Explaining why Yang is making the same mistakes that the democratic party has

 Okay, so, I've been making my disdain with Yang's new merger with two other third parties no secret, and I've been getting some backlash for it. It's amazing how people are so willing to fall on their swords for Yang. Don't get me wrong, I tend to like the guy a lot generally, but I like his IDEAS, not him as a person. While I've been a supporter of "forward" since its inception, I've always maintained some level of independence, so that I would be able to criticize the movement if needed, and trust me, here, it's needed. 

Yang supporters will say nothing else but ranked choice matters any more. UBI doesn't matter, because we can't pass it anyway. We need ranked choice voting. And they'll even use the threat of civil war to punctuate the need for a third party. UBI can wait. After all, after Yang gets RCV passed, he can go back and pass UBI, right? Right?

Uh...will he?

Here's the thing. Yang isn't the first person to claim the problem is we need more centrism. He isn't the first one to appeal to former conservative voters. This has been the democratic strategy since 1992 explicitly, and arguably since 1968.

The democratic party used to be a working class party, but in the 1960s, a schism formed over civil rights, where the southern democratic party went to war with the federal party. The south's democratic had long been a hot bed of the most racist elements of the country. The republicans used to be progressive. They were the party of abe lincoln, and later teddy roosevelt. The democrats were the party of the KKK. FDR was able to make a coalition of working class voters around economic issues, but the party was always divided socially between the progressives and the more racist types. And in the 1960s, the progressives won. Johnson figured he could bring African Americans into the party, but in the process, he lost the white southern base that made it up.

This caused the democrats to flounder in the late 1960s and 1970s, as republicans started catering to disaffected democrats using dog whistle politics, and using outrage over religious based social issues (including an "activist" supreme court) to win over religious people too. And the democrats, fell apart. They were deemed "too far left", and while much of the problem was social issues, the dems instead started blaming economic issues. Including, for example, Mcgovern pushing a UBI that no one really wanted (to be fair, mcgovern sucked as a UBI advocate and did great harm to the movement). 

Of course, the social issues were the big issues that really seemed to drive voters. In the early 1970s the economy was fine. if anything it was the best it ever was. It was social outrage and that good economy that mostly drove people right. And as the country descended into stagflation, people really soured on the new deal paradigm and it drove people to the right for a generation. 

The democrats got destroyed. After carter, they had zero credibility. Reagan came along, he redefined the terms, and the democrats since had to come up with alternative strategies to remain relevant. And this caused them to cater to a different crowd. They ceded the economic issues to the right, running on a new "third way" and pushing centrism, claiming the left was too far left, and the right was too far right. So they were the sensible "centrist" alternative. And they managed to bring together a coalition of white professional class voters who were fiscally conservative and socially liberal, as well as minority voters.

And this strategy was effective, but always kind of unstable. It worked sometimes, causing the democrats to win elections in 1992 and 1996, but then they lost in 2000 and 2004. Obama running on hope and change won him 2008, and in 2012 he still won on a working class platform, but then in 2016 Hillary basically alienated the country and trump won. And Biden barely won 2020, with 2024 being up in the air. 

The reason the democrats have been struggling so bad was because they abandoned the working class. When they at least appealed to the working class and ran on economics, they'd win, but when they lost their luster and ran to the center, they lost.

The lesson is the same that FDR tried to tell people in the 1940s. When the democrats run on working class politics, they win, but without them, they lose.

The dems had temporary success in the 1990s with their strategy, but since then, they've lost it. 

And now, we have a dysfunctional political system. Since the 1980s the republicans have radicalized. But the democrats remain the same centrist party fundamentally that they've been since the 1990s.

And in 2016 the flaws with this were readily apparent. people wanted solutions. They wanted real world fixes to what the economy has become. living standards for the bottom 80% of stagnated, and for the top 20%, grew. And now, the democrats are the party of much of that top 20%. I saw something recently suggesting more professional class people vote democrat, while working class people don't. And it's those working class people who stop the democrats from being productive. 

We're always told, oh, we can't have that. That's not pragmatic. You need to compromise. You need to ask for less. you'll never get that. And people get pissed, and embittered, and vote republican out of spite.

Trump promised to make the country great again. He promised to bring back the jobs. Sure, he was full of crap, but most people aren't very smart and his populism won him a lot of support. And the democrats just doubled down on centrism.

Now we have Biden in power, nothing is getting done, we're back to stagflating again as the federal reserve crunches down on interest rates even though as we discussed that isnt the proper solution for this specific crisis, and people are screaming about how giving people money is the problem (when it isn't).

 And in this environment, Yang decides now's the time to back off of UBI, and embrace centrism. How we need more centrist solutions. That the partisan divisions are tearing us apart. How people are taking up arms against the government. And how we need a movement that brings people together over...ranked choice voting. 

Here's the thing. Everything Yang is doing now, is what the democrats have done to got us in this situation. They ran to the center. They tried to compromise. They abandoned previous causes to bring in new voters, and then they decided, gee, you know what? We're making a killing with this new coalition, we're better off abandoning the working class to push more centrism. We're getting so many donors. And as such, their appeal to people like me is "well we cant do anything but you have to vote for us anyway."

Here's the thing. I generally respect Yang. But unless he has really good answers to my concerns, I cant support what he's doing. because here's the thing. He's doing exactly what the democrats did. he's throwing his old cause under the bus to bring in a new crowd of people, and once he does that, even if he succeed, he'll effectively kill the UBI movement. He won't go back to pass UBI later. Not if doing so loses him all of his new supporters. He'll make the same sacrifice the dems made. Abandon the economic progressives who made them what they are, and then pursue more centrism. 

And this centrism is what's killing the political system. As I see it, if the democrats had stepped up and offered material solutions to peoples' problems in 2016, Trump never would've won and the GOP would be the party realigning to the center to remain relevant. 

The reason the dems are at risk of losing again is because they're floundering on the economy. They ran to the center with biden's candidacy, the they failed to pass anything because of joe manchin and kirsten sinema. How is MORE CENTRISM the solution here? CENTRISM is what got us here!

And now with inflation high and Biden's presidency just sputtering out under the sheer ineptitude of the democrats to do anything, the GOP are once again emboldened and can win again. Honestly, it would be over if they didn't jump the gun on the supreme court and start banning abortion rights. Yeah they finally got that going and now the cause isn't even supported by most people, just the insane 1/3 of the country. 

But that's the thing. The GOP's actual policy positions are insanely unpopular. Yet they wield most of the institutional power and win most of the elections. Why? Because the dems are a bunch of worthless centrists who don't do anything, that's why.

And yes, I know I rip identity politics a lot. it's the ONE THING they seem to be willing to die on a hill over. Mainly because it keeps their constituents happy, even if it loses the rest of the country. It's their way of doing something when they otherwise dont do anything. it's the one politically safe move they have to motivate SOME voters without alienating their rich stakeholders. 

But...that's the thing. If we wanna talk about the elephant in the room, it's those stakeholders that are the issue. And now yang is trying to play ball with those kinds of people. This is just going to detooth forward as a pro working class movement. No UBI, no medicare for all, sorry. Just more worthless centrism. 

I'm sorry. I can't support this.

Yes, Yang is right. We have economic issues. His war on normal people is one of the most prolific books on the economy I have read. Yes, yang is right, polarization is a problem. We have one party that is insanely out of touch with reality and growing more and more dangerous to democracy itself, and the other party is a bunch of worthless moderates squandering the movement and picking fights over sectarian identity issues that just make the problems worse. 

This is why the country is in the crapper, and this is why we are locked into this situation.

This isn't going to change unless we have a party realignment. RCV can make that happen if it passes, but, if you dont have an economic movement to bring people back to the table of civility, well, we're screwed. 

FDR, when he saved the country from the forces of fascism and communism, realized he needed to make america work in a way where most people wouldnt even be attracted to extremist ideologies. Because they would be having their needs met by the mainstream.

Honestly, I'd rather forward play a spoiler in a 2 party system, drawing attention to UBI, and forcing the two party system to adopt it in order to keep people happy, than go all in on RCV and more milquetoast centrism. 

Europe also has the same problems as we do, and they have a multiparty democracy. Marine le pen came 2nd place in france. Britain had brexit. Germany has a growing alt right movement with AFD. 

A multi party democracy is nice, and more options is a good thing, and I agree we need to break the duopoly.

But...it's better to break the duopoly in a way that causes it to realign itself on more favorable terms than go all in with a new voting method without fixing the material conditions.

The important thing is to break the existing coalitions apart. We dont actually NEED to break the two party system permanently. While it would be nice, it's a secondary goal relative to UBI. 

I'm sorry, but without UBI there is no reason to support forward. As Andrew Yang himself once said, you need to get the economic boot off of peoples throats before they can care about anything else. Somewhere along the way, he seems to have forgotten that and got DC brain or something here. He said it in forward, sometimes you just have to deal with all of these forces that can corrupt you without you realizing it. And at this point, i think he found something that broke him.

Anyway, he has a podcast tomorrow and I plan to listen to what he has to say, but if I don't like it, I'm done with this movement.

Saying it out loud for the people in the back, CHRISTIAN DOES NOT MEAN NAZI, let's stop pretending it does

 So...leftists are increasingly insufferable lately with their shrill accusations and hostility to anyone who doesn't think exactly like them. And we all know their latest rallying cry against the right. "Christofascists". "Christian nationalists." Even MTG embraced the term as a positive, causing the elft to think she's a nazi.

I am not intending to actually DEFEND any of these people. My stance on the Christian worldview should be clear. I fundamentally reject it. BUT, as an ex adherent to fundamentalist christianity, and arguably a former "Christian nationalist", I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of terms here.

