People are always enslaved to the forms to which they have become accustomed, this is true of politics and tyranny as much as those who are conquered by an enemy and learn to exist under their grip. Change and extraction from that which they are accustomed and beholden to is no easy task. But if some want their principles and liberty to be safe and secure - then separation is necessary and vital and a new party that upholds those principles needs to be forged.
If you want the principles of Conservatism to have any voice in the future, then it must happen outside of and free from the corrupted cancers of the national parties.
And having said that - I am not confident that those principles can be safeguarded by civil means as we continue to decline and the population becomes more radicalized into the camps of Marxists or Nationalist Populist Fascists.
Great post (and thread)
Up until recently I would advocate for 3rd parties too, mostly for reasons already mentioned. But I'm having second thoughts.
[1] The Electoral College system we have is one that serves us pretty well. It's not perfect but I'm not convinced the alternatives are any better. A county by county tally has its merits and may be the best alternative out there, but it has its pro's and con's as well. But back to the Electoral College, here are the results from 1992.
And the same election, county by county with Perot shaded in green.
This map also includes shades of red and shades of blue to indicate strength of vote for a candidate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992Now if we had a strong 3rd party candidate that would be a Federalist, Libertarian or other, it would presumably split the Republican vote. In 1992 without Perot in the race Bush would have received about 56% percent of the vote to Clinton's 43%. This assumes the 3rd party candidate leans Conservative.
But the same would be true of the Democrats. If a Bernie Sanders type candidate split the Democratic vote the two would neuter themselves, thereby guaranteeing a Republican victory. In effect, the two Left-leaning candidates cancel each other out.
And then there is the case for many parties. Going from memory only, Hitler won something like 28% of the vote in the 1930's thereby gaining a toe hold to power. There were about 11 parties in Germany at the time. I'd look it up to be accurate, but you get the general idea.
[2] The press has taken over the Democratic party. I'm convinced the press leads and Democrats follow, not the other way around. While it may be true that Valerie Jarrett sent out talking points from the Oval Office that the press received and ran with each day, she sent them to the press - not the Democratic party.
Go back as far as the Clinton presidency and examine each major issue or scandal. The press created the narrative. One or two Democratic conductors may have been leading the orchestra, but the press carried the lion's share of the message to the public. And you can go back even further to Reagan if you wish and you'll see the same is true. The bottom line is that the press has become the 4th branch of government - the Fourth Estate if you will.
Like it or not it is reality. And I'll even go a step further and state that a very strong case could be made that Congress has nearly zero power anymore, it has been replaced by the press. Sure Congress fiddles around with this issue or that, but they accomplish very little at the end of the day. And Congress promises to investigate this scandal or that, but they accomplish very little at the end of the day.
In comparison to Congress, the press sets the agenda and that is where real power lies. They can convince the public that Republicans hate women or that Sandra Fluke absolutely requires $300 a month for birth control pills - ideas such as these don't even pass the smell test. Yet 1 or 2 people in the Obama administration can float the idea, the press will run with it, and the Democratic party will follow right along - in that order. The Democratic party as a whole is not setting the agenda. They are followers, not leaders.
So I repeat - The press has taken over the Democratic party.
To summarize, a 3rd party candidate would likely split the Republican ticket instead of the Democratic ticket. And the "other side of the aisle" is actually the press, not the Democratic party. They have become nothing but minions of the press.