Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

forwardparty.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 638 posts

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#271

Post by darkmatterrat »

spiralx wrote: post #229
timthorn wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it can do. Without the real threat of UKIP taking votes from the Conservative Party in the UK, David Cameron would not have promised the in/out referendum on EU membership.

It was more to do with appeasing the backbenchers in the 1822 Committee than voters.

UKIP went from having a 3% share of the vote in 2010 to 12-13% in 2015. People constantly downplay this to make it out as if it was only an internal Conservative party dispute. However there was growing pressure to have the referendum.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#272

Post by netcan »

Barrin92 wrote: post #208

Not exactly sure what to make of this, conceptually it just sounds like 90s era Clintonite/Thatcherite consensus with some ranked voting and other stuff thrown in. The reason why the US is polarized (and most other places to a slightly lesser degree) is because that quadrant of the political spectrum is dead[1], and people have overall grown tired of this liberal (in a broad sense of the term) anti-politics which aim…

I don't think I'd call that Clintonite/Thatcherite. Thatcher was quite confrontational, and also hawkish socially conservative. Not dispositionally centrist, consensus oriented or antipolitical. Blaire is probably the PM you're looking for.

That "consensus" happened when the centre left accepted structural changes made by the previous "generation's" new right, Reagan & Thatcher. Economic issues became non-ideological, and technocratic rather than political from that point. This is even more of thing in the UK than the US, where the right wing still focused on economic conservatism rhetorically.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#273

Post by DonHopkins »

muspimerol wrote: post #255
disneygibson wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn’t weird, it’s simply rejecting the frankly naive notion that you should change everything all the time according to the whims of the populace. History and human nature didn’t begin in 1950. Again, the US has never had anything remotely as horrible as the French Revolution or Nazi Germany. That’s likely a consequence of a constitutional government with limited powers. The United Kingdom is in a very similar…

> Again, the US has never had anything remotely as horrible as the French Revolution or Nazi Germany. That’s likely a consequence of a constitutional government with limited powers. Uhhh... slavery? American Indian genocide? The Civil War? The US has certainly had things at least "remotely as horrible" as the French Revolution or Nazi Germany, although the holocaust is a bit of stretch.

Not only did America have the Civil War over slavery, but the losers are still trying to fight it today, they can't face the reality that they lost the last election, and they even tried to pull off a violent insurrection, breaking into and defecating and urinating and marching through the halls of Congress with a Confederate battle flag.

https://theconversation.com/the-confederate-battle-flag-whic...

>The Confederate battle flag, which rioters flew inside the US Capitol, has long been a symbol of white insurrection

>Confederate soldiers never reached the Capitol during the Civil War. But the Confederate battle flag was flown by rioters in the U.S. Capitol building for the first time ever on Jan. 6.

https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/rioters-left-feces-urine-in-ha...

>“Congressional staffers saw feces in the hallways,” the source said Friday.

>The vile vandals apparently took dumps in bathrooms and then spread around their poop, a Schumer insider said.

>“It came from the bathroom and they tracked it around,” the source said. “There was an intentional effort to degrade the Capitol building.”

>Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) of Brooklyn also reported that some members of the mob urinated on the floors during the rampage.

>“There was urine. There was clear desecration,” he told WNYC on Thursday.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#274

Post by [deleted] »

Barrin92 wrote: post #208

Not exactly sure what to make of this, conceptually it just sounds like 90s era Clintonite/Thatcherite consensus with some ranked voting and other stuff thrown in. The reason why the US is polarized (and most other places to a slightly lesser degree) is because that quadrant of the political spectrum is dead[1], and people have overall grown tired of this liberal (in a broad sense of the term) anti-politics which aim…

[deleted]

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#275

Post by Juliate »

vadfa wrote: post #192
Karto wrote: post #158

The top line, "Not Left. Not Right. Forward." kind of reminds me of Macron's "En Marche" ("Let's Go") that took over France in a storm, taking over the presidency AND the parliament only one year after its foundation, with very few previously known political figures in its ranks. The whole thing looked like doing management rather than politics, and offered an alternative to fed-up voters who didn't dare turn to the…

"forward" means "progress" which means "left". I don't really see the point there :P I've seen many parties claim "we are not left-wing or right-wing" but they evidently have to be either.

That's so binary.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#276

Post by hansel_der »

spyckie2 wrote: post #119
digbybk wrote: post #63

I was excited about Yang’s candidacy in the NYC mayoral election, but it didn’t take very long to see that he was out of his depth. In the end, he didn’t even rank in my top 5 (NYC has ranked choice now). Why does he keep running for top positions? He clearly doesn’t have a record of success as an executive, either in private or public sectors. He seems like a nice guy. If he wants to get into politics, why not start…

I think it's important not to confuse the goal with the action. I don't think he wants to become a politician. He wants to enact political change. These are two very different things. Saying "if he wants to enact political change, why not start as city councillor?" Well... how many democrats or republicans are pushing for change? No one who is born and raised in party lines is pushing for reform; they're doing the op…

> At the end of the day, politics is not about winning or losing elections, it's about making sure what you think as important issues are heard and addressed.

imo most politicians are not interested in the issues themselfs but in winning elections because that is their job.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#277

Post by dragonwriter »

netcan wrote: post #272
Barrin92 wrote: post #208

Not exactly sure what to make of this, conceptually it just sounds like 90s era Clintonite/Thatcherite consensus with some ranked voting and other stuff thrown in. The reason why the US is polarized (and most other places to a slightly lesser degree) is because that quadrant of the political spectrum is dead[1], and people have overall grown tired of this liberal (in a broad sense of the term) anti-politics which aim…

I don't think I'd call that Clintonite/Thatcherite. Thatcher was quite confrontational, and also hawkish socially conservative. Not dispositionally centrist, consensus oriented or antipolitical. Blaire is probably the PM you're looking for. That "consensus" happened when the centre left accepted structural changes made by the previous "generation's" new right, Reagan & Thatcher. Economic issues became non-ideological…

> That "consensus" happened when the centre left accepted structural changes made by the previous "generation's" new right

No, it didn't, at least not in the US.

The neoliberal consensus happenened, in the US, when the center-right faction took over the more left-leaning of the two major parties.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#278

Post by inglor_cz »

disneygibson wrote: post #169
jagrsw wrote: post #159

".. because our founding fathers .." It's interesting to see that all sides of political dispute in US, even parties (like this one) which want to cater to the seemingly more rational and less emotional part of the populace use the argument of "the founding fathers wanted it this way, so... that must be the correct way of doing things forever".

The moment that the Founding Fathers cease to be the mythology glue holding the nation together will be the minute that the country fractures into 20 different nation-states.

People seem to take the unity of U.S. for granted. But there is nothing granted about it.

The former Spanish colonies from Mexico to Argentina were part of the same empire, speak the same language, derive their legal systems from the same framework, but they shattered into 20 different states and even led wars against one another.

The only attempt to build something bigger out of them, Greater Colombia, only lasted from 1819 to 1831, and the country split precisely on the centralist vs. federalist question.

In contemporary intellectual climate, it is almost a heresy to say this aloud, but American political model proved to be messy but durable. Of course, it may yet split on the social network toxicity much like it did split in 1860, but its longevity is pretty significant.

Of course, it helped that U.S. is isolated from other powers of the world by two great oceans. Invasion by an external enemy was by far the most frequent cause of problems in my corner of the world. Being located right in the center of a historically violent continent is a recipe for trouble.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#279

Post by pvg »

hef19898 wrote: post #253
pvg wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The president of France giving a speech just a couple of days ago in front of an 18th century French revolutionary slogan: https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b24157621977bd4ff3fd790731e6c...

And their slogan is still on coins (Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite). But how exactly does Napoleon figure into that again? In the way the Founding Fathers still influence modern US politics?

I think I explained how Napoleon fits in, as a response to your original Basing 21st Century politics on something written in the 18th century is weird bit. France has laws based on an early 19th century system, its motto is an 18th century slogan, its modern constitution straight up begins by #including an 18th century document.

I can't actually find a reference to 'founding fathers' in the linked page but maybe the confusion here is a misunderstanding of what that usually means in political speech - it's an invocation (often derived from context) of some principle they espoused or are said to have espoused. It's functionally equivalent to standing in front of that 18th century slogan.

Re: Andrew Yang Founds the Forward Party

#280

Post by southerntofu »

So their program is focused on managerialism and "progress". I could not see a single line on the homepage about ecology and how industrial capitalism is threatening to destroy our entire planet.

But there's arguments for easier taxes and blockchain technology. WHO CARES IF WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE?!

There's "basic income" mentioned but nothing else about social justice and redistribution of the massive wealth the oligarchs have amassed by exploiting working people.

There's talks of limiting congress mandates in time, so that means their program does not plan to abolish elections to create a true democracy where people decide directly without corrupt overlords.

Nothing interesting to see in this program, but the great leader's photo splattered across the homepage: this sounds like any other capitalist party with empty promises that will be betrayed the second they seize power, because the problem is not with the people in power but with the *structures* of power that enable abuse in the first place.

Personally, what i'd vote for a party who would propose:

- self-organized public services: no government, no managers, just the workers and the users uniting to provide optimal service (transport, healthcare, education..)

- abolition of borders and national ID cards: no more "illegals" because everybody has a right to live and travel, no more immigrants being exploited by greedy bosses treating them like slaves

- immediate redistribution of wealth: all debt is abolished, and every resident is given property rights of where they currently reside ; all homeless people are housed and given property titles (there's currently several empty dwellings per homeless person)

- immediate redistribution of political power: the government and parliaments are dismantled, the highest authority is the local Commune (direct democracy) which can organize with other communes through horizontal consent

- green revolution: acknowledge that there is no clean energy/resource, and aim to reduce resource usage by making lifetime warranties mandatory on most products (no planned obsolescence) and organizing public life for energy efficiency (mutualization of infrastructure)

My personal wishlist would be way longer, but that's the absolute minimum if you'd like me to vote "for you" (for us all!). That would be "Forward" politics. This "Forward" party looks very "Backward" to me.

Post reply on HN