 |
| |
|
|
Bosh
|
 |
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
(I implore people on this thread to not get sucked into standard left vs. right flame wars, and stick to discussing what is feasable not what is desirable, we get plenty of left vs. right flame wars on other threads)
What do you think a functional American Third Party woud look like? I can think of a few options:
1. Current Fringe Parties (Greens, Libertarians, Commies etc.) Get Smart:
The basic electoral strategies of most the existing third parties are unbelievably stupid. They seem to focus most of their engeries in bizarre quixotic Presidential campaigns that don't have a chance of hell of succeading and generally provide ****-all press coverage. Same goes for at the state level (the Greens slightly moreso than the Libertarians) it seems that most of the effort goes into Gubernatorial campaigns where the Third Parties don't have a chance in hell of winning (a trend that is exacerabed by campaign finance laws that link matching funds to Presidential and Gubernatorial election performance).
What the fringe parties need to do is target a handful of Congressional districts where they'd have the best shot and channel all their resources into performing competitively in that handful. This is definately doable, (especially since such districts would probably be so gerrymandered that any blather about "don't vote for the Greens/Libs or the Reps/Dems will win!" would be laughable) there's already a socialist congressman from Vermont and Ron Paul is a de facto Libertarian. This would be great for party building, and if the democrats and republicans become tightly enough matched than a small third party contingent could swing things and being able to so do would get the fringe parties the kind of coverage that they spend so much time drooling over.
2. The Second (or is it Third?) coming of the Dixiecrats:
The Dixiecrats shared with the fringe parties the stupid tendency of concentrate all their energies into unwinnable Presidential contests. A much smarter way of doing things would be to have the Blue Dog congressional caucus (on a side note, it really mystifies me why Dems whine so much about the conservatism of the DLC when the Blue Dogs are so much more conservative) officially divorce itself from the national Democratic Party and then remain officially neutral during all Presidential contests.
This could hypothetically work, a Dixiecrat Party could build back up its organization on the state level by severing contact with the national democratic party since that'd make it impossible for Republicans to link them with Democratic Congressional leadership or democratic Presidential candidates (neither of which tend to be terribly popular in the South). Only problem is that they'd probably get hurt among blacks, but I assume they could leave majority minority districts to the Democrats and try to remain competitive in the rest of the south.
3. NE Republicans Secede:
Well NE Republican moderates aren't as numerous or entrenched as the Blue Dogs but some of this has already happened with Jefford's defection. Also if the Republicans keep on going the way they've going all of New England will be a no-go zone for them (probably something that the Republican leadership is prepared to live with), so something like this might be the only way to keep politics in the NE (especially New England) competitive. I could really see a few other moderate Republican Senators following Jeffords in the next decade or so, and they could probably function effectively as a small regional party.
4. Blue Dogs + NE Republicans + Assorted other moderates:
Don't see this happening. Although they work together on somethings, the Blue Dogs and NE Republicans differ too much on other ones (I'm sure that such an amalgamated moderate party would have a hellish time writing compromise planks on such things as trade and social policy).
5. Buchananism Without the Crazyness:
In theory a party that espoused Buchanan's basic ideas with perhaps just a touch more of economic leftism to attract a broader spectrum of voters could do well. Imagine planks that went something like this: Isolationist nationalism, pro-life, protectionism, anti-immigration, pro-religion, anti-UN, in favor of "family friendly" large-scale economic handouts/tax cuts, moderately pro-Labor and prone to make a lot emotive bashings of Big Business and boosting of Main Street. There's a whole lot of people who'd prefer a party like that to either the Dems or the Reps.
However, I don't see any party along those lines ever getting organized. Not enough of those sort of people are as pissed off with the Republican Party as Buchanan is (at least not yet). And I don't think the Buchanan sorts (even the less crazy ones) would be willing to make the compromises necessary to obtain voters except by leeching off the Republicans.
6. An American Shinui
I could see this one really working since it appeals to a pretty big chunk of the American public that isn't really served by either the Dems or the Repubs (especially with the current Republican government's spending spree and general lack of fiscal discipline) and could really recruit people who now vote Dem, Repub or neither.
A platform would probably look something like: pragmatic foreign policy, separation of Church and State, socially liberal, sane immigration policies, strongly fiscally conservative and in favor of a general overall reform and simplification of the federal tax code, regulations and bureaucracy in a generally Liberal manner (in the European/original sense of the word). They could also possibly win some points by achieving some traditional lefty goals through radically less bureaucratic means (for example scrapping a lot of the Welfare State in favor of a vastly-expanded version of the Earned Income Tax Credit or something along those lines).
This would probably play pretty well among the Ming/JohnT/DanS wing of the Republicans, quite well among independents and I'm sure quite a few disaffeced Democrats would sign on as well. The closest thing we've had to this in the states was the Presidential campaign of John Bayard Anderson. Since that didn't do so well, I'm sure a Presidential bid on those kind of issues wouldn't be a good idea but I'm sure a party along these lines could pick up a good number of Congressional seats by providing some competition in districts where either the Dems or Repubs predominate and in states where this kind of thinking is already fairly popular (like Maine and some bits of the West).
