Individual commitment to a group effort -- that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work. (Vince Lombardi)
Whigs by nature value debate, collaboration, compromise and mutual effort. We believe by working together we can achieve far more than by working alone, and we value the contributions of our members and supporters -- our fellow citizens -- immeasurably.
The Whig Forums provide the opportunity for you to have your say, but we do have some simple rules we ask you to follow. Please review the rules before posting, and remember to be civil!
Add your voice below:
Sort the Whig Forms by category:
What solution would the party have for people in society generally left out of the institutional discussion? Right now, listening to some C4SS, so I might not be on as often as I would like. In listening to this, I have certain issues I don't think I explained well enough on this podcast, although not really sure where to ask those sorts of questions.
I'm a recent Whig convert, and in that, a rather young one. Being 18, I'm probably the least expected to care so much about politics or the nation. Though who else my age will? I'm one of few Whigs in Louisiana, and am asking for some tactics to reach out to my peers. After all, my peers and I are the future of The Party. I'm grateful for any response. ~Thank you Jody Bachus
I encourage anyone to respond. I've personally read the principles and platform, but it is the platform I feel that really states exactly what is to be done. Ultimately I feel the Party needs to expand the platform with identifiable policy recommendations and then juxtapose what we propose versus the Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and Republicans (and how we differ or concur with those other major/minor parties which the public may be more familiar with). And, have an explicit link to candidates who have won elections under the Party banner with what they have implemented as an example of our folks' efficacy in government. To answer this question specifically though, I find it difficult to exactly say where we're going or want to go. I appreciate that we are moderates and have a decidedly centrist attitude towards any political polarization. However, I think that does create difficulty for the casual observer to know where we really stand. As an example I'll use the foreign policy section of the platform: We could offer an official response to what we feel is the use of NATO, operations in Afghanistan, the crisis in Syria, etc. I purposely use the foreign policy section because I feel this should be a little more "clear cut" to explain for moderates as opposed to the Affordable Care Act. Again, I understand the ambiguity for some domestic problems, but if there are areas where we can be more specific and the public can understand exactly what we mean then let's do that. On the other hand though, the education section of the platform has a greater amount of planks than almost any other, so I feel we should at least bring all others to that point. Ultimately both major parties have over 100 planks and I feel we can match and easily overtake that, with well researched and debated policy proposals (which have been voted on in a convention). The more we more offer people the better. And I hope this doesn't seem like rambling.
I would like to know the opinion of my Fellow Whigs on the topic of Net Neutrality. As of now, the FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, plans on voting to strike down Article II that was passed by the past FCC chairman 2 1/2 years ago to solidify the policy of Net Neutrality. After spending some time on it, I am myself cannot seem to fully understand the issue in its entirety, but I do strongly support one side of the argument and cannot understand the other. Yet, I wish to know what stance should the party take. Is Net Neutrality for the Common Good?
Compromise, compromise, compromise, the most important word that is missing in Washington DC Bravo Modern Whig Party ...the party of Progress through COMPROMISE.... Observer Jules
Hello MWP. I have asked this question privately. As well I participate in the Whig Forum. However the Whig Forum is not endorsed or maintained specifically by the leadership of MWP as I understand. Its definitely a useful page and I appreciate it being available. I think its wise that its made clear. Post shared and opinions expressed are not endorsed by MWP. As some seem to be in the spirit of MWP and some are clearly personal opinions that may sometimes by the exact opposite. My Question is why does the MWP not have at least a separate information Facebook page. Where the MWP itself posts. Facebook is a standard of use today. It seems counter productive not to reach out by Facebook. Its free to setup a page and advertisement is easily cost controlled and can be inexpensive if the choice to advertise is made. Also while the Blog has some good articles. Which it is mandatory there are new articles at least on a monthly basis. Otherwise this Webpage may look dead. I strongly believe the page needs a 'New News' link. In both my point of Facebook as well the "New News" section. Should provide information about the Party, membership, growth, leadership activity. As well articles encouraging participation in States, and speaking with State and regional leadership interviews and such. Put a face to the individuals and make it welcoming. So people will contact them. Mainly though show that the MWP is an active working and growing party movement. Also I think the party has as a core belief that transparency is critical. I as a member don't really feel like I have any idea what is going on with the Party and Leadership. Therefore I feel disconnected from the actual party. I have a connection to members on the Forum. But I don't feel like I am included in what is happening behind the scenes because I don't see any consistent up to date party news posts. Which makes me feel like nothing is going on worth reporting. Which makes it seem like this party isn't going any where. That's not a good image for a party trying to grow. Without looking into the Blog which is easy to miss on the Introductory page. It is hard to see if the MWP is even still active or if the party is barely lingering along. A dying attempt. Which I don't believe it is. The blog helps a lot because you can see recent posts. But I think this page needs more. The simple fact is even adding a New News link a person has to look for this page specifically even to find it. As your not going to come across it looking up Centrist or Moderate. So without direct advertising there is no real way to be exposed to the MWP's existence, by the internet anyway. While I appreciate that the goal is to have membership do local outreach and I believe that is important. However I also believe the party can increase its foot print greatly and become much more relevant. By accepting the realities of the value of advertisement its existence on the internet. Beyond just maintaining a Web page that doesn't have a name that resonates a lot of interest or understanding for the average person.
