Writer's Block: Customizable Party
Well, first and foremost, I suppose that any political platform that I'd write begins with the assumption that unfettered capitalism is not a good idea, that the free market will not, in fact, create a Panglossian best of all possible worlds, that the rising tide does not, in fact, lift all boats.
With that as an assumption, I would draw on Locke, Hobbes, Jefferson, and other people whose writings and philosophy led to the founding of the American republic for the following ideas:
- Inheritable wealth needs to be deeply limited. The estate tax which the Republican party derides as an unfair death tax was, in fact, enacted to prevent the formation of a hereditary aristocracy. We've already gone too far down the road of rolling that back; I would like to see severe death duties enacted, with absolute limits on heritable wealth. Unfettered wealth leads to abuse of power, as sufficient money can corrupt the most ethical person.
I believe that corporate personhood is a convenient fiction invented to allow accrual of great wealth to be abused at will by its directors, and that it should be abolished. Let the officers of a corporate be the representatives, not the corporation itself.
In concert with that, I believe that what helps the good of the individual working person is better for the country than what helps corporations. Regulated capitalism won't destroy the world, and it will help raise the living standards of many people, as is clear from the rise in the middle class from approximately 1935 through about 1981, until Ronald Reagan's anti-government rhetoric, carefully parsed in perjorative tirades against 'the unworthy poor" killed such progress.
Labor unions are a social good, as they help the individual worker when they show some spine, which few have done lately. If a strong union works for its members, their quality of life increases - cf rise in living standards 1935-1981 above.
- The national good is a real and tangible goal. What constitutes that derives from an understanding of the tremendous degree to which humans are interrelated. For example - it's possible to oppose universal healthcare as 'welfare' and 'disincentive to work.' To me, it's self-interest, though....if the cleaner who vacuums my office building has a cold (or worse) and can't take time off to recover, can't visit a physician because of cost, it's far more likely that myself or others in my office, who may have health coverage, will get sick. For colds and flu, this isn't so much....but what happens if a pandemic flu breaks out and burns like a fire? I'd rather have herd immunity, care for all, from childrens' immunizations to adult care, as it increases the general health of the overall population. The current commercialized model allows the very sick to be uncared for, it fails to address that end of the bell curve of health distribution.
I would further argue that the government has a very legitimate role in regulation and certain services. To a conservative, a problem encountered means an opportunity for profit by providing minimal services for maximum cost. To a liberal, a problem encountered needs to be addressed on its merits and solved, profitability be damned. I'm firmly in the latter camp - healthcare, education, public infrastructure (roads, water, electrical power, et cetera) are too important to be entrusted to companies seeking to turn a profit rather than being focused on the primary mission.
I'd argue that religion is a personal matter and, while it might inform a person's political choices, should not become a threat to the liberties of non-believers. I'd also argue that the tax break on churches is wrong - if every church was taxed, there would be more tax revenue and no discrimination. Also, given that churches, especially fundamental christian churches, have openly attempted to defy the establishment clause and deliberately breach the wall between church and state, taxation would provide a legitimate argument for their entry into politics - they pay taxes, they get to play, however loathsome their policies.
The goal is the greatest good for the greatest number. That's tempered by the understanding that while markets may eventually rationalize themselves, they tend, in a global marketplace, to slosh capital around and cause panics, especially when unregulated. So regulation, while onerous to those who would take big risks, becomes beneficial to the working people trying to pay a mortgage or keep a job.
I think work rules need to be heavily regulated. "Right to work" is a nonsense term long advocated by corporate entities; it's code for "we'll fire whoever we want to whenever we damn well please without any consequences." That should be rolled back. In UK, it can be very difficult to fire or do large layoffs, even in post-Thatcherized Britain; I think that should also be the case in the US.
I think bodily self-determination - the right to die, the right to an abortion - should be pretty much absolute.
The right to run a successful business is not incompatible with this, either. Libertarians, as China Mieville famously points out, are people who want deregulation because they can't cut it in a regulated economy where they have to take precautions up front rather than pay for any damage they cause later, if they can afford it, if they haven't gone bankrupt or done something else to avoid the consequences of their actions. Business is fine - just within the law, keeping an eye on the long term, and not taking shortcuts to increase profit at the expense of the general welfare.