[extropy-chat] Politics: Extropian party

Adrian Tymes wingcat at pacbell.net
Wed Jul 14 17:22:39 UTC 2004

--- "natashavita at earthlink.net"
<natashavita at earthlink.net> wrote:
> It is apparent to me that political parties, as we
> know them, are
> constructed with a psychology of one against the
> other, which is in
> conflict with developing a positive and rational
> viewpoint in working
> through problems and developing arguable, sensible
> ways to deal with
> issues.  We even see this within transhumanism. The
> current muff or riff
> between the Social Democrats/Marxists/Socialists and
> Libertarian is an
> example.  Rather than being at each other’s throats,
> they should be working
> together to outline, map or graph, where they agree,
> where the disagree,
> and what they can do together or join forces in some
> way to step in the
> direction of progress and work within their partisan
> approaches to realize
> certain specific transhumanist goals.

Which is why I suggested this new party possibly also
try to get its candidates approved by allied parties.
(Can anyone imagine, by analogue, what would happen if
somehow the same person wound up with both the
Democratic and Republican presidential nominations?
True, it'd be nearly impossible just to run for both
of them...then again, if someone did clear the
paperwork hurdles, that alone would give major weight
to any claims of being a uniter instead of a partisan
divider, and thus attract votes from the moderates.
Possibly even moreso after the radicals of both
parties hit the roof over someone even trying this.)

This may involve not being a political party per se
(and thus automatically be seen as competition), but
rather an organization to lobby and work the existing
political parties.  (For instance, making absolutely
certain the allied parties don't keep trying tactics
which only hurt themselves.  See, for instance, the
current Libertarian presidential candidate's claim
that there was no Constitutional basis for the war in
Iraq.  IMO, he is 100% correct and justified, but
attacking Bush and Kerry on that still costs him
votes.  Getting emotional over principles prior to the
election does not work, as unfortunately demonstrated
by Dean.  This organization would have to make sure
its candidates do not repeat that type of mistake,
while still keeping their principles together so they
can act on them if and when they are elected.)

> Rather than a new Republican, New Democrat, New
> Libertarian, New Green, New
> ...EU ..., I'd rather see a futuristic party that
> had a smart set of
> strategists who could design a rational architecture
> that has a broad
> understanding of society, the future, science,
> technology, and economics. 

And, again, how to sell the voters on it.  Can't
overlook that part if one wants any decent chance of
success.  In fact, it'll probably be even more
important than the architecture itself.

> I’d like to see this party have representatives from
> all existing parties
> around the word.  I suppose it would be a World
> Citizen’s or Citizen’s of
> the World political party.

Hmm.  World Citizens does have a bit of a ring to it.
So long as it clarified it intended to ensure our
security and strength by maintaining our place in the
world, so that even those who argue that politicians
should serve none but those within their own countries
might agree with this party.  Each country's WC party
might limit its official/main membership to citizens
of that country (considering the EU as a whole to be
one country for this purpose, much as the USA is
one), but of course guests from other countries would
be welcome to share advice or concerns.

Some would even accuse it of trying to establish
American (or EU) imperialism...and some might actively
back it for the same perception.

> A dream I have had for many years is to have a
> symposium in Telluride of
> some of the most apt thinkers to design this.  In
> fact this has been going
> on for about 30 years in Telluride, but never gets
> to a next step. 

Which is why I phrased the question towards finding
out what that next step would be.  Debate and
discussion is great and necessary, but useless if it
never produces action to implement the resulting
desired changes.

As was pointed out, in the USA, Gen X has no political
voice at this time.  It is predicted to revolt and
gain one, with a more libertarian flavor, a bit under
a decade from now.  So why not, as they say, shape the
discussion?  Rather than pure Libertarian - good, but
not necessarily any emphasis on tech - or Green or
some other party (even the extremely defocussed
Democrats, who might by then only remember that
they're pro-labor - and thus anti-mechanization and
possibly anti-AI), why not provide a voice for those
who have grown up with technology and see nothing
inherently scary about what their elders preach are
today's worst evils?

In short...I wonder if it would be most useful towards
this end to gather a list of what works and what
doesn't, as far as getting elected goes, flavor it
towards Extropian issues and ideals (like, how does
one speak of life extension in ways that attact votes,
and what kinds of L.E. sells have actually turned
people away and thus should be avoided), and post it
on the ExI site?  (Meta-politics, if you will.
Probably not suitable for discussion on any
politics-specific list, since it'd quickly be drowned
by discussion of politics itself.)

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list