Is there any chance we'll ever have a viable party that:

[Noodlegawd]

-wants a smaller federal government and more control at the local/state level
-wants to take active measures to protect the environment
-wants to meaningfully regulate immigration
-wants a strong but rationally-sized military
-doesn’t promote the lie that America is systemically racist
-wants to guarantee basic healthcare for all Americans
-is pro-choice
-defends the 2nd Amendment

 

[joluoto]

-wants a smaller federal government and more control at the local/state level
-wants to take active measures to protect the environment
-wants to meaningfully regulate immigration
-wants a strong but rationally-sized military
-doesn’t promote the lie that America is systemically racist
-wants to guarantee basic healthcare for all Americans
-is pro-choice
-defends the 2nd Amendment

Not with a two party system.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Not with a two party system.

I wonder how many people would support a third party with these positions. I think it would be a lot.

 

[iguanaman]

-wants a smaller federal government and more control at the local/state level
-wants to take active measures to protect the environment
-wants to meaningfully regulate immigration
-wants a strong but rationally-sized military
-doesn’t promote the lie that America is systemically racist
-wants to guarantee basic healthcare for all Americans
-is pro-choice
-defends the 2nd Amendment

That would be the only sane party left in the country....the Democratic Party.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/27/republicans-big-government-conservatives-takeover-210512

 

[Irredentist]

-wants a smaller federal government and more control at the local/state level
-wants to take active measures to protect the environment
-wants to meaningfully regulate immigration
-wants a strong but rationally-sized military
-doesn’t promote the lie that America is systemically racist
-wants to guarantee basic healthcare for all Americans
-is pro-choice
-defends the 2nd Amendment

No, because these policy goals contradict each other. You can't have a weak federal government if you want to guarantee active environmental protections, universal healthcare, the right to an abortion, immigration restrictions, and the second amendment. You won't be able to enforce any of those things.

This is the definition of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Oborosen]

No, because these policy goals contradict each other. You can't have a weak federal government if you want to guarantee active environmental protections, universal healthcare, the right to an abortion, immigration restrictions, and the second amendment. You won't be able to enforce any of those things.

This is the definition of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Your best bet would be smaller government, but just enough regulation at the state level. To keep everything in check.

That way you can come up with a nice amalgamation of activity, that just might work.
-unless you do like, say.. California. Making environmental protections so stringent and overbearing, that almost nothing can be done.

 

[Noodlegawd]

That would be the only sane party left in the country....the Democratic Party.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/27/republicans-big-government-conservatives-takeover-210512

Nonsense. The Democratic Party does not want:

-a smaller federal government
-to meaningfully regulate immigration
-not to promote the lie that America is systemically racist
-or-
-to defend the 2nd Amendment.

And to be fair, the Republican Party is not:
-pro-choice
-interested in taking active measures to protect the environment
- guarantee basic healthcare for all Americans
- interested in guaranteeing basic healthcare for all Americans
-interested in having a strong but rationally-sized military

 

[Irredentist]

Your best bet would be smaller government, but just enough regulation at the state level. To keep everything in check.

That way you can come up with a nice amalgamation of activity, that just might work.
-unless you do like, say.. California. Making environmental protections so stringent and overbearing, that almost nothing can be done.

Without a strong federal government, there is simply no way to direct national policy towards any coherent goal. Each state will simply do whatever they want to do, when they want to do it. Which is fine, if you don't have any national policy goals to speak of. But OP clearly does. Which is why weakening the federal government won't work.

 

[joluoto]

I wonder how many people would support a third party with these positions. I think it would be a lot.

It does sound Christian Democrat-ish, as in social conservative , but centrist economic thought (would probably not be pro choice though).

 

[iguanaman]

Nonsense. The Democratic Party does not want:

-a smaller federal government
-to meaningfully regulate immigration
-not to promote the lie that America is systemically racist
-or-
-to defend the 2nd Amendment.

