Talk:Third Way (United States)

Third Way not progressive

The Third way think tank is not progressive, the policies that they endorse conflict with the views of the progressive movement. i dont think one should label them as progressives, just because they claim to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Source? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this? http://www.alternet.org/health/140998 198.204.141.208 (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that is a little more than a liberal blog? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Third Way is not progressive and has been quite publicly criticized as being nothing more than a stalking horse for Wall Street interests pushing Republican ideology with the Democratic Party. This article should be heavily rewritten or withdrawn. A large portion of it presents a PR style presentation of unsourced or verified posits and is overly complimentary in tone. I nominate it for deletion unless it is cleaned up. This has been going on since at least 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavGreg (talk • contribs) 22:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

I removed the 'criticism' section of this article, but User:Eraserhead1 restored it. I believe it is not appropriate, as it is entirely unsourced, and alleges that the Third Way organization supports 'corporate statism' and a 'global capitalist agenda', without any references for those claims whatsoever. Eraserhead1 pointed out that this article is not neutral at the moment - the rest of it is written in a very positive tone, and also somewhat lacking in sources. That is quite true. But the solution to positive bias is not to introduce unsourced criticism, but to remove the positive bias so the article is written from a neutral point of view, and/or add criticisms cited to reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted my change, and I'll take a look later to see if it can be re-added, we can't include allegations that aren't sourced. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

In its current form the article is a puff piece for Third Way. It uncritically accepts as fact all of the organization's glowing self-evaluations, such as its "position as the leading moderate voice in an evolving political climate". The article will need a major rewrite to remove this heavy pro-Third Way bias. That will include adding significant criticisms. In the context of reporting facts about opinions, a reliable source is one that establishes that the opinion was voiced by the named person or entity, not one that establishes that a particular opinion is correct as a matter of fact. JamesMLane t c 05:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Half-Wit Interjections by Soi Disant Editors

Wikipedia is widely disfigured by interjections posted by half-wits. Here are two examples from the current page:

' This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (November 2010)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2010)'

Both are stunningly untrue. The article does not appear to be written like an advertisement. It's no glowing piece of Britannica-at-work; it's simply a pedestrian report of the kind you might expect handed in as high school social studies homework, but the interjection, in its big box at the top of the article, is just plain stupid.

Ditto for the "This article needs additional citations" nonsense. It doesn't. Thanks to the miracle of URLs, you can click here, there and yonder to follow up pretty much anything you have any doubts about.

Hey, you can even Google or Bing!

So the fool entering the big distraction-boxes is simply ignoring the world and how it works.

Call it off, wouldja, ya loud interrupters!

DavidLJ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

DavidLJ seems to have stopped participating in Wikipedia, but for the record this comment violates WP:CIVIL, and other editors shouldn't try to continue in this style. --Nbauman (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Opposed single payer?

According to a few progressive sources, the Third Way had a lot of influence in the Obama Administration's rejection of single payer and the public option:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/06/08/740037/--Third-Way-on-Public-Option-Make-One-that-Can-t-Work
"Third Way" on Public Option: Make One that Can't Work
by Joan McCarter
Jun 08, 2009
(Leaked draft of Third Way policy paper attacks public option.)
Whether health care reform should include a "public plan" is an issue that now threatens to fracture the emerging consensus on health reform. If left unresolved, the debate over a public plan could derail the broader reform agenda while other pressing issues central to reform are put on hold.
The proponents of a public plan seek the right goals—to broaden access and lower costs. But there is a very real danger that an overly intrusive public plan can ultimately undermine these very goals and destabilize the private-sector coverage that middle-class Americans—i.e., Harry and Louise—depend on and are largely satisfied with.

A discussion of their position on this issue could give the entry some much-needed WP:NPOV. --Nbauman (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Opposed Bernie Sanders

Here's more recent activity:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/third-way-presidential-campaign_563237f2e4b0c66bae5b4066
The Rise Of Bernie Sanders And The Panic Of Democratic Centrists
"I think it is a recipe for disaster."
Sam Stein
Huffington Post
10/29/2015
"You would be back to 1972 [if Bernie were nominated]," warned Bill Daley, President Barack Obama's former chief of staff and a Third Way board member, referencing the blowout Richard Nixon win that year. "It was not a happy time for Democrats. The guy has been a socialist his whole life and now decides he is a Democrat and therefore the Democratic Party has got to move to that extreme? I think it is a recipe for disaster."
Bill Clinton's win in 1992 ushered in a generation of modern, more moderate New Democrats. And when Clinton left office, several of his former staffers started up Third Way to discourage the party from reverting to its leftward ways.
--Nbauman (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Third Way has said repeatedly, in many WP:RS, that they oppose Bernie Sanders as presidential candidate because they believe he won't win. Here's one:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/21/bernie-sanders-centrist-democrats-brand-existential-threat-2020-campaign

'An existential threat': Bernie Sanders faces mounting opposition from moderate Democrats

Lauren Gambino

The Guardian

21 Jun 2019

Jon Cowan, president of Third Way: "But I don’t believe a self-described democratic socialist can win."

“He has made it his mission to either get the nomination or to remake the party in his image as a democratic socialist... That is an existential threat to the future of the Democratic party for the next generation.”

Sanders supporters respond that, according to the polls, Sanders would win against Trump. The Third Way says those polls are unreliable, like the polls that said Hillary Clinton would beat Trump.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/453515-centrist-think-tank-co-founder-warns-free-college-proposal-could-turn-people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpuG4uzD4gs

Think Tank Third Way addresses being called 'a corporatist'

Kristal Ball, Saagar Enjeti

The Hill

July 17, 2019

Third Way Co-Founder Matt Bennett

--Nbauman (talk)

The claim to a clean energy platform seems doubtful

The think tank seems to equate "clean energy" with "nuclear" and perhaps "decarbonized fossil fuels." (Perhaps "clean" coal?)

This approach equates plutonium and other highly poisonous products of nuclear generation with "clean."

A quick search for Third Way's support for solar or wind energy, or battery or other storage, or conservation turned up no accessible support.

The link to wikipedia "green energy" should be taken down because wikipedia "green energy" is about solar and wind, etc., and not at all about nuclear or "clean" coal.

This selective omission of mention of coal or nuclear, and implication that solar and wind energy are promoted, the article does read like a slippery ad for sources that are anything but clean.