Last updated on October 26, 2023
Additional thoughts from Publius Valerius.
Stewart Flood asked me to restore point one here to make the flow more fluid. Publius had given me the needed authority.
What about positions?
First, as shields against takeover by far left or far right factions, not to mention that the positions are totally sound, the party should have immutable platform planks saying (1) women and girls have an unrestricted right to have access to abortions, subject only to coverage of the expenses involved, perhaps by donation of the people doing the work, and (2) there is an unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, in the words of Thomas Jefferson ‘all the arms and accouterments of the soldier’, such as assault rifles.
“immutable”? Cannot be amended. Could be expanded upon.
Second, free trade is for free nations. Goods from communist dictatorships are stolen property. In discussing international trade, we should carefully distinguish between trade with other more-or-less free countries of similar per capita wealth and costs of living, and countries that are totalitarian dictatorships plotting our overthrow. With the first, we should welcome relatively free trade. With the second, we should not welcome trade at all. It should be recalled that for the first century and a half the United States functioned behind tariff barriers. In this period we had enormous economic growth, reasonably uniformly distributed among the people of the country.
Third, in discussing international relations, free countries being attacked by dictatorships, especially dictatorships like China and the Russian Republic, should be given vigorous support to protect their freedom. Support includes money, military equipment, and as appropriate the armed forces. The current relevant example of this is Ukraine, where the United States has spent 5% of its defense budget, and in the course of this spending has destroyed the better half of the Russian Republic’s army. This was an extremely successful investment that should be continued to completion.
Publius Valerius’s original piece raises critical points for political consideration, particularly the idea of immutable platform planks. The comments from other readers highlight the need for nuanced, inclusive positions on key issues like abortion and gun rights, as well as the complexities of international trade and support for nations under attack. This exchange underscores the importance of crafting flexible, responsive political platforms that can address diverse perspectives and modern challenges.
Abortion and gun rights as immutable platform planks do not exclude socialists, most neoconservatives, and a good number of ethno-nationalists. They would definitely need to be expanded upon.
There are gaps in the unfree trade plank, the most important one of which is: what about countries which are free and not hostile to the US, but which are also not remotely close to having an equal per capital wealth and cost of living? Also, it should be pointed out, the US prior to the income tax did not flourish BECAUSE of protectionist tariffs but, rather, despite protectionist tariffs and because all other taxes and regulations were minimal.
Directed taxation, while doing nothing for those who wish to abolish taxation entirely, would allow people and businesses to voluntarily support foreign countries being oppressed while also allowing others to refrain from having their tax money allocated that way, if they object to such things. Think of the box on an income tax form that asks if you want $3 of your taxes to go to support the presidential fund. It doesn’t change anyone’s tax burden, it just allows a tiny amount of control over how the money is spent. The same could be done for situations like Ukraine. That could even be broken down into military, economic, and humanitarian aid. It should be easy enough to do when most people and businesses pay their taxes online. Allowing for directed taxation online might even be used as an incentive to pay taxes online. It could be done for things other than just foreign aid.
Now I understand. It was just slightly confusing. I was under the mistaken impression that there was a number 1 as part of this document part 4.
I would think that in your platform the support of countries like Ukraine would be subject to restitution of cost/damage by the aggressor after they are soundly defeated. In theory, much of the objections to funding Ukraine in our country could possibly disappear if everyone knew that we were going to seize all of the Russian assets controlled by Putin and his warlords following their execution (making the assumption, correct or incorrect, that you support the death penalty), and return the assets to our treasury to pay for what we gave up in funding Ukraine. Possibly seize their oil profits for the next several decades?
Of course, then we have to figure out how to take care of the Russian people who have been made destitute by Putin and his thugs. Maybe you could take that from China?
Your proposals sound like a return to open American imperialism and gunboat diplomacy.
My point in all this is that we are not living in the 19th century, when a US ship of the line could pull into port, march through a foreign capital to the palace, and execute the country’s leader. Funding Ukraine is like standing on the edge of a sword’s blade. You may not get cut standing there, but if you move, you may fall and slice your arm or leg off.
Interesting thought in number 2. Number 3 certainly places you outside of the anti-war movement.
These sounds more like a policy position once you manage to win elections. It gives me the impression that like the current major parties, you will have a platform that will kill entire trees to print.
I’m not saying that I necessarily disagree with any of your points, and this detail is needed for this discussion, but I hope this is not an indication of a huge platform that confuses the public.
But what happened to point number 1? It looks like part of your essay is missing.
I am presented with an extended document and told to disperse it as I see fit. Point one was last time. I can readily duplicate it. Good idea.