14

Time for a 3rd Party

Posted by $ BobCat 1 week, 5 days ago to Politics
42 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I have been giving a lot of thought to the concept of a third political party.

I have been weighing the arguments, such as : It would dilute the Republican Party, a third party would never win, and it would be handing the Dems an assured victory.

While these arguments against used to hold water, I am not sure that they do in today’s political climate, at least not for me.

Since I became of voting age, some fifty years ago or so, I have voted for only two candidates who espoused my political philosophy and became Presidents. Ronald Reagan (twice) and Donald Trump. All other elections involved choosing the lesser of two undesirables.

Only twice during that time did I ever stray outside the D and R fields. Looking back, I regret allowing myself to be sucked into the line that my vote was necessary for the R’s to win over the D’s. If only more of us had refused to hold our noses and vote with our conscience, maybe things would be different today. Maybe not.

So after 50 some odd years of voting and mostly holding my nose (Dole, Bushes, McCain, and Romney), I am done with the spineless, wishy - washy, ego-elitism, chameleon party that calls itself Republican. The party of R’s that did not fully support Goldwater, the party that continually enabled middle of the road candidates whilst squashing the conservative voice, the party that was more concerned about the optics of being viewed by their opponents than in their own platform, the party that ran candidates who I still to this day am left wondering if they even wanted to win, and the party who wouldn’t even stand behind their own candidate when he did win, is no longer the party of my choice nor deserving my support.

I, for one, will support another party that stands for our Constitution, our Liberty, our Freedoms, and our Conservative Values. I no longer will be holding my nose when I vote for Liberty and Freedom and Conservatism. I will be able to say that I supported the candidate of My Choice.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 1 week, 4 days ago
    Why do we need any political parties at all? Why can't we have individuals campaigning for office based on their individual political governing philosophy?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 1 week, 1 day ago
      George Washington was very much against political parties and warned about them specifically in his Farewell address.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 1 week, 1 day ago
        So, what accounts for the continued existence of political parties? Is it safety in numbers? Fear of being an individual, alone, an outcast? Is the effort required to eliminate them so overwhelming that few or none dare attempt to do so?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 1 week, 1 day ago
          If you've taken any business marketing classes, one of the things that quickly stands out is how expensive it is to bring a new product to market: educating your potential audience/market is very expensive. New political parties are new products which have to be marketed. Even existing political parties like the Libertarian Party have to be marketed aggressively to expand their consumer base. I think that the Libertarian Party is beginning to understand this as they spent a lot of money on advertisements for Gary Johnson in 2016. But their pockets are relatively shallow compared to either the Democrats or Republicans.

          The other problem lies with the type of message each can engage in. While the Libertarians have to focus much of their advertising on introductions of themselves, the Democrats and Republicans are spending their money promoting their viewpoint (and attacking their opponents). These are persuasive ad buys rather than informational advertisements and tend to be more effective than informational ads.

          The major problem - of course - is trying to persuade people to leave what they know (D vs R) and join something else. THAT is an incredibly expensive proposition. Ask any religious proselyte and they can tell you that trying to persuade people to change their political affiliations is like asking them to change religions. Without some motivation from the individual in question, it's almost a non-starter.


          Now to address your point of "safety in numbers" I might suggest that we substitute the word "power" for "safety." There is no question that in a representative government that power comes from numbers. And part of that is simply the generational education process: children tend to adopt the political affiliation of their parents. Democrats recognized that they would have to co-opt the education system in order to change this and have been extraordinarily effective at pushing their agenda on kids - especially teens. They've been doing it for so long that they practically own a lock on ideological thought in public education. And it only gets worse as one moves to higher education where estimates are that more than 9 out of 10 professors lean left.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by j_IR1776wg 1 week, 1 day ago
            ” Democrats recognized that they would have to co-opt the education system in order to change this and have been extraordinarily effective at pushing their agenda on kids - especially teens. They've been doing it for so long that they practically own a lock on ideological thought in public education. And it only gets worse as one moves to higher education where estimates are that more than 9 out of 10 professors lean left.”

