 Let's talk about Andrew Yang. Andrew Yang is an individual who is unquestionably nice. I talked to him before he came on the podcast. But the problem is that when it comes to politics, he's just lost. At best, he's ideologically inconsistent. At worst, his ideology is just incoherent. So as you might have heard about, he formed this new party called the Forward Party. Now, before I talk about it, let me hear how he describes it, courtesy of MSNBC, where they read an op-ed from the Washington Post written by Andrew Yang along with his associates. A new centrist group is gambling that millions of Americans are fed up with this country's two-party system. They're announcing the creation of a third political party to be called Forward. In a Washington Post op-ed this evening, the party's founders, David Jolly, Christine Todd Whitman, and Andrew Yang write the following. The two major parties have hollowed out the sensible center of our political system. Even though that is where most voters want to see the move, a new party must stake out the space in between. Okay. So the goal is to form this new party that is going to be between Republicans and Democrats. So the question is, how exactly is this an alternative? Because it's not. It's just more of the same. Because consider this, Republicans are on the far right, Democrats are on the center right. So if you're in between the far right and the center right, you're just right-wing. So if you're trying to capture this group of voters who are disillusioned with both political parties, I understand the need to fill that void, but you're going about it in the completely wrong way because people aren't upset with Democrats and Republicans because there aren't enough people between Democrats and Republicans. They're upset with Democrats and Republicans because neither party represents the working class. Both parties are neoliberal. That means that they propose nothing but private solutions to public problems. Healthcare system broken. Let's just throw more money at the private system that we currently have. Education system not going too well. Funding disproportionately hurts black Americans since we based that on zip codes. And you know, it seems like our education system is broken. Let's just throw more money at charter schools. This is the neoliberal ethos. So you know, this is what both parties represent. So if you're trying to find some center point between Republicans and Democrats, you are literally offering nothing new. It's more of the same, albeit in a new package, right? If you actually want to offer voters an alternative, it would be to the left of the Democratic Party. That would truly be centrist because center is the center point between voters on the left and the right. And both parties are not an accurate representation of the electorate, but voters support these parties overwhelmingly because that's the only two options. So is the goal to just have another party so voters can flock to that in hopes that they won't recognize that they're getting more of the same? Or are we going to prioritize quality over quantity and actually offer working class voters a meaningful alternative? That's what I want, but that's not what Andrew Yang is representing. And even with his own description of it being like between Democrats and Republicans, when you read who's part of this party, that even doesn't quite fit the bill because they seem like a Republican light party. So as Reuters reports, dozens of former Republican and Democratic officials announced on Wednesday a new national political third party to appeal to millions of voters they say are dismayed with what they see as America's dysfunctional two-party system. The new party called forward and whose creation was first reported by Reuters will initially be co-chaired by former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and Christine Todd Whitman, the former Republican governor of New Jersey. They hope the party will become a viable alternative to the Republican and Democratic parties that dominate U.S. politics, founding members told Reuters. The new party is being formed by a merger of three political groups that have emerged in recent years as a reaction to America's increasingly polarized and gridlocked political system. The leaders cited a Gallup poll last year showing the record two-thirds of Americans believe a third party is needed. The merger involves the Renew America movement formed in 2021 by dozens of former officials in the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. The forward party founded by Yang who left the Democratic Party in 2021 and became an independent and a serve America movement, a group of Democrats, Republicans and independents whose executive director is former Republican Congressman David Jolly. The party, which is centrist, has no specific policies yet. It will say at its Thursday launch how we will solve the big issues facing America, not left, not right, forward. So based on what we're seeing in this party is disproportionately comprised of Republicans, including individuals from George W. Bush's administration and Donald Trump's administration, a war criminal and another war criminal, but also somebody who tried to stage a coup. I mean, this just seems like another Republican-like party that is going to serve the interests of corporate America. So my question is, what is the point? If you're trying to pick up disillusioned voters, do you honestly think that you're going to win them over by just saying, hey, here's the same thing, albeit in a new package? I mean, maybe some voters will fall for it. Maybe they're banking on voters being too stupid to realize that they're getting the same pro-capitalist neoliberal policies. But overall, this is not going to