So, a new political party just rose up in Utah called the United Utah Party (UUP). It is a party where dissatisfied centrist goes to promote their policies in Utah. They are a political party that focuses on just Utah like the Vermont Progressive Party (VPP). There is an organization to help centrist independents get elected called the Centrist Project. Right now, their biggest goal is to get a handful of centrist independents elected Colorado's legislature to prevent both the Republicans and Democrats from getting a majority, forcing the two parties to cooperate. They have also endorsed Terry Hayes, the independent State Treasurer of Maine.
I know how asking about something of this nature seems premature since we still need to score more victories in elections, but what should our color be when a diagram presents the political division of a city council, state congress, and (hopefully) Congress? While I personally do not find “red states/blue states” lexicon palatable (since states hold a more complex political dynamic), I do think we should at least start considering a color. For me personally, I champion white. Now, before we begin bulking from the social concerns it may have, allow myself to explain my support. First, we describe Old Glory as the Red, WHITE, and Blue. See, white can be found in the middle just like us, and it’s just as patriotic a color as red and blue. Second, a few parties already do purple to represent them, most notably the Libertarians. All who use it want to send the message of being a mixture of both platforms, of embracing aspects of each major party’s agendas and ideology. To that I say we need not to mimic. Whigs should foster ourselves, our Classical Liberalism, our thinking, our culture, and our solutions as a different breed altogether and not as some two-bit Tom, Dick, or Harry cherry-pickers. Third, white signifies what we champion as a party, ethics. Purity, a purity or at least want of it through the commitment of ethical practices. We may not be perfect, but that should not stop us from holding ourselves to different standards, to at least dream of such things despite far-reaching. Fourth, white can also signify light, light as in the Enlightenment. Sure, we can agree we will not be striving to achieve the state of nature like Rousseau nor an enlightened absolutism like Voltaire, but to be mindful of these profound thoughts when seeking what we want from our government. Time changed a lot of dynamics concerning society and the state that many thinkers of that time could not fathom; and so, their works may be timeless but they may not exactly be a perfect mold as some would preach. Yet that should not stop us from being enlightened in thought; to learn, think critically, rationalize, and promote methodology in solving problems.
Yet, I am aware of the connotations this might have concerning race. Yes, it definitely could set us up for some body shots that the opposition could throw in the political arena. I can agree that pundits saying “__(state name)__ is a ‘white state’” reverberates differently and holds an odder ring than “red state/blue state”. It could be a deterrent and misleading about how our party is a socially open one, wanting to embrace all Americans from all walks of life. However, may be I am wearier than I should be about the connotation the color white holds.
Anyhow, what color do you guys think would be a good fit for the Modern Whig Party?
For those the live in the fine state of Nebraska and are part of the reddit community, I have created a subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/NebraskanWhigParty/. If you are so inclined, come join me to help build the community. Thanks, Joe
Hello, I wonder that do you think the Modern Whig Party could talk and compromise with the Veterans Party of America? I have noticed this political party holds similar views to the Modern Whig Party and it got me into thinking that the Moder Whig Party and Veterans Party of America should open communication with each other if they want to make more gains. Do you think that could be possible?
