Opinions expressed on the Whig Blog, in the Forums and in comments are those of the individual authors and do not necessarilly represent positions of the Modern Whig Party. The ability to post opinion pieces and comments is not restricted to Whig members (although blog entries are by invitation.) These items are not pre-screened but are subject to our Terms of Use. Please Contact Us or Ask a Question if you have concerns about the content.
After the 2008 election and the rise of the Tea Party, I found myself force to re-label as a Moderate Republican. That in itself would be fine, except it's very hard to find moderate Republican politicians who can carry the "brand," if that's the right word.
So I found this party...and on the surface it does seem to overlap with my personal political philosophy. But for some reason I still find myself reluctant to commit.
Here are some of the sticking points:
1) I'm not a fiscal conservative. It makes perfect sense to me borrow money for long term capital projects such as good roads, flood control, R&D research, harbors, airports, and other critical infrastructure. These things ultimately pay for themselves. States (Including those with balanced budget amendments) borrow money for their capital projects, as do most private businesses and families. This is a sound financial practice.
That said, borrowing money for CONSUMPTION is almost always a bad thing. Unfortunately, the federal government does not distinguish between consumptive (operating) and capital (investment) spending--the cost of repairing a crumbling highway system is seen as the same thing as paying the current year salaries for government workers.
THAT is where the government is going wrong. When you don't distinguish between consumption and investment, you can budget correctly for either. And that makes consumptive borrowing seem more palatable. Hence, the borrowing binge of the last few years. What we need is a real capital budget for the federal government.
2) I've seen several people on this site who are adamantly against the Federal Reserve. I, on the other hand, am definitely Pro-Fed. Even more than that, I'm Pro-INDEPENDENT Fed, as the Central Bank should always be insulated from political interference. The gold standard has at least as many weaknesses as it does strengths, and probably more. Leave it to rust in the past.
3) I support the electoral college. I've lived my life in small states, and I refuse to lose one of the few structures that allow small states to maintain any political influence. Aside from that, however, this is a FEDERAL system--and it stands to reason that the several states should play a role in the selection of the Man/Woman/Misc. Other that will be leading them the next four years. Remember: Representatives represent people, Senators represent their State, and the President represents both. Hence, the two step process: a statewide popular vote, and then the State's vote.
I would not necessarily object, however, to apportioning electoral votes by percentage. This is a reasonable compromise.
4) And finally, I support free trade. This may be anathema to some on this board, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. I do not believe in protecting inefficiency, or protecting some jobs at the expense of others. And since protectionist arguments usually center on manufacturing, lets remember that the U.S. currently produces 20% of all the worlds manufactured goods and has more than doubled its manufacturing capacity over the last 30 years. In other words: Looks like it's healthy enough as it is.
At the end of the day its important to remember to protect the worker, not the job. Jobs will always come and go. Workers are here to stay.
If there are any Whigs with similar viewpoints, then I will proudly call myself a Whig. Otherwise, I will keep looking.
While I tend to lean left and a little libertarian on most issues, I still agree with you on many of your stances above. However, I am not an economist, so I have no hard position on the Federal Reserve debate; I'd have to do a lot more reading before deciding my stance.
From what I've read on this forum thus far, there are many people who might be described as being moderate Republicans in their political stances that have made their way to the modern Whig Party. I assume this is due to the current state of the Republican Party that seems to have made being a "non-Conservative" a vilify-able offence. There are also many that have stances that seem in line with moderates Independents, Centrists, moderate Democrats, etc... I, on the other hand, was an Independent voter that usually voted along Democratic lines. I voted for the candidate that was closest to my position, that I also felt had a real chance of winning; though never getting a candidate whose stances I agreed with completely.
For me, it was difficult to approach political issues on a case-by-case basis and yet still find a party that 100% matched my positions (or even 90%). There are time when I agree with Democrats on an issue, times when I agree with Republicans, times when I hold a position somewhere in the center of the two, or times when my position is even further left or right than either party.