be conducive to meaningful change. Now, do we need a third party? Yes, we need a fourth party, a fifth party, a sixth party. But they're putting the cart before the horse here, because if you genuinely want a third party that's viable, you can't just say, here's our new party. You could turn this organization first into a movement to actually secure electoral reform, because that's how you get a third party that's actually electorally viable. It's called Duverger's Law. In a win or take, all majoritarian system like we have, it's always going to come down to two parties. So in the best case scenario, the forward party, assuming it's able to accumulate power, wouldn't necessarily be a third option. Probably it would likely be absorbed by Democrats or more likely Republicans. So that's the best case scenario if you don't support electoral reform first. I desperately want more options, but really it's not just about quantity. Again, this is about quality. I guess I just don't understand the point of this. Again, if you turn this into an organization to campaign for electoral reform, perhaps at the state level where you introduce reforms in each state, create model legislation that would reform our system, make it more proportional. I would love to not have a presidential system. I think shifting to a parliamentary system would be much, much better. They're more effective. They're just overall more functional. I think that's probably not possible, but within the scope of what's possible in the United States, you could push for proportional representation. You could push for ranked choice voting or better yet, STV, standard transferable vote. I'm not going to get into what that is, but it's essentially ranked choice voting, but much more proportional, much more representative. But I mean, they're just going to jump into electoral politics without trying to reform the system that makes it really difficult for third parties to thrive. And that doesn't make sense. And even their premise doesn't make sense. So going back to that, let's look at their platform. You'll find a couple of policies, but mostly vague platitudes. Free people revitalize the culture that celebrates difference and individual choice, rejects hate, and removes barriers so that each of us can rise to our full potential. Sounds lovely. 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 and elections, more confidence in government that works and more say in our future. And the only policies that they list are ranked choice voting, nonpartisan primaries and independent redistricting committees. Now that last one, independent redistricting commissions, that's what the democratic party proposed. So there's already overlap with the existing two parties and there's already a platitude over policies party in the democratic party. So again, I ask, what is the point of this party? And if you truly have this vision, what policies will you introduce to make this vision a reality? It's about policies, not vibes. It's about policies, not platitudes. But for Andrew Yang, I mean, I don't want to say this because it's pretty mean and I'm being a little bit, I guess, uncharitable here, but it feels like this is a grift to bolster his own profile. So in the event he wants to run for president, he can do that using the forward party. And I mean, he knows probably that he's not going to win in a third party, but you can boost your public profile, you know, sell more books, launch podcasts, or, you know, attract donors for whatever venture you choose to pursue, whether that's, you know, some sort of capitalist venture or organizational venture. I mean, this just seems like a joke. I'm sorry, but it is, it's a fucking joke. If you actually want to offer voters an alternative, that party must, it must be anti-capitalist and vehemently pro-working class. We have two parties that already represent corporate interests. So if you can construct a party exclusively to the benefit of working-class Americans, pro-unionization, pro-worker rights, anti-capitalist, explicitly so, then you'll form an alternative. But even if you form that alternative, even if this party is good, you have to get it to a place where it's viable in our electoral system. And right now, we're not there. So electoral reform should be priority number one for any third party advocate. But they're, again, putting the cart before the horse, and they're putting the platitudes before the policies, which I really don't like. So overall, I don't see the point. And it just feels like this is doomed to fail, but maybe they'll prove me wrong. Either way, I mean, we've seen third parties come and go. And again, if you want them to become viable, you need electoral reform. I keep saying this, and third party advocates don't like to listen, but it's true. Fight for electoral reform first, and then third parties will finally be viable. But even when we have viable third parties, that doesn't necessarily mean that they won't be susceptible to the same corruption that is inherent within our system that made the Democratic Party corrupt when they once were a more working class friendly party. So this is like, you have to take a holistic approach if you genuinely want to revitalize the American political system. But I genuinely don't know if there's any hope if it could be reformed or revitalized. So all of this just seems really pointless to me, but I don't want to rain on their parade if it makes them happy. Great. But I really don't want to see this party take advantage of well intentioned people who are dissatisfied with the two party system. If this party is just going to offer them more of the same, I think that's really cruel. And yeah, so we'll continue to follow the forward party. It just seems dumb. Sorry.