Hello from Plano, Texas. I just announced to my FB friends as follows: "Repulsed by the clanishness of the two major parties, and uncomfortable with Libertarianism, which sees government as inherently evil, I have finally found a political home: the Modern Whig Party. Seriously, it exists. I may run for judge as a Whig. Check out my campaign slogan: 'A chicken in every pot, and a Whig on every head.' Modern Whigs are pragmatic, non-ideological, and service-oriented, especially to veterans."
Hello, I am a New Member. Please Forgive me for not using my true name. I tend not to like the idea, of people looking me up on the internet. Protection of family thing. I am also a member however as myself. Just for posting purposes, I prefer this.
I am seeing, at least from the more liberal news organizations. A lot of talk about fake news. It seems they are claiming the whole election may have been lost because of it. They are it seems also blaming Facebook. Apparently Facebook, is reacting in some fashion to try to limit the propagation of Fake News. There is little doubt Fake news exists. The goals of those propagating it. Probably fall into three or more categories. Some actually financially benefit directly from producing and distributing Fake News. Some are politically motivated, with the hope of either rallying the like minded or harming the reputation of those they are against. Some may simply be for the Fun of Seeing if they can get a Fake News story to spread.
Its fair to say False information Meme's are rampant on Face book, especially over this last campaign season. Though they don't qualify as news. I would suggest they are popularly propagated none the less for the same motivations.
My Statement is to say. There is concern of those, mentioned above, in the Media and such. That are very concerned about Fake News. They are giving it a name of Post Truth. Yet they don't seem to understand why it is apparently so effective.
I believe it is safe to say. The easiest lie to get someone to believe. Is the lie that supports their beliefs and preconceived notions.
So we have to ask ourselves. Why would people want to believe? Especially to believe those reports that seem rather obvious as bogus. It is my belief that we have reached a point in America under the dominant Two Party system. That the fear of loosing in these elections to the opposing ideology is so great. That it obligates those who lean toward a particular ideology to support any claim that favors their team. That we as Americans feel compelled to accept anything a candidate says. To ignore any failing and Justify it. Simply for the fear. Of how horrible the world will become if the other side gets into power.
I believe as The Modern Whig Party. We should make the case. In asking our Fellow Citizens. Ask them; Do they believe this is good for America? Is this acceptance of corruption and dishonesty for fear of loosing, what they want for America?
We should make the Case. That the only solution to stop the Madness of supporting all that we hate about Politics and Politicians is a new party.
A Party built upon Principles at least similar to the ones we have established. That this is the purpose of this new Party.
I recognize as a New Member, I may be told. This is exactly what MWP is doing already. I am still catching up on reading all that is available on this Website. However I am interested in Participating and I have been annoyed that the Media seems fixated on telling everyone how to think. Yet fails to have the introspection and reporting on why Fake news might be popular.
Besides assuming again all us Citizens are just stupid, that is. They wonder why conservatives hate them when anytime they don't go along with their reporting. They fall back on their belief that we are just stupid and gullible.
Thank you, I look forward to any thoughts or input.
