During the recent kerfuffle between President Trump and Elon Musk over the Republican budget plan and other issues, Musk asked an interesting question: "Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80 percent in the middle?
Americans have been promised a great deal at relatively little cost to them which is why the U.S. debt is approaching $37 trillion ($107,000+ per citizen). I get John Halpin's point, that neither major party represents the "middle" very well, yet until we citizens are willing to actually bear the cost (financial and emotional) of the things we want, including those in the list above, we will not have a party that is truly representative of the 80% in the middle.
A party in the middle would have to come from the Establishment wing of the two existing parties plus the disengaged. In other words, a party of failure. Economic, cultural and political failure. The core of the issue suite is price controls, a policy that has failed every single time since it was invented by Hammarubi.
Better to redefine politics so as to unite the two non-Establishment wings
In other words, populist fusion. That couldn't get to 80 % but neither could a center party. Just look at how well they are doing in Europe. Populist fusion is hard but it wouldn't have the stench of failure and kicking the can down the road.
Thank you for reminding us why third parties are essentially populist, and like populism itself, have no staying power in American politics. A few twists in these questions also yield different responses and equivocations.
Cherry-picking to make Dems looks better without the baggage. But honestly includes illegal aliens and men in women’s sports. Where does gender transitioning for little kids stand…
In theory I could see some Perot-like figure, backed by a lot of charisma plus strong anti-establishment vibes, getting enough of the public behind them to win an election, *if* they could raise the money and build the necessary infrastructure.
But I cannot see how they would ever raise the sums of money or build the infrastructure necessary to win a campaign so long as Citizens United stands, unless they have some way-ahead-of-its-time technological/organizational edge that nobody can envision yet. (AI-guided voter outreach and small-donor fundraising? Funding via cryptocurrency?)
I think the public desire for a third party insurgent is vast, however. And someone who could take shots at both parties at a time when both of them are extremely unpopular would have a built-in rhetorical-political advantage. But, again, the main issue: $$$
Your theoretical candidate reminds me an awful lot of our current President, who laid waste to his republican primary challengers in 2016 before riding a populist wave of support into the White House. He had the charisma and money, then he commandeered the party infrastructure.
If our existing two parties cannot coalesce a consistent and decisive majority of Americans on issues of greatest concern to Americans, it is probably sheer folly to think that adding a third party (or fourth, fifth or sixth) is going to do anything more than further fragment and divide the electorate.
Let's not give up on the representative and governing strengths of our traditional two-party system. What they importantly share in common is a passion for victory, and that will necessarily move each to a more moderate middle, or render them irrelevant.
Independent voters does not mean they/we all think alike. We'd all like a third party, but no party, D, R or Indy, is going to align with any independent thinker 100%. We have the hard core of each party that can see no wrong with their own side, but obstinance doesn't pass legislation, and nothing is getting done.
My effective tax rate is 6.8% and I'm not even in the highest quintile. The things government is supposed to do have been syphoned off to special interest non profits who make a killing doing nothing. Too much of what we do pay in taxes is wasted. We can't even come up with a budget that isn't a huge deficit. We borrow money for my tax breaks. There needs definition of who are the wealthy. Biden's folks called them the 2% and above. Now they are "oligarchs" I think they are us.
Half the bankruptcies are for medical care by people who have insurance. Remember "health care is a right"? Apparently it isn't. The ACA was better than what we had, and nowhere near what other countries have for half the price. My health care ETF is doing just fine thank you very much.
I think the list needs to be more radical by about 4x.
Third parties in national elections have a great history of failure, but what they do is take votes away from either one party more than the other. The issues listed here will never form me consensus to get enough voters to make a difference other than what I stated above. Third party cannot be in the middle. It must be a third-party that is more of a spin off of either the Democrat or Republican Party and of course, that is the problem and that the party it most resembles will lose votes. Period.
What happens is that the majors steal their issues, thus moving the Overton window. Can that happen in our polarized world? I think the only way that happens is populist fusion
Third parties have no realistic chance of gaining power in America; the 80% party will have to develop from one of the two existing major parties. The Democratic party is much likelier to become that 80% party.
The current version of the Democratic party is controlled by the Wokesters, primarily college-credentialed, mostly white hyper-progressives who will compromise on nothing, e.g. XY athletes playing in XX sports. The current version of the Republican party is controlled by people who favor cutting taxes in all circumstances, never for any reason increasing them, who cares about deficits. Eventually various taxes will have to increase in order to maintain the current level of benefits for Social Security and Medicare, along with other programs that large majorities support. When voting decisions on specific candidates are made, those programs will have far greater importance for most people than will the Wokester craziness on social issues.
The bottom line: a moderate Democrat - a liberal patriot - could win landslides in future presidential elections because Republicans will likely never moderate their opposition to the increased taxes which will be needed to preserve hugely popular programs.
