What does it mean to be a Federalist?

[Potus]

Friends,
    We're going to be hearing a lot about how the Federalist Party is doomed because of this specific election result or that result. Today's headlines, however, will not be tomorrow's history. We are presented, as Chairman Yankee has said, with a great opportunity to grow and to achieve a new level of success as a party.

     I have proposed two new policy ideas in the convention thread that address issues which we have been, traditionally, disengaged from. We're not leaving our peace unsaid, anymore. I plan on working hard to address those sort of issues and build our credibility on every issue.

    Before we start winning our landslides and passing our bills, we're going to have to answer a question. It's an important question that really captures our biggest obstacle to electoral success. I'm not gonna weigh in for a bit or try to coax you into answering how I'd like you to. I'm just going to pose the question, let a few folks respond and then give my insight:

What does it mean to be a Federalist?

[Simfan34]

At the heart of it, a Federalist, as far as I can tell, would be someone who, well, supports regionalism and a federal type of government. That is obvious. But a Federalist, very importantly, is someone who supports free enterprise and open markets. That is what I perceive to be the common thread linking the broad tent--a commitment to innovation, trade, prosperity, and the policies that enable that to occur. I think the party, if it is losing it focus, as people seem to be saying it is, needs to re-center itself around that principle.

It is crucial, because that principle is being challenged, and it is being challenged with minimal resistance ludicrously disproportionate to what I'm very certain people in Atlasia believe. The onus is on people to form a coherent organisation that can effectively capture the spirit of the majority and present a coherent resistance, and then, once that is accomplished, can begin to move forward with new a vision of economic growth and openness.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Federalists believe in the natural freedom and inherent liberty of each individual and the people's rights to determine who governs them. No one better articulated those principles then John Locke, and that is where it should begin because that is the primary value and one that everybody in this Party I would think shares.



Federalists believe in a system of checks and balances to ensure that such liberty is not destroyed under foot of either the centralized tyranny, the tyranny of the mob, or the tyranny of the temporary malevolent majority's desire to suppress the minority. At the same time it views reforms that strengthen and improve the system as essential to preserving it.



Federalists believe that market based solutions are superior in general and prefer to utilize them where possible to grow the economy and advance the common good. These principles were first reflected by Adam Smith, though it should be noted that economics is a science and subject to improvement over time as to the field of study and thus in consequence best way to or degree to which to pursue market based approaches as well. Sometimes a market can stifly itself with monopolies for example.



The Federalists oppose both fascism and socialism and believe ultimately that any system that rests upon stifling freedom now to achieve a greater or better freedom later is likely never going to deliver any kind of freedom to anyone.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I will offer my perspective as one of this party's founders, as its first chairman, and as a Democrat in "real world"......

When I helped found this party, my views in "real world" were different- I was a Republican, and more conservative on many issues especially fiscally and socially. I am now of a somewhat changed ideology, but when I came back to Atlasia I decided that my home remained with the Feds. That is because the Federalist Party is- and was always meant to be- a home for people of diverse backgrounds and views, but based on common principles

These principles include civil discourse....unless things have changed,you will find a respectful discussion of opposing viewpoints within our party. And you will find members of our party treat other viewpoints with respect, provided we are also treated with respect. The right wing of this Forum may include people who would be on the left side of the spectrum in the real world, and a right leaning party here must include people with those viewpoints as much as it does those who are much further to the right. The party did that back in the early days, and I am proud to see that it does it today

As some of you know- my primary issue of concern is national defense. We require a strong national defense and must use our might- with discretion- to maintain peace and security in the world. If we don't........who will? I am outraged to see bills in the Senate which seem prepared to gut our military, or at least render it unrecognizable. I am even more outraged to see the disrespect our military is treated.....I do not care if you support our engagement in overseas conflicts or not- military recruiters nor any honorably serving member of our nation's armed forces should EVER be compared to a rapist. This ties back into the civil discourse discussion as well, but I am proud that the Federalist Party still stands for a strong national defense with engagement with the rest of the world.

A strong party on the right is crucial because- without it- you all would be in a very small circular firing squad, or an echo chamber. Sure, this party did not run a candidate in the Presidential election....but remaining a party in firm opposition to policies detrimental to the country is important- if for no other reason then to give you far-lefties something to fight us on ;-)

I am proud as ever to stand with my friends in the Federalist Party.... I did not intend to come back and stay for good, I simply wanted to be registered to vote for friends of mine, namely NC Yankee and Windjammer in this case. However,my friendly reception by many of you has convinced me to stay, and also the disastrous policies being proposed by some in the Senate is tempting me to become actively involved again. I know that I have a home here with the Feds!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The problem with the federalists is they can't answer this question. Hardly anyone in the party is on the same page and thus, a party that should control the government continues to squander each and every opportunity.