"Christian nationalists" want a CHRISTIAN NATION. They want us to be explicitly Christian, and have at minimum christian cultural influences permeating every aspect of society, if not an outright theocracy. David Noebel seemed to stop short of calling for an outright theocracy, pushing the "small government" mentality of "power is like the ring in the lord of the rings, you don't want to wield it or it will corrupt you."

But...we all know how well that works in practice. The christian right has been calling for the banning of abortion for 50 years. They've been calling for bringing prayer back into schools. They've continuously been against LGBT+ people in general. They do want to push their little agendas on us. In the school system. In society as a large. Even if they may not want an outright national church like the church of England, well, let's just say they stop JUST SHORT of that.

They believe that America is a Christian nation. They believe the founding fathers were christian and have a revisionist idea of history. And when people talk about "Christian nationalism", this is what's likely to come to mind when the name comes up.

But let's be honest, THIS IS NOT "FASCISM." The nazis were an explicitly racist movement that wanted an ethnostate. Now, that's not to say they can't form a coalition WITH christians. I mean, the nazis in germany did that. And nazism was once very popular in the US too, before WWII broke out. 

BUT, as I understand the Christian worldview, they aren't going to be explicitly calling for racism in and of itself. Christians are going to say: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28). That's what Christians believe. Most of them anyway. Sure, you will get SOME who overlap with the nazi stuff. It happens. But on a fundamental level, the two are distinct ideologies. One is about religion. The other is about race.

Now, that's not to say that there can't be some overlap. The modern christian movement arose in the 1970s and 1980s around the same time period dog whistle politics became popular. And of course, given how wedded the Christian worldview is to conservatism, there is going to be some overlap there. It might come in the form of talking about how welfare and the breakdown of the traditional family unit are disasters for this country. And of course, given they're going to be talking about ghettos with families full of single moms collecting welfare, yeah, there are going to be some racist caricatures associated with that. I will concede that. BUT...again. That stuff isn't really the same kind of racism as FASCISM. They're not going to be calling for the extermination or removal of minorities or a white ethnostate.So let's not even conflate them in that sense. 

Here's the thing. As we discussed, with understanding the times, Christians are insane individualists. All social problems are personal problems, with the answer to everything being we need more obedience to god in society. They literally reject the entire discipline of sociology. They don't believe social problems exist. They reject post modernism on principle. And this is where the left loses their crap. Because the left is very sociological. Especially the post modernists. Who are the ones most likely to run around screaming everything they don't like is racism. Because to them, racism is a structural problem with society, and if you aren't 100% on board with their ideology you're complicit and therefore a racist.They literally will say anyone who isn't actively anti racist is racist, which is why I get in so much trouble with them. Because how dare nuance exist.

Again, that's not to say overlap doesn't exist. It definitely does. I just feel like people are too quick to associate fundamentalist Christianity and crap like the recent ban on abortion with LITERAL FASCISM. They're two distinct movements and ideologies. 

Quite frankly, this obsession on the left freaking out about fascism is just the same crap as the right screaming liberals are communists.

Now, can there be overlap between marxism and stuff like atheism, or some forms of liberalism? I mean, sure. But that doesnt mean that they aren't also distinct. Just as the right treats the various factions on the left as a multiheaded hydra, the left is doing the same, throwing accusations that everything they don't like is fascism.

Please don't make me have to defend the fundamentalist nutcases again. Seriously. I hate the fact that I have to actually stick up for one of my ideological enemies here, being a humanist who rejects organized religion and its belief systems with a passion, but...if yall are going to screw up THIS BAD, it will have to be done.

Reacting to Yang's op-ed

 So, Yang, among others, have put forward an op-ed called "Most third parties have failed. Here's why ours won't." This is essentially the announcement of the new forward party. And, given my association with the first Forward party and disappointment with this new move, I feel like I need to react to this in detail. 

David Jolly is a former Republican congressman from Florida and is executive chairman of the Serve America Movement. Christine Todd Whitman is a former Republican governor of New Jersey and co-founder of the Renew America Movement. Andrew Yang is a former Democratic presidential candidate and is co-chair of the Forward Party.

 Okay, so, here's why I'm leery of merging with former republican third party movements. These guys are probably like the "lincoln project". You know, fiscal conservatives from the "moderate" wing of the party who got displaced by Trump. They might not be as insane as the rest of the GOP, but many will still hold very conservative views. While I have no issue with Yang trying to bring them into his movement on his own terms, merging with them and weakening his own platform as a result is a very bad sign. 

Conservatives post 1980 are generally anti UBI. This isn't the Eisenhower-Nixon party any more and it hasn't been for a long time. Reagan was an extremist at his time, but now he's a "moderate." Even George W. Bush is a "moderate". You know? While I have nothing against these guys joining forward, it has to be on our terms, not theirs. Merging is like a marriage it's 50-50, and involves a lot of compromise. And when that compromise involves UBI and human centered capitalism, that's a hard no for me.

Political extremism is ripping our nation apart, and the two major parties have failed to remedy the crisis. Last week, the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack at the Capitol led us to relive one of the darkest days in U.S. history. The chilling culmination of an attempted electoral coup in the United States was the strongest evidence yet that we are facing the potential demise of our democracy.

 Sure, sure, I agree. 

Polarization is fueling a spike in political intimidation. In the past two years, we’ve seen death threats and assassination plots against members of Congress, governors, Supreme Court justices and even the vice president of the United States.

 I mean, in a way. While I wasn't really big on this angle at first with Yang's original movement, I have warmed up to it. Given the extremeness of the right and left, Yang's movement was a breath of fresh air for me.

If nothing is done, the United States will not reach its 300th birthday this century in recognizable form. That’s why we are coming together — Democrats, Republicans and independents — to build a new, unifying political party for the majority of Americans who want to move past divisiveness and reject extremism.

 Yeah, i'm worried about that too. But here's the thing. We need a platform to unite Americans behind a new paradigm. A centrist party with no platform isn't going to solve anything, it's a circlejerk. 

Americans have lost faith in government. Nearly 8 in 10 say the country is headed in the wrong direction, according to a recent survey, and two-thirds of voters think neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have the right priorities.

 They don't, but Forward doesn't either at this point. 

Shockingly, roughly 30 million Americans believe violence against the current government is justified. The same number want to forcibly return former president Donald Trump to the White House. This is what happens when democracies fail: People feel their voices are not heard and radicalize to take up arms, leading to mainstream talk about “civil war.”

 To be fair, 30 million isn't that much. That's 10%. What's scarier is how much larger fractions of the GOP are still on the trump train to varying degrees.

How do you remedy such a crisis? In a system torn apart by two increasingly divided extremes, you must reintroduce choice and competition.

 ...and I agree. BUT...you must also fix the material conditions that are leading to this polarization. You know why this happened, Andrew. In 2016, voting for Trump was a rejection of the status quo and a cry for help. People wanted a fix to the economy. Trump promised to bring back jobs lost. Hillary told us we'd get nothing. Bernie had a good platform but was screwed by the dems.

I mean, the problems with the parties are a problem but they're only half the problem. We need to fight not just for voter reform, but also for your original platform. You nailed it with the war on normal people. UBI, M4A, human centered capitalism. I would add a couple things to that like free college/student debt forgiveness, climate change legislation, etc., but in line with my purity testing those are my tier 2 "nice to haves", so I'm not gonna be that picky. 

But yeah. We do need to break the duopoly. But, we need a platform that wins people over the fixes the material conditions. The left has some nice solutions, but they're also misguided and obsessed with jobs. The right has no solutions at all. 

If I had ranked choice voting, I would vote this way:

1) Yang/Human centered capitalism (original vision)

2) The progressive left

3) The democrats

4) Anyone else but the republicans

5) The republicans

I mean, here's the thing. The actual threat to our democracy comes from ONE SIDE. The republicans. The democrats arent taking up arms against the government. They've tried this enlightened centrist schtick to try to "save the democracy." THEYRE FAILING. People are screaming about gas prices, covid regulations, etc. And while yes, the left sometimes goes a bit crazy on the culture war nonsense, the actual democratic party is doing the centrist circlejerk thing. IT ISNT WORKING. The problem with Biden is he's too milquetoast. And now forward is going even more moderate than that?

This is just the wrong kind of movement for the time at hand.

If we're really that concerned about the future of the country, where we're concerned about the political violence of the right, we should just vote democrat at this point.

The point of forward was to reject both the right AND the democrats. The democrats are complicit because of the following:

1) They don't do anything to make peoples' lives better

2) They hold the system hostage and tell us to support them or else

You see how AT BEST this is just a marginal improvement, and if the risk of the right is as serious as you think, we better all vote for our lives and throw our lot in with the democrats to avoid the crazies from taking power again?

This party is going to DO NOTHING, Andrew. 

Without your original 2020 platform, YOU HAVE NOTHING.

The United States badly needs a new political party — one that reflects the moderate, common-sense majority. Today’s outdated parties have failed by catering to the fringes. As a result, most Americans feel they aren’t represented.

 The dems cater to the center. THe dems are catering to the same set of republicans you are.

Yes, some democratic VOTERS are extreme. SOMETIMES I don't blame them. The reason I was on "the left" through 2020 was because I realize that we actually need to DO SOMETHING to actually solve problems. We NEED a UBI. We NEED medicare for all. We NEED free college and student debt forgiveness. We NEED an entire paradigm shift along the lines of human centered capitalism.

Before YOU came along the left was the best we had. BECAUSE AT LEAST THEY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING. 