            Kudos for perception. If America is ever again to look to Educators to teach children to employ Reason and Aristotle’s Logic as a guide to running their own lives, it must begin with the recapturing of the Department of Education. Perhaps the only honest thing the Nazis did was naming their department the “Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda”. I wonder if there is enough time to do this peacefully? Or if a new beginning will require a violent destruction of Socialist institutions?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 1 week ago
              It started around the turn of the 20th Century when the son of oil baron Rockefeller didn't know what to do with all his inherited wealth. Instead of using it to further scientific or other progress, he sought to promote the regressive and repressive ideas of socialists/progressives like Woodrow Wilson. They started approaching teachers with a new form of curriculum and were told to go pound sand. So they began writing their own "history" and other books and infiltrating the public school systems with these ideologically-slanted tomes. By the Second World War they had largely taken over the supply of informational and study texts to public schools. They also helped fund the Scopes "Monkey" trial and gained a huge benefit off its outcome as it furthered their agenda.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ CBJ 1 week, 1 day ago
          Political parties continue to exist because, like corporations, they have been given special legal privileges, and it is in the interest of politicians and lawmakers to maintain their continued existence. A majority of voters give lip service to the need for a third party (though few vote for candidates of actual third parties). Almost no voters consider the question of whether political parties should be abolished as privileged legal entities.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by j_IR1776wg 1 week, 1 day ago
            " they have been given special legal privileges,...". They have taken or seized these legal privileges and are not likely to willingly give them back. We the People can no longer vote them away.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by NealS 1 week, 1 day ago
      We do not need political parties. All we have to do is convince probably 3/4 of the nation to vote only on the principles and ideas of those running then hold them to it. But this time, somehow, we got a president that is in favor of taking away our arms, raising taxes, increasing government and government control of every aspect of our lives, and they actually won it on emotion that was created and allowed to take place because of the defined political parties. Parties only create division, division of man from his brain. I can actually go along with some ideas the D Party has, but then I'd be telling a lie, would you believe maybe I could go along with part of one of their ideas?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 25n56il4 1 week, 4 days ago
    We actually need to clean out the swamp. We must do something about the fraudulent elections. Parties won't matter if elections are illegal.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jbrenner 1 week, 1 day ago
      We had our chance to drain the swamp. The swamp creatures successfully fought back, much like the Empire from The Empire Strikes Back.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Dobrien 1 week, 1 day ago
        When all is said and done in this exorcism of Satanic swamp creatures we will know it had to be done this way. With all do respect this is the “uncivilized war” and it is not over , far from it. We may have lost some battles but no one in the fight has surrendered. Remember Muhammed Ali and his rope a dope. Unconventional tactics seem to be necessary. Optics are important. Many interesting aspects to this battle. Can former Presidents be impeached? Yes. Can politicians tax info be examined? Yes. Do we know how to make elections secure? Yes. Is everyone getting a good look at what the traitors are doing in selling out our country? Yes. Even in the Revolutionary War the patriots were getting their asses kicked Washington didn’t give up and he took a Durham boat and crossed the Delaware.
        I know we still have a Durham and he has not set sail yet. Trump stated numerous times even as he exited the Whitehouse “THE BEST IS YET TO COME”!. I can’t believe he said that knowing Buy-den would reverse all his accomplishments.
        There is a plan and if we knew it the scum fuQs would know it as well. Trump and the patriots will never give up and will go on a vicious offensive sooner than later imho. If I am wrong we are on the fast track to Technocracy and the Nazi World Order. We will never have a fair election again and it will be comply or die. Trump knows this as well or better than anyone.
        Peace to Q Prof Brenner. Thank you for actually providing your students with a great value instead of damning dogma.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ jbrenner 1 week, 1 day ago
          You are welcome for the value I provide. It is getting harder to do so, both from a teaching standpoint and from my new business' standpoint. As my personality is a lot like Dagny's in that I will be among the last to "completely shrug", it will be bitter for a long time.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Dobrien 1 week ago
            I know you are a busy man. I would recommend you take some time to listen to this information about how Trump assisted in sting operations to help the FBI takedown the mafia in Atlantic City as well as many in the Russian mafia during his pre- presidential life.
            https://x22report.com/aiovg_videos/ep...
            A side note Trump was advised for decades by Roy Cohn. It has been said that Cohn and Trump spoke upwards of 17x a day.
            If you aren’t sure who Cohn is here is a little background.
            Roy Cohn successfully prosecuted the Rosenbergs for treason in 1951. Roy Marcus Cohn (/koʊn/; February 20, 1927 – August 2, 1986) was an American lawyer who came to prominence for his role as Senator Joseph McCarthy's chief counsel during the Army–McCarthy hearings in 1954, when he assisted McCarthy's investigations of suspected communists. Modern historians view his approach during those hearings as dependent on demagogic, reckless and unsubstantiated accusations against political opponents. I will add that in fact we have been infiltrated by communists and unsubstantiated is more fake news perhaps even the beginning of fake news in the US. In the late 1970s and during the 1980s, he became a prominent political fixer in New York City. He represented and mentored the real estate developer and later President of the United States Donald Trump during his early business career.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 1 week, 3 days ago
      Can’t drain the swamp when the drain is clogged with scum... it’s time for a massive, massive flood of fresh water to cause the swamp to overflow ...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by anthonysd 1 week, 1 day ago
    in terms of the "wishy-washy" candidates, I thought something was up when they referred to their "Progressive Friends in the room" at one point or another... Bush 41 was the first time I noticed it.... and considering his background, it validates most conspiracy theories for me... :(
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wmiranda 1 week, 1 day ago
    I'm a term limits guy. After the last 4 years, one thing is certain, I will not vote for any democrat, ever. If Trump or another businessman with like Trump ideas were to form a third party, I would be in it. Especially if the party's platform include support for term limits.

