Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I heard the interview on TODAY and then caught the same discussion on
    NPR's Morning Edition on the way in.
    
    Apparently there are pretty strong feelings both ways about setting up
    an alternative Women's party, similar to the Green in Europe.  One
    groups says the Republicans will laugh all the way to the polling
    booths as Democrats are splintered/factionalized into two parties.
    
    Marge
    
    

    This is one of the dumber ideas I've heard in awhile.  Nothing like
    splitting your strength for little or no reason.  I think that if they
    were to do this that it would have the net affect of:
    
    a) splintering the Democratic party (though I'm not sure it can become
       much more fragmented)
    b) causing the remaining Democratic party to not worry as much about
       "women's issues" since the hard-core/politically active ones will have
       already deserted the party.
    
    Its an interesting thought; I'm not convinced enough people would go
    that way to influence the election results in the manner they so
    desire.

    From what I've heard and read (the Globe has done a bit of reporting,
    and NPR has been carrying the story),  NOW had no intention of starting
    a new political party until the delegates on the floor started shouting
    for a third party.  Apparently, the grass roots feel they are not
    being adequately represented by either of the political parties.
    (that's the grass roots of NOW; not of the country)  The idea
    apparently got a lot of support at the convention, so the NOW
    leadership is going to look into it.  That's about all I heard so
    far.
    
    As for the opinion being expressed that this is a bad move, I'm
    not so sure.  After watching the Democrats (during the last national
    election) lean as far to the right as they could without toppling
    over, I think a new political party can only do good.  It may remind
    the Democrats where their constituency is.  It may bring more people
    to the polls.  It may force the Democrats to form a coalition. 
    It may provide some real choices at election time.  It may just
    flop, as all other American third party attempts have.  I don't
    think, however, that it will do irreprable (sp?) damage to the
    Democrats, however.  Let's face it, they haven't been winning elections
    as it is, a bit more splintering will hardly be noticed.
    
    Besides, I'm sick and tired of helplessly watching fat, balding old 
    men in dark suits make decisions which profoundly affect my life. 
    I'd enjoy some more equal representation.
     

    Re: .2   "This is one of the dumber ideas I've heard in a while.
     Nothing like splitting your strength for little or no reason."
    
    Why do consider this dumb?  Is it dumb (to you) because you can't
    comprehend the concept behind it??  Is it dumb to you because you
    don't agree with it??   Or is it dumb to you because you feel threated
    by women getting closer to their goal of equality?  
    
    Whose strength does this actually split??  And why do you feel
    that there is no reason for this?  Perhaps you had a difficult time
    comprehending the simple terminology I used in the base note.  
    
    One of the goals of this party is to **IDENTIFY** women's issues.
    Many of these "women's issues" can have a significant impact on
    families, i.e. children and men not just women.   Many of the issues
    aren't only women's issues - they are issues that will affect everyone.
    This party would like those issues to *at least* be openly
    aknowledged by the two major parties. 
    
    That, to me, is a damn *good* reason.  
    
    Its obvious that this will have an impact on the Democratic Party.
    It will have an impact on the Republican Party too.  It will
    force these parties to open their eyes to many issues that have
    been side stepped.  Will anyone representing the NOW party actually
    win an election?  Its possible but not probable at this point in
    time.  Will this party reach one of their goals of getting the issues
    they represent addressed??  Yup, probably - therefore I feel that
    there is a very good reason for their existence. 
                                                    

    I think  that  a  new  political party may be counterproductive. A
    case could be made that Jessie Jackson helped Bush win by starting
    the rainbow coalition. If some significant fraction of the rainbow
    coalition  stayed  home  rather  than vote for Dukakis (who seemed
    closer  to  the rainbow coalition than Bush did on every issue I'm
    aware  of),  then  by  trying  for  a  particular  candidate, they
    indirectly helped the candidate who was farthest from them.

    If there  are two parties and a third one forms that's to the left
    (whatever  that  means)  of  both of them, then the liberals split
    their vote and the conservatives gain. N.Y. State has a history of
    this  in  Senatorial  elections.  In filling Robert Kennedy's seat
    Goodell  (liberal  republican)  and  Ottinger (democrat) split the
    vote  to  allow  Buckley  (conservative)  to  win. A few years ago
    Javits  and  someone  else  split the liberal vote to put Alphonse
    D'Amato in the senate.

    I'm afraid that in this case "The best is enemy of the good".

--David

    Ellie Smeal has been talking about a third party for the last four or
    so years.  This whole topic got brought up at a workshop this weekend
    in Cincinnati.  I think it was orchestrated by the NOW leadership.  I
    attended each plenary session and it was NOT discussed as a grassroots
    type of thing.
    