Now, I'm gonna be honest, the postmodernist left, yes, I'll agree with you on those guys. They pick weird culture war spats that just enrage the right. We should move to the center on SOCIAL ISSUES. 

But on economics, just keep doing what you WERE doing. 

Like really, when you called the past forward party centrist, i thought that the thing was, it was pretty far left on economics but on social issues it mostly remained on the sidelines and didn't pick those fights often. 

Most third parties in U.S. history failed to take off, either because they were ideologically too narrow or the population was uninterested. But voters are calling for a new party now more than ever.

 Actually most failed to take off because:

1) most third parties end up being single issue parties with no cohesive platform to get people interested

2) they overlap too much with existing parties

3) most people claim they want a third party but just vote blue no matter who anyway

Honestly, I don't even think forward CAN "succeed" electorally. I acknowledge that. I mean, to me, I dont even care if I lose, because the thing is, I'd rather vote for what i want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get it. I dont really vote strategically outside of narrow circumstances where the compromise isn't major. The reason I was attracted to forward was because it literally appealed to my ideology. 

Honestly, third parties are normally, at best, public pressure campaigns centered around specific issues. They are largely ignored until we enter a realignment period, in which case the parties start shifting to appeal to disaffected voters displaced by the previous alignment. 

And given we ARE in a realignment cycle IMO, right now is the perfect time to push for what we want. We should use forward as a public pressure campaign to advocate for UBI AND RCV. We should do BOTH. 

Like, I'm gonna be honest, I dont really think forward will succeed either way. I mean, most voters, for as much grumbling as they do, will continue to vote democrat or republican. The goal of a third party is just to get enough voters to pressure the parties to support your cause. Unless either the dems or republicans just completely collapse, we're NOT going to see one party REPLACE another.

And while forward was working on ballot initiatives to work on RCV (and should keep doing that), the fact is, it's not going to win most elections. 

All I know is this. While this might gain some new supporters, it's also a slap in the face and the betrayal of the existing movement.

And I get it. You're a businessman. Your approach to politics is like running a business. Voters are customers. And if you can trade in your old supporters for newer ones who are more wealthy then you're gonna do it. If UBI holds you back, maybe you'll give up UBI and rebrand yourself.

But you're gonna lose the original customer base that got you where you are. And I'm not going to stand by and accept this. 

For the first time in modern history, roughly half of Americans consider themselves “independents,” and two-thirds say a new party is needed (and would vote for it). Surprisingly, a majority of Democrats and Republicans say they want another option, too.

 As I said, Americans complain but then vote for the duopoly anyway. 

As leaders and former elected officials, we’re tired of just talking about a third way. So this month, we’re merging our three national organizations — which represent the left, right, and center of the political spectrum — to build the launchpad for a new political party called Forward.

 Third way. Hmm. Where does that sound familiar. Oh wait.

 Congratulations, you just reinvented the democratic party as it's existed since 1992. The same democratic party that is responsible for our democracy falling apart due to its mismanagement since 2016. 

The two major parties have hollowed out the sensible center of our political system — even though that’s where most voters want to see them move. A new party must stake out the space in between. On every issue facing this nation — from the controversial to the mundane — we can find a reasonable approach most Americans agree on.

 On economics at least, America's political spectrum is so far right, any sane option would be to their left. Including you. 

On cultural issues, I'd cede the point, but forward seemed to have it right.

On guns, for instance, most Americans don’t agree with calls from the far left to confiscate all guns and repeal the Second Amendment, but they’re also rightfully worried by the far right’s insistence on eliminating gun laws. 

 Again, cultural issues. And I agree. I don't agree with banning assault weapons or limiting mag sizes, etc. I just want to have slightly stricter gun laws in terms of loopholes, and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.

On climate change, most Americans don’t agree with calls from the far left to completely upend our economy and way of life, but they also reject the far right’s denial that there is even a problem.

 Cool. I agree. I think the far left when they romanticize the green new deal and redoing our entire infrastructure over again around public transportation most americans buy cars specifically to avoid. At the same time the far right is literally in lalaland because they think the earth is 6000 years old.

Honestly, build back better HAD a moderate framework. The democrats had a moderate framework.

And honestly? I read Yang's 2020 platform on climate change back in the day. I actually thought it was one of the most progressive ones out there and given I reject the GND outright, I think it was the best one in 2020 in retrospect. 

But...again. You're just reinventing...the democratic party.

On abortion, most Americans don’t agree with the far left’s extreme views on late-term abortions, but they also are alarmed by the far right’s quest to make a woman’s choice a criminal offense.

 THEN FREAKING SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATS. 

Seriously, late term abortions were NEVER protected under Roe and Casey. Roe and Casey allowed elective abortions up to 20 weeks or so. Most states had laws banning late term abortion, and late term abortion were only a small minority. 

Hell, the only reason, I support late term abortion is because republican crazies want to ban abortions for people who actually NEED THEM. You know, people with medical issues who will DIE if they don't get abortions. Crap like that. 

Also, if you dont wanna make it a criminal offense, then congrats, even if you are morally opposed to abortion, you're pro choice. What do you think you're doing when you ban it? You're making it a criminal offense and holding someone criminally liable if they break the law.

Like...do you realize that's what prohibitions are? 

Seriously, the democrats HAD THIS RIGHT. 

All this new "centrist" forward party is doing is reinventing the centrist faction of the democratic party. 

Now, with forward 1.0, I wasn't necessarily against this. Given how insane some of the dem voter base is, I feel like a moderate rebranding is how we can push democratic policies while claiming they're moderate and getting former conservative types on board. BUT....again. Unless you do something DIFFERENT than the democrats, this party is useless. 

To succeed, a new party must break down the barriers that stand between voters and more political choices. Accordingly, we will passionately advocate electoral changes such as ranked-choice voting and open primaries; for the end of gerrymandering; and for the nationwide protection of voting rights and a push to make voting remarkably easy for anyone and incredibly secure for everyone.

 And again, I don't oppose those things, but honestly, it doesn't make for a compelling argument. 

All this is doing is making me want to vote democrat. That's how bad this pitch is failing.

Political polarization and violence? Yeah, vote democrat, dont vote for those crazy repubs.

Have sane centrist positions on issues? Gee, it's almost as if that's what the dems have done all along, minus the crazy postmodernists with their culture war nonsense. 

Without such systemic changes, Americans will be left with a closed system and fewer options on the ballot. These reforms go hand in hand with a new party.

 Again, you also need to materially improve peoples' lives. Something the dems and all of their "centrism" have failed to do, and something forward will fail to do if it abandons its original principles.

Some call third parties “spoilers,” but the system is already spoiled. There are more than 500,000 elected positions in the United States, but a recent study found more than 70 percent of races on ballots in 2020 were unopposed or uncontested. A tiny sliver of U.S. congressional seats will have close races this November. The two major parties have shut out competition, and America is suffering as a result.

 yeah it sucks, but when they call them spoilers, it's because it causes the other side to win by splitting the vote of the existing side. 

I fail to see what this platform even offers compared to the dems.

Like again, no one actually wants more centrism. We dont want more wishy washiness. We want solutions. 

You have solutions for the two party system, but if you dont otherwise meaningfully offer anything different than what the two parties offer to begin with on OTHER ISSUES, theres NO REASON to vote for you.

That’s why we’re proposing the first “open” party. Americans of all stripes — Democrats, Republicans and independents — are invited to be a part of the process, without abandoning their existing political affiliations, by joining us to discuss building an optimistic and inclusive home for the politically homeless majority

 Another "big tent" party, gee, much like the democrats. 

Also, the reason i was on board with the first party was yang's original platform. 

Without that, there's no reason to leave the dems to support this stuff.

Our merged organizations are just the starting point, the launchpad for this movement. We are planning liftoff at a national convention next summer and will soon seek state-by-state ballot access to run candidates in 2024 and beyond. We are actively recruiting former U.S. representatives, governors, entrepreneurs, top political operatives and community leaders to make it happen.

 I would be excited if UBI were still on the ballot but with this...no.

America’s founders warned about the dangers of a two-party system. Today, we’re living with the dire consequences. Giving Americans more choices is important not just for restoring civility. Our lives, our livelihoods and our way of life depend on it.

 Choice is good, but what's the point if you're just more or less copying the democrats' failed electoral strategy anyway?

Anyway, there was a quote I thought that was in here that isn't. Perhaps it's in another article. But it mentioned something about how funding won't be a problem and they got a lot of financial donors and backers supporting this.

Which...isn't necessarily a good thing. Again, this might help the party grow, but if it comes at the expense of its soul, well, this is basically a deal made with the devil. 

The fact is, I'm out.

All this really makes me wanna do is vote democrat, something I've seriously considered doing because again, I see the modern GOP has a serious threat to democracy.

BUT....I stuck with forward because I decided that I couldn't abandon my advocacy for UBI and RCV. Forward 1.0 was like, more or less my dream political party. It wasn't perfect, but it aligned with me to an insane degree and heavily reflected my political ideology in the post 2020 environment. 

And given my conviction on these issues and how passionate I am for issues like UBI, I just couldn't back away from the movement. I mean, what the rest of the country does is up to them, but advocating for UBI is basically my life purpose as I see it (see, you CAN have a sense of purpose without working a BS job), and yeah. I just can't back away from that.

But if FORWARD backs away from it...well....that just tells me to abandon forward. I no longer have any reason to back this movement if the original vision is gone. Again, all this does is make me want to support the democrats. Because honestly, given the threats pointed out in this article, the democrats are a better solution for now. And given the position on social issues like abortion, again, might as well vote democrat. 