The War on Drugs will likely go down in history as one of the greatest domestic policy disasters in the western world. A failure of lessons not learned from alcohol prohibition decades earlier. The "War on Drugs" has created the largest prison system every seen in the history of mankind, turned cities into war zones, created distrust for the state and government, and helped haulers of contraband rise to power and fund bloody feuds between groups across the globe. The war on drugs needs to come to an end. Policy: 1. Full Legalization of cannabis for adults, to be regulated for purity and quality. Existing convictions of non-violent users will be purged and people pardoned and exonerated for cannabis related offenses. 2. the Drug Enforcement Agency to be disbanded, its assets handed over to the FBI, and to be thoroughly investigated. 3. Civil Forfeiture to be banned, property will not be seized except upon conviction. 4. No one shall be arrested or convicted for possessing small amount and/or using narcotics of any kind, or for paraphernalia
Hello all, I had a thought that seemed deceptively simple to help increase transparency in campaign financing. The rule is, if you contribute more than some number, say $50k, to a candidate _or_ PAC, in one calendar year, those donations must be published. The government could support the cost to host the servers. If one were to try to buy an election (I'm looking your way Soros!) you at least have to face the public doing so. Current campaign finance focuses on candidates responsibilities, allowing heavy donors & lobbyists to share none of the political backlash from unpopular issues. I feel that the donors as well share part of the responsibility for the corruption that we all believe exists. Money can buy an election win through better advertising, branding, articles, blogging, trolling, ground game, get out the vote, etc. This is much more true at the local level. The current system shields donors from any kind of accountability, and in fact they can basically remain anonymous if they want to. No matter what your fringe agenda might be, you'll find a politician who'll work it into their campaign for the right $$$$. Pretend I'm George Soros and want to ensure that all the county's elementary schools no longer get Christmas day off, and additionally show Zeitgeist the movie on that day. Up and comer Joe Politician may not be a fan, however, that million dollar contribution will not show up again. If things sour with the public over this, Joe Politician may be in trouble for a time, but his only friend after that political catastrophe is good old George, who can sneeze out a few $100K to feed his family until next cycle. If that huge contribution were transparently pinned on the contributor, well then perhaps it may be more difficult for unpopular movements to be fabricated by those that have cash to burn. A rule like this would appeal to the majority of people, frustrated that someone of the top 10% income has the lobbying power of probably 100-1000 average-paid people. If politicians' decisions may be influenced by a large donor, the government has a duty to expose both parties. Politicians' voting records look a bit differently when these other facts are clear. If a politician, acting under influence of a donor makes an unpopular move, the donor can be 'punished' by the public, by boycotting their companies' products or exposing malice in the companies actions.
I'm a fan of Mr. Wald's idea of starting local debating/discussion societies. I am thinking of starting a Political Discussion Society in my home town and am interested in your input. The format would be a round-table style meeting at a local restaurant or public space. The MWP (or me in the name of the MWP) would pay for the rental space and/or refreshments. I would prepare a list of political topics to discuss. I would moderate any discussions to ensure civility and debate on behalf of the MWP. I would try to find the common ground between different ideologies and demonstrate how the MWP, through logic, evidence, and knowledge best supports the common ground. In order to promote free discussion and conserve privacy, I'm thinking of having the attendees use pseudonyms. The goal of the organization is to promote Whiggery political thinking and expand exposure of the MWP in an area of the country that really yearns for an alternative. I would take notes on the discussion to see what the local population thinks about various topics to help start a base of information for future growth of the MWP. I would not directly promote or proselytize for the MWP unless asked offline about it. What are your thoughts? What are your recommendations?
Many of the ideals we talk about "Freedom" in this country come from Democratic-Republicanism, but we are often faced with the harsh reality of Federalist implementation. Truth is, I'm kinda partial to the DR, and the more radical ones at that.(Thomas Paine, for the win). Many of these ideas have been around for a long time, and I think its time to sweep away the last bits of Federalist nonsense. 1. The United States is a Democratic-Republic. All language referring to a "Republic", and "Republican" values should be updated to "Democratic Republic", and "Democratic Republican" values. This shall include the requirement for state constitutions to be "Democratic Republican" in nature. 2. Ballot Initiatives at the federal level. A ballot question shall pass a threshold of 25 thousand signatures, or petition of one third of congress to appear on the ballot. Furthermore it shall be a requirement that all states have ballot initiatives in their constitutions. 3. Unicameral congress. The senate and the House of representatives shall be merged, but rules for districting shall remain the same. District lines shall be redrawn and un gerrymandered. 4. All offices shall have a term of 8 years, but subject to a recall vote at any time for any reason. All states must have a recall vote as well. term limits on all offices will be removed. Congress shall have two classes(staggered vote). 5. Further constitutional amendments will require a two thirds vote in congress plus a two thirds popular vote.
Given that Donald J. Trump is almost certainly our next president, I believe it's more important than ever for all moderates, centrists, reasonable liberals and sensible conservatives to join together in a loyal opposition. Because only by speaking with a loud and unified voice can we hope to blunt the damage this man--and I use the term loosely--could cause to our country and our world. To that end, I propose we start a discussion on the best way to build that opposition. I think at minimum we need a better communications platform to get our word out. We also need to work out some means for people to debate issues in a controlled fashion (like local debating societies or citizen assemblies) so that the people can find and build on common ground. I'm not sure blog posts are adequate for that purpose. This isn't about building a third party movement anymore. It's about the future of this Republic and its people. Trump cannot be allowed to govern unchallenged. With Congress in Republican hands, only an organized, active, and extremely vocal citizenry can provide that challenge.