    What did get voted on was to have a resolution looking into the idea of
    a third party.  But this is a hot topic right now and the press jumped
    on it.  
    
    I personally will not support it.  I voted to study it, because there
    is merit in that.  But I don't think a third party is a viable
    alternative in our country.  Look how long the Libertarians have been
    trying.  However, if this scares the hell out of some politicians, then
    it will be great to just discuss it.
    
    Some people tried to get the choice issue off of the Democrat platform
    in 1988.  If we had talk of this party going around, I doubt very much
    that that would ever be brought up again.  The Democrats cannot afford
    to lose us.
    
    Just one opinion,
    
    judy

    
    for what it's worth, in iceland the women's party is a full partner in
    the ruling coalition.
    
    as for here, i would be more hopeful if a women's party had a policy
    wherein it could throw its support to major party candidates. this is
    the flip side to mr. wittenberg's observation about new york state
    politics: occasionally a democrat has been elected because s/he also
    had the support of the liberal party.
    
    that being said, i think it's a great idea.
    

RE: .6

    The democrats  can't  afford to lose the feminist vote, but by the
    same  token,  the  feminists  can't  really  afford  to  lose  the
    democrats,  as  the  only alternative is the republicans, who seem
    even less of a fit. Third parties have rarely managed to get their
    candidates elected.

Re: .7

    I like  the idea of an organization that throws its support behind
    major  party  candidates  with  whom  it agrees. I just don't like
    seeing the vote split when they can't reach agreement.

--David

	FWIW - I don't think that an adult would serious call 
		another adult "dumb" face to face - now would
		they!

	Remember, there hasn't always been a Democrat and a 
	Republican party - the US has had a number of other 
	parties some have changed and some have just died out.  
	Remember the Federalist?

	NOW would not be looking for just Democrats but Republicans
	who are fed up with the non-response they are getting and
	but at that sizable glob of independents who are floating 
	free.  I am not sure that a goodly number of the free-floaters 
	would be adversed to joining a party like the Green.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			CHOICE transcends political barriers

    I'll admit to ambivalent feelings about several of the things mentioned
    so far in this string...and part of it is because I don't really feel
    at home in either of the two mainstream political parties today
    (although I usually identify myself as having voted Republican in the
    last major election on foreign policy issues).
    
    First- a comment on leftwards-rightwards dimensions; I don't think the
    distinction is accurate, though I recognize its been the shorthand for
    describing the spectrum from "liberadical" to "archconservative" for
    quite a long time now.  The single dimension (left vs right) doesn't
    really do justice to the complexities among political thought.  So
    identifying a potential women's party as "farther left" doesn't tell me
    anything useful.  Among many other dimensions of the political spectrum
    today, the one I use more than any other is not "left vs right"; its
    "towards vs away from maximal individual liberty";  more on that below.
                            
    I entered a long paragraph on the disintegration of the parties but
    I'll spare you; it wasn't that conclusive, so I'll just toss out my
    conclusions as opinions.  The parties are not unified and able to forge
    strong programs with any solidarity; any big issues see dozens of
    politicoes fence sitting instead of toeing party lines.  The cause/
    effect relationship is not clear to me, but single-issue constituencies 
    are clearly gaining the ability to influence these political programs. 
    A women's-issues party could have a significant voice in this climate.
    
    In response to David's observation in .8-
    
    > The democrats  can't  afford to lose the feminist vote, but by the
    > same  token,  the  feminists  can't  really  afford  to  lose  the
    > democrats,  as  the  only alternative is the republicans, who seem
    > even less of a fit.
    
    I was more than a little bemused to read this and some of the
    preceeding comments about fat old men (or whatever Republican
    stereotype someone trotted out, can't remember.)  I was just thinking
    about how well *either* party really fits women's issues.  To my way 
    of thinking, my concerns in any election are to do with preserving
    the maximal amount of liberty we've managed to retain despite our
    government's history of abuse of those individual freedoms.  The
    Republican's biggest offenses in these areas stem from their prudish
    attempts to dictate morality; anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-drugs,
    anti-porn, etc.  The Democrat's biggest offenses stem from their
    inability to see that building larger government programs to provide
    handouts saps the economic health of productive people, provides
    little encouragement to freeloaders, and, since public spending is
    always more inefficient than private spending, always results in waste.
    
    [Note: I'm not saying that all assistance program beneficiaries are
    freeloaders.  I've read and well remember the stories in this conference 
    and elsewhere.  Please don't ask me to defend something I haven't said.]
    
    However, while both parties have their transgressions against freedom 
    for individuals, they both also have their strong points.  The Democrats 
    support choice, for example; the Republicans (more often than not) support 
    the 2nd Amendment.  So insofar as women's issues "fit" one party better 
    than another, I can't really agree with David that the choice is obvious.
    