Like...seriously, they just rediscovered the enlightened centrism of the democratic party.

The problem is we dont have a functioning left. Because the dems are TOO centrist already (on economics). 

What we need is a more left vision on economics, but a more centrist vision on cultural issues. Yes, break the two party duopoly and go to the center on cultural issues. The right are a bunch of crazy fundies, and the left are a bunch of crazy postmodernist. We need a sane centrist humanist alternative here. Something that basically is nominally left but without the ideological baggage.

On economic issues...well...the problem is we have two right wing parties. We need a new left. 

Right now we have the third way centrists who are already too moderate. The progressives who are stuck in 1960s labor politics, or alternatively marxism, and are too dogmatic to compromise with where they crap on yang's, quite frankly, superior vision. And yang just...has the evolution the 21st century left needs.

That's the thing. The left NEEDS yang. The ONLY reason Yang is a "centrist" on economics is because the left is too dogmatic in what it is, and claims that yang is more moderate based on ideological circlejerking. I dont even think UBI is more right wing than most of what the left offers. As an ex conservative, I would've seen UBI as akin to communism. Now we got communists calling it a right wing plot or something. it's freaking crazy.

But yeah. Honestly....the only reason Im a moderate at all is because the progressive left, which, btw holds no actual power they just talk a lot of crap, calls me one for not agreeing with their tribalism.

The actual democratic party with power is basically as moderate and useless as this new forward party is. 

So for me, yang was always about offering another vision of "left". 

But to actually go all "the democrats are too extreme and we need something even centrister" is just...no. No, no. 

Again, crap on the far left all you want on cultural issues.

but on economics, we do need a vision that is more...left wing than what we have. It doesnt need to be marxism, if anything I like the humanist approach yang basically has. It just has to be more compelling than what the dems offer. 

Honestly, this party is a mistake. This merger is a mistake. This is literally the worst thing yang could've done to forward. This is a nightmare. And I can't support it.

Unless yang explains himself, I'm done. He's lost a supporter.

I don't know who's worse, leftists or what remains of the yang gang...

 So...this forward announcement is a complete crapshow. As you guys know, I'm NOT happy with it. As I see it, Yang is selling out everything he believed in order to grow his organization. I'll be discussing this in more detail if I unpack his op-ed, but yeah, this doesn't look good.

A lot of Yang gangers are contorting themselves into justifying the decision. Suddenly, it's totally okay if UBI isn't part of the platform. And as I criticize the party, these guys are sounding a lot like democrats. Saying we can't have that and blah blah blah and you gotta support the movement anyway. Only RCV matters, nothing else. I mean, if I was gonna hold my nose and vote for a centrist movement that doesn't stand for anything, I would just vote for the democrats.

I admit, RCV is important, and I'm glad Yang expanded his platform to include it. I'm going to be honest, i LOVED forward party 1.0 and was a day 1 supporter. But....the original platform is important too. And as I've figured crap out the last couple years, I actually became more and more sympathetic to his platform and the choices he made in designing it. But...this new forward is weaksauce. He barely stands for anything now, and his original vision is completely gone. He literally just threw his entire 2020 platform under the bus.

ANd that's why I'm mad. No one wants a movement that doesn't stand for anything but vague overtures of "centrism". I'm not even against a lot of his "centrism" in FWD1.0. Because it mostly meant centrism on culture wars. A rejection of crazy ideologies and focus on common sense solutions. It was very palatable to my humanist worldview. 

But now, centrism means teaming up with ex republicans who think trump was just a little too crazy. I mean, this is the same issue the democrats have. being a "big tent" party that doesnt stand for anything and aspires to "centrism". I'm sorry, if this is the future of forward, I am DONE. 

At the same time, the left is extremely caustic toward yang, and their toxicity is...grating. To be fair, they did this last time he had a "centrist" party. Hurr durr the democrats are already centrist so now we're going full on center right? I've heard it again and again. It seems valid this time, whereas it just seemed hacky and this weird saber rattling for "ideological leftism" common within the progressive movement previously (if you dont agree with them 100% you're evil to them).

Still, they're still doing that. And even worse, these guys have been ripping on Yang for stuff that isn't even bad. I've seen nothing but derision from "progressives" on his UBI. Sam Seder, Jimmy Dore, TYT, etc. Oh, it's replacing welfare, oh, its a regressive tax, oh, it's bad, and then they support the kinds of UBI I keep telling people just don't work financially. The worst was probably ana kasperian and emma vigeland going on about how we should have a jobs program instead. 

Ugh.

Comments I see on places like reddit aren't any better. Again, ideological leftists just crapping on yang for not conforming to their vision of leftism. It's obnoxious. 

Like...maybe I AM more centrist than a lot of the left. Maybe UBI, M4A, and human centered capitalism is too "moderate" compared to what these guys want. We just did the "worldviews" thing. Humanism IS actually more moderate than the likes of marxism or postmodernism. And it's a lot less purity testy. After all, the whole point is not being dogmatic and believing in reason and evidence. 

But...if you're running a movement, you need SOME purity tests. yang is going so full on "anti purity test", he won't even purity test on the freaking thing that made him and his movements famous. And thats MY problem with Yang here. 

Again, as I see it, take 1-5 policies and make them do or die. Take maybe 5-10 more and make them nice to haves that you openly advocate for, but you can be a bit more flexible on. 

And then with the rest, well, you can compromise.

Yang does have 3 "policies" he's do or die on: RCV, nonpartisan primaries, and independent redistricting commissions.

And again, I'm not really opposed to these, but again, his original platform was BETTER. This is a MASSIVE DOWNGRADE. 

But yeah. I'm just to the point I'm like screw politics again now. The dems piss me off. The republicans, well, don't get me started on them. The left pisses me off. And now the yang gang is alienating me. Ugh...

Explaining political polarization with understanding the times

So, I feel like understanding the times gives us a good insight into modern political polarization, and also where we're talking past each other. It's the worldviews thing.

Over the past 4 decades, the republican party has built up this conservative Christian worldview that has gotten more and more out of touch with reality. The right retreated from the public square as we knew it, claiming mainstream institutions had a "liberal bias" (rather they had a liberal worldview that conflicted with theirs), and started building alternative media institutions that led to them radicalizing. 

That said, through the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s, these guys have just gotten more extreme. And I feel like the fundamentalist christian worldview explains where a lot of these guys are at. They've become zealous for a cause and pushing their ideology. And they tend to project a lot of faults that aren't there on other ideologies.

As we saw, they kind of treated the more liberal ideologies as more a multiheaded hydra than as distinct ideologies in political terms, conflating them and acting like they're part of the same beast than distinct entities. They seemed to project the failures of Marxism-Leninism on postmodernism and secular humanism, acting like all left wing ideologies will ultimately be subject to the same flaws as they collapse under the weight of moral relativism and utopian ideals that don't work.

But, as we know, this is fundamentally untrue. Not only are the conservatives completely off base, but they dont properly understand the left. They are basically falling for old school red scare tactics, where they accuse anything they don't like of being "communism." 

My own ideology is an attempt to counter this, claiming that secular humanism and moral relativism isn't that bad, and using reason and evidence to push for a utopian vision of America that can actually work. I WANT to fight the right on these terms, and I believe we're to the point where the center of gravity of the country is shifting in our favor. As I discussed previously, back in 2012, the narrative of the coalition of the ascendant was dominant, and the narrative basically suggested that conservatism was on borrowed time. It primarily appealed to old white men, with the majority of the country shifting away from that toward the left. It seemed in 2016 the time had come, but things just never turned out right...

Rather than fight the right on their own terms, pushing for a battle of worldviews where the left stood for a worldview based on reality and making the world a better place, postmodernism ended up being the dominant ideology of the left instead.

Bernie and Hillary really did have different worldviews. Bernie was a mix of humanism and marxism, with the more destructive elements of marxism stripped out of his platform. But Hillary basically ran on post modernism, pushing political correctness to the forefront to combat Trump's abrasive anti PC attitudes. This led to a culture of fear on the left in which many demographics on the left were brought together by identity politics, with intense pressure put on a lot of people who hated this framing to conform or get the crazies. 

And the crazies won. because political correctness is not popular in america. While postmodernism might succeed among the left at large due to its diverse coalitions and moderation on economic issues, it is alienating to many people, including independents, leading to Trump winning. The momentum on the culture wars shifted. Rather than being a battle between christianity and humanism, it became this weird left wing version of the red scare where everyone the left didn't like was a "nazi". Postmodernism became a religion on the left, and anyone who didn't conform was relentlessly tarred and feathered. Antifa became a thing. They talked about punching nazis, cancel culture, etc. And this generally just gave the right power. Because as we know, a big motivator of right wing voters is the backlash effect. As the left tries to push these crazy unpopular value system on people, it just causes people to join the right.

While I believe the left can win a fight of christianity vs humanism, it struggles when suddenly the left is tilting at windmills screaming about racism, sexism, and -phobias. 

Now to be fair they're not completely tilting at windmills. Trump was flagrantly appealing to a lot of groups as part of his anti political correctness campaign, but heres the thing, THE VOTERS LOVED THAT. While trump overdid it, I believe the majority of people are tired of stuffy moral policers trying to tell people what to do, and like someone who tells them no.

Being a humanist, I almost have to respect Trumps hustle there. Because my own ideology is very pro free speech, as it is based on free thought. You don't think I was a really obnoxious blasphemer in my atheist days? Of course I was. I had the same screw your feelings mentality trump did. Except I'd "own the right". 

