You misunderstand me. I'm an not arguing for support of a more moderate candidate. I am arguing that calls for a third party are ignoring the real reason we don't nominate conservatives. It's not because "the system is rigged" -- it's because there aren't enough conservatives, and I recognize that "conservative" is a word about which people disagree. But however you define it, the point remains.
Whether or not a particular GOP nominee is acceptable is going to vary widely between people, and perhaps depending on who the other party has nominated. I'm simply saying that the only way to elect another "real" conservative is to 1) find the right person, and 2) build a coalition that can elect him/her.
Thing is, that this time the GOP was ripe to nominate a Conservative.
Not just another 'election year' conservative, but a guy who had walked the walk, too.
The GOP hierarchy didn't want a Conservative--my God, a man who would take a principled stand is bad for bid'ness, especially the scam the Congress has been running on the American People for the last seven years.
That scam has angered the GOP voters, I'd safely say 75% of them are dissatisfied with the way things have been done. (40% for Trump, and at least another 35% for 'outsiders').
But, Instead, in anger at their own party, and with a tremendous amount of social media goading (and an unprecedented smear campaign of lies against the Conservative), they nominated Trump.
Another opportunity missed, and considering that Hillary was the likely opponent, a really good one.
Now, when you consider that out of the past seven election cycles, the GOP has, at best, run a right of center candidate, those odds of getting a Conservative candidate are bad and getting worse, not better.
At least with a Third Party, there is no deeply entrenched Washington apparatchik network which must be overcome to run a Conservative--if you start with a Conservative Third Party, and a Conservative Party Platform, the possibility of nominating a Conservative increases phenomenally.
In looking at the Constitution Party, even allowing for my Originalist bias, there really isn't anything there I wouldn't vote for, and few enough oxen to get gored that most people who want less government would find deal-breakers there.
I challenge you to examine the Constitution Party platform, posted on this site, and comment.
The next part is building support for that party, and keeping the Uniparty from sweeping it off to the side.
While the novelty of a serious candidate from a third party may be able to get some free media, people need to line up behind principles and policies they can support, and build that support from the bottom up, not just the Party, but to run candidates at the local and State and Federal Level.
It will take years to build that, but putting it off isn't getting the job done, and only entrenches the Uniparty a little more. The opportunity is perishable. We have already entered an era where so few laymen (as opposed to attorneys and die-hard politicians) know or understand the Constitution, that those who will read fragments taken out of context will not recognize them. For instance even folks here did not know SCOTUS justices can be impeached (for the same reasons a POTUS or VPOTUS can be, and with the same votes from the same legislative bodies).
What will take the longest, and maybe can't be done without the Party is the reeducation (I hate that word) of the American people as to just how their government is supposed to function, what the Federal Government is --and isn't-- supposed to do, and what Rights, Powers, and Duties the States are supposed to have--all of which was designed to ultimately protect the Liberty of the People.
Repealing the 17th Amendment would help, too.
I believe that if people knew the extent to which the Federal Government had overstepped its legitimate powers, they would want to wind it back a few notches.
As for being enough people, I think there are.
I think a lot of otherwise conservative people heard rash talk that resonated with their anger, an anger born of knowing that the Federal Government is way, way, out of bounds. Consider that on the issues, Cruz and Trump were not so far apart.
I had considered Trump as a second choice--right up until I discovered he was an opportunist, not a genuine Conservative, and saw that reflected again and again in the way he campaigned, not on issues but with personal attacks. Cruz had advocated a wall, a physically secured border back in 2011, Cruz was for restricting the flow of immigrants from terrorist nations and hot spots and vetting them before letting them in. He was for smaller government, a return to Constitutional principles, pro-life, pro- fiscal responsibility, etc...
The differentiating point was created in a vitriolic smear campaign run by his opponent, and those who saw through those smears and did not accept half-truths and untruths at face value but vetted those with primary data widely available did not and do not support the opponent who was the source.
Many of the FRefugees here, many of whom left in disgust, tried to point those departures from truth out and even provided the links to video, transcripts, and factual accounts otherwise, but neither data, facts, nor logic prevailed against those emotions which were whipped to a fever pitch in the Trump camp--not so much
for Trump, although that was considerable, as
against Cruz, who was close to Trump in the polls, close enough to be a clear threat to Trump's candidacy.
I would submit that while effective, those emotional outbursts are one of the poorest bases to select a candidate on. Still, the significant plurality who decided to accept them generally would not accept (as part of that emotional attachment) that their candidate had
any flaws, and in true form decided it was necessary to kill the messenger, and double down rather than look at reality.
I, for one, feel like the best friend who got punched in the mouth for quietly pointing out to the Groom to be that his intended used to be a stripper two towns over. He'll find out eventually, and I won't be Best Man at the wedding. So it goes. Been there, done that, and eventually we'll be friends again--or not, that is up to him. I won't be at the reception party, but I'll still buy him a drink after the divorce.
So, I think it will be with conservatives, or at least the portion of the Republican Party which would vote for a Conservative. But the fact remains, that those who are running the Party (not the average schmuck) have decided they want safeguards against such a revolt again, and quietly put them in place during the Convention. They want to maintain their gravy train and while "Conservatism" and "The Constitution" are great are great buzzwords to wave around, they are concepts toxic to their enterprise in practice. Short of overthrowing that well entrenched good ol' boy network, no meaningful change will come--at least not for the better.
The remaining viable option, as difficult as that may seem, is a Third Party. It will take time. It will take work, and we're burning daylight.
It is how the Republican Party came into existence, and it is how it will fade away.
