American Solidarity Party platform

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

HP because I've come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders IS the acceptable Overton Window. Absolutely nothing to the right if her or to the left of him is acceptable in any way. Actually come to think of it that sums up "all liberal all the time" pretty well...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

HP because I've come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders IS the acceptable Overton Window. Absolutely nothing to the right if her or to the left of him is acceptable in any way. Actually come to think of it that sums up "all liberal all the time" pretty well...

jesus christ

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

HP because I've come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders IS the acceptable Overton Window. Absolutely nothing to the right if her or to the left of him is acceptable in any way. Actually come to think of it that sums up "all liberal all the time" pretty well...

jesus christ

A lesson of this election season. Or more accurately: note how essentially EVERYONE outside of that Window has acted during it.

[afleitch]

Left-wing theocracy is still theocracy.  No thanks.

1. Oh, you.
2. Maybe if this general sort of ideology--community-based, change-averse but still fairness-oriented, pragmatic in its theoretical underpinnings, unafraid of being called 'moralistic' as if that's somehow a bad thing--was allowed some sort of constituency in one of the major parties you wouldn't have Chesterbelloc acolytes like these people and creeps like realisticidealist presenting themselves as its representatives. There are at least as many Americans, especially Hispanics and lower-status Asians, who think roughly along these lines as there are SOCIALLY LIBERAL BUT FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE affluent suburbanites.

I think the issue is that very rapidly, LGBT rights issues for example, in particular equal marriage (which this party whistles against) is increasingly seen as a red line issue. Certainly in my short life it has moved into the mainstream and most importantly, religious handwringing over the issue has shifted from a position that was perhaps disliked but understood and internally mitigated by many non LGBT supporters of LGBT rights to one that is rapidly becoming a moral issue on which ground cannot be given, particularly among younger people.

When the target is not some strange 'other' but rather people you actually know, socialise with, have in your family, then theologically motivated homophobia simply get's called out for what it is.  And I know what you believe and I know what others think of me when it comes to being vocal about such things, but there is something rotten at the core of Christianity that allows something so inhuman to fester within it. Not merely as a social legacy, much of which pre-dated Christianity which undoubtedly the mistreatment of women, slavery etc would fall under; a knot from which personal values, community values, secular values and state values 'untangled' from at differing rates; more but why a marginal footnote in sexual theology was at some point between the 50's and 80's put on steroids.

Holding that position is thankfully becoming as gut wrenchingly abhorrent as say racial segregation, or disenfranchising women. Not to say that racism and sexism and homophobia do not exist intertwined with abhorrence of such issues, merely that a political party like this that feigns social justice would be default be awful, repugnant and disavowed if it had a segregationist platform.

And on that note, what should be painfully obvious is that there was a strong 'community based change-averse..unfraid of being called moralistic' consitituency in American party politics in living memory. And it was undoubtedly horrible.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I actually really don't think this general way of thinking about the world is limited to Christians, or to people with unacceptably revanchist views on LGBT issues (which, yes, anything short of considering Obergefell settled law and the only proper solution for a pluralistic society regardless of one's own feelings would fall under), or to Christians with unacceptably revanchist views on LGBT issues. That was part of my point.

In general though, and this is something of a side note, I don't like the increasingly common viewpoint that any expression of moral views on this issue that dissents from the developing consensus is equivalently unacceptable to advocating continued or renewed legal discrimination, even though those 'moral views' are repellent and a major sticking point with Catholicism to me as well--I don't like it because for me, neither LGBT people nor conservative Catholics are 'some strange other but rather people I actually know, socialize with, and have in my family'. In the case of a party like this, if they'd just put something about respecting Obergefell as settled law in the platform I'd both have somewhat more sympathy for the rest of the 'religious freedom' argument that they're making and, in general, be perhaps more forceful in defending my initial decision to vote FP.

Your last sentence is true but cherry-picks my description to make your point.

[White Trash]

And on that note, what should be painfully obvious is that there was a strong 'community based change-averse..unfraid of being called moralistic' consitituency in American party politics in living memory. And it was undoubtedly horrible.

Who are these folks and how do I meet them.

[afleitch]

Your last sentence is true but cherry-picks my description to make your point.

It wasn't cherry picking per se. It was more about reflecting perhaps that we've had Dixiecrats. We had Prohibition. We've had Charles Coughlin. We've had the 'moral majority'. America doesn't wear 'Christian socialism' or 'Christian Democracy' particularly well (to be fair neither did Europe) in part because of it's particular brand of breakfast cereal Christianity. And the pulpits too seem more concerned with petty moralism and external 'threats' than social justice matters.

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/08/08/many-americans-hear-politics-from-the-pulpit/

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Your last sentence is true but cherry-picks my description to make your point.

It wasn't cherry picking per se. It was more about reflecting perhaps that we've had Dixiecrats. We had Prohibition. We've had Charles Coughlin. We've had the 'moral majority'. America doesn't wear 'Christian socialism' or 'Christian Democracy' particularly well (to be fair neither did Europe) in part because of it's particular brand of breakfast cereal Christianity. And the pulpits too seem more concerned with petty moralism and external 'threats' than social justice matters.

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/08/08/many-americans-hear-politics-from-the-pulpit/

Honestly? Good point. Not one I like to admit, but good point.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Opposing assisted suicide=HP

[Blue3]

It looks like "if the Catholic Church had its own US political party..."

Literally. Every single position.

I'd take it over the current Republican Party.

[Kingpoleon]

And on that note, what should be painfully obvious is that there was a strong 'community based change-averse..unfraid of being called moralistic' consitituency in American party politics in living memory. And it was undoubtedly horrible.

Who are these folks and how do I meet them.

Carter/Reagan/Buchanan/Clinton voters. You can find them in predominantly Southern states.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Lean HP. It's a christian theocracy. The freedom of religion seems to be only for those who believe in one, LGBTQ protections aren't included, abortion and assisted suicide bans are advocated, and their education platform is unsettling ("We support initiatives to improve education for virtue and citizenship"). Despite agreement on some economic policy, I could not support them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A Christian democratic party proposing to compete in a multiparty political system in which both main parties are ostensibly secular and only one has any appreciable religiously-motivated faction is not 'theocracy'.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

A Christian democratic party proposing to compete in a multiparty political system in which both main parties are ostensibly secular and only one has any appreciable religiously-motivated faction is not 'theocracy'.

Sorry, I meant the party seems to have theocratic leanings, not the nation.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

A Christian democratic party proposing to compete in a multiparty political system in which both main parties are ostensibly secular and only one has any appreciable religiously-motivated faction is not 'theocracy'.

Sorry, I meant the party seems to have theocratic leanings, not the nation.

And by "theocratic" you mean having positions influenced by religion?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

A Christian democratic party proposing to compete in a multiparty political system in which both main parties are ostensibly secular and only one has any appreciable religiously-motivated faction is not 'theocracy'.

Sorry, I meant the party seems to have theocratic leanings, not the nation.

And by "theocratic" you mean having positions influenced by religion?

Yes. I am apparently bad with words .

Though..

It looks like "if the Catholic Church had its own US political party..."

Literally. Every single position.