Heres the thing, on culture wars, I feel like the people fighting against the other side trying to force their values on people is a good thing. I think it's a good thing for the left to tell the right they need to keep their BS religion out of government. I think it's fine to be subversive to religion, especially conservative religion. I think it's fine to tell them off on issues in which they try to morally police and push their ideas on others. My whole perspective is one of subversiveness toward moral policers. And for a while, I feel like the left was able to use the same backlash effect vs the right and win. And then rachel maddow would come around, tell everyone that we live in reality, and conservatives better join it. 

That was the left that won in 2012. 

But this post modernist left causes the energy to go in the other direction. Because no one likes these stuffy moral policers who bully people into agreeing with their perspective. My secular humanist perspective helped me value free speech. Now the left says "free speech has consequences", imply that people should be punished for expressing their views freely. How can the left succeed in such a stifling environment? Well, they can't. 

Anyway, here's a big problem with both sides too. WHen they tlak like this, theyre talking past each other. My ideology addresses the accusations the right heaps on us directly. That our moral relativism and utopianism will be the end of us. That we are basically all marxist leninists who want what happened in the soviet union to happen here. THose are tankies. Tankies are a ridiculously small minority. Almost no one really believes in that crap. And you know what? A better world is possible, and we should fight for it. 

But then you got the left, screaming about racism and sexism and crap. Now to be fair, are there racists among republicans? Yes. Dog whistle politics is a thing, and beyond that, yes most white supremacists are trumpers. BUT....are most people white supremacists. Well, it depends on how you define it. Are most people neonazis or okay with them? No. Nazis and actual white supremacists are a tiny percentage of the population. But, postmodernists want to act like racism is the biggest issue in the country. Sadly, that might become a self fulfilling prophecy. if racism wasnt focused on, racists would continue to be a minority of the country. But if anything I feel like postmodernism creates a backlash effect that causes many right wingers to be unwitting supporters of it, because they are anti PC. THe right really hates political correctness. And it creates a backlash environment. And the right is, in my opinion, gaining ground.

This is a bad issue for society to be polarized around. Because it just makes the issue more salient, it makes it more contentious. if the issue were left alone, racists would happily continue being a minority of the country both sides universally condemn. Christians dont like racism, for example. We're all god's people after all. But, if christians have to take a side between moral policers from the left and racists, guess who they side with?

It's kind of like how when christians accuse the left of being marxists it actually led to bernie to run as a socialist and actually do quite well. I believe he could've won 2016. And that would have destroyed the right as we knew it. Seriously, if bernie won in 2016 and was able to enact his agenda, it would've been game over for the right. They wouldve lost the country for a generation. But instread now the left is making mistakes and blowing it, actually breathing life into a dying movement and bringing it back from the dead.

Honestly, it may or may not be too late. Due to the actions of both parties in 2016-present, we might be stuck fighting a race war no one wanted but was forced on us. 

Never mind the fact that the actual accusations of fascism are largely a strawman. Almost no one in america is outright fascist. Many are susceptible to it, but they themselves are good people who dont know what theyre doing. Human psychology is such where good people can quickly become authoritarian in the right conditions. But as long as they dont come along, it never happens. What happened in Nazi germany can happen here, but only under the right conditons. And sadly, I feel like we are on that track, but mainly because of the rise of trump and the postmodernist movement. Its a harmful framing for American politics. 

Generally speaking, I think we should understand that push comes to shove, most people arent actually fascist. Its an accusation thrown around, but it's like "communist". A meaningless buzzword from a bunch of hyperbolic moral policers trying to portray their opponents as extreme. Just like how the right accuses the left of communism. 

Honestly, the left and right have a lot in common with each other despite different belief systems. Both are moral policers who want to force their crazy systems on people, and both accuse their opponents of being some strawman version of the other extreme. And thats not a good way to view things. Push comes to shove, I believe most people are good people. Even if they sometimes have misguided ideals. Now, that's not to say we can't criticize or fight against those ideals, but I believe we're too quick to demonize our opponents. No, most right wingers aren't literal nazis. At worst they just fundamentally reject critical theory and all sociology when you really think of it due to their conservative christian worldview. Racism to them isnt about systems. Its about individuals with prejudices. And they regret being called the term. To be fair, critical theory is a valid way to view the world (in moderation, something postmodernists dont have), and sociologically their ideas have validity, but honestly, the downside of the postmodernist worldview is that if you make it your defining ideology you start seeing malice when it isn't even there and ascribing motives to people that don't really exist.

THe same goes the other way. Christians think anyone who isnt them is godless and evil. And you can be good without god, not having a sense of objective morality doesn't translate to wanting to kill people for craps and giggles, and because social sciences have validity, and only crazed ideologues who deny reality actually get in mindsets conducive to that on a mass scale. Secular humanists at least are generally moderate enough they base their views on reason and evidence, and are much less dogmatic than other ideologies. I dont deny there is danger with marxist leninists, and even to some extent post modernists with the "bash the fash" talk, but its not godlessness that leads to that kind of political violence, its tribalism and fear of the other.

I mean, if forward didnt do such a complete and utter betrayal, I would be plugging them right now. The ideas of fact based governance, human centered capitalism/UBI, and grace and tolerance are exactly what we need. We need reality based policies, utopian ideas that can actually work, and to be tolerant of people who dare disagree with us. Not to say we cant disagree with people, just that we shouldnt dehumanize them or act like theyre such a threat we justify violence against them.

And honestly, both the right and the left have it wrong right now. Both are insane moral policers who wanna push their crazy ideologies on people and sanction those who disagree with them. And both are just as wrong as the other in that sense. 

Ya know, this Yang thing pisses me off majorly

Let's face something I've known something for a while. While his original political movement is based and probably the most progressive political ideology I've ever seen, Yang has always been just the wrong person to run it. 

Yang...I mean, he's always been a flawed candidate. In 2020, he kept changing his position on things. Just look at medicare for all. He supported it in his war on normal people. And then on the campaign trail he started saying "look, I support the spirit of medicare for all, but we cant get there right away, we need a public option", and then he ran on some lame healthcare plan that read like a Trump healthcare plan. It had nothing but band aid fixes, it literally made Obamacare look good by comparison. Because it was a non plan. 

That's actually a reason I ended up not supporting Yang in 2020. I decided that while I love yang, and I loved UBI, I didn't love them enough to give up literally everything else I supported for that. And pre covid, it made sense. The green new deal looked like the immediate future for me, not UBI, despite my misgivings. And given I felt climate was the most pressing concern, okay, I'd let Bernie do his thing.

I did come to regret that. COVID really reignited my passion for UBI, as we entered a crisis where we somehow needed to provide for tons of people, without giving people jobs and work. And UBI suddenly looked very good. And as I really went out there to find myself post 2020, I really decided that yeah, we need UBI. I investigated whether we could do single payer too and while I maintain we can, I admit it's a tough sell and am willing to support a public option.

And as I read Yang's Forward book, I kind of realized Yang didn't really back off of his ideas. If anything he tactically retreated but he still believed the same thing.

Still, it was a bad image. To have these top campaign priorities just casually thrown aside and abandoned was a bad look, and it really tarnished his reputation. People would call him a "grifter" and crap like that. It would make me mad. The far left makes up so many BS narratives about Yang being a bad guy that I just find it ridiculous. They dont even try to understand, they just wanna ideologically circlejerk, so make up myths about UBI destroying welfare (as if that's even a bad thing to some extent) and crap. 

And even today, as my faith in yang plummets, I STILL find those people grating as hell. Watching emma vigeland and ana kasperian circlejerking about a job guarantee while crapping on yang makes my blood boil. "Well UBI was a trojan horse to destroy welfare and no one wants a UBI and we need a job guarantee because people want to feel a sense of purpose." Yeah, screw your sense of purpose and your jobs. Just gonna say that here. Freaking hacks.

BUT...I have to wonder if the left has a point. The fact is, for Yang to just abandon UBI and human centered capitalism like this...it bothers me. I dont doubt that somewhere deep in his heart, he still believes these things, and it is a bit of a "tactical retreat" like with medicare for all, but it feels like he just sold his soul to the devil. Yes, he is going to gain support for this. A lot of moderate anti trump republicans will flood into forward like crazy. 

BUT...in the process, I feel abandoned. I advocate for his ORIGINAL VISION. UBI, medicare for all, human centered capitalism. We align almost perfectly here, as we've discussed quite a bit. And I even like the third party shift. Im disaffected as hell with the democrats for obvious reasons I won't restate for the sake of sounding like a broken record. Expanding his platform into RCV and deescalating the culture wars are good things. And if anything I've grown an appreciation for that platform as time went on, even getting over some of my original misgivings by reading the room elsewhere. 

BUT, just to throw away that original platform...yeah no. Yang needs to stop doing that crap. Either you support something, or you don't. I know Yang is trying to be super inclusive and big tent like here...but there's a balance between being too purity testy, and not standing for anything at all. If youre too strict on the purity tests, you become like the bernie bros. You scream at people for not agreeing with you on some arcane issue only they care about. BUT...if you go too far in the other direction, you become like the mainstream dems. A movement so obsessed with political pragmatism and big tent ideas that no one knows what it stands for and it barely stands for anything at all. 

The key is to pick a handful of winning issue and stick with them. Use THEM as purity tests, but compromise on everything else. it's fine to take 1-5 issues or so, and make them lines in the sand. it's fine to take another 5-10 and say "these I heavily prefer, but I can compromise on them somewhat". And then it's fine to say, yeah, I dont really care about this, so what if this guy doesnt agree with me. 

That's what I do. 

UBI and some sort of healthcare reform are my big two, with UBI being the biggest one. 

