A case for the necessary rise of third parties (JDRucker)

[corbe]

A case for the necessary rise of third parties

DIARY / JD Rucker //  Posted at 7:09 am on April 24, 2017 by JD Rucker

It’s contrary to my DNA to look to France as a model to examine from a political perspective. Following this weekend’s stunning round one results that yielded two finalists who were not in mainstream parties, it’s fair to say I’m more interested in French politics now than I’ve ever been in my life.

For complete transparency, I’m a former Republican who now aligns with the Federalist Party. Even if I were in the Libertarian, Constitution, or any other third party, I’d still be very watchful of what took place in Europe. I don’t think it’s a prototype of any sort for America since their system isn’t nearly as tilted as ours is towards maintaining supremacy for the Democratic-Republican super-party, but the wave of anti-Establishment sentiment that seems to be sweeping the world must be examined.

Some will say that I only need to look at what happened here in November to see the wave in full force, but I’m a firm believer that President Trump’s victory was a false-positive that didn’t fulfill the desire to oppose the Establishment. Yes, he ran on anti-Establishment rhetoric, but I have to believe a large minority of Americans didn’t really believe he was against the Establishment. “Drain the Swamp” was a great slogan, but we haven’t seen much that Jeb Bush or John Kasich wouldn’t have done if they had won. In fact, reports that the President has threatened multiple members of his party who are the furthest away from being part of the GOP Establishment are clear indicators he’s more aligned with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan than he is with Rand Paul and Mark Meadows.

So, what did we learn from France’s anti-Establishment election? It’s time for Americans to align with their true philosophies rather than pick between the big government Republicans or bigger government Democrats.

We know the Democrats are in complete disarray. Sure, they’re putting on a happy mask of unity by channeling their frustration towards President Trump, but at the end of the day they know it’s not enough to oppose one man. The Republicans, with help from the Tea Party, were unable to translate frustration into a victory in 2012, but they latched onto the idea of opposing Obamacare to bring them victories in Congress that yielded majorities at opportune times.

We also know the Republicans are shifting. Party leadership has been hoping for an excuse to drift towards the middle since Ronald Reagan left office and President Trump empowers them to do so. On some issues, it’s like watching “1984” unfold before our eyes. For example, before Trump, the GOP staunchly supported free trade. Now, the majority in the GOP believes in fair trade, and just like in “1984” we are being told that they’ve always supported fair trade. Any attempts to remind them of their recent past will result in calls to send you to a reconditioning center.

With those problems within the two parties understood, small-government-loving Republicans are faced with two choices: fall in line with the “new and improved” budget-bloating GOP, or look to a third party. Pro-life Democrats are now faced with a similar set of choices: accept that their opinions on abortion are not appreciated or even wanted by their party, or look to a third party.

Here’s the problem. To turn to a third-party requires a suspension of disbelief. We’re Americans. We like to win. It’s been embedded in us through decades of indoctrination that there is no way to break from from the Democratic-Republican stranglehold on government. Some would agree with the perspective that 2016 presented America with the worst combination of major-party candidates we’ve ever seen, yet the third parties weren’t able to win a single electoral college vote. Faith Spotted Eagle received an electoral college vote, but the third parties couldn’t get one.

It’s time for something new. When it became clear I wasn’t going to have a major-party candidate I could support for President, I did extensive research into the various third parties. After examining and speaking with leaders in both the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party, I realized they had some good ideas but such horrible campaign strategies that I couldn’t imagine them ever getting their act together without extreme overhauls at the top. I looked to even smaller parties like America’s Party and found essentially the same problems, though less pronounced because they didn’t even have the burdens of size and diversity. After talking to many respected pundits and former politicians, I came to the conclusion we needed to build from scratch.

The prospects were daunting, but there were a few things that gave me hope. First, the angst that was rising in both parties seemed to make the timing as good as it’s been since the 19th century. Second, we knew we if we did what other third parties neglected – focus on local elections out of the gate – we could build groundswells of support that could quickly turn into national election victories in subsequent elections. Third, having a strong technology and PR infrastructure would give us the ability to grow with viral velocity and compounding passions feeding off themselves. In other words, we saw social media, mobile technology (text FEDERALIST to 53445 for updates), and the rise of citizen journalism as keys to our early success. Last week alone, we appeared on four podcasts and a couple of radio shows. They weren’t Rush Limbaugh, but they’re reaching people. It’s a start.