    Some argue that term limits can be gained simply by voting. Obviously, that hasn't worked because the same people that get into office just keep getting reelected, mainly by the same people that put them there.

    I think a third party would draw the best from the Repubs and some from the Dems that don't like what the Dems have become. Let the Rinos left in the Republican party stab themselves in the back. It's Karma after the lack of loyalty to Trump.

    We need to return government to the people with term limits. Instead, we have created a political royalty class whos main effort after being elected goes towards getting reelected.

    So, a Trump-like third party? Hell yeah!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rjim 1 week, 1 day ago
    What most people don't know is many states have laws that prevent a 3rd party from even being on the ballot.
    The primaries are so controlled that good people have a very difficult time winning a chance to be in the regular elections.
    Heck, one cannot even elect new people to party committees as there is so much abuse, it almost impossible to elect new people in the primaries to run against the opposing party.

    If we are not able to elect new people at the lowest levels, they will never be available in the actual elections.

    As I previously stated, many states have laws on the books that prevent a 3rd parties from even being on the ballots. Corruption at the lowest level needs to be fixed first before the national vote can elect good people.

    I have personally seen how bad it is, as I was a county chair for a 3rd party for a short while. I have seen how 3rd parties were stripped from being able to place a candidate on a ballot. Major party leaders control who will run in their party structures, regardless of voter wishes.

    Our elections are built on quicksand, not on a rock foundation.

    The bottom line is if people are not elected in primaries, and they cannot get their name on a ballot, there cannot be elected.

    Even when there is a choice about 40% will vote D no matter what and 40% will vote R no matter what. A 3rd party cannot win with only 20% of the vote. Overall, people will not support a 3rd party, even though they say they will. It is easier to take over a party than to support one that already exists or build a new one.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Ben_C 1 week, 1 day ago
    I agree 100% with your assessment. I too have been voting since 1966. I did in fact vote for Ross Perot. The problem as I see it is that we will have 20 to 30 million aliens voting in our elections who will surely vote for the Democrats and their "free" programs. That said, we have nothing to lose with a third party and at least will have the platform to educate the electorate on their foolish ways. Once the general population is removed from their comfort zone the revolution will begin. It is inevitable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by upston 1 week, 1 day ago
    Well said BC. Is a third party easy , hell no, BUT the Rino class has had a strangle hold on us for ever and all efforts to change from within have been crushed.
    DJT did his best but without a party structure in support no President can turn back the state.

    10 seats in the senate and 40 in the house could wield a lot of power and block all the expansion of crazy on both sides. This could be a done deal in 2022 and by 2024 be a full third of both houses.
    If nothing is done THIS cycle we will have no chance to claw back to a free state, 30 million new voters from the south , the courts the schools the media .

    It's time for a bold move, it may not work but not doing it is a guarantee of failure. If not us ,who, if not now , never.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 1 week, 5 days ago
    There's speculation that Trump may (or may not) start what is called a Patriot Party.
    It's a nice dream that it will draw patriotic Republicans out of the GOP and leave the self-serving RINOs behind.
    Me dino would like to see such a thing happen but I'm not holding my breath.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ CBJ 1 week, 1 day ago
      Unless such a party also attracts a sufficient number of Democrats, it will do nothing but make life easier for "progressives". Remember Theodore Roosevelt and his "Bull Moose" party, which divided Republicans and led to the disastrous victory of Woodrow Wilson.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 week, 1 day ago
    the purpose of a party today is mostly to provide money to pay for propaganda to get a group of people elected.

    Its kind of a stupid and crooked system actually, being based on acceptance of propaganda. If our government wasnt set up to take from one and give to another, the consequences of an election would not be so important.

