The new Trumpist party can be the Combovers.
I forget who, but someone on this board suggested the name the Brownsharts. I love that and whoever here came up with it.
I could see the Democratic Party splitting into two factions: the Democrats and the Progressives. The Democrats would shift rightward on issues such as the economy, gun control, abortion, climate change, law & order, etc. But they wouldn’t shift nearly as far as the current Republicans. African Americans would split between the two parties, older vs younger, while Hispanics would gravitate towards Democrat.
I’m not sure where the racists would go. There’s no room for them in either new party. Perhaps Republicans would stay on as a strong third party. Big Business would probably join the Democrats, but what about strong economic libertarians? Would this increase the power of the Libertarian party?
In the end, it’s really hard breaking up America into two separate groups, as there are so many different types of people.
I don’t see it. Third parties in America are either a suicide mission or a homicide mission. Either you cannibalize a major party, or accept your role as election spoiler.
The predominant axiom of traditional Republican ideology, as far as I can see, is that women and POC must never be allowed to govern white men. They will not jeopardize their prime directive by splitting the party to address an objection that is ultimately just a gripe about Trump saying the quiet parts out loud a bit too often.
I think that third parties would be come relevant if we ever did away with the electoral college. Suddenly, there are multiple pathways to the presidency, but unless that happens, third parties are not viable.
Personally, I would love competition for my vote, but as it stands now, I literally have to choose between the Democrats and the side that marches with nazis and openly disrupts the voting process. I don’t know that Trumpists are capable of seeing how radical they have become and it will take them dying off before the GOP is a viable party.
I would like there to be more of a pluralistic parliamentary democracy, where governing majorities are based on coalitions of parties. If you want to be relevant, you need to cooperate with other parties. I don’t know exactly what path would get us there, but it would take multiple constitutional amendments.
Getting rid of the EC is a fine idea IMO, but it’s only a start. I am not troubled by the fact that states, as entities, have their own coequal representation in government, in the form of the US Senate. But I think the rights of abstract entities should be weighted far below those of actual governed humans, and I think the Senate is too overpowered given that it is constitutionally the least responsive congressional branch. They need to be accountable to voters more often than every 6 years, perhaps as few as 2 years.
I said it was unlikely. But there’s nothing that says the two parties we have can never change. And as unfashionable as it is to acknowledge (on the left), there ARE non-butthole conservatives. Pro-business, small government, libertarian, and other reasonable positions.
I don’t think evangelicals, working class left-behinds, and Apple have much in common. But right now, they’re lumped together.
Likewise, I know a few Catholics in particular who struggle with the mortal sin of abortion (their view, not mine) and the failure to care for the downtrodden. For them, that’s putting a seven foot rug in an eight foot room.
I’ve long wished for three viable parties, as that could get us back to compromise governance.
It would be nice to have a centrist party that changes alliances with the left and right depending on which one is the least crazy at any given time. The problem is that there is only one president. Whichever side the center party aligns with will always lose the POTUS race due to the vote being split. 40/30/30 results would be typical with the crazy side emerging victorious on most occasions.
Take this year for example. A three way race with Sanders, Biden, and Trump would likely end up around 30% for Biden and Sanders and 40% for Trump.
A three way between Trump, Romney, and Sanders would also possibly end up 30% each for Romney and Trump and 40% for Sanders.
SLC is actually a pretty blue area. Last mayor was a liberal lesbian Catholic. the rest of the state is still very red. About 1/2 of the state lives in and around SLC.
What exactly are the ‘traditional Republican ideals’ that aren’t either ‘The stuff Trump supports, but don’t say the bad stuff out loud’ or are mostly gained by voting in conservative Democrats like Biden? I mean, Nixon was a Republican but signed into effect the EPA and seriously considered pushing for UHC and UBI, all of which would mark him as a far-left communist sympathizer by today’s Republican standards. This might be worth it’s own thread, since all of the times the topic has come up no one has ever really been able to articulate what these are.
I already mentioned the libertarian element, as well as small government and pro-business. Traditionally, the Republicans were much more willing to push “American ideals” abroad. Can you see Trump telling Mr. Gorbachev to tear down that wall?
