If you look back in American all succesful third parties have had one overarching issue as a reason for their existence. Examples Republicans: slavery, Know Nothings: foreigners, Grange: Free Silver. However today third parties seem to be based around one charismatic figure and when that person goes away the party collapses because the party was not based around issues but personality. This is because no one issue inflames the passions that are necessary. Because of this third parties will never amount to anything.
Does anyone see an issue that can unite a third party besides the goo-gooism that seems to be behind most current third parties.
For the purposes of this thread succesful is defined as electing members of the party to various positions of power.
Oy. This is the third time in various threads that I’ve had to deal with this apparently popular misconception.
The Republicans were never a “third party”. They were started after the Whig Party had fallen apart, and were comprised of former Whigs and former members of the (third-party) Free Soil Party. At no point did the Whigs or Free Soil Party hold a convention or nominate another presidential candidate after the Republicans nominated John C. Fremont as their first presidential candidate in 1856.
And in another fallacy, the Republicans were not simply an abolitionist party, any more than the modern Republicans are an anti-abortion party. Yes, abolitionism was a major part of Republican philosophy, but abolitionism was seen as an extension of their representation of the working-class in America (as slave labor competed unfairly with paid labor). While the Republican Party did propose abolitionism (although in varying degrees; some felt that slavery should be immediately abolished, others felt that the further progression of slavery should be stopped to let the institution wither on the vine), they also proposed in their platform various measures to protect the rights of workers in the country (such as support of the Homestead Act).
We’ve all got to start somewhere. Being small and new is as good a place as any. Probably better.
Yes a third party in the US starts small with the ideas of a single charismatic leader and his followers. As the party grows its power is built up by its constituancy and active membership. As it grows in popularity is can draw on a greater and greater pool of tallent.
You are correct in saying that a lot depends on the leadership and charisma of the original leader(s). If that person or persons are lost then the party will falter and probably disappear.
On the other hand, very large political party dynamics are different. Having a very large constituancy, they have access to a greater pool of tallent and can manufacture (I think groom is the current PC term) leaders to suit their needs. In this instance the party itself becomes the living, breathing thing. A means and end of itself where the leader is secondary to its purpose.
I thought that Millard Fillmore more ran as a Whig in 1856 and unlike Fremont was on the ballot in every state.
Slavery was the overarchin reason for the Republicans but not the only one.
I don’t think we’ll ever see a lasting third party. However, a third party does not have to last to be “successful.”
A prime example is the People’s Party of the late 19th century (also known as the Populist Party). In the 1890’s, the progressive platform of this party attained considerable popularity, to the point of electing enough congressmen to affect the voting outcome when the Republicans and Democrats in congress squared off. In the election of 1892, they actually managed to carry several western states, and pulled down 22 electoral votes.
The Republicans and Democrats, perceiving the growing threat, responded by stealing the issues of the People’s Party. This resulted in the Teddy Roosevelt-led “progressive” wing of the Republican party. The Democrats, meanwhile, manage to coopt enough People’s Party issues to convince the People’s Party to join in the nomination of the Democratic candidate for President in the 1896 election, William Jennings Bryan.
With his defeat, the People’s Party was essentially dead. However, many of the policies promoted by the People’s Party were later to become the law of the land. Such policies include: the abandonment of the gold standard, a progressive income tax, direct election of Senators by the citizens of the states,and public works programs.
Similarly, I think that any third party which achieves a modicum of success at the polls today will soon find itself co-opted out of existence as the major parties adopt its issues. We have already see this to some extent with the Reform Party. Because it brought the issue to the fore in the last two elections, both major parties are now touting campaign finance reform (though whether either party is serious about the issue remains to be seen).
(Incidentally, more can be learned about the Populist movement by reading The Populist Moment by Lawrence Goodwyn, or Tom Watson: Agrarian Rebel by C. Vann Woodward.)
This time the Libertarian Party has declared a very important message to American Voters. They want to cut the government to the core. Reduce the size so that all Americans can afford it.
60% of the decisions made by the house/senate break the 10th Amendment. We need to guarantee a return to State’s rights and do it immediately. We need to return to America first and not sign off our sovereingty over to the United Nations.
We need to return to our basic rule of protecting American citizens from the overpowering authority of the federal government. Their desire to build a successful defense system that would benefit all Americans living here. If this isn’t a viable set of issues, then I don’t know what you mean that third parties are doomed.
It take great courage to stand up for what this country really needs. Harry Browne has that courage. He is firm on what he wants for America and will never compromise on any issue. He will never take a penny of federal money. He is a man of character but that doesn’t seem to be important these days.
So vote for either candidate and see no changes. Then you can rant your heads off on these boards and continue to whine about our corrupt government.
I don’t understand why having fifty incompetent governments (The states) run things would be better than having one incompetant government (The Feds).