Until the federalists can answer this very question, they will continue to wander in the wilderness.

[Donerail]

The problem with the Federalist Party is that it's become a sort of generic grouping of every variety of Atlasian with a blue avatar - it lacks an ideology other than generic conservatism and right-winged-ness.  Scott's the only member I would place on the left of any spectrum. This is a problem for the Feds, because while a coalition of the Atlasian center-right can win, a coalition of the American right cannot. So the Federalists are caught somewhere between 'not having enough of an ideology to really stand for much' and 'being too right-wing to win'. Which direction the party goes from there is up to y'all, but right now you're getting the worst of both without the benefits of either. Yankee's bookshelf is a good place to start in crafting a solid set of principles.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I Yankee's bookshelf.

I find the Federalist approach to regionalism somewhat perplexing.  On the one hand, there is an unwavering support for things like making sure regions control the voting for constitutional amendments, and that regions have as much influence in the national legislature as possible.  On the other hand, there seems to be little interest in actually devolving policy to regional control.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I Yankee's bookshelf.

I find the Federalist approach to regionalism somewhat perplexing.  On the one hand, there is an unwavering support for things like making sure regions control the voting for constitutional amendments, and that regions have as much influence in the national legislature as possible.  On the other hand, there seems to be little interest in actually devolving policy to regional control.

I have been interested for years, but the problem is that you have these Mr Fix Its (name I used to use for Marokai) who insist that Nyman do anything and everything because god forbid the Regions might elect someone who has a different view on the matter. Also you can count the number of right of center majorities coinciding with a right of center president on one finger. I would love to see more regional influence on education, healthcare  and many other areas. And I philosophically prefer decentralization to centralization of both power and wealth.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I Yankee's bookshelf.

I find the Federalist approach to regionalism somewhat perplexing.  On the one hand, there is an unwavering support for things like making sure regions control the voting for constitutional amendments, and that regions have as much influence in the national legislature as possible.  On the other hand, there seems to be little interest in actually devolving policy to regional control.

I have been interested for years, but the problem is that you have these Mr Fix Its (name I used to use for Marokai) who insist that Nyman do anything and everything because god forbid the Regions might elect someone who has a different view on the matter. Also you can count the number of right of center majorities coinciding with a right of center president on one finger. I would love to see more regional influence on education, healthcare  and many other areas. And I philosophically prefer decentralization to centralization of both power and wealth.

Didn't you vote for the Education for the Future Bill (federal education standards for students) and the Atlasian Institute of Teachers Act (federal standards for teacher licensing)?   (The former at least had some Federalist opposition, but the latter was unanimous.)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I Yankee's bookshelf.

I find the Federalist approach to regionalism somewhat perplexing.  On the one hand, there is an unwavering support for things like making sure regions control the voting for constitutional amendments, and that regions have as much influence in the national legislature as possible.  On the other hand, there seems to be little interest in actually devolving policy to regional control.

I have been interested for years, but the problem is that you have these Mr Fix Its (name I used to use for Marokai) who insist that Nyman do anything and everything because god forbid the Regions might elect someone who has a different view on the matter. Also you can count the number of right of center majorities coinciding with a right of center president on one finger. I would love to see more regional influence on education, healthcare  and many other areas. And I philosophically prefer decentralization to centralization of both power and wealth.

Didn't you vote for the Education for the Future Bill (federal education standards for students) and the Atlasian Institute of Teachers Act (federal standards for teacher licensing)?   (The former at least had some Federalist opposition, but the latter was unanimous.)

I said "more" not "all". My preference would be for the Federal gov't to be in a supporting capacity with the Regions taking the lead, but what that supporting role is could be any number of things.

Education for the Future was a bill that provided moneys ($450 mil I think) for the regions, in exchange for which certain minimum education standards had to be met. I considered in line with the "supporting role" and certainly if federal tax dollars are to be involved there should be some expectations or standards required of the Region to ensure it is put to some good use.

AIT provides a basic standard with which teachers must comply. Teacher quality is suffering greatly and is one of the biggest problems facing our education system, it is also an independent professionalized organization. I would be willing to consider moving it to the Regional level or creating a certain amount of flexibility within a reasonable range regarding the standards in each region. And of course there is the National University system, which we have previously discussed I would point out and I have long wanted to see it regionalized (from the moment it was created actually).