And to be fair, the Republican Party is not:
-pro-choice
-interested in taking active measures to protect the environment
- guarantee basic healthcare for all Americans
- interested in guaranteeing basic healthcare for all Americans
-interested in having a strong but rationally-sized military

Nonsense. No party wants to make Govt. smaller but Democrats want to use the growth increase help to the floundering middle class instead of enriching corporations and billionaires. Think free or affordable college or tech schools for all.
We are a nation of immigrants and we need them to grow as a nation.
Putting our racism behind us will end the tremendous waste of resources that racism causes.
Sensible gun laws will reduce gun deaths and allow those that want guns to keep them

 

[Oborosen]

Without a strong federal government, there is simply no way to direct national policy towards any coherent goal. Each state will simply do whatever they want to do, when they want to do it. Which is fine, if you don't have any national policy goals to speak of. But OP clearly does. Which is why weakening the federal government won't work.

No, at that point. You'd most likely have the influence of pressure from their citizens. Unless we're taking into account a system that does not allow it's citizens to leave states of their own free will?
Because when things start to get bad and people begin to leave. Most state leaders usually take that as a hint and attempt to fix the issues being presented.

 

[Irredentist]

No, at that point. You'd most likely have the influence of pressure from their citizens. Unless we're taking into account a system that does not allow it's citizens to leave states of their own free will?
Because when things start to get bad and people begin to leave. Most state leaders usually take that as a hint and attempt to fix the issues being presented.

But who's to say that the citizens will pressure their local governments in the direction you want them to go? Who's to say that the local governments will make good decisions in response?

If you have a plan to implement national policy goals, then your first act should definitely NOT be to weaken your own central authority.

 

[Oborosen]

But who's to say that the citizens will pressure their local governments in the direction you want them to go? Who's to say that the local governments will make good decisions in response?

If you have a plan to implement national policy goals, then your first act should definitely NOT be to weaken your own central authority.

I completely agree with you. But so long as we have such a system, as we have now. That connection is already weak.
In all honesty, my suggestion would require the states to be far more active in their own welfare than they are even to this day. Not only that, but it would require them to do so responsibly.

But so long as the federal government can do nothing more than just make their own suggestions of the states. We are not going to have that system anytime soon.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

-wants a smaller federal government and more control at the local/state level
-wants to take active measures to protect the environment
-wants to meaningfully regulate immigration
-wants a strong but rationally-sized military
-doesn’t promote the lie that America is systemically racist
-wants to guarantee basic healthcare for all Americans
-is pro-choice
-defends the 2nd Amendment

I think the Green Party most closely fits the bill.

1. More local level controls - "Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all."
2. It's the Green Party. Protecting the environment is their raison dêtre.
3. They would like to regulate immigration in the sense of documenting all undocumented immigrants. By giving them documents. Like border passes and Social Security Cards.
4. They want a strong but rationally-sized military - "We must maintain a viable American military force, prudent foreign policy doctrines, and readiness strategies"
5. They don't promote any lies about racism in America
6. They want to guarantee basic healthcare for all Americans
7. They are pro-choice
8. They support the continued existence of the 2nd amendment*

*some restrictions apply

 

[Mycroft]

-wants a smaller federal government and more control at the local/state level
-wants to take active measures to protect the environment
-wants to meaningfully regulate immigration
-wants a strong but rationally-sized military
-doesn’t promote the lie that America is systemically racist
-wants to guarantee basic healthcare for all Americans
-is pro-choice
-defends the 2nd Amendment

Not unless you get rid of every single Congressional Elite and every other federal, state and local politician who takes money from donors and lobbyists and promises to pay them back.

 

[Yakshi]

Your requests seem really unrealistic, to be honest.

If you got what you wanted, for example, I'd be absolutely furious as a voter, and I'd work as hard as I could to remove every single politician who supports your political views.

 

[HonestJoe]

-wants a smaller federal government and more control at the local/state level
-wants to take active measures to protect the environment
-wants to meaningfully regulate immigration
-wants a strong but rationally-sized military
-doesn’t promote the lie that America is systemically racist
-wants to guarantee basic healthcare for all Americans
-is pro-choice
-defends the 2nd Amendment

There is only one way to get a political candidate who holds all of the same views as you do but that would take some time, effort and commitment on your part.