Aspies For Freedom

I think it would be a fun little exercise to see how we would design a political party where one of the key issues is autistic rights. In my government class we're going to make up some political parties, so I was interested in how others would design their own party (especially as people's political opinions differ so much from person to person.

I don't actually like the idea of political parties, but it's one of those things I like to twirl around in my head.

For me I would call it Autistic Liberty Pary, and it would also support the interests of the general disability rights movement, as well as GLBT rights (with an emphasis on including transgender people), and improving access to health care. There would be emphasis on freedom of choice, and we would oppose the extreme anti-smoking propaganda. It's good to inform people of health dangers, but recent ads are just plain paranoid.

That's all I can think of now. Any others?

Well, really, any political party must have a set of economic policies and a set of social policies. There's not agreement on either among autistics at all. There is disagreement about what constitutes autistic rights, but perhaps a bit more agreement than in other groups; on all other issues, autistics are as different as any other group of people.

See, that's the problem with basing an entire political party around one or two issues.  No one is going to agree on the other issues.  For example, I disagree with you about the smoking.  Smoking is bad.  I wouldn't ban it ("You are not truly free unless you have the freedom to make mistakes", one of my favorite quotes) but I would require all sorts of restrictions and warnings and would probably be the one running alarmist ad campaigns, not eliminating them.
Hell, even on the autism issues, not everyone agrees.  There are people who wave the flag of Neurodiversity, but only for people like themselves- they exclude so-called "Lower-functioning" people and are appalled by the idea that there are even more neurotypes than just aspie and NT.  If I were part of such a party as you describe, I'd want almost 90% tax rates on the rich and I'd want socialized healthcare and green jobs and free education for everyone, including college, and I'd want you to recognize that multiples (people once thought to have "multiple personalities") have a valid neurotype and can function as they are in society.  Would you support all that? Probably not all of it, or if you would, I'm sure there's some other issue we'd disagree on.  That's why single-issue parties tend to fall apart around everything else, or seem schizophrenic, or come up with weird policies that don't agree with each other.  In general, they're not a good idea.

Which isn't to say we shouldn't be politically active.  We should.  But an autistic party isn't the best way to do it.  We need to create groups that will campaign to put autism issues on the agenda for all politicians, to make candidates and already-elected officials aware of where their voters stand, and to influence the government and legal system to make change for a better future for autistics.  This is something that a special interest group, think tank, or other group might be better able to accomplish.

Not necessarily - at least in Australia. There's quite a lot of single-issue parties that are entirely about using their influence to alter major party policies. For example, we have a local "Where's Our Railway?" party that is entirely about increasing public transport to the outer suburbs.

After all, a spectrum party wouldn't be campaigning for the purposes of being elected - it just wouldn't happen.

I guess the usefulness of such a group would depend on local political systems - I think it would work well in countries with preferential voting, and wouldn't do much in countries without.

In Sweden, there is a Pirate party, based entirely on support for digital piracy (sharing files, whether they contain copyrighted works or copyright-free works) and so on. I hear they have quite a few members. Nonetheless, they don't get many votes and I can't imagine what the idiots who vote for them are thinking, because even if you agree totally on the core issue (and I don't think pirate party members really agree completely on piracy), you have nothing in common on all the other issues.

Political parties are formed to attain power to see through their resolutions and ideas. If an autist party were to attain this power, it would be forced to take positions in all the non-autism-rights-related cases. This would mean that whoever was appointed as representatives for the party would have the power and the obligation to vote, on the behalf of everyone who voted for the party, in however way they damn please. Which is extremely undemocratic and clearly undesirable for the vast lot of people.

If it didn't campaign to be elected, then it wouldnæt need to be a poltical party, it could be an interest organization.

The only reason to form a political party is to search for political power.

Not with preferential voting - small parties can assign preferences, and thus have a direct effect on the vote. This gives the major parties actual data about how much influence adopting these policies would have, and suddenly they will start working single-issue party policies into their own policies.

In the above case of the "Where's our railway?" party, all the local members of the major parties now have to make statements about their public transport plan, due to the influence of this small party - they tend to get around 3-4% of the vote, with can be enough to swing the results of an election.

Can I ask which country you're from?

Norway.

Okie doke - can't tell from the wikipedia entry whether or not Norway uses the preferential system. If they don't there'd be no point forming a spectrum party there.