RE: The Libertarian Party.
IMO the LP will never be viable because the Republicans have their issues. The LP just says we will do everything now. This plus goo-gooism is not an issue that resonates with most Americans
Libertarians are quite specific in their demarkation of NOT being Democrat or Republican.
Republicans are Conservative fiscally and socially , whereas the Dem’s are Liberal fiscally and socially (how’s that for a broad brush).
Libertarians believe in Fiscal Conservatism and Social Liberalism, the best of both parties, IMHO. The Republican party only has 1/2 the issues. The Dem’s have the other 1/2.
I agree that the Libertarians have a definite issue-oriented perennial platform, and they may well be the wave of the future. What’s the likelihood that another Watergate - Iran-Contra - Whitewater - Lewinsky scandal may not come up in the next 25 years (remember that they all fit into the last 25!) and end up with people being disgusted with both major parties? Enough are already to have gotten Perot substantial support in the past and Nader some this year, beyond the “fringe” of devoted supporters of their particular issues.
On Millard Fillmore: He ran as a Know-Nothing in 1856. He had been a Whig as Taylor’s running mate and President after Taylor’s death, but could not get the Whig nomination in 1852, and gladly accepted the Know-Nothing endorsement in 1856. He may have been on the ballot as a Whig in a few places, since most Whigs had moved to either the Democrat or Republican camp in 1854-56, and a few Fillmoreites might have garnered him the endorsement of a rump party here and there.
Third parties need one issue that people are passionate about not some from column b and some from column a. If people are passionate about lower taxes they vote Republican if passionate about pro-abortion Democrat. How many people have enough passion to divide it between issues. The issue that seems to be most passionately expressed in the LB is drug legalization. I do not think you can build a party on that but I could be wrong.
Thanks for the info on Fillmore.
I think goo-gooism can last for one election but I don’t think it has staying power
This is perhaps one of the most narrow minded and ignorant comments I’ve ever read on this board (perhaps YOU would be more “competent” to run the government?)
Libertarians do not believe in having the states run all aspects of government. They believe in returning the federal government to its constitutional responsiblities. That means getting the federal government out of health care, education, social security, welfare, agriculture, etc. The result? Drastically reduced or completely eliminated federal income tax, resulting in money becoming available to the states to solve their own problems. Resulting in more economically efficient solutions to social problems being implimented. Resulting in competition among states for economic prosperity. To paraphrase Mr. Browne, “It’s better to have a tyrannical government that you can escape by crossing a state line than one that you can only escape by leaving the country.”
Now, I’m not saying you should vote Libertarian (though I am) but please at least get a handle on what the issues and their platform is before making such rediculous generalized remarks.
The end.
I blame the press on the drug legalization issue, since they have aggrandized it, it being an issue to which the LP remains unshaken. I believe the Dem’s would back it (a socially liberal idea) if they believed it wouldn’t ruin their chances for election, since it is not a mainstream idea. And it is precisely the unshakability of the LP’s belief in social freedom that will prevent them from ever being a force. Imagine that! They want all Americans to have freedom!
Liertarianism is all about FREEDOM. Your freedom, to do as you please, acheive what you wish, without interference, so long as you respect everyone else’s freedoms along the way. It’s about personal responsibility and the free market; issues too mature for mainstream America.
My impression of what the LP was passionate about came partially from reading this column. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter.html
Here is a quote from that column
"In theory, our areas of agreement should have included, among other things: eliminating the Department of Health and Human Services, eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, eliminating the National Endowment of the Arts, eliminating the National Endowment for the Humanities, eliminating the Department of Agriculture, eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, eliminating the Department of Transportation, eliminating the progressive income tax and instituting a flat tax.
Our sole area of disagreement was whether to abolish the drug laws before or after completing the above tasks.
That wasn’t enough. I was deemed not a “true Libertarian” because my position was to defer the drug legalization issue until we had made a little more headway in dismantling the Nanny State. "
Republicans care about freedom too it is just that they have to actually get things done and not just talk about doing them.
If I may paint with a rediculously broad brush again, a long-standing tradition of the Republican Party has been the restriction or opression of personal freedoms (thanks in part to the Religious Right), specifically in the areas of decriminalizing drug use, prostitution, abortion (family planning), and lifestyle choices to name just a few. Those types of social freedoms are generally supported by the liberal, or Democratic side, and supported wholeheartedly by the Libertarians.
I did not know the Democratic party has come out for the legalization of drugs and prostitution.
Abortion is only a freedom issue if you do not believe that the fetus is not a human life or are agnostic about it.
What does lifestyle choice mean?
Why is it that you cannot get the gist of what is being said? Do you not realize what a socially liberal issue is, and which party supports it?
Those socially liberal examples were cited with a caveat of to name just a few hoping you could extrapolate more on your own so that you get the idea of the point being made (that Rebulicans are not tradionally big supporters of social freedoms).
The Dem’s of course are not vouching for decriminalizing drugs and prostitution, or Gore would never be elected. But they are socially liberal ideas that do fall into the same socially liberal category as a woman’s right to choose (more wordy than “abortion”) and the protection of rights for homosexuals (more wordy than “lifestyle choices”) underwhich may fall issues such as same-sex marriages, etc.
But now I realize than I can’t assume everyone (trolls) will be intelligent enough to extrapolate such information about socially liberal issues without a long, extensive, and boring post.
And again, it was a broad brush.
You cited a principle, freedom, a philosophy ,social liberalism, a party ,Democrat, and issues that do not match up with some of those. Namely abortion if understood a certain way. Drugs and prostitution which are not Democratic planks and a vague reference to lifestyle choices which could mean anything.
Friedo,
Touchy aren’t we?
Frankly, if this is the most narrow minded thing you’ve read on this board, you haven’t read many posts.
Why is it narrow minded and ignorant? I just asked a question. Perhaps I would be more competent to run the government. I have a Master’s in political science. I wrote a graduate paper that predicted the North Korean detente. Why not let me give it a try? Blackclaw for president!
See, now you’re actually attempting to answer my question. So if it’s deserving of an answer, perhaps the question wasn’t so ignorant after all. Perhaps if you’d been more polite, I would think Libertarians had something going. Perhaps my response would have been more polite. But you were rude so I shall now squash you like a bug.
First off I’m under no obligation to learn anything about Libertarians because they are irrelevant. They have no influence on my life whatsoever. If they would like to actually affect change in this country, they are going to have to find nicer spokespeople than you.
The arguement you put forth for moving health care, education, social security, welfare, agriculture, etc. is incomplete. You move the burden of cost from the Federal level to the state level. Sure Federal taxes may now be reduced, but State taxes must now rise to deal with the burden. We gain no economic advantage from this and we introduce inconsistancy in policy across the nation.
If states pick up this burden, the states with less healthy economies will suffer because they don’t have a sound base from which to collect taxes. New York schools will have adequate funding, but schools in Mississipi may not fare very well.
Every government organization that you introduce to an equation increases the odds that at least one of those organizations will be wholly incompetent. You want to move from one organization to fifty of them.
Mr. Browne is wholly unrealistic in his idea that if we are unfortunate to live in one of the states where incompetence is introduced by his plan that we can escape the tyranny by moving across a state border. If things don’t work out in Alabama is the populace going to evacuate the state? Are we to become a nation of nomadic refugees moving from state to state in search of competent government?
“Grab the kids, Ma. The democrats / republicans are in the state house again.”
It’s not an economic possibility for many folks. We can’t all run to Florida just because they don’t have state income tax.
I say it’s better to have one government to keep an eye on than fifty. I like being able to cross state lines and not have to worry that I’m entering an entirely new political entity with it’s own set of laws that I may not be familiar with.
Touche. That was hardly the most ignorant thing I’ve read here. I apologize for being obnoxious. I was in a bad mood and a rush, and I felt slightly insulted by your characterization of Libertarianism.
I don’t agree with that attitude. You should have an obligation to learn about anything given the chance, whether it’s relevant or not. And I don’t think they (the LP) are irrelivant. They are the largest third party in the US; bigger than the Greens and the Reform Party. Right now, there are 25 Libertarians running for the Senate, 256 running for the House, and many more running for state legislatures and executive positions. 1437 to be exact. That’s not irrelivant. The LP needs time to grow. Rome wasn’t built in a day. Neither was the GOP or the Democratic party.
I believe you should be paying more taxes to your state government than the federal government. State governments are best equipped to deal with problems in their state, and will therefore execute more efficient solutions. Ideally, state and federal services should be based on user fees, not taxes. Low-income families can (and should) be taken care of by private charities, not the government. Americans are the most generous people in the world, and could easily support the costs for education and health care for people who can’t afford it. It’s true that some states may not do as well. There is nothing preventing one state from giving aid to another, and above all, there will be competition between states for services, and competition is almost always healthy in a capitalist society. Now, I don’t advocate going in there and doing this stuff immediately. It would take a LOT of time and effort at both levels.
You’re going on the presumption that states operate as isolated systems. That’s not true. Before the Progressive era when the federal government started taking over the economy, the states did a fine job of running things themselves. There’s no reason why we can’t go back to that.
And what happens when that one government turns into a tyranny? They’re already taking away our gun rights, they have been extorting state governments into enacting laws that may not be beneficial to them, etc. I’d much rather have one government become tyrannical and 49 more that I can run to. I know some people who left California because of the rediculous gun laws there. What’s going to happen when the federal government gets the mindset of the nuts in Cali? (No offense to all you Cali dopers out there.)