - the old one is so corrupted it’s useless as a form of communication