It looks like Maine is going to adopt Question 5: Ranked Choice Voting Do you want to allow voters to rank their choices of candidates in elections for U.S. Senate, Congress, Governor, State Senate, and State Representative, and to have ballots counted at the state level in multiple rounds in which last-place candidates are eliminated until a candidate wins by majority?
Hello again everyone, I have been a Whig for several years now though many have probably forgotten about me. I was originally one of the very few members in Hawaii when marital issues began & for a while I was a homeless vet. I'm back now with siblings & living in Jacksonville Florida. For the past year I haven't been on the site, but quite active on twitter and facebook trying to bring in new members. I have had several people during that time show interest so I'm hoping our numbers are rising. I've been spending that time on those two media sources because of the current splits taking place among the two major parties. I foresee the Republicans breaking into several splinter groups as well as many of the moderate Democrats beginning to come out of the shadows. I believe that with a concerted effort from the party reaching out we may be able to not only attract new members, but also bring in leaders able to run for higher levels of government. If the party is interested, just let me know my twitter account is @sjclem1 As for who I support for 2016, I believe Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils. I won't vote for Hillary because of several factors including her handling of Benghazi. Though he wasn't in my top 10 choices, he's better than the only other viable option.
The federal debt is not being talked about much in this campaign for the presidency. Why not? Should there be more focus on it? How do we get to a balanced budget and pay down the debt? Right now, as of July 2016 the gross national debt is $19.48 trillion, about 104% of GDP. Here is a little history: In the 1930’s, during the height of the depression we ran deficits of between 0.1% and 5.8% of GDP; during WWII we had deficits as high as 29.6% of GDP, but we also had surpluses from 1947 thru 1949; in the 1950’s we had deficits that averaged 1.04% of GDP and the debt was 92% of GDP, but we also had surpluses from 0.7% to 1.9% of GDP; in the 1960’s we had deficits that ran an average of 1% of GDP and a debt that was 54.3% of GDP; in the 1970’s deficits ran an average of 2.1% the debt was 36.3% of GDP; in the 1980’s deficits ran an average of 3.8% the debt was 32.5% of GDP; in the 1990’s deficits ran an average of 2.88% of GDP with two years of 1.05% surplus and the debt was 54.5% of GDP; in 2000 and 2001 we had surpluses an average of 1.75% of GDP; from 2002 thru 2009 we had deficits that ran an average of 3.3% of GDP the debt was 55.5%; from 2010 thru 2015 we have had average deficits of 7.3% and debt was 91.4%, deficits have dropped back down to about 3% of GDP in 2014 and 2015 but debt was 102% of GDP. Numbers alone don’t give us a clear picture of the effects the economy has on the federal budget. For example, after WWII the economy grew very rapidly at around 10%, today it is a very anemic 1.2%. Tax rates are the other important part of the equation. For example, during WWII and the Korean War individual tax rates were as high as 91% with 24 tax brackets. Today the highest rate is 39.9% with seven tax brackets. The dilemma is, do you cut taxes or increase taxes in order to pay down the debt? It’s obvious that the high tax rates after WWII quickly brought down the debt and annual deficit, but there are two problems with trying to raise taxes today. One is, the economy is not growing as fast as it was after WWII. The second is that, after WWII the country was still pulling together as one, and people understood that the taxes were necessary. Today, businesses are demanding lower tax rates because the rates in most other countries are lower, and Democrats want to increase taxes to expand social services. That poses a political challenge. In the long run, lower rates eventually raise revenue, but would that raise enough revenue to lower the debt? Republicans want to slash taxes and regulations to get the economy moving, and eventually want to balance the budget; Democrats want more social spending and higher taxes but offer no plan for paying down the debt, that is clearly not practical. I think the real solution would be to raise taxes for a few years, make some spending cuts while increasing spending for the military and infrastructure along with cutting regulations. The problem is I don’t see the leadership needed to pull the country together to accomplish that.