"entire agenda?" Come on. Rs "lay claim" to almost all of that except uber-taxes on the rich. Democrats lay claim to none of those.
Latest: Kollyfornia is purging voter rolls huge. While there has been no party breakdown yet, my back of the envelop estimates are that out of the 1.05 million taken off the rolls (and I think we're still waiting on LA county), about 500,000 are Ds, about 300,000 are Rs, and about 300,000 are Is, meaning Rs net gained about 200,000 just from this purge. When the reductions in illegals sets in, Ds will lose over 1m in Kollyfornia.
I think the real issue and the elyphant in the room is that the leadership and priorities of both major US parties is captured by a coalition of both elites and those ideological or tribal interest groups and party base segment that the former prefer to negotiate with (even if they don't always see eye to eye.
These latter interest groups and base extremes might not be wealthy, but they share a polotically privileged position with the wealthy in that both are the only segments of the population that studies have found matter AT ALL when it comes to overall voting in the US congress. If anything, they are often outright hostile to such ordenary voters on priciple!
Sure, some indeviduel members might sometimes vote in a populist manner even when it goes against the peferances of these groups, and their own indevidual views also influance their vote and don't always align perfectly with those of favored constituents. But they are at least as likeley to vote AGAINST what is most popular because it is so, as to vote in favor of it because it is most populer, whenever a popular policy position happens to go against that favored by most of their favored wealthy and or interest group comstituants!
In short, the issue of what most voters actually want is often pricisely what most members of congress, state legislators (if less so) etc do not give a flying crap about!
Very interesting analysis, thank you for this! It's clear that a third party would be very helpful in the US, but can it happen? Hard to say. I used to think a Parliamentary style would be an improvement over this insane two-party-and-51%-takes-all system, but having watched the meltdown in German politics this year, I feel doubtful of that, too. Alas, poor humans...
Wouldn't a third party be just those of us who register as independents? But maybe that would be enough to get the dems and reps to move to our way of thinking in each election. If we were to have term limits and get corporate money out of the election systems, not allow senators and congressmen to shill for money all over the country and keep it within states and districts we might get somewhere. People getting involved in local politics with candidates having to use a little shoe leather and hold small talking groups might help. Also changing the 2 year terms for congress to four would help them focus more on legislation instead of continually raising money.
Americans have been promised a great deal at relatively little cost to them which is why the U.S. debt is approaching $37 trillion ($107,000+ per citizen). I get John Halpin's point, that neither major party represents the "middle" very well, yet until we citizens are willing to actually bear the cost (financial and emotional) of the things we want, including those in the list above, we will not have a party that is truly representative of the 80% in the middle.
A party in the middle would have to come from the Establishment wing of the two existing parties plus the disengaged. In other words, a party of failure. Economic, cultural and political failure. The core of the issue suite is price controls, a policy that has failed every single time since it was invented by Hammarubi.
Better to redefine politics so as to unite the two non-Establishment wings
In other words, populist fusion. That couldn't get to 80 % but neither could a center party. Just look at how well they are doing in Europe. Populist fusion is hard but it wouldn't have the stench of failure and kicking the can down the road.
Thank you for reminding us why third parties are essentially populist, and like populism itself, have no staying power in American politics. A few twists in these questions also yield different responses and equivocations.
The first step in moving towards Mark’s 80% party is to resign from any political party you belong to.
This sets the stage for a potential new plurality and voices your discontent to the current duopoly.
At 42% or so, independents are already much larger than either party. If that number exceeds 50%, you will have everyone’s attention.
Cherry-picking to make Dems looks better without the baggage. But honestly includes illegal aliens and men in women’s sports. Where does gender transitioning for little kids stand…
In theory I could see some Perot-like figure, backed by a lot of charisma plus strong anti-establishment vibes, getting enough of the public behind them to win an election, *if* they could raise the money and build the necessary infrastructure.
But I cannot see how they would ever raise the sums of money or build the infrastructure necessary to win a campaign so long as Citizens United stands, unless they have some way-ahead-of-its-time technological/organizational edge that nobody can envision yet. (AI-guided voter outreach and small-donor fundraising? Funding via cryptocurrency?)
I think the public desire for a third party insurgent is vast, however. And someone who could take shots at both parties at a time when both of them are extremely unpopular would have a built-in rhetorical-political advantage. But, again, the main issue: $$$
Your theoretical candidate reminds me an awful lot of our current President, who laid waste to his republican primary challengers in 2016 before riding a populist wave of support into the White House. He had the charisma and money, then he commandeered the party infrastructure.
If our existing two parties cannot coalesce a consistent and decisive majority of Americans on issues of greatest concern to Americans, it is probably sheer folly to think that adding a third party (or fourth, fifth or sixth) is going to do anything more than further fragment and divide the electorate.
