Look, I hope people begin to understand that "ideas" in politics are just about as valuable as "ideas" in the IT field; which is to say -- they're fun to have and they can be exciting, but they're also pretty much worthless without execution.
A tough lesson: If you support a presidential candidate because of their ideas, you're unlikely to get very far.
The President usually needs to be like the boring CEO of the established company; you need a Tim Cook, not an aspiring Steve Jobs.
This is not true in history; many very important ideas need people to spearhead them over many years to get enacted.
Slavery was fought against for over 100 years amidst very fierce resistance before it was abolished.
John Quincy Adams (a failed president, but a very big abolitionist) spent 18 years to overturn a "gag rule" that automatically nullified anti-slavery legislation. Without the work of countless abolitionists bringing the ideas up again and again to the public stage, pushing for the ideas in ways that made the rest of the country uncomfortable, support for abolishing slavery would never be enough for Lincoln to do his proclamation.
The power of ideas are exactly what we need in the political sphere. Ideas in politics are very dissimilar to ideas in tech - in tech, it's all about business viability. In politics, ideas need to be about livelihoods of people.
There are two functions at play in governance; the government, which is in charge of executing the will of the people, and the will of the people itself. The will of the people is "represented" in all forms of government by parties. However representation is often taken away from the people by many things (corporate interest is a big one).
Climate change for instance is one place where the initiation belongs to the will of the people but is lacking adequate representation in political parties.
In this respect, "the Forward Party" is not really a party that will execute governance in the near future; it's a representation of the will of the people, collected together into a political body. More realistically, it's admitting that the political system is trudged up and that no political body represents what Forward wants to represent.
I think Forward is different from independents and other minor parties in the following ways:
1) it should be focused on incremental change, not on taking over the office
2) it should be focused on pushing forward ideas to limelight and holding accountability over those ideas, especially when those ideas make sense to a large percentage of the population
3) it shouldn't be a political party to directly compete ideologically with existing parties (liberals); rather it should wield its influence to pressure the competition to pick up its practical issues
Assuming it's not just another independent political party trying to run for government, I think the Forward Party is a great "idea", and is sorely needed in the political landscape of the US.
Look, I hope people begin to understand that "ideas" in politics are just about as valuable as "ideas" in the IT field; which is to say -- they're fun to have and they can be exciting, but they're also pretty much worthless without execution.
A tough lesson: If you support a presidential candidate because of their ideas, you're unlikely to get very far.
The President usually needs to be like the boring CEO of the established company; you need a Tim Cook, not an aspiring Steve Jobs.