LoAmmo
Member
Or, since it's a third party in America, is it doomed at the starting gate?
As one might expect, especially in its early days, their "platform" as such is decidedly vague--long on empty platitudes and short on concrete specific details or sharply-defined policy stances. Which is probably smart, if they don't want to give curious onlookers an immediate easy out and excuse to dismiss it out of hand. If they don't really say anything, they can't say anything too wrong.
About the most specific things they seem to be advocating are ranked-choice voting, open primaries, "the end of gerrymandering," and nationwide protection of voting rights.
Granted, I'm sure any diehard Conservatives are going to see "protection of voting rights," immediately determine that such would include black and brown people, throw up in their mouths a little bit, and chalk off this new party as a liberal joke, never to be contemplated again. Diehard Liberals are sure to find some immediate deal-breaker phrasing in some other plank of their emerging platform. But, then again, diehards at either end of the spectrum are surely not the targeted audience.
Supposedly, according to this new party, 62% of Americans now want a third party.
And as deeply divided as America has become, and split into just-short-of-warring camps over hot-button issues like abortion, gun control, LGBTQ issues and others, I could believe that there's a significant middle ground to be had, IF a new third party could carefully cultivate it. A big IF, for sure. But I have to believe there DOES exist an overlooked, non-hysterical, un-radicalized "middle" that offers a retreat from the extremist fringes of both parties; room for people who recoil from both the MTG's AND the AOC's of the political world.
What could be different this time around is the timing. I've never before thought of third parties (or, more accurately, "third-party candidates," like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader) to be a legitimate force, capable of playing anything but a spoiler role, siphoning off some votes from what ostensibly should have been their declared party. (Like Perot siphoning off votes from George Bush, or Ralph Nader taking votes from Al Gore.)
I think if this new one could coalesce around a concept rather than a personality, it would have a better chance of being taken seriously and actually gaining some traction. (On a side note, I wouldn't have named it the "Forward" Party, if for no other reason than "forward" seems roughly synonymous with "progressive," and even that might be enough of a turn-off for even moderate Republicans. Something innocuous like the "Liberty Party" or "Heritage Party" or something like that might come across more neutral.)
Could the time be right for such a thing to take off, and make a meaningful difference?
(CNN) A group of former Republican and Democratic officials are forming a new political party called Forward, in an attempt to appeal to what they call the "moderate, common-sense majority."
"Political extremism is ripping our nation apart, and the two major parties have failed to remedy the crisis," David Jolly, Christine Todd Whitman and Andrew Yang wrote in a Washington Post op-ed published Wednesday. "Today's outdated parties have failed by catering to the fringes. As a result, most Americans feel they aren't represented."
Forward Party
The Forward Party is fighting for the American people with practical, common-sense solutions. Join us on the most critical mission of our era - building the foundation for a representative and stable democracy. Not left. Not right. FORWARD.
www.forwardparty.com
As one might expect, especially in its early days, their "platform" as such is decidedly vague--long on empty platitudes and short on concrete specific details or sharply-defined policy stances. Which is probably smart, if they don't want to give curious onlookers an immediate easy out and excuse to dismiss it out of hand. If they don't really say anything, they can't say anything too wrong.
About the most specific things they seem to be advocating are ranked-choice voting, open primaries, "the end of gerrymandering," and nationwide protection of voting rights.
Granted, I'm sure any diehard Conservatives are going to see "protection of voting rights," immediately determine that such would include black and brown people, throw up in their mouths a little bit, and chalk off this new party as a liberal joke, never to be contemplated again. Diehard Liberals are sure to find some immediate deal-breaker phrasing in some other plank of their emerging platform. But, then again, diehards at either end of the spectrum are surely not the targeted audience.
Supposedly, according to this new party, 62% of Americans now want a third party.
And as deeply divided as America has become, and split into just-short-of-warring camps over hot-button issues like abortion, gun control, LGBTQ issues and others, I could believe that there's a significant middle ground to be had, IF a new third party could carefully cultivate it. A big IF, for sure. But I have to believe there DOES exist an overlooked, non-hysterical, un-radicalized "middle" that offers a retreat from the extremist fringes of both parties; room for people who recoil from both the MTG's AND the AOC's of the political world.
What could be different this time around is the timing. I've never before thought of third parties (or, more accurately, "third-party candidates," like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader) to be a legitimate force, capable of playing anything but a spoiler role, siphoning off some votes from what ostensibly should have been their declared party. (Like Perot siphoning off votes from George Bush, or Ralph Nader taking votes from Al Gore.)
I think if this new one could coalesce around a concept rather than a personality, it would have a better chance of being taken seriously and actually gaining some traction. (On a side note, I wouldn't have named it the "Forward" Party, if for no other reason than "forward" seems roughly synonymous with "progressive," and even that might be enough of a turn-off for even moderate Republicans. Something innocuous like the "Liberty Party" or "Heritage Party" or something like that might come across more neutral.)
Could the time be right for such a thing to take off, and make a meaningful difference?