Let's not give up on the representative and governing strengths of our traditional two-party system. What they importantly share in common is a passion for victory, and that will necessarily move each to a more moderate middle, or render them irrelevant.
Independent voters does not mean they/we all think alike. We'd all like a third party, but no party, D, R or Indy, is going to align with any independent thinker 100%. We have the hard core of each party that can see no wrong with their own side, but obstinance doesn't pass legislation, and nothing is getting done.
My effective tax rate is 6.8% and I'm not even in the highest quintile. The things government is supposed to do have been syphoned off to special interest non profits who make a killing doing nothing. Too much of what we do pay in taxes is wasted. We can't even come up with a budget that isn't a huge deficit. We borrow money for my tax breaks. There needs definition of who are the wealthy. Biden's folks called them the 2% and above. Now they are "oligarchs" I think they are us.
Half the bankruptcies are for medical care by people who have insurance. Remember "health care is a right"? Apparently it isn't. The ACA was better than what we had, and nowhere near what other countries have for half the price. My health care ETF is doing just fine thank you very much.
I think the list needs to be more radical by about 4x.
Sounds like the Democratic Party that is already screwing us over for 40 years, no thanks.
Them and the RINOs.
Third parties in national elections have a great history of failure, but what they do is take votes away from either one party more than the other. The issues listed here will never form me consensus to get enough voters to make a difference other than what I stated above. Third party cannot be in the middle. It must be a third-party that is more of a spin off of either the Democrat or Republican Party and of course, that is the problem and that the party it most resembles will lose votes. Period.
What happens is that the majors steal their issues, thus moving the Overton window. Can that happen in our polarized world? I think the only way that happens is populist fusion
Third parties have no realistic chance of gaining power in America; the 80% party will have to develop from one of the two existing major parties. The Democratic party is much likelier to become that 80% party.
The current version of the Democratic party is controlled by the Wokesters, primarily college-credentialed, mostly white hyper-progressives who will compromise on nothing, e.g. XY athletes playing in XX sports. The current version of the Republican party is controlled by people who favor cutting taxes in all circumstances, never for any reason increasing them, who cares about deficits. Eventually various taxes will have to increase in order to maintain the current level of benefits for Social Security and Medicare, along with other programs that large majorities support. When voting decisions on specific candidates are made, those programs will have far greater importance for most people than will the Wokester craziness on social issues.
The bottom line: a moderate Democrat - a liberal patriot - could win landslides in future presidential elections because Republicans will likely never moderate their opposition to the increased taxes which will be needed to preserve hugely popular programs.
"entire agenda?" Come on. Rs "lay claim" to almost all of that except uber-taxes on the rich. Democrats lay claim to none of those.
Latest: Kollyfornia is purging voter rolls huge. While there has been no party breakdown yet, my back of the envelop estimates are that out of the 1.05 million taken off the rolls (and I think we're still waiting on LA county), about 500,000 are Ds, about 300,000 are Rs, and about 300,000 are Is, meaning Rs net gained about 200,000 just from this purge. When the reductions in illegals sets in, Ds will lose over 1m in Kollyfornia.
I think the real issue and the elyphant in the room is that the leadership and priorities of both major US parties is captured by a coalition of both elites and those ideological or tribal interest groups and party base segment that the former prefer to negotiate with (even if they don't always see eye to eye.
These latter interest groups and base extremes might not be wealthy, but they share a polotically privileged position with the wealthy in that both are the only segments of the population that studies have found matter AT ALL when it comes to overall voting in the US congress. If anything, they are often outright hostile to such ordenary voters on priciple!
Sure, some indeviduel members might sometimes vote in a populist manner even when it goes against the peferances of these groups, and their own indevidual views also influance their vote and don't always align perfectly with those of favored constituents. But they are at least as likeley to vote AGAINST what is most popular because it is so, as to vote in favor of it because it is most populer, whenever a popular policy position happens to go against that favored by most of their favored wealthy and or interest group comstituants!
In short, the issue of what most voters actually want is often pricisely what most members of congress, state legislators (if less so) etc do not give a flying crap about!
Very interesting analysis, thank you for this! It's clear that a third party would be very helpful in the US, but can it happen? Hard to say. I used to think a Parliamentary style would be an improvement over this insane two-party-and-51%-takes-all system, but having watched the meltdown in German politics this year, I feel doubtful of that, too. Alas, poor humans...
Wouldn't a third party be just those of us who register as independents? But maybe that would be enough to get the dems and reps to move to our way of thinking in each election. If we were to have term limits and get corporate money out of the election systems, not allow senators and congressmen to shill for money all over the country and keep it within states and districts we might get somewhere. People getting involved in local politics with candidates having to use a little shoe leather and hold small talking groups might help. Also changing the 2 year terms for congress to four would help them focus more on legislation instead of continually raising money.