3 ms·

Whenever I see one of these “parties purport to disagree on this issue, but neither is actually for it” I wonder if it would be a good keystone for a new modera

Whenever I see one of these “parties purport to disagree on this issue, but neither is actually for it” I wonder if it would be a good keystone for a new moderate party, built on consensus. The idea being, taking a principled stance on the aspects of those issues on which there is consensus, while not taking a stance on the part which does not have agreement, would expose the other parties as frauds and give you a rhetorical advantage over them. I wonder if states rights is one of those issues.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Whenever I see one of these “parties purport to disagree on this issue, but neither is actually for it” The parties don't purport to disagree on the issue; one party paints it as a point of disagreement, but even that is just using the term as a coded reference to a real disagreement on race policy, not a reference to a disagreement on the policy suggested by what the words otherwise seem to mean. > I wonder if states rights is one of those issues. “States rights” isn't, because it's not an actual issue, it's a slogan for an issue people don't like to directly describe. Now, you could come up with a model of a coherent set of protected zones of state authority and try to organize a movement around them, but that's not an existing ideology that is getting lip service but no actual support, it would be a whole new issue.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  Yes, agreed on all points. I'm just saying that "whole new issue" would take the wind out of the fake talking points version of the "states rights" debate, and draw some of those voters.