They key to left wing success in the US is to split the right wing. The US system is based on first past the post elections, so a third [second conservative] party takes votes away from Republicans. Any district right now where Republicans have a slight to moderate edge could easily go Democrat if 10% of the vote goes to a third party.
Not only would a second conservative party bleed off votes, but it would also bleed off funding, which is many ways is even more important.
I’ve spent the past 30 years watching this happen in Canada, every single election cycle, be in at the Federal or Provincial level. The majority of the country could vote left, but that 65% gets split by two parties leaving a third to win with 35%.
A fiscally conservative party, that’s neutral on progressive issues, would take enough votes away from the Republicans. People that don’t necessarily care about gay marriage, but are against deficit spending.
How is that a progressive party, though? Are you saying Progressives should just cool it and not be progressives anymore? Somehow I don’t see that as particularly useful advice.
Why would it behoove Progressives to reinvent the wheel? There already IS a fiscally conservative party out there, and it’s got proportionally more crazy people in it than the Republicans do. It’s also got support from its adherents that’s miles deep and inches wide. It’s called the Libertarian Party.
Honestly, if voters really cared that much about a balanced budget and it was such a great vote getter, we wouldn’t run chronic deficits. They don’t so we do, and have consistently every year since 1960 except for the final few years of the Clinton Administration. When the Clinton administration ended, voters rewarded him by switching parties and supporting a bunch of deficit financed tax-cuts.
And its kind of hard to argue they’re wrong. For all the hyperventilating over deficits, we’ve had them almost every years since 1932, and the United States has spent most of those years undergoing rapid growth in productivity, wealth, power and