    The president should be an administrator, not a king. The branches of government should NOT be able to tax me to pay for something that benefits you. Its a basic fault in our constitution right out of the gate. It took 250 years to reach where we are, which is to elect people who will give to ME at YOUR expense. So each of us votes for the goodies. Very bad.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 1 week, 1 day ago
    I've NEVER voted for a BUSH. Ross Perot got my vote. I know we handed it over to Clinton.

    And frankly, I don't care if the Republicans win another race. The DO NOT DESERVE to.
    The party REFUSES to make promises and stand by them. Repeal Obama Care? With the Presidency, The House, The Senate... NOPE.
    Personally, I wished McCain succombed much earlier to his cancer. He "Served America Up on a Silver Platter" while profiting, and running the same games the Clinton's did. selling influence. Lying to us.

    I refuse to be forced to vote AGAINST someone. And quite frankly, I'm tired of the one key fact:

    THEY KOW we will FORGET, and they will AMP UP the 2-sided talking points. And keep us in our lane.
    At a certain point, I say, we give EVERY DROP OF POWER to the POWER DRUNK DEMS. Every last drop.
    And we watched the ENGINE COME TO A HALT. And we give them MORE POWER.
    Until they are forced to go after their own, or they just keep going until EVERYONE sees the problem, and resists!

    What's funny is that we have a CURRENCY Crisis masquerading as Covid and the shutdown. Civil wars start when you cannot afford to feed your family!

    For now, I am buying popcorn. There is NOTHING left worth saving. The Courts are broken, the Judges are Corrupted/incompetent and the average person appears to need to get burned to learn a lesson. Our property rights have been PROVABLY eroded. (Lookup LEDER Technologies, whose patents were stolen by our government, and given to the tech firms to build the internet out!). Filing a patent can cause you to be stripped of your property!

    Freedom of speech. I am old enough to remember when a PRIVATE COMPANY NOT SERVING A GAY PERSON was cause for UNIVERSAL UPROAR. Now the PRESIDENT is banned for life by a private company... And half the country cheers. The same half who attacked the bakers... Oh, how we have fallen.

    Now the second amendment. The 4th was gone when the CIA/NSA captured all of our email, and the IRS Code LITERALLY SAYS "We can use ANY INFORMATION against you, EVEN THAT OBTAINED ILLEGALLY and without PERMISSION"

    Our Votes... Don't get me started.

    Break out the popcorn. The republicans are CORRUPTED JUST AS BADLY as the Dems. Hence the way MITTENS VOTES. Because his son is in one of the deals with the BIden and Pelosi Kids... LMAO. There are 2 parties. THOSE Having a Party (in office), and those PAYING for the party (The citizens). I am not sure where we get the 3rd party from, but something tells me if it affects the people in office, they might pay attention!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Snezzy 1 week, 1 day ago
    Purpose of third party is to steal votes from Republicans. If a third party or a takeover attempt becomes a threat it gets taken over like the Tea Party was.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 1 week, 1 day ago
    I can visualize the next step, have a shill run as one particular party and actually being of the other. It doesn't seem to matter what you say anymore, but what party you are running on.

    Think of it, an "R" running secretly as a "D", and the voters electing all "R's" for the House and Senate to "balance things out".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ DriveTrain 1 week ago
      My theory is that the Democrats have been doing this for years, if not decades - a big part of why so many "Republicans" act so "inexplicably" once they get into office. Consider the simple example of John Boehner: Nothing he did while in office, particularly during his stint as House Speaker, made a bit of sense if you consider him a genuine Republican. Everything he did in office makes perfect sense if you consider him a Democrat mole. Admittedly difficult, in the devil's advocate sense, to prove these phenomena are not just cases of massive voids of principle. But in the case of Boehner I find it decisively impossible to believe he was that clueless. The man was not stupid, and any bright nine-year-old would've balked at several pivotal decisions he made against core Republicanism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rex_Little 1 week, 1 day ago
    " I have voted for only two candidates who espoused my political philosophy and became Presidents. Ronald Reagan (twice) and Donald Trump."

    Trump espoused a political philosophy?? When did that happen? I must have blinked or something.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 1 week, 1 day ago
    The problem is the Twelfth Amendment. That was the amendment which effectively installed a two-party system of government by putting the vote for President and Vice-President on the same ticket. The reason why a third party is difficult from a viability standard is solely because we moved away from a second-place finish (for President) being valuable (the Vice President's position).