Some Republicans are simply wealthy individuals who resent the amount of tax they pay. That might be selfish, but it isn’t per se racist.
Nixon isn’t any more relevant at this point- 1970 was fifty freaking years ago- than is Lincoln.
There’s also The Economist’s definition of conservatism, which takes the view that change should be taken carefully and only when sure that it is actually better than the status quo (at least, as a long-time subscriber, that’s how I view their approach).
There’s also the free-marketers, who think that the market can be unleashed to solve a lot of problems.
I’m not actively defending any of the above, but pointing out that none of those ideals are inherently intertwined with racism.
OK, then exactly what is the cutoff for things to be ‘traditional’? It’s utterly bizarre to me that you’d say that you think there will be a party that endorses ‘traditional’ Republican values, but absolutely reject fifty years ago as being too far back to count as ‘traditional values’. Would Reagan (40 years ago) be too far back, or his vice president Bush I? Is only the GW Bush era and later considered traditional? GWB came after the “Contract with America” and the Republican shift to their modern form, so it’s not really clear what the hypothetical third party would even be doing - most of the values you listed are things that are explicitly rejected by the Republican party during what appears to be the time frame you’re talking about.
Your examples seem to have missed the part of my question that asks what they can’t get from supporting conservative Democrats. That is, why do people who want to push “American Ideals” abroad need a third party when people like Biden and Obama have traditionally been happy to do that? Why can’t they go for the pro-business policies of Democrats like Biden, H Clinton, Obama, and W Clinton - note that the economy did much better under all of those than under Republicans? Why would people who want to be ‘conservative’ in the sense of taking change slowly reject people like Biden who’s whole legislative career is basically ‘wait until there’s broad support for this, and make small, incremental change unless there’s an emergency’?
The problem is that none of these ideas are things that are rejected out of hand by Democrats, unless you define them so narrowly that they’re also rejected out of hand by Republicans. I don’t think that a third party based around “Stuff the mainstream Democrats do, but we have a different name” is really a sustainable concept.
Do you honestly not see it?
It is simple to me to see that a Republican, with Republican ideals would rather see a conservative Justice on the Court than a liberal one, even if he thinks the current President is a chump.
Are you saying the rights of corporations should be held below the rights of individuals? In MY America?!
I think it is more likely that the split would end up being on single issue(s) that voters identify per cycle: Kinda like how it used to be
You had the crazy fringe groups but they didn’t get much, if any, play
Someone with a platform of social liberty (LGBTQ rights, abortion as it stands currently)
Pro gun rights
Fiscally sound (constraint)
Relax or repeal most drug laws (at a minimum Marijuana)
I could see this platform pulling in over 50% of the voting populace, am I wrong? If right, the splits would happen at the fringes, and the pull would be towards the center, not towards the edges.
It’s because Republicans define their values as everything that is good and wholesome. And then declare that non-Republicans stand against everything good and wholesome.
Romney is on the whole not a terrible person. He is by far the most decent guy in his party in the Senate, which is faint praise indeed. But in his heart I fear it is still party over country. He says how agonizing it was to cast the vote for conviction during impeachment. Why? Why should it be agonizing to convict someone just because he’s of your party? The evidence was overwhelming and I hope that if a Democratic president ever extorts an ally to manufacture dirt on his opponent the vote would be 100-0 to convict.
I appreciate that he’s in a tough spot. If he endorses Biden, he can kiss his committee assignments goodbye. He’ll be able to do less for the people of Utah. It would be a tough call, but I wish he would make it.
Biden is going to win. But the Republican Party is going to be the White Supremacist Party in all but name for the forseeable future, I fear.
And that’s why Democrats tend to pull in over 50% of the voting populace, as they are for all of those things.
I know that you would object on the gun rights part, but Democrats are for gun rights, they just reflect the majority of the populace that are for reasonable gun control.
I was being conservative (as just barely pulling in 50% isnt cutting it all the time) 50% would be the BASE (not the 30% that it is currently) , now imagine how many more voters you would pull if the fringe got jettisoned and all the baggage associated with it?
I think whichever party realizes this first will be a big winner. Granted it may take awhile while new definitive roles (Democrat/Republican) sink in.