What do the rest of you think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:21
|
|
What's the difference between the two parties there are now anyway? Someone make a brief summary about their stances especially as far as the left/right and authoritarian/libertarian sclae is concerned...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
We need a Christian Democrat Party, a party with Christian ideals and morals, yet devoted to the welfare of the people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
 |
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
although you might be right if the libertarian party focused on western states only (they tend to be more libertarian) Places like Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Oregon and Washington and California to a lesser extent.
In switzerland there is a libertarian party (Parti Liberal Suisse, Swiss Liberal Party), but they only do well in the western part of the country (cantons of Geneva, Vaud, Berne, Neuchatel, and Valais) Lately theyve lost some strength and have only 6 deputies in the national council - two from Geneva, two from Vaud, and one each from Neuchatel and Berne. Since they are pretty weak, they have made an alliance only on the national level with the PRS (Parti Radical Suisse, Swiss Radical Party) who are pretty close to being libertarian but are a little bit more conservative and do pretty well in the reste of switzerland (36 members in the national council including, Appenzell Innerrhoden (1) , Basel Land (1), Basel Stadt (1), Berne (4), Fribourg (1), Genève (1), Graübunden/Grisons (1), Luzerne (2), Neuchâtel (1), Sankt Gallen/ Saint Gallen (1), Ticino (3), Vaud (4), Zurich (5) etc.) They are spread out in all 4 language groups of switzerland.
The alliance, called the Union Liberale Radicale (URL, Liberal Radical Alliance) means that the two libertarian parties control 42 seats out of 200 in the national council (21%) and can have some say.
Last edited by Lawrence of Arabia on 24-05-2005 at 08:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bosh
|
|
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
We need a Christian Democrat Party, a party with Christian ideals and morals, yet devoted to the welfare of the people. |
That falls under my "Buchananism without the crazyness" category (at least loosely). I'm sure there's plenty of people like you who would support that kind of idea, but I really don't think that the idea would fly. Most of the people who're currently involve in politicized Christianity seem to be allergic to the kind of compromise that would be necessary to get the "devoted to the welfare of the people" to mean anything.
quote:
the libertarian party is fine - in the last wisconsin gubernatorial race, the libertarian candidate (who was a mayor of a city) recieved over 10% of the vote. |
You didn't win, therefore its not fine by definition. And there's no way in hell that the Libs are going to get more than 10% statewide in Wisconsin in the forseeable future. The Libertarian party either needs to move way way off the fringes and become something more like European Liberal Parties (which would be quite tenable) or concentrate the preponderance of its resources into races where it has a shot in hell of winning (there's got to be at least a handful of Congressional districts out there, Ron Paul pulled it off afterall...).
quote:
A Black & Latino minority party. If US economy goes down and racism goes up and IF they find a charismatic leader to unite them. |
Why would Blacks and Latinos necessarily want to be in the same party 
quote:
In switzerland there is a libertarian party (Parti Liberale Suisse, Swiss Liberal Party), but they only do well in the western part of the country (cantons of Geneva, Vaud, Berne, Neuchatel, and Valais) Lately theyve lost some strength and have only 6 deputies in the national council - two from Geneva, two from Vaud, and one each from Neuchatel and Berne. |
If they picked up a few national council seats I'm sure that they're saner, more moderate and better organized than the American Libs. The American Libertarians would do well to follow their example.
Got any links in English about that party?
quote:
OK we can have a third party, but so what? It's not powerfull at all, and it won't change anything in the powerplays. |
I would like a Third Party that would have the ability to shake things up in what are now strongholds of one party of the other. There's quite a bit of the country that are now effectively controlled solely by one party or another, a third party with even a little regional power would be a big help towards making our politics more competitive and democratic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:21
|
|
This thread makes me want to play Vicky. Wish me luck with the debt.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:21
|
|
It's a bit over-micro, combined with a silly auto-trade engine.
That's why I only play once a fortnight, and only for an hour or so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dracon II
|
 |
Communist Party of Apolyton
Jan 1970
time: 15:21
|
|
I don't think the USA has a genuine (or at least mainstream) left/right divide. Perhaps there is on moral issues... but the fact that much divisive debate between the Repubs and the Dems centers on moral issues is largely symptomatic of the lack of any real left/right divide on economics.
Also, I think the Democrats and the Republicans, as the two hegemonic parties in US politics, have been able to cast a wide net, and thus incorporate many diverse factions and political groupings that would constitute separate parties in many other democracies (especially those with proportional electoral systems). This is helped by the fact that senators and representatives are able to cross the floor with relative impunity, something which lessens the need for a third party.
In my opinion... a viable third party would only likely arise out of a major split in one of the two major parties.
In Australia, the Democrats tried to employ a strategy whereby they would occupy the middle ground between the labour party and the conservative coalition. Unfortunately for them, labour and the coalition converged at the center... which has seen them occupy ground to the left of the labour party, and has thus marginalized them despite their original intent. I think the situation in the US is similar... the dems and republicans cover all the ideological field from center-left to center-right, and thus third parties seem to only be able to pop on the margins.
Another factor is the cooption factor. If a third party looked like it had a chance of succeeding, one of the major parties would simply coopt their platform into their own.
Two party systems tend to be able to muscle out competitors fairly effectively.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-05-2005 15:29
|