    That is, I think that the feminists can well afford to do without the
    Democrat party and go it on their own; raising the issues of importance
    to women, not spending time or compromising concerns in political deals
    merely to participate within the existing, traditional party structures.  
    
    DougO
    
    PS- To avoid the ratholes, I freely admit that all the statements in
    the above note on specific issues are only opinions.  Those opinions
    have coalesced into this perspective on this note's topic...a party for
    women's issues.  If you *must* take up my opinions on the specific
    issues, please do so within the context of an appropriate note...I won't
    defend 2nd Amendment or pro-choice or other specific issues here.  Thanks.

    RE: 10
    
    I'm glad to see someone else feels the way I do!  I'm tired of the
    "spend more money on the problem and the problem will go away" attitude
    of the Democrats and I'm tired of the "morality pushing" & "defense
    intensive" of the Republicans.  I've voted mostly democratic fearing
    the loss of liberties is more important to me right now.  But neither
    party really fits my bill.  I'm ready for a change - I don't know if
    the NOW party is that change we need though.
    
    Suzanne

    Given the results of the Anderson campaign in '80, I'm not convinced
    that an independent party does anything except sap the support base of
    the other "major" party most closely aligned with it.  In the case of 
    NOW-based party, its my unsubstantiated guess that it will weaken the
    already weak power base of the Democratic party and not significantly
    affect the base of the Republican party.  And they still would not get
    people into political office since there probably (again, my guess) not
    be enough support for them.  There are a lot of people I know who
    consider themselves advocates of "women's rights" but are in
    disagreement with a lot of the "left-oriented" positions taken by NOW.
    Having NOW candidates join the major party of their choice would have a
    better chance of winning, and thus furthering their agenda, than
    running under a different party.  The biggest win, in my opinion, would
    to have NOW candidates running under the republican ticket since that
    appears to be, on the national level at least, where there are the most
    differences between the party and NOW policies.
    
    I could be wrong, though, since a number of other parties have come and
    gone over the course of American history.

    
    I believe that the time is right for a third party.  And I agree
    with Eagle that the third party platform must include all of those
    segments of our society who feel alienated and powerless.  
    
    A third party that stood for individual freedom, for equal rights for
    everyone regardless of sex or sexual inclination, regardless of
    color or religion.  One that seeks to protect the rights of the
    individual.  One that works towards world peace and most important
    that seeks to heal and preserve the precious ecology of our planet.
                                                       
    A third party that represented everything this country believes
    in and stands for in the traditional sense while seeking to focus
    on the problems that face us in our modern world.  We spend billions
    on defense but it is the destruction of our planet that looms as
    the greatest threat to our survival.
    
    I believe that a third party who incorporated all of these issues
    into it's platform would win the hearts and loyality of many, many
    Americans today.  Its time!

    	Being a Right Wing Independent officially, but a Republican
    Centralist voter, I'd love to see a third party with a liberalist
    platform. It would solidify the Right, Split the Democratic money
    spending machine, polarize the Rightist Demos, and probably get
    3 seats in the house and 0 in the Senate. It would give the majority
    to the Republicans in both Houses and near guarantee the White House
    to the Republicans for at least 12 years.
    
    Ken
    

    re -.1
    
    You are a troublemaker, right..?
    

    Would this new party (I can assume Pro-Choice) also support Pro-gun
    (not control). It seems if you use the premise of freedom to choose
    for one you can make the same argument for the other.
    
    I do have to agree that the women's movement would be hurting
    themselves by leaving the Dems.

    The Dems have made themselves 'jack of all trades, masters of none'
    so to speak. They try to appeal to too large a group, which by the
    way do not necessarily vote (as witnessed by the last pres election).
    
    Steve_now_readying_for_flames.

    
    My take is that an exclusively women's party would be by necessity
    a fringe party. But if we added the planks of the Green platform,
    such as peace, disarmament, environment, and conservation, we'd
    have a new party with a chance of throwing out the crooks sitting
    in Washington DC now...
    
    I believe the Greens of Europe have an essentially NOW-compatible
    feminist plank (from what I hear on PBS anyway)...

It may be that a N+1th (can't really say 3rd since we do have the Libertarian
etc.) party doesn't need to field a different candidate, but can be a more
effectively way of brokering a block of votes than the current organizations
have.  For example, it is my understanding that NY has >4 parties: something
like added Liberal and Conservative parties, which usually nominate the same
candidates as the Democratic & Republican parties, but not necessarily.
("If you really buy into putting plank X into your platform, we'll put your
name on our lever in the voting booth, too; otherwise, we'll find someone
else...")

(Is there anyone who is/was into NY politics who can verify/correct this?)