    Another major problem is the Seventeenth Amendment, which effectively eliminated the Senate as representatives of the States. You would hold a much better chance of being elected as a Senator if it were the State Legislatures doing the picking rather than the hordes of clueless people.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ DriveTrain 1 week ago
    Total disagreement here, on both the idea of a new political party and on the idea of Congressional term limits. Both ideas are based on exactly the same catastrophically-mistaken premise. Which I'll get to in a moment. First some nuts-and-bolts points on pragmatic stategy.

    So if you want to actively, aggressively assist with securing the across-the-board election of vast quantities of collectivists, yes, by all means split the Republican party in two.

    As we have all seen, right there in plain sight for decades and decades (though the simple, incontrovertible evidence of history will not budge the True Believers,) we already have a "third party," nominally premised on individualism, liberty, Constitutional governance (well, excepting that whole "common defense" thing,) and... That party not only garners, consistently, election returns which rarely exceed the single digits, it has also served the purpose, just as consistently, of siphoning off just enough would-be Republican votes to allow victories for collectivist Democrats in close races.

    And consider that that party - the Libertarian Party - is one that has a reputation (well-deserved, IMO,) for fringe-wackiness. Imagine the benefit to collectivists if a new, non-collectivist splinter party emerged that had significantly greater respectability in the public eye. Such a party would obliterate the anti-collectivist vote and effectively guarantee the full collectivist domination of the United States of America. In that context it's hard not to believe that if the idea were not hatched by Democrat socialists themselves, at minimum it has their enthusiastic support. If such a Republican splinter occurred it would be a massive, historical victory for collectivists in America.

    The old principle of "divide and conquer" is no less effective today than it was centuries ago. People would be wise to re-familiarize themselves with the principle, and to heed it.

    We have a political party that is in direct opposition to collectivist parties - nominally, at least. The rational strategy is to transform that existing party into a true opposition party, beginning with the clear, unequivocal identification of its core principles. To name them briefly without elaboration:

    - Reality, not religion, as the foundation of politics;
    - Individualism - acknowledgement of the individual, not any collective, as the fundamental unit of humanity;
    - Humanism and Human Rights as absolutes - a rediscovery and re-embrace of the anthropocentrism of the Renaissance;
    - Individual self-determination (a.k.a. egoism or "rugged individualism") as the bedrock of societal life and interaction - i.e., either we belong to ourselves, or we are slaves;
    - The absolute necessity of a strictly-limited government, empowered to wield force in the defense of individual rights;
    - Individual liberty and property rights as absolute, core sociopolitical pre-requisites for human rights in a social context.

    On the idea of term limits: It's a direct attack on my right to vote for the candidate of my choice, ∴ a direct attack on my right to vote per se. I can't believe the idea is even being proposed on an Objectivist forum.

    In the arts there is a veritable ocean of... stuff... that hovers between trivial fluff and outright garbage, versus a few droplets of valuable art. Much more so in politics: there are vast hordes of corrupt swine for every principled statesman - often with enormous periods passing before any of the latter even show up, but show up they do.

    So along with ousting all of the corrupt swine, out too goes that one principled - or even semi-principled - politician for whom I wish to cast my vote. And for whom I have a right to cast my vote. He is prevented from running, and thereby removed from me as an option, by the brute force of law.

    A term limits law is an assault on my right to vote, and yours. Period. Full stop. Everyone out of the pool. It's directly analogous to that Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill that Congress shoved at the world in the mid-'80s, which instituted an automatic mechanism to force Congress to cut spending i... when they failed to do so voluntarily. That worked out swimmingly, didn't it?

    The common flaw in both of these ideas:
    The stunning presumption that "If only we can divorce ourselves from rotten politicians currently in office, the new politicians will all magically be wonderful, principled replacements, all will be well, and we will have a bright, rosy future."

    Umm, on what basis, specifically, does anyone arrive at this presumption? We cannot so much as hope for better candidates (or wiser voters) - in any party - until we get Howard Zinn and Albert Gore out of our schools.

    A new party - or an automated ouster mechanism - is not going to pull them out of a hat like so many magical rabbits.

    /soapbox
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rhfinle 1 week ago
    One reason that we have two major political parties is that the media like it that way. It produces an "us vs them" team mentality. It helps in that like-minded individuals can support each other. A third party is generally ineffectual. Sadly, the Libertarian Party is an example. If we split a party in an election, almost always, the other side wins. The Democrat party split in '68 between Southern (Anti-Union, Anti-Integration) Wallace and Northern (Pro-Union, Pro-Integration) Humphrey. As a result, Republican Nixon won.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo