|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Most people hate the political duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans (some people insist on calling it a Uniparty and while there’s a whole lot of corrupt and faithless pols, if you really can’t see the difference between the people calling for the abolition of ICE and those funding it, well…) but it’s hard to look at true multi-party systems elsewhere (or in American history) and think they’re better.
Most multi-party systems depend on parliamentary coalitions which we fortunately don’t have. To see why they’re so terrible, take a look at the trouble that Geert Wilders had in the Netherlands or Netanyahu in Israel. Parliamentary coalitions maintain a kind of political center that is forever sliding leftward. In other words, it’s everything you hate about our political system, but made much worse.
There’s the Latin American model, which we are moving toward, but that’s even worse for anyone who doesn’t like civil wars every other decade. (Jefferson did argue in favor of them.)
How would an actual effective third party work in America today? The two parties used redistricting to minimize the number of swing districts. Much of the public hates both parties, but running a candidate in any district would require competing against that district’s existing formulation. That means trying to beat either party in a district created just for its candidates. And running third party candidates in swing districts would most likely chip away at whichever two party candidate is likely to pick up independent voters. And that would likely end up favoring Democrats over Republicans.
There are a number of reasons that no third party has taken off. Lack of serious financing is one. And the lack of compelling candidates is another. And then there’s the lack of infrastructure. Trump took off once he ran as a Republican. Not when he was trying to run as a third party candidate twenty some years ago. But the bigger picture is that while a lot of people hate both parties, they’d rather pick someone from either party than vote for a third party. It’s not just the perception that they’re throwing their vote away. There really isn’t any meaningful space for a third party to come into.
Some variation of fiscally conservative and socially liberal has been tried again and again. But for anyone who really objects to social conservatism, the Republicans are more socially liberal than they’ve ever been. They’re not fiscally conservative anymore, and that’s what some of the current controversy is about, but considering that political power comes from spending money, is a ‘fiscally conservative’ political movement even possible as a reality rather than just as rhetoric?
When push comes to shove, members of Congress get power from spending money. It’s easier to create a third party than to fundamentally change how this system works.
I’m pretty sure Musk’s new party is about the EV subsidies.
They had a lot of 3rd parties in Ancient Rome. Caused a lot of trouble.
Such as rich Oligarchs, the Aristocracy, and the masses of ordinary people.
I’m beginning to understand the Aristocracy a little. In the British Navy they had something called “the habit of command”. Namely, those accustomed to giving orders and bossing others around, whether or not they were actually competent to give sensible orders.
Yes, the fiscal conservative party that participated in Republican Party is long gone.
The party of Barry Goldwater and the new wave of conservatism that started forming within the Republican Party has virtually disappeared..
Yes, there’s the freedom caucus but the leadership does not have a dynamic leader..
And there’s no articulate media advocates educating conservative policy, such as William F Buckley . and Pat Buchanan.
Most of the conservative media have become populist and trended away from Stallworth conservative principles.
What about allowing only registered voters from the district or state to donate money in congressional elections and only local voters in local elections? Easy and fair to all.
I suggested something like that a long time ago. It didn’t fly for some reason. Probably politicians wanted to keep the money flowing.
Judging by his rhetoric, Musk seems more pissed about losing some subsidies than anything else. He will get zero MAGA/MAHA votes. Some open borders. anarchy type libertarians may go with him but they will probably nominate more gay socialist candidates because they are morons. He may pick up some TDS type traditional republicans but they also hate one another. Democraps also have Musk derangement syndrome. What he does have going for him is a social media platform with massive reach, a ton of money, and massive army of government bureaucrats, trough feeders, military industrial/intelligence types who will back anyone and do anything in order to thwart Trump and MAGA/MAHA. There is still a chance this some kind of Trump/Elon psyop collaboration because it makes no sense otherwise (other than Elon is just a total loose cannon do whatever I want guy which is cool).
Imagine having three parties in a society where Islam or socialism is the dominant belief system of most voters, if this were possible that is. What essential difference would it make? None at all.
It’s easier to create a third party than to change the philosophical course of a society. The beliefs and convictions of the voters.
“The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” –
Abraham Lincoln
Quoting you”
” Parliamentary coalitions maintain a kind of political center that is forever sliding leftward. In other words, it’s everything you hate about our political system, but made much worse.”
Definition leads to clarity….. well said! I will be using this quote in articles about Canada, and Europe, especially Britain.