Stuff like free college/student debt forgiveness, climate change legislation, and stuff like RCV are nice to haves. Even abortion is a "nice to have" for me, given I literally view it as a freedom issue close to my heart. I mean, I CAN bend on them, but I'm still going to hope that whomever I support supports at least SOME of them.

But then you have other random issues. Like random culture war nonsense. Like, I dont care if you're a TERF or whatever (since people on the left scream about "TERFs" constantly for some reason). I dont care what your stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict is (something Yang got dragged over hot coals for). I don't care whether you believe in systemic racism and white supremacy being a problem. I know there are a lot of lefties who will scream to the high heavens demanding absolute purity on these kinds of issues, and I just...don't care. 

I have a handful of issues I care about a lot. A bunch more I care about somewhat, and then a bunch I'm willing to let go. 

Maybe Yang is doing that too....but he just decided his original UBI and human centered capitalist vision is part of what he can let go.

Either way, I cannot follow. 

I really hope Yang explains his behavior. i think his supporters deserve an explanation and deserve clarity on exactly where he stands on UBI and the like.

But, if he's abandoning those aspects of his platform, then he's abandoning me. 

Maybe the left was right and this was a huge grift after all. It's a shame, I legit thought yang was the real deal and he really stood for these things. I mean, being willing to walk away from the democrats over your convictions takes a lot of courage in this environment. And I respected him for having major balls to do it. 

But...if he's abandoning that, again, he's abandoning me.

As far as I'm concerned, no UBI, no vote, no support. RCV and the like is nice, but it's not my top top issue. I really just see that stuff as a means to an end to make my UBI aspirations a reality. But if I had to choose, I'd rather have UBI. 

Some forwardists asked me if I'd rather get something done or just circlejerk about UBI. If getting something done means selling out everything I believe in then i'd rather circlejerk. I know forward isnt a movement that will likely succeed. But, third parties almost never do in conventional political terms. Third parties primarily exist as INFLUENCERS. They draw attention to the problems with the current political alignment and are basically public pressure campaigns for change. A successful third party is one that forces a realignment or brings enough attention to its pet issues that it no longer needs to exist, because one of the two parties took up their cause and implemented them.

And I've basically decided, i care more about my ideas than winning. because if you win by selling out everything you believe in,youre not winning anyway. Even if you win, you lose.

You know, I was actually considering suspending my support for the forward party based on the idea that if donald trump runs again, he is so dangerous that I'd have to consider a democratic vote just to stop him.

But...I once again realized if I did that I'd be selling out my ideology and opening the door to having to do this again in another 4 years, and then another 4. 

I decided my message around UBI and my convictions in favor of it were so strong, I had to stick with UBI. I had to stick with human centered capitalism. My advocacy for that is more important to me, than voting against trump. It just is. 

What normies do normies are going to do. One vote isnt going to affect the election and whomever wins is going to be decided by trends, not individuals. Even in swing states. 

But, given my secular humanist ideology intersecting with my cosmic humanist one, I feel an intense need to stick by my convictions on UBI NO MATTER WHAT. That's what gives me purpose in life, that's what I feel most at home advocating for. If I have a calling it is that. Abandoning it just feels wrong. And I just won't do that. 

 So, sorry Yang, you abandon UBI, you abandon me. And I can't be more disappointed in forward as a movement because of it. I honestly feel betrayed right now, and I'm not happy about it.

Expanding the cosmic humanist worldview

 So, one thing understanding the times did poorly was discussing the cosmic humanist worldview. I feel like they barely had much to say on the subject, and the topic was a lot less fleshed out than it was for other worldviews. But, given my own experience with this worldview, I feel like I can explain it better than Noebel can. I will admit, I can be a bit biased here, but again, having some actual spiritual beliefs here, it might be good if I can shed some light on things.

Theology

The themes of "everyone is god" and "all is one" is generally accurate. The New Age theology is normally based on a form of pantheism, the idea that everything and everyone are part of god. God is often referred to as "source" (as in the source of all things), with everything being made up of, and being an expression of god. Why is there something instead of nothing? Why make all of this? I don't really know. I suspect being eternal and alone is boring. So God made the universe, maybe many other universes, and split its consciousness among many many many trillions of souls, which are all individualized expressions of God, with us being some of them. 

In all honesty, when I talk to "God", I feel as if I'm talking to a more advanced version of myself. And it is, to my understanding a more highly advanced version of ourselves. While each of us are incarnated on earth, some of our soul is left behind in "heaven" and we interact with it regularly, being the eternal, all knowing version of ourselves. We also come across other beings who may interact with us, whether in heaven or on earth. We often have spirit guides in heaven, and on earth many of our significant relationships are often with people we know elsewhere. 

Philosophy

As the book states, most cosmic humanists are not naturalists, and don't believe the natural is all that there is. There may be many dimensions and beings that we are not really aware of. I don't think that we need to discount naturalism. As you guys know, I think science and the scientific method are some of the best ways to know what is true or not, but we should also be aware that this is not necessarily all that is. Science is limited to our physical reality founded in the five senses. And unless we can detect something, we might not know it is there. While I respect agnostic atheists for their desire to have evidence before believing something and understand where they come from claiming to claim that there is extra is a logical fallacy such as a god of the gaps argument or an argument from ignorance, it is also true. We really don't know how the full extent of our reality works, and there can be a lot of "other stuff" in the gaps between our knowledge. 

I will say the book seems to focus on zen philosophy, but zen buddhism is just one branch of cosmic humanism. There are many other branches and iterations of the idea that can exist, and this worldview is really a collection of similar overlapping belief systems rather than one official belief system. It is very non dogmatic in a similar way to secular humanism. And to address the claim that cosmic humanists believe all religions lead to god, eh...in a way I can see a cosmic humanist claiming that. Because the supernatural does not really reveal itself in nature, I do believe they may interact with us through flawed religions. Unlike the christian god that demands we meet certain doctrines, the cosmic humanist version of god is willing to work with you where you are at, where ever that may be. They are also willing to work with atheists and meet them where they're at in my personal experience if they really want to reach out to you.

However, I would argue that they often don't, and again if you have to wonder why God isn't obvious, it's because I'd argue they don't want it to be obvious. Unlike the Christian god, who demands to be known and worshipped, I'd argue God doesn't really care about being believed in for the most part. If anything it works out to their advantage that we don't know. Because knowing would affect our behavior and that would take away a significant aspect of what makes us human. We come here, forgetting everything, so we can live in a world where many don't see any reason to believe in God, and those who do often approach the subject through flawed religion. It's a lot like the prime directive from Star Trek. Don't interfere with the less advanced societies, as doing so would influence their thinking and behavior. Nonintervention is generally best.

Ethics

Going off of the above thought, let's just say that while I dont necessarily think that the cosmic humanist perspective is necessarily morally relative, the noninterventionist stance is by design so that we have the free will to behave as we would in a world in which God is not present. Treat this reality like a simulation where technically, everything goes. You can do good, you can do evil. It's like the ultimate RPG, and souls generally incarnate into lives they wish to experience for whatever reason. I do believe we will ultimately be judged for our behavior here, and that we will have a life review showing the effects of our actions on others and the environment when we die. So while we are given free reign, well, let's just say I wouldn't want Hitler's life review when I die.

Does this mean there is a hell? No not really. I personally don't believe that. If "hell" exists at all its temporary. I personally believe that we are our own harshest critics, all being mini gods part of the big god in the other world. And while I would agree there is SOME system of "karma" or something like it, I do not have a firm stance here. Honestly, some lessons are intended to be learned in this life, and if we do not learn them we will learn them in another life. And some lessons we might learn in a future life based on our actions here. I do believe that, for example, that Hitler may have become a genocide victim in his next life, or will in some future life. So if you kill in this life, a future life might be designed with you dying horribly just so you know what it is like. 

I don't think karma is an absolute law, like say the Buddhists do. i don't think we necessarily have a firm system where every single karmic debt must be repaid and as we inevitably screw up in every life we get more and more in debt. If we did that, then it completely defeats the purpose of even incarnating in the first place, and it makes doing so one of the dumbest decisions you can make. Like taking a bad loan from a loan shark knowing they break your legs if you can't repay. So i do think whatever system exists is more flexible than that and there is some discretion.

Biology

This is where the book gets weird and kind of goes off the deep end and misses the point. In an attempt to shoehorn evolution into the equation, they go on about cosmic evolution and how we are evolving toward a collective consciousness. 

I mean, if I were going to answer the question of BIOLOGY, I would just answer with the secular worldview of evolution. But there's no reason it can't be a version of theistic or guided evolution. I really don't have strong opinions here. Some would believe in weird stuff like the "ancient aliens" theory or stuff like that, but honestly, for me, I just default to the secular perspective based on science. I see no reason this can't work with the idea of a new age perspective, we just don't NEED one to explain the process IMO. 

But...on the topic of collective consciousness, I mean, this is more in the political or ethical realms, but yes, I do believe that despite the "prime directive" style approach to intervention, that God or the divine on the other side don't influence our planet AT ALL. If it were to be done, they would send people to incarnate here for the sake of sending some message to evolve the species. Like if they decided to create a situation where someone would go through a certain series of events to bring them to some sort of truth that they are to share with the world. I believe that can happen. I mean, if the rules are no intervention from the outside in a direct sense, why not send people in to direct and influence things from the inside to advance humanity's knowledge or social evolution? 