It’s important to understand that leadership in both parties want to lurch further to the left. The Democrats want to be as far to the left as allowable by their constituents. The Republicans want to drift towards the middle because they know that right-wing voters will never vote Democrat. While both strategies seem cogent, they leave a gigantic hole on the right and a smaller hole on the moderate left. This, more than anything else, is why a third party with the right strategies can succeed just as anti-Establishment candidates are succeeding around the world.

On the right, we have the obvious hole of Constitutional conservatives who are learning with every election that the GOP wants their votes but doesn’t want to hear their perspectives. Yes, there were strides made through the Tea Party, but now we have a President threatening to primary conservatives in office with Mitch and Paul giddily standing behind him. The days of conservative Republicans in Congress are numbered.

On the moderate left, we have social conservatives who would never vote Republican but who are unhappy with the Democrats. There are many more of them than most would expect, particularly with minority voters who have strong faith and family values but who believe the GOP has no place for them.

Between these two groups and one other (millennials, but I’ll discuss them with their own article in the near future), we believe we have the formula to achieve in a year or two what other third parties have failed to do for decades: win elections. We’ll start with races that are easier but still extremely important: city councils, mayors, state legislators, even US Congressional seats. We’ll only enter races we believe we have a serious chance of winning. While nearly every third party puts that majority of their eggs into their Presidential candidates’ baskets, we will only put resources towards achieving realistic goals. No protest votes. No spoilers. We’ll have a chance of winning every race we enter. If we have no chance in a race, we simply won’t run in it. We’re not here to waste anyone’s money or our own resources in an attempt to make a statement. We want to make an impact.

America deserves real choices. The illusion of the binary choice is perpetuated by those who benefit from it. Every day we’re seeing more Americans wake up to the fact that they can have multiple choices if enough voters are willing to suspend their disbelief. It won’t be easy, but it will be done.

   *Emphasis mine.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/jdrucker/2017/04/24/case-necessary-rise-third-parties/

[Cripplecreek]

We need a federalist party

[INVAR]

I'm already third party in terms of having divorced myself from the GOP.

Conservatism is being rendered irrelevant by the Oligarchy at Mordor on the Potomac.  Trump is redefining the entire ideology and if Conservatism is to survive at all in the political sense, it will have to go somewhere else to have an influence outside the existing Uniparty oligarchy.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The problem I have with this article is that the reference to a "binary" choice ignores the impact of the primary system, which doesn't really exist in France.  Trump is an outsider in the same sense as LePen and Macron -- the only difference is that he won a plurality in a primary rather than in a 4 candidate run-off. 

Had the multiple parties not existed in France, Macron would have won as a Socialist, and LePen as a Republican, and we'd have the same two people running.  Another problem with the French system is that it raises the high probability that either LePen or Macron will be faced with a hostile legislature.

I still have not seen a convincing argument for how a "third party" would be able to win an election, but unable to win the nomination of one of the two major parties.  In other words, I don't see how the two party system itself (versus lack of support among voters) is what prevents an outsider candidate from winning.

[truth_seeker]

The idea of going 3rd party in order to gain "influence," is a self-serving delusion. Third party leaders and followers, are mainly seeking attention.

Since Theodore Roosevelt, the best performance was Ross Perot. But others on BOTH sides have jeopardized their former party. Nader and Buchanan (2000), Perot (1992) for instance etc.

[INVAR]

When it becomes self-evident that the corruption and intransigent cronyism within the existing system exists to empower itself at the expense of the liberty of the people, and that such cancer is endemic to itself, it behooves those whose principles are no longer regarded by the 'rulers' to separate themselves from the existing system in order to form and create new guards for their security.  It is how we were founded as a nation to begin with. 

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 not, then they can kiss what they hold as principles goodbye, because they will be swallowed up whole by those who seek to rule them and take from them.

The GOP is wholly corrupt and unsalvageable as a party to the principles Conservatives are governed by.  If you want to surrender those principles for loyalty to the 'party' and the fleeting euphoria of 'winning' an election only to watch your principles get trampled and discarded for 'pragmatic Socialism' which politicians today more clearly align - then stay in the GOP.

