The Problem With Primaries

[Captain Jack Harkness]

Okay, so I've noticed a trend with politicians.  Politicians are generally sane and reasonable people from my observations - stop laughing - but thanks to our political system and the whole "you have to win your party's nomination in the primaries, they have to go off the deep end to get a nomination.  It happens to both sides too, so I don't want people pretending this is a problem that only Republicans have.  Seriously.  To win the party nominations, candidates sacrifice sanity to appeal to those some of the nuttier people in their party.  Of course, in some races this problem has been much worse (see Romney/Ryan 2012).

I think the whole thing stinks for the nation.  Most people are sane.  That's why they have to dial it back for the general election, and most time that costs them as they look inconsistent.  I really wish ideologues didn't have the power they do in our nation.  Of course, sometimes candidates are being unintentionally honest and aren't just pandering.  With our fucked up system, though, it's hard as fuck to tell.

By the way, if you're wondering what spurred this topic, i think it was Rick Perry sounding sane on CNN.  Yes, the same "succession" Perry.  Hell, plenty of people called McCain a nice guy before he went to douchebag mode for 2008.  Our political system poisons the well, though.  If they're sane, they have no chance in fuck to get the primary nomination.  I think it's fucking bullshit.

[chitoryu12]

So what's your alternate concept?

[Lt. Fred]

Which 'insane' beliefs did Obama have to adopt to win the primary in 2008?

[Captain Jack Harkness]

Which 'insane' beliefs did Obama have to adopt to win the primary in 2008?

I said it was worse depending on the person or race.  I'm sure Obama said some stupid things to appeal to the left, but I'd have to go back and look.

[Joey]

I can't say I agree with this. By "sane" it sounds like what you really mean is centrist. If only centrists were allowed to be in serious contention for national elections, all our politicians would be the same and we would have less variety.  It would shut out those who dared to think outside the box, which would cause society to stagnate and not evolve. The greatest revolutionaries in history were not those who just appealed to the mainstream but those who were willing to think outside the box.

[Askold]

"Centrism" does not mean boring and bland. It is a political stance just like the "right-wing" and "left-wing."

I think that the biggest problem with your politics is that only one person will win each area. This means that the one who wins will have, what? 51% of the votes? Unless if there were more candidates and it could be less than 50%. This can mean that most of the voters don't get the representative they wanted. If there were more than one person elected from each are you could increase that percentage, maybe make the voting areas bigger to compensate this, but this might also mean that since more than one person from the area gets elected there might actually be a third party that gets elected representatives.

[Lt. Fred]

What's the basis for the ideological belief called centrism, the bottom-line make-or-break belief? For liberalism, it's human liberty. For conservatism it's human security (maintaining the status quo is seen as strengthening social norms and therefore preventing disaster). What about centrism? Human security as well, but with political compromise and friendly political discourse seen as the basis for stable institutions?

[Askold]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-centrism.htm

Every article will at some point say that centrism is hard to define. Usually merely saying that centrist policies are about "consencus" and "pragmatism" but just because a centrist isn't leaning into any of the "wing" movements does not mean that he is trying to find some sort of mathematical center line.

If I had to find some "make-or-break belief" I guess it would be that going into any of the extremes has usually had catastrofic results. Communism? Name any society bigger than a village that has managed to keep it from becoming a dictatorship/oligarchy. Statism and right? We saw how monarchies and fascists states often end up (or start) with crazy dictators. Having elected officials with only a limited time in power will at least let the voters get rid of the loonies (because even democracies sometimes vote for crazy or just bad leaders.) I guess that leaves the libertarians... I don't see how that society would work. Without a social safety network the weak and poor would either perish or be preyed upon (and in a libertarian paradise corporations could exploit their employees without reprise.) It would create a society where the rich get richer and others have so rough start, with the odds stacked agaist them, that despite what libertarians claim not everyone will have a equal opportunity for success.

[Captain Jack Harkness]

What's the basis for the ideological belief called centrism, the bottom-line make-or-break belief? For liberalism, it's human liberty. For conservatism it's human security (maintaining the status quo is seen as strengthening social norms and therefore preventing disaster). What about centrism? Human security as well, but with political compromise and friendly political discourse seen as the basis for stable institutions?

Centrists are like the Atheists of politics, as I see it.  They have their principals, but they're not going to hardline something based on some undying principal if they're wrong.  Of course, we're talking about the nonmilitant atheists, of course.  Hm.  They might also be like the Episcopalians of politics.

I dunno.  I was just trying to make an analogy.

[Joey]

(and in a libertarian paradise corporations could exploit their employees without reprise.)

I would argue that in a truly free market there would be no such thing as corporate personhood, since in order to have that the state must actively intervene by creating a law establishing such and continuously facilitate it. In a society without it, small businesses would end up with a higher percentage of the market share in any market. (Abolishing corporate personhood is not part of the Libertarian Party's platform; their platform would probably be more attractive if it were.)

This isn't to say that there still wouldn't be problems due to the lack of a safety net. But I wouldn't have any problem with a generally libertarian society that did have a social safety net in place.

[chitoryu12]

What's the basis for the ideological belief called centrism, the bottom-line make-or-break belief?

There IS none. Centrists don't attach themselves to any specific party line and vote on issues based on whatever they personally feel is appropriate.

[Lt. Fred]

I despise the Political Spectrum idea. Ideology is not solely a matter of degree. Ideology is a matter of different objectives, different stresses, different fears, a different way of thinking- not just the preferred tax rate. The latter is caused by the former.

What's the basis for the ideological belief called centrism, the bottom-line make-or-break belief?

There IS none. Centrists don't attach themselves to any specific party line and vote on issues based on whatever they personally feel is appropriate.

Then it's not an ideology. Simple as that.

[chitoryu12]

Then it's not an ideology. Simple as that.

.....what kind of point are you trying to make here?

[Lt. Fred]

"Centrism" does not mean boring and bland. It is a political stance just like the "right-wing" and "left-wing." 

This claim is incorrect. Centrism is not a political stance, just like right and left (heavily associated with conservative and liberal or fascist and Marxist). Centrism is completely unlike those 'stances' in that it does not have an ideological foundation. In my view, that makes it less important and, frankly, unserious.

[Askold]

"Centrism" does not mean boring and bland. It is a political stance just like the "right-wing" and "left-wing." 

This claim is incorrect. Centrism is not a political stance, just like right and left (heavily associated with conservative and liberal or fascist and Marxist). Centrism is completely unlike those 'stances' in that it does not have an ideological foundation. In my view, that makes it less important and, frankly, unserious.

Incorrect. Just because a centrist does not drive towards right/left/whatever does not mean that centrism isn't a political stance. Do you also argue that there aren't people who are left-center or left-right politically? If a person feels that politically he supports traditional "leftist" values does that automatically mean that he also wants to overthrow the goverment and set up the dictatorship of the proletariat so that they can move to true communism? There are moderates and there are people who believe that though a certain ideology in its purest form does not work it might have some merit and some of it could actually be beneficial.

Besides, as I said before, I do not believe that any of the extremes are good form of goverment. I see some merit in big goverment and social safety network but not so far that I would be willing to eradicate peoples personal freedom and free market (with some laws and regulation) is also a thing I support. It is not that I don't have a political stance, it is that my views on different things vary and together with my more "moderate" beliefs centrism is closer to what I support than any of the extremes.

Sometimes the world just isn't black and white.

And purely out of curiousity, where do you put yourself politically?