In an interview with the Peoria Pundit, the national chairman of the Modern Whig Party explains what his party is and why it exists. Lebowitz explains that it is neither here nor there on the political spectrum, and it opens its arms to whomever would like to join. It strives to replace liberalism and conservatism with pragmatism based in a “military culture.”
Even though the party has passed the 10,000 member mark only a few months into its existence, the Modern Whigs will not run any candidates this election cycle. They plan to strike in 2009 with a combination of Modern Whigs and Modern Whigs disguised as major party candidates. It is part of a plan to circumvent the usual struggles of a minor party and appeal to a multitude of voters, rather than “believing their own propaganda as they sit and wait for the American voter to merely wake up.”
I highly reccomend taking a few minutes to read the interview. It’s a great insight into the thinking behind America’s freshest and perhaps most innovative political party. Listen up, Libertarians and Greens alike, because I have a feeling that these people might surprise us with their success.
28 responses so far ↓
1 George Phillies // Aug 25, 2008 at 11:16 pm
They have an interesting release announcing their creation of tactical plans, but no sign of the documents in question.
2 Sivarticus // Aug 25, 2008 at 11:23 pm
I don’t like their positions on Israel or Iraq-Afghanistan in their website’s “issues” section. Sounds too interventionist. Then again, more power to them if their growth is genuine. I guess that just means it’s attracting the neo-cons and Eric Dondero types from the Libertarian/Constitutionalist areas.
3 langa // Aug 25, 2008 at 11:40 pm
I always cringe when I hear the word “pragmatism”, which is usually just a euphemism for a jumbled mishmash of ad hoc opinions, which frequently rest on assumptions there are incompatible with one another. It’s a favorite term of such idiots as McCain and his buddy Lieberman.
4 langa // Aug 25, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Oops. That was supposed to say “THAT are incompatible with one another.”
5 Ross Levin // Aug 25, 2008 at 11:46 pm
The party sounds too supportive of the military industrial complex, which goes hand-in-hand with their “military culture”, for me. However, their creativity is very appealing.
6 Mike Gillis // Aug 26, 2008 at 12:16 am
No mention of the fact that the original Whigs were the more pro-slavery of the two party system of their day.
7 G.E. // Aug 26, 2008 at 12:39 am
Mike – No way. The Democrats were more pro-slavery. The Old Democratic Party was good except for this one “little” problem.
8 G.E. // Aug 26, 2008 at 12:39 am
The American Whigs were the descendants of the evil Federalists and the predecessors of the evil Republicans. And just as the Federalists were really anti-Federalists, these Whigs were more like Torries.
9 Thomas L. Knapp // Aug 26, 2008 at 10:34 am
There’s a reason the Whigs died as a party in the mid-19th century: They attempted to represent “the middle of the road” in a polarized political environment.
If that environment sounds familiar, it should.
10 revswirl // Aug 26, 2008 at 10:45 am
Well, one I don’t think our foreign policy is neo-con at all. The neo-cons believe in pre-emptive wars and forced democratization. I don’t think you’ll find many Whigs agreeing with that. Democracy must come from within, not from without. But we do need to focus our efforts in Afghanistan. The sooner we can remove our troops from foreign soil, the better. But until we make progress against the fundamentalists who wish to harm us and our allies, we need a presence there.
Also, the original Whig Party wasn’t just the descendants of the Federalists. While there were former Federalists involved, there were other factions as well, such as anti-Masons, state’s rightists, and opponents of Andrew Jackson.
Plus, I don’t think our middle of the road policy is a bad idea at all. Right now our nation is polarized between two parties on the extremes. We need compromise more than ever and if the Duopoly won’t try compromise, then another party needs to step up and give common sense and moderation a try.
11 Sean Scallon // Aug 26, 2008 at 11:22 am
Gee and I thought the Republicans had all the military cultre one could possibly need. If it wasn’t for the military-industrial complex McCain would have never been nominated.
Of course “military culture” was one of the principle organizing features of European fasicist parties. They were largely made up of ex-soldiers form World War I disgusted with post-war liberal culture and determined to make a society based on martial values. Now I’m not saying the Modern Whigs are fascists, but there is a dangerous undercurrent of “I’m a professional soldier and you’re worthless without me,” attitude in some military personnel. I guess it shouldn’t be suprising as we’ve developed a military caste in this country that political organizations would spring up to represent it.
There’s a reason why non-major parties tend towards ideology, because ideology is what motivates people to work for the party and engage in the thankless tasks required to make the party work. This is why a lot of centrist non-major parties fail disappear. The Reform Party, or John Anderson’s party or the Bull Moosers may very well get more votes than the Libertarians, but Libertarians have survived a lot longer than they have.
12 Ross Levin // Aug 26, 2008 at 11:31 am
I think there’s a lot of danger in being an ideologue and surrounding yourself by ideologues. Look at this current president and you can see where it leads to. As they say, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
13 Vin // Aug 26, 2008 at 11:40 am
Ross Levin made very good points, but I don’t see where the “military culture” aspect relates to the Modern Whigs. They support veterans’ issues and the individual soldier, and of course originated within the military community, but I don’t see where the “based in military culture” comes into play. That does smack of facism and the Whigs appear anything but fascist. They have a debatable but reasonable view of Iraq and they certainly are not within the fringe of society for wanting us to focus on Afghanistan when it comes to the military.
14 Ross Levin // Aug 26, 2008 at 11:41 am
In the interview they say they’re based in a “military culture.”
15 revswirl // Aug 26, 2008 at 11:50 am
I don’t see why the Whigs are considered a “military culture.” If you look at the issue page you’ll see most of it has to do with non-military issues. While it’s true the Party began as a veteran’s advocacy group it has grown to include thousands of non-military members (myself included). And I do think we have a general ideology, that being common sense and moderation. However, we’re not going to tell our members that they can’t be part of it simply because they’re not “conservative” or “liberal” enough on certain issues. Polarization is the problem. Compromise is the solution.
16 revswirl // Aug 26, 2008 at 11:52 am
Ok.. here’s the “military culture” quote:
“While some unfamiliar with military culture may stereotype soldiers as mindless conservative grunts, I will vehemently counter that some of my most enlightening and engaging political discussions have been among soldiers. One such discussion related to the history of the historic Whig Party.”
17 Vin // Aug 26, 2008 at 11:57 am
Wow! Talk about pulling something out of context. Lebowitz was providing background information about the actual military culture of the actual military!
18 Ross Levin // Aug 26, 2008 at 12:23 pm
It was my understanding that the Modern Whigs are strongly rooted in the military, and I summarized that as “based in a ‘military culture.’”
Lebowitz saying that the Whigs stood for a “strong national defense” also reinforced that idea.
19 Vin // Aug 26, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Maybe it was the context? The way it was interpreted, one might think the Whigs were goose-stepping into beer halls. The Whigs have established a niche with members of the military and veterans, so they definately may be viewing certain issues in a different light. But Lebowitz also made the first-hand point that stereotypical views of solidiers within the “military culture” in terms of political knowledge is not accurate
The platform Ross cited of “strong national defense” is accurate in that they do not shun any and all uses of the military as other groups might believe. Again, most Americans can justify using force when absolutely necessary (even Jimmy Carter attempted to use force on the failed rescue mission).
The military views of the Whigs is debatable, but I think they have many other qualities that appeals to your average mainstream voter.
In the end, I agree with Ross that other party leaders can learn something if they can get beyond themselves.
20 G.E. // Aug 26, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Although I would never be a Modern Whig, better for the military men and women to have a party representing their own (welfare statist) interests, than to have them blindly obedient to the neocons, who do not have their best interests at heart. After all, the self interest of the military men and women is “give us more welfare!” but they also want to stay alive, and that’s a lot less costly than war.
21 Sivarticus // Aug 26, 2008 at 2:38 pm
What the the heck? Screw Afghanistan! Let them sink or swim. I’ll never understand the perception of Afghanistan as the “good war.” It’s just more interventionist nation building garbage that does nothing for America and helps bankrupt us.
22 Vin // Aug 26, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Last time we left Afghanistan to sink or swim, they sank and the problem flew over here…
Either way, the viewpoint and support of Afghanistan as a military campaign itself is within the mainstream of society.
23 G.E. // Aug 26, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Vin – The mainstream of society is socialist. Just like the military.
24 Sivarticus // Aug 26, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Vin, what last time? You mean the ’80s and ’90s when we poured hordes of money and weapons into the Mujihadeen? We helped create a wild west like atmosphere that let the Taliban come out the strongest of the pack after the Soviets gave up. We shouldn’t have stuck our noses to begin with.
The Russians would’ve had to leave eventually from simmering discontent and their own economic collapse. We blew truckloads of taxpayer’s money just to create more chaos in Afghanistan, when the original problem would’ve resolved itself.
25 Vin // Aug 26, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Your history is accurate. But we are dealing with the current problem and not some academic review of past issues. If there are those who are actively plotting or seeking to commit terror attacks against Americans, we can’t just dismiss it as “interventionist nation building garbage that does nothing for America and helps bankrupt us.”
And the argument that isolating ourselves will solve the problem is not based out of historical fact. Last time we did that, fascism rolled across Europe.
26 Ross Levin // Aug 26, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Vin – regardless of my assessment of the “military culture,” I still think the Modern Whig Party is doing great things. It’s such a creative third party, and I admire that.
27 G.E. // Aug 26, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Totally inaccurate point by Vic. It was American intervention, not “isolationism,” that created both Communism and fascism. Even the murderous bigot / statist icon Churchill said so:
“America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn’t entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these ‘isms’ wouldn’t to-day be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives.”
It is not America’s job to protect foreigners from themselves, nor is it to extract the fruits of my labor to pay Vic as a hired killer for the state.
28 langa // Aug 27, 2008 at 4:57 am
“Right now our nation is polarized between two parties on the extremes.”
I couldn’t disagree more. Obama and McCain are very similar on the issues. In fact, abortion is the only issue I can think of where they fundamentally disagree with each other. On every other issue, they’re either in total agreement, or they basically agree with each other, but just quibble over the details.
Leave a Comment