Woah. I didn't mean to be unclear, but I wasn't intending to discuss making an ACTUAL party centered around autistic rights. I was thinking along the lines of mental exercise, thinking about how each of YOU personally would want things - including a diversity of social, economic, perspectives (e.g. someone who is against socialized healthcare would include that in their fictional party, whereas someone who supports it would include that perspective).

BTW Luai_Lashire, that's cool that you are informed about multiplicity and neurodiversity (as if it really had to be stated). In fact, I have a character who is multiple and wouldn't have it any other way. (By coincidence, I happen to pretty much agree with all the things you wrote.)

I agree that a single-issue party isn't really the way to go. Then again, I don't like the idea of political parties in themselves.

Another thing I wanted to clarify, that what I meant to refer to is the anti-secondhand smoking ads that are extreme that have been running here (in the US). There was one I keep seeing where it shows a small child in a room in an apartment, and the narrator is talking about, how even if no one in the apartment smokes, that smoke from the apartment below seeping in through the floorboard cracks is dangerous. THAT was overkill (I personally hate smoking, but that was ridiculous.)

I like the fantasy of parties to be elected to administrate money funded by the state for autism-related causes. Voted forward by people on the spectrum and their parents.

So the "political party" would become the leader of "The Autism Nation" within a country or multiple countries.

  Cool!  Almost no one ever does.

ATM: I love the name "I ain't Rainman."  It's great.  Please allow me give a counter-point to what you are saying.  The Free Soil and Populist Parties *DID* enjoy success.  The Free Soil Party platform was incorporated, in large part, by the emerging Republicans. If voters had stayed in the Whig Party, they would have continually compromised with the slave power instead of getting anything done.  And, the Populist Platform was adopted by the Democrats, in large part.  It takes *TIME*, and patience.  I think that earthmonkey is on to something.

It was a sad day when I had to sneak around in order to teach a student Algebra, as though I were teaching a slave child to read.  That should not have happened in America---but it did.  I am not adamant about third parties, that we should or should not, but I'd at least like the choice available.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the Left third party, like the Greens, but they have refused to face the moral contradiction inherent in believing in humanitarian virtues, as they do, but then in defending abortion.  That is my one penny's worth on this subject.  I doubt I will post too much more on it.

All the best, and I ain't rainman either so that makes two of us.

B"H

P.S.  In an ideal world, there would be a real third party.  In my best fantasy, it would have a sovereigntist basis:

1) No WTO/CAFTA/North American Union
2) Out of NATO.  If Europeans have a lot of opinions, they can defend themselves.  No more American blood.  
3) Out of UN
4) No Oil Dependency.  Exxon and Chavez can both have their profit margins and revolutions, respectively, but please don't force me to finance either by buying up inventions, patenting them, and stuffing them away in a cabinet.  I tend to side with Chavez more than Exxon, albeit I look askance at his coziness with Iran (and ours with the Saudis).  
5) Jobs in the US.  If Corporations want to outsource, do not call upon the marines to come and bail them out when things turn sour.
6) All of the Bill of Rights.  No gun control, period.
7) No More Cow-towing to the Saudis or any nation that is either a sponsor of terrorism or an enabler of it.  That includes no more dealings with either Hamas or the PLO.  


However, these will not happen in my lifetime, in all probability.  So, I will settle for a party with no chance at political power, but which can swing elections through endorsements.  That could be the "Spectrum Party."  It would endorse candidates that are best for the Spectrum, just as older machine politics used to do.  Irish, Italians, Jews and other immigrants of older years tended to have "machines".  They were as corrupt as it got, but they did provide services for their members.  They cared about people much more than bought and paid for politicians do these days, or most politicians in their time.

I am not saying that we make corrupt alliances with "family men in the cement business," like the machines and the Unions did, but I do think that some pragmatic politics is called for here.  Shutting down the JRC would be a good first step.  Alliances with parents, for common purposes like parental advocacy (504 plans, et al) would be another.  Perhaps we could align with nurses Unions under some pretext, provided that they stand with us?  I am not going to keep posting on this thread, because my main purpose here is what I am posting in the "Time Out" section.  However, I think that a political action wing is a good idea.  

Neuro-diversity is a great idea.  But, it is pie-in-the-sky without firm pragmatic politics.  That means forming machines, who can be liaisons with politicians with politicians that might be friendly.  By the way, why did not anyone challenge Mitt Romney over the JRC?  Maybe it was not established during his Administration?  Just curious...

OK, I'll try to go cold-turkey on the politics, since it wears me out.  All the best,