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.

[Fishrrman]

truth_seeker wrote:
"The idea of going 3rd party in order to gain "influence," is a self-serving delusion. Third party leaders and followers, are mainly seeking attention.
Since Theodore Roosevelt, the best [3rd party] performance was Ross Perot. But others on BOTH sides have jeopardized their former party. Nader and Buchanan (2000), Perot (1992) for instance etc."

Sometimes you can't see the forest through the trees.

The best "3rd party performance" was in 2016, when Donald Trump (who most regarded as an "outsider" akin to your run-of-the-mill 3rd party candidate) came from nowhere and literally wrestled the electoral machinery of the Republican party AWAY FROM that party, and into his own hands.

And, having co-opted the Republican party -- having essentially made it HIS party instead of the other way around* -- he went on to win, the first ever "3rd-party outsider" to win the presidency.
* Normally, the "party chooses a candidate". Trump choose the party, and took it over.

(and yes, I happily voted for him and am still pleased with that vote).

[Hondo69]

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,_1992

Now 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.

[corbe]

   A Very thought provoking post @Hondo69  Thanks for sharing

[Cripplecreek]

For those who whine that a 3rd party would split the GOP.

Tough. Do better.

[TomSea]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6oelTyFtiw

[truth_seeker]

The best "3rd party performance" was in 2016, when Donald Trump (who most regarded as an "outsider" akin to your run-of-the-mill 3rd party candidate) came from nowhere and literally wrestled the electoral machinery of the Republican party AWAY FROM that party, and into his own hands.

And, having co-opted the Republican party -- having essentially made it HIS party instead of the other way around* -- he went on to win, the first ever "3rd-party outsider" to win the presidency.
* Normally, the "party chooses a candidate". Trump choose the party, and took it over.

(and yes, I happily voted for him and am still pleased with that vote).

I think this makes the point of the disadvantage of a 3rd party, versus the advantage of the major parties.

--Perot failed, as did Buchanan etc. Using real 3rd parties
--Trump prevailed, by co-opting a major party.

I do NOT believe Trump, could have won, as a 3rd party candidate. He DID win because he was a major party candidate.

I voted for him, and would do so again.

[INVAR]

Up until recently I would advocate for 3rd parties too, mostly for reasons already mentioned.  But I'm having second thoughts.

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.

I don't care.  The GOP no longer represents my values, their leadership has threatened to punch us in the nose, make us shut up and sit down, and have told to get out of their party by their own words.

I'm done being the battered wife, the GOP has simply become the Democrat Party and I want no more to do with them, than I do the Democrats.   They are one and the same to me.

So I will vote for the candidate and party that represents my values - and aside from about two representatives - none of them are in the GOP.

[Cripplecreek]

I don't care.  The GOP no longer represents my values, their leadership has threatened to punch us in the nose, make us shut up and sit down, and have told to get out of their party by their own words.

I'm done being the battered wife, the GOP has simply become the Democrat Party and I want no more to do with them, than I do the Democrats.   They are one and the same to me.

So I will vote for the candidate and party that represents my values - and aside from about two representatives - none of them are in the GOP.

A certain brand of "republican" couldn't torch bridges fast enough while bragging about democrat crossover votes.

[geronl]

I don't care.  The GOP no longer represents my values, their leadership has threatened to punch us in the nose, make us shut up and sit down, and have told to get out of their party by their own words.

I'm done being the battered wife, the GOP has simply become the Democrat Party and I want no more to do with them, than I do the Democrats.   They are one and the same to me.

So I will vote for the candidate and party that represents my values - and aside from about two representatives - none of them are in the GOP.

I completely agree with this.

[Hondo69]

So I will vote for the candidate and party that represents my values - and aside from about two representatives - none of them are in the GOP.

I feel sure many of us are in that very same boat.

The rotten choices always feel like, "which do you want cut off, an arm or a leg?"  Well, actually neither if you want to know the truth.  But neither doesn't seem to be an option these days.

[INVAR]

A certain brand of "republican" couldn't torch bridges fast enough while bragging about democrat crossover votes.

As they race to the Left to see if they can beat the Democrats at imposing their particular strain of Statism.