What drew me to the modern Whig Party was the concept of "methodology over ideology". It summed up how I like to approach each issue; look at all the facts, come to a rational conclusion based on the facts, and don't be biased on accepting facts that come from a political rival. Also, by not being an extreme ideological party, its stances remain open to modification as new facts, experiences, and evidence come to light (that is my assumption at least).
If you choose to join the Whigs, then I'd like to be the first to welcome you. If you choose not to I hope you will still stick around to debate issues on the forums. I for one enjoy reading the stances of others on the issues; in particular I like to read their reasons for holding those beliefs.
Jonathan is a good example of why many of us came to the Modern Whigs. After I boned up on my history I liked the party even more, they are truly Whigs from days long gone.
For myself, I am essentially a Classical Liberal, or libertarian (please note the small "l") who wants fiscal responsibility.
To be fair, my association with the Republicans was an accident of history. I grew up in a Catholic household where abortion was big issue. My father will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate--he saw this as indicative of their approach to other issues. If you allow an unborn child to be willfully killed, what kind of person could you possibly be? Could you really be trusted to lead?
Fast forward a few years. I'm still opposed to legalized abortion--but I'm also sick and tired of fighting over it. I've decided it's a civil society issue. Pro-Lifer's need to convince the public that they're in the right--without recourse to religious arguments. The same is true of most social issues.
And once you take social issues out of the equation you become more moderate by default. That, along with adopting a more responsible fiscal policy, is how I came to be a moderate Republican. I just never dropped the party label.
I'm not surprised you don't have a position on the Fed. Most people don't. I wish I didn't. There are exactly two types of people who take positions on that subject: Those who think Ron Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and those that think Ron Paul is a crazy lunatic and would like him to go away. Me, I see a guy with two first names and can't shake the idea that he should squeeze himself into a pair of tights and go fight crime as Libertarian-Man. And that's a scary visual image that's now permanently burned into your brain as well. Good luck.
A good source for information on debt and monetary policy can be found at the Skeptical Optimist blog: www.optimist123.com/. I don't agree with him on all points, but at least it's a good starter for people who may be locked into the "all debt is evil" camp. And FYI the author is also unsure of his party affiliation.
Jim, how do you define fiscal responsibility? I consider my approach fairly responsible. Government taxes to fund its operating costs, and uses a mix of taxation and reasonable borrowing to finance capital investments. It seems like a reasonable, balanced approach.
I don't view the presence of the national debt itself as a problem. I do think it needs to be a more manageable size, and that it needs to grow a lot slower--preferably slower than the economy.
Alexander Hamilton once said "A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing." I believe that to be true.
I don't take a hard line approach, that is why I say I want fiscal responsibility instead of saying I am a fiscal conservative. I will say that I think we are spending far beyond our means at this point, though.
Hello;
I am glad you started a discussion about this. I think the most important thing to bear in mind that a lot of these labels "fiscal conservative," "free trade," etc. are misleading because they've been shaped by the debates between democrats and republicans.
1) a Whig will support a robust infrastructure and public works projects that benefit the public good (i.e. maximum impact for the maximum number of people). This is not "fiscally conservative" by some standards. Whigs are, however, very alert to the possibility that money is misspent, because there is a lot of corruption in our government. That is something worthy of close attention.
2) The Whigs are not inherently opposed to the Federal Reserve, although again, whigs are concerned about the lack of transparency in financial matters.
3) the Electoral College is problematic insofar as it's been hijacked by democrats and republicans to perpetuate their grip on power. I agree that alternative voting procedures (perhaps direct election of people instead of parties) could alleviate this problem.
4) Free Trade is complicated. there is no free trade in the world today. The U.S. has a 2.5% tariff on Chinese goods and the Chinese have a 25% tariff on American goods. Look where that is getting us. I might be willing to believe that free trade works if EVERY country is IN FACT playing on a level field. As it stands now, international trade agreements only benefit corporate oligarchs.
Agis, newindependentwhig.blogspot.com.
Jim: Okay, yeah we agree on that. It's not quite unmanageable yet--interest on the debt is about 15% of tax revenues--but it will be unless we slow the growth in debt or rapidly increase the rate of economic growth. Or both.
newindependentwhig:
1) I'm all for public works projects. My fear is that some people have a knee jerk reaction against borrowing to fund them...and that's just not always the smartest thing. This thread has gone a long way toward alleviating those concerns.
2) Glad to hear that, really. I don't thing I'd want to find myself in a party surrounded by Goldbugs and Austrian economists. [shudder]
3) There may be ways of working withing the electoral college system to break the stranglehold. Proportional allotment is one possible solution (if we can stomach the idea of Mickey Mouse getting a fraction of the electoral vote). I'm not sure what you mean by "electing people instead of parties." Are you talking about a non-partisan ballot? I don't think that would work for presidential candidates--everybody already knows their party affiliation.
4) Yes, there are barriers to trade. That's an argument for pushing to remove those barriers, not for putting up more of our own. I live in North Dakota, a heavily agricultural state, and I still support eliminating agricultural subsidies as Australia and New Zealand did awhile back. It's not always a popular position.
Mickey,
I'm newly joined with MWP, but have been following this board for about a year. I think the concerns you are having are completely valid.
Like someone else already said, the term "fiscal conservative" has been used by members of both major parties to describe themselves. If "fiscal conservative" means borrowing no money, and spending the bare minimum, then I am not a fiscal conservative either. If instead it means spending wisely and avoiding redundancy and efficiency, then I am a fiscal conservative. The capital improvements you mentioned are an excellent example of permissible uses in borrowing (provided independent thought is put into the specific improvement desired). While we can applaud spending to improve infrastructure, research, and education, we shudder at spending on meaningless projects that go nowhere. Unfortunately, agreeing on what's important and what's meaningless is the real problem and partisan bickering prevents the major parties from agreeing.
Your views on the federal reserve are completely inline with what I've heard from other Whigs. There are those who are against it, but count me as one who believes it is necessary, especially in an independent capacity as you mention.
I have no well developed thoughts on the electoral college, but I can recognize its importance to states like North Dakota. I don't think being for or against it would alter your potential Whig stance one bit, but I'll defer to more senior members.
Finally, free trade is a good thing, but true free trade is a difficult thing. We as a nation shouldn't have to be hampered by uneven playing fields with respect to other questions. This is definitely an area open for debate.
In any event, I don't think your views disqualify you from membership in this fast growing party. I'm here because I can't understand the GOP's contradictory mantra of "no government intervention in personal lives, but you should definitely live your lives this way...". And while I applaud the social acceptance of the Democratic Party, I can't understand its fascination with its apparent desire to borrow so much money that the interest payment alone will exceed the revenues. Most of all, I believe in compromise between the two parties and putting aside hard mantras in an effort to get stuff done. It seems like a fairy tale in today's political world, but we are an amazing nation.
I hope that you will join the party.
Well the responses so far have been encouraging. I will give serious consideration to joining the MWP.
Anyway, as the party grows I assume factions and caucuses will be formed to represent the varied interests of the members. I would just have to align myself with one or more of these.
Course, there's the other problem: I don't even know if there's a Modern Whig affiliate in North Dakota. And trying to create one here would be very difficult--this is a very socially conservative state and a Republican stronghold, and "Whig Party" sounds like something Roger the Alien would do on weekends.
The Founding Fathers were all Whigs. I wonder if the concept of returning to the Founders' intentions would go over well in North Dakota?
Mickey -
While in your #4 paragraph the numbers do look healthy enough, the numbers don't indicate the truth enough. Production is up, but workers are down. The jobs to support a family do not exist as much as they did 50 years ago. The workers are here, but they are flipping burgers or sweeping floors.
Corporations have seen to this doubling production output by increased use of machines and efficiencies while cutting the numbers of workers. Great for the corporate stock and dividends - not for the workers laid off and now unemployed or working in lower wage menial work.
Free trade goes with this economic anarchy we have had for 30+ years.
Free in these areas do not equate to a healthy country. Our country was formed 'by the people' for those reasons given in the preamble. When the government deliberately creates a destructive set of laws to inflict devastation upon the People, We have to invoke our Inherent Rights and reform or remove that destructive government.
NvEric:
Are you actually arguing that increasing productivity is a bad thing? Because that would be a strange argument to make.
We lost millions of farm jobs when we invented tractors and combines. Is our country worse for it? No. In fact, we're better for it by a long shot.
The same thing will happen to manufacturing. Not just here, but also in China, Mexico, Europe, and everywhere else. We can no longer count on these jobs to drive the economy. Instead, we have to provide our emerging workforce with a good education so that they can fill the jobs of post-industrial world. What to do with current workers who are left behind is an ongoing problem. But it cannot be solved by attempting to arrest the force of creative destruction or walling off the economy to foreign competition. That would just hold us back as the rest of the world shifts into the next economic era.
Also, it should be pointed out that the number of net jobs in manufacturing has been constant for roughly thirty years--the economy is creating new manufacturing jobs at about the same rate it is destroying them, and shifting them from northern states to the South. So the question is: What is the South doing right?
Mickey W, NvEric,
May I suggest that one of you start a new forum topic for this discussion? It is certainly worthy of debate, but is going somewhat off topic for this particular thread. :)
Mickey W,
I think the primary attribute of a Whig would be to have an open mind and be willing to accept the result of a logical examination of any given problem.
I've no doubt that many of us have differing opinions on various issues, but I hope we are all willing to admit that a view differing from our own might be correct if logic so dictates.
The tension between Henry Clay and Daniel Webster (who are pictured on the right hand side) illustrates this principle. They never fully agreed with one another, but were willing to find common ground.
Pragmatic - Me ? - Sometimes
Theorize - Me ? - Sometimes
Dull and boring - Me ? - Sometimes
Insightful - Me ? - More than others care for.
Modest - Me ? - Absolutly
Brainstorm often - Me ? - When the need arises.
MW - Me ? - I don't think so.
The country needs to bring down the Federal government, and apply proper controls over whoever isn't sent to prison. Then a few amendments are passed which returns control over the Federal government by the citizens.
When the House is increased to 6,000 members, then there may be hope in what's left of this Republic.
If the people of this Republic don't want the Republic to survive, then by all means continue with sitting on your butts.
This is a time for nonviolent action to bring down the Federal government to a proper place, for it is no longer legal. The Federal government is acting outside of the parameters allowed.
Usurpation folks, get real and wake up.
Modern Whig - Me ? - I don't think so, I'm just a citizen.
Let me make it simpler. my youngest son has a "machine head". That's great, but the trouble is, is it difficult for someone like that to find work and support a family today. Not 40 years ago, when machinsits made a good wage. They still do, if you can find work.
Another problem with the current scenario, the way they teach math, etc in a modern New York state-driven cirriculum, is not helping prepare my son for mathematical accuracy, creativity, and a "McGiver" sense. New math is bullshit. Math does not lie, and has a valid logic. There needs to be nothing NEW about it! Especially in grade school.
I.e., I beleive both the economy and our educational system is faiing our youth BIG TIME - and I am living it up close and personal like.
My son will attend a private school not bound by state cirriculum so he can learn better, and I'll have to buy him a small Claussing lathe and mill to work with on his own.
The public school system is failing kids like that. They dont have anywhere near the basic skill set and imaginative skills we did, in the 1960's and 1970s. WTF is up with that!?
Focused tarrifs and a revamp of the education process? Somethings to Whig out on.
NVeric: I agree with the points that you are making -- except the part about 6000 members of the House. I'd suggest instead (1) extremely strict campaign finance laws, because the bad acts of our current government all have to do with monetary gain, (2) an independent body of Constitutional Police, who can arrest members of congress (this may seem far-fetched but the ancient Romans had something a lot like this, and it worked), (3) increased ease of recall elections, and (4) open elections that are not controlled by the two major parties.
@ newindependentwhig
Moved this to another Topic post.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer
