Advocating for a third way...

[journalist3072]

So I was listening to Randi Rhodes' show on the way home from work this evening.

And different people were calling in with their opinions about prospective Democratic candidates for President in 2008. Of course, there was a lot of talk about Sen. Hillary Clinton being "too DLC."

I've been doing a lot of thinking about that.

And I am wondering: what is so wrong with advocating for a third way, or middle ground, in politics?

There are some fundamental principles that I think we as Americans should NEVER compromise on. For example, on the eve of the 1992 Democratic Convention, Bill Clinton was asked if there was an issue on which he would NEVER compromise. And he said "racial justice." Needless to say, I agree with him on that. I don't ever think we should compromise on certain issues, such as human rights and equality.

However, I would argue that advocating for a third way in politics is the way it should be. I don't think that any one party has all the answers, and we should be open to taking the best ideas from all sides. For example, there are many issues (such as affirmative action) on which I am very much left of center. But when it comes to certain social issues (such as gay marriage) I am more conservative.

So my question tonight for my fellow DUers to ponder is: What is wrong with advocating a third way in politics, so long as we hold dear to basic traditional American principles?

(NOTE: I don't intend for this to be a flame-bait thread. Rather, I hope for thought-provoking discussion).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Nothing wrong with advocating it. Just expect others to advocate the opposite.

As a matter of fact, it goes on here all the time.

Though I certainly agree that Hillary is "too DLC" for me to vote for, I have no problem with people who advocate her running.

[patrice]

2. Nothing is wrong with a "Third Way". Synthesis is natural, though Complicated.

Integration is a multivariable task. The task model needs definition of the variables and some hypothetical weightings, both of which are social questions.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

3. Wait, so we should never compromise on human rights and equality but...

as a lesbian, I am a second class citizen and should not have the legal rights that a heterosexual couple would?

I'm sorry, but my rights are human rights. Equal rights mean that I have the same rights as you. Quite honestly, I'm interested to know why you are "conservative" on "gay marriage," something I like to call equal marriage rights.

Discrimination should NEVER be a basic American principle.

[cboy4]

4. Okay. Let me get this right. You don't think

we should EVER compromise "on certain issues, such as human rights and equality."

However you go to say you're conservative when it comes to gay marriage! :wtf:

Hello...that's an equal rights issue!!

So which is it?

You're pro equality, or you're pro discrimination?

You can't have it both ways. It's one or the other.

[Selatius]

5. There's nothing inherently wrong with advocating for middle ground

The only question is how you define middle ground.

If you define it as center-right between ultra-far right and center-left, you probably will have difficulty standing upright without sliding to the right and losing votes from the left.

If you define it as somewhere between center-right and center-left, you might have a good career ahead of you, but the question is are you adopting that position in the mushy middle because you haven't really yet formed solid positions on the issues? Or are you there in the middle because you simply don't want to take "dangerous" positions on issues that are controversial?

Also, when I say "left" or "right," I'm talking strictly about economic ideology. Of course, there are shades of gray between far left and far right, but you get the picture.

I am not talking about social ideology. For that, I use "libertarian" or "authoritarian." If you're a true authoritarian, then you would impose your will upon others and justify it with some reason. A good example is outlawing abortions and gay marriage under the justification that it is against "family values," for instance.

[leftofthedial]

6. if we add a "third way" in American politics

it needs to be progressive and needs to represent workers.

we already have the ultra-right-wing repukes and the moderate right-wing DLC Democrats representing corporations.

[Puglover]

7. I'm intrigued here.

"But when it comes to certain social issues (such as gay marriage) I am more conservative." This is very vague. Please clarify.

[sniffa]

8. i'm gLad to see a post Like this here

i aLways Love it when peopLe wear the bigotry on their sLeeve.

do go on with your bad seLf and wave that fLag.

[LostinVA]

9. "Rights delayed are rights denied" -- MLK

Sorry you have a problem with my civil rights. Know what? Get over it. Not compromising on rights means for everyone, not your own particular approved agenda.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. yes we should have a politician to cater to your needs of depriving me my rights

yay for you!

according to you you are all for human rights...last i knew, i was still a human

maybe your personal political party decided i wasnt.

[NMMNG]

11. I'm blonde so I need this explained to me

I don't ever think we should compromise on certain issues, such as human rights and equality.

Ok, that part seems pretty clear.


But when it comes to certain social issues (such as gay marriage) I am more conservative.


Now here's where I get confused. Gay marriage is a human rights and equality issue. So are you saying you actually DO think we should compromise on some human rights/equality isssues...

or are you saying you don't consider gay people human?


:popcorn:

[LostinVA]

12. I would like for the OP to return and explain themselves further

I very much dislike and distrust hit-and-run posts like these.