Psychology

The cosmic humanist worldview, according to David Noebel is one based on pseudoscience, talking about how disease is a result of not being spiritually awakened enough. Admittedly, this is a common thread among a lot of cosmic humanists, and there is a lot of pseudoscience in the movement. Some think disease is a result of not being spiritually enlightened enough. A lot of new agers are also anti vaxxers going on about "chemicals" and stuff. They believe in "alternative medicine" and often going vegan for similar reasons. They might believe in healing crystals and weird stuff like that. 

I mean, in all honesty, no, just disregard all of that. Medicine is a field that should be based on science and peer review, so we know what works and what doesn't. While placebo effects show psychology CAN influence medicine to a small degree, ultimately our bodies are physical machines that are sometimes in need of maintenance. And as such, physical solutions are often the answer to our ills. 

Even though I am a cosmic humanist to some extent, my 60% secular humanist influence isn't there for no reason. I will always prefer reality based solutions over nonsense. As you can tell, most of my spiritual worldview does not really conflict with anything about physical reality or secular humanism at all. This worldview is complementary to my secular one. And when the two conflict I almost always prefer the secular approach. For obvious reasons.

Still, on the subject of psychology, I would say that new age stuff is big on stuff like meditation, mindfulness, being balanced mentally, and being able to hear god or your higher self more clearly by engaging in quiet meditation or hypnosis.

Sociology

 The book seems to mostly look at sexual relationships with each other and how it seems to oppose traditional family units. Well...okay. Let's try to explain it this way.

I don't think there is ONE SET WAY to do things like Christianity is for. Christianity loves to impose a life script on people. A one size fits all model for how life is to be lived. But given we all have free will, and there is the "prime directive" type approach to intervention, I don't think that God really prescribes one model.

And if anything as the book suggests, cosmic humanists often CHALLENGE traditional social norms and structures. To go off of the above, I do think some people come here explicitly to live in alternative ways that go against the grain to open up humanity's ideas of what is possible. We live in a sandbox world, God isn't telling us to live in any specific way. If anything, God might want to challenge peoples traditional perceptions and open up new ways of living to expand the collective consciousness. So if you want to live non traditionally, live non traditionally. Don't get married, don't have kids, don't work, be gay, be straight, be transgender, it doesn't matter. We can live in any way we want to. And if anything, I don't think God likes people to be imposing social norms on others in their name when they commanded no such thing. 

And yes, relationships can be weird. I do believe that we have soul relationships with many significant relationships we have in this life, and that what our relationships with others in this life are, is not what our relationships might be with them on the other side. We love to force the model of "till death do us part" when in reality....well...some relationships are supposed to last a lot less time, and others might last well beyond this life time. There may even be literal ETERNAL LOVE out there for people. Like soul mates whose history expands well beyond this life time and into eternity. Stuff like that. 

It's best not to use conventional knowledge when approaching cosmic humanism.

Law

As the book says, cosmic humanists arent generally focused on law much. They focus mostly on personal development. I never heard of "self law" in this sense and it seemed shoehorned in just to have something on this section.

Still, law and ethics can be a big part of one's spiritual views. And just as above god may indirectly influence our laws, or encourage stands against unjust laws, through us, ie, humans who incarnate for the specific purposes of doing so. 

On the subject of self law, while people might at times clash with laws and this be by divine design, I would avoid taking the self law idea seriously. If one can just disregard laws whenever they want, then it kind of defeats the purpose of them.

So while all of our laws are subjective and human made, I do believe most people should obey them most of the time and only under extreme moral conviction should people actually disregard them generally speaking. 

Just because we have free will doesn't mean we should use it violating just laws. I mean, we CAN do it, and there are penalties in this world for a reason. To prevent people from doing that. 

Honestly, this isnt much different than secular humanism. Just because no moral absolutes exist doesn't mean we should go around just doing whatever we want. Sometimes laws exist for good reason and should exist. 

Politics

The understanding the times book seems pretty inconsistent here. It claims that cosmic humanists want a one world government, while also claiming that we want anarchy. 

First of all, I never heard of new agers calling for one world government. If anything most new agers are extremely paranoid. Just as there are good people who come here to enlighten humanity, many new agers believe there are people who come here to exploit it. You know the weird talk about reptilians and lizard people new agers often talk about? Yeah, they believe they're an alien species that comes here to exploit people. While many species come here and incarnate as humans to help humanity, some do harm, and many new agers seem paranoid of the supposed harmful ones. 

Of course in my exact worldview under this, while I believe some come here for positive change, since everything from "God" is intended to be positive, even if it can be corrupted on earth, I do not believe there is an evil equivalent of that.

I dont think new agers are inherently for anarchy though. While if the worldview's conclusions were applied to law and politics, it could lead to that in theory, I think that law and politics are realms for humans to hash out amongst themselves. We are to decide collectively how to live. And while some might be sent here to influence that somewhat, ultimately the decisions do have to come from people. 

I think the only things that god is really willing to violate the prime directive type approach at all on are issues of existential importance. For example, I believe god and those from them influenced us in the 20th century to avoid nuclear war. And I think in the 21st they're working on climate change.If our habits are so self destructive they can destroy the planet and cause mass extinctions, i think god is more willing to intervene to prevent that. Never in fully known ways we can point to, but it's weird.

Consider how Hitler survived so many assassination attempts during WWII. I once watched a video suggesting if the war ended differently, we could've ended up in a nuclear war. But it ended in just the right way to prevent that outcome. Or consider fidel castro in a similar capacity and how if he wasn't in power the cuban missile crisis could have played out differently. 

I think some events play out in just the right way to create the optimal outcome that doesn't lead to a mass extinction event. And I believe that again, in the 21st century, they're concerned about climate change, and that a lot of people are sent here for the purpose of stopping that from blowing up and being self destructive. 

Economics

Once again I feel like Noebel drops the ball on this subject. He seems to claim cosmic humanism pushes some weird prosperity gospel thing where higher forms of spiritual consciousness contribute to more money. 

This is nonsense, and while I won't say that cosmic humanists are against making money, and do believe that if you work for something you have a right to enjoy it, honestly? Most cosmic humanists aren't overly concerned with money. While some would push weird law of attraction psuedoscience, there's a lot more to it than that.

If anything, the more highly spiritually conscious you are, the less you care. You don't believe in the grind, you don't believe in just working your life away under capitalism. I see a lot of people on spirituality forums and subreddits say since their spiritual awakening claiming since their "awakening" (when they develop a cosmic humanist worldview) that they often don't value work and career and money like they used to. Sure, people want enough to live on, but at some point, the sacrifices people give up become not worth it. Most truly spiritually enlightened people do not seek to become rich for its own sake. They don't value materialism highly. These things aren't necessarily bad, but there's just more important things in life. 

People in unethical careers might even decide to quit them to do something making a lot less money, and is more ethical. People might drop secular careers to follow their spiritual passions. And of course, there are many many MANY tarot readers on youtube looking for a buck. As they see it, spiritual mediums, tarot readers, and doing a service, and many have to eat, so they have to monetize the habit.

Others feel called to do service oriented work outside of capitalism altogether. Not all work is profitable, but it still has to be done. And many forms of work within capitalism are BS jobs that don't really provide purpose at all. The cosmic humanist worldview, much like my secular humanist one, seems to reject the idea that work under capitalism necessarily gives people a sense of purpose. If anything, at times they seem to be counter to one another. Many cosmic humanists work as little as possible in order to do their "real" work and live their "real" purpose. Your job matters little in the grand scheme of things. You're not here just to pay bills and die. You're a spiritual being here to experience life and live. Working your life away isn't living. 

History

As I said, while God normally remains neutral in human affairs and does not interfere directly, there are times and ways in which human history is influenced. I would argue God is especially interests in preventing crises that lead to mass extinction of the human species and other species, and actively encourages highly developed souls to incarnate on earth in order to prevent such an outcome. As I said, I also believe the divine will intervene to protect certain people if they need a certain event or outcome to pan out a certain way. I don't know how they do it, but the outcome seems obvious.

I also believe that souls can intervene for less serious reasons too. And it's very much in line with raising humanity's consciousness. People might live unconventional life styles as examples for others, to challenge traditional worldviews.

And I do believe the ultimate goal is for us to advance and mature as a species. Not toward 'god hood" or whatever since we're already divine, but toward making this as much of a heaven on earth as we can. While we are free to live poorly, and many great evils and injustices are tolerated here in accordance with our free will, I do think that god and others (who are part of god) intervene to make sure things don't go too far and to try to nudge humanity in a different direction. Whether we listen is up to us. 

How my views intersect with cosmic humanism

As you know, I would consider my worldview primarily a secular humanist one. But, I am also a cosmic humanist in a sense. As I see it, my deconversion from christianity was intentional. My worldview was intentionally broken to get me questioning the true nature of reality, allowing me to build a worldview back up and its place. And after I learned what I needed to, I became spiritual again.

My spiritual perspective is not the dominant perspective I have toward most areas of life. My secular humanist perspective is. BUT...as you can tell, there isn't much about the cosmic humanist perspective inherently at odds with my secular humanist perspective outside of the obvious belief in more than just the natural world. I tend to prefer to believe things based on reason and evidence, and as such, there are rarely conflicts between the two worldviews.

If anything, if you accept the reasoning I laid out above, you can see how the views actually...align in some odd ways. Like how my take on cosmic humanist economics is not at odds with my anti work views I developed under secular humanism. if anything the two go hand in hand. I don't think that's by coincidence. Both worldviews are just different approaches to the same set of issues. 

And honestly, I think it's good if anything that my political views can be justified primarily through a secular perspective of reason and evidence. No one should expect a raving lunatic screaming from the moutaintops to have a convincing message. Or the weird crystal lady going on about collective consciousnesses and the law of attraction. Sometimes you need a guy based in reality to actually get things done and have their views taken seriously. 

So yeah, whether you believe in cosmic humanism or not, it doesn't matter. I literally don't care and am fully sympathetic to anyone who is skeptical of such a perspective. All i ask is that on matters not directly pertaining to cosmic humanism that you take my views at face value and see if you think my reasoning and evidence are convincing. If you do, good for you. If you don't, well, that's up to you.

So let's discuss what Andrew Yang is up to

 So, I plan on doing more "understanding the times" oriented analyses of society as I feel like these are really good foundational articles that really summarize what motivates me and my perspective and serve as a lot of back end worldview building that is necessary to make my perspective come more into focus for me. BUT, I have a more pressing matter to discuss. Andrew Yang just did something big with his forward party, and...I have to discuss it.

I'm going to be blunt. I'm NOT a fan of this move, and this might mean me breaking with his movement out right. Hence the urgency with which I discuss this.

So, Andrew Yang merged the Forward Party with two other groups pushing for ranked choice voting. The first is the "Renew America Movement", which is a movement of conservatives, and the second is the "Serve America Movement", which is more bipartisan in nature. 

They're pushing this as a new "centrist party", continuing the centrist framing of the original forward party. It seems to be a good financial move for the forward movement, which seems to be why they're doing it, but here's the problem, I feel like Yang is selling out to make this happen. 

The reason I got on board with Yang was because his brand of politics largely reflects my own. His original 2020 platform based on UBI, Medicare for all, and human centered capitalism, is exactly what we need, and is eerily similar to my own core pitch in terms of political ideology. My original platform post my deconversion from christianity in 2012 evolved into UBI, Medicare for all, and free college. And my philosophy was based on the secular humanist ideology that I laid out in the previous article. Essentially, I decided that the economy is made for people, not people for the economy, and that work is a means to an end, not an end in itself. As such, we should implement the above policies, make work more voluntary, and allow people to have greater work life balance when they do work. This, in practice, ended up being eerily similar to Yang's human centered capitalism, although that had less of an anti work bend. Still, I aint splitting hairs. You support my vision, I am going to be a die hard supporter. 

And here's the thing, you guys know I hate the democrats and the republicans. A third party movement that takes that core vision and expands it into political reform is just going to be a major win for me. Again, aligns with my politics, and makes me a die hard supporter.

But what Yang seems to be doing now, with this move, is abandoning his original platform. His new platform has no mention of UBI, or even any policies of note at all. It seems to be this ultimate big tent for pushing for political reform, but with abandoning the existing political platform.

Here's the thing. The reason I support political reform is my policies can't win in the current political climate. The republicans are hostile to any form of redistribution of wealth as per the fundamentalist christian and conservative worldviews. I feel like Understanding the Times did a good job explaining how the right sees things, and I don't feel like that vision has fundamentally changed since I first read it in 2005, or it was first published in the 90s. And the democrats...well...their vision seems to be a combination of a moderate version of the conservative/christian worldview, combined with postmodernism. In the 90s, the democrats abandoned their labor focus and basically ceded the ideological war to the conservatives, essentially becoming a moderate version of the same thing. But the real difference was the cultural flair. The GOP was a very united bloc of white christians with conservative attitudes toward the world, and the left were...left to somehow make a working coalition out of the rest of America. Which led to an extreme multiracial coalition that seemed held together by a post modernist view of the world that serves as a dog whistle in society for better or for worse, with some people LIKING it, and others being REPELLED by it. And filling in the gaps is just, a moderate version of the same conservative ideology. 

We need change. I have this secular humanist worldview that morphed into "human centered capitalism", and I want a better world. But...the current political divisions are very much against that better world coming into being. Because the dominant worldviews and demographic forces are very harmful and keep driving us toward disaster, as the right gets more extreme and the left keeps abandoning its values to make any political gains.

And now I feel like Yang is doing the same thing. UBI is gone off of his forward party's platform. It's GONE. Human centered capitalism is GONE. It's like they never existed. So, let's look at what seems to be replacing it:

The three forward priorities are the following:

Ranked choice voting

Nonpartisan primaries

Independent Redistricting Commissions

And don't get me wrong, I support all three of these things. But Yang's BEEN supporting these things, AND much of his original vision. He just abandoned the rest of his vision in favor of this.

And it's not in his "core principles" either. We discussed his "core principles" before. But this is what's left now:

• Free People: Revitalize a culture that celebrates difference and individual choice, rejects hate, and removes barriers so that each of us can rise to our full potential.
• Thriving Communities: Reinvigorate a fair, flourishing economy and open society where everyone can live a good life and is safe in the places where we learn, work, and live.
• Vibrant Democracy: Reform our republic to give Americans more choices in elections, more confidence in a government that works, and more say in our future.

Again, not much I oppose here. But, again, what initially drew me to Yang is now GONE.

And let's not forget these other principles mentioned:

• Diverse Thinking Isn't Just Welcome, It's Required
  The Forward Party will welcome new ideas and fearless conversations around the issues of the day. We won’t silence debate or refuse to adapt to the modern world.
• Bottom-Up, Not Top Down
  The Forward Party will empower leaders to find solutions that work in their communities. We won’t dictate a rigid, top down policy platform and expect it to work for all Americans.
• No Purity Tests
  The Forward Party will create a political home for everyone willing to set aside the partisan extremes and find practical ways to make this country better. We won’t be checking IDs to see if people are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.
• More Listening, Less Talking
  The Forward Party will ask you what we can do for your community. We will not ask what your community can do for us.
• Work Together, Not Against
  The Forward Party will strive for collaborative solutions, make sure they work, and try something else if they don’t. We won’t ignore problems so that we can use them to drive wedges between Americans; nothing gets done when opposing views are treated like enemy positions.
• Grace and Tolerance
  The Forward Party will approach each other with grace and tolerance, finding ways to pick people back up rather than knock them down. We won’t cancel people or cast them out of the party for not falling in line.

Let's go over this a little more:

1) Diverse thinking isn't always bad. Parties are coalitions and I understand to maintain a coalition there has to be some give and take. I support not silencing debate. As you guys know I am a major supporter of free speech, even to my political enemies.

2) I have no real preference either way here, but if anything I generally am a top down kind of guy.

3) No, we need a uniting ideology that keeps the party together. The fact that so many people disagree with the existing uniting ideologies between the republicans and democrats is why there is need for a third party in the first place. But, we do need something that brings people together, and this weird mealy mouthed "no purity tests" thing is alienating. UBI, M4A, and Human centered capitalism, the founding principles of Yang's 2020 platform, SHOULD BE PURITY TESTS. Even if we allow diversity and concede ground on other issues and allow diversity to flow. 

4) Nice sentiment, you can do UBI and human centered capitalism for us. 

5) Sure. I support Yang's depolarization efforts on the culture war for example. I don't support treating fellow Americans like enemies. Both the extreme Christian worldview of the right and the postmodernist one of the left are creating a very unhealthy political environment. We do need to remember that people are people. But dangerous ideas are still dangerous and should be treated as such. We should demonize positions, but not people. 

6) Grace and tolerance was part of their old platform. And I initially was skeptical toward it but became supportive over time as I realized that the culture war does create too much demonization of other, and harmful, false worldviews on both sides are the problem. I was going to do more understanding the times articles on this fact.

HOWEVER, if you can't at least have some basic principles to guide the party by like UBI and human centered capitalism, it's a mealy mouthed gesture of meaningless. You stand for nothing. And no one should support you.

Honestly, this merger might have just killed everything I loved about the forward party. It is still possible that information will come out proving that I am wrong. I would like Yang to clarify his positions on these issues, but honestly, I'm not happy with this shift, and they might be losing me as a supporter. I support my own vision above anything else. I'm willing to work with others to be flexible and get it done, but I'm not going to sell out.

This comes off as selling out. This is why Yang gets called a grifter by the left. And while I've been watching left wing reactions come in today, with many of them extreme hostile and caustic to everything Yang stands and has stood for (with TYT, for example, taking pot shots at UBI as a concept, repeating claims that it would destroy welfare, claiming no one supports it, and that people want to work and have purpose and they want to be rewarded for their purpose (so...jobism)), to some extent, I have to say they have a point. Yang dropping medicare for all over time has raised eyebrows among progressives and made him think he was never really a supporter of the idea in the first place and he was just in it for the money and book sales. And abandoning UBI is just going to make those claims resurface. And honestly, I have to wonder...are they right? I kind of think so.

HOnestly, I dont want "centrism". I mean, sure, on some things I do, on some issues in Yang's op ed the centrism seemed appealing to me. I do want a middle ground on gun control between the second amendment absolutism and wanting to confiscate guns. I do want a middle ground between the green new deal and climate change denial. On abortion, well, I'm far left there, but if not for the far right, I wouldn't be opposed to banning third trimester ELECTIVE abortions. 

BUT, I won't compromise on UBI. I won't compromise past a public option on healthcare. I support human centered capitalism. And without those things, I just feel like I lost 80% of my reason for supporting this movement in the first place.

I will wait to see what more comes out before formally cutting ties with this movement. If Yang could offer a convincing clarifying statement, like he did in the past on issues I had with his original forward party, I would be fine with continuing to support him. But if he's selling out to go all in on a platformless party centered around only electoral reform and nothing else, with much of the support coming from conservatives fundamentally against my vision for America...I'm done. I just am.

I left the republicans in 2012. I left the democrats in 2016. I will leave forward too if it no longer stands for anything. It seems to be a way of life at this point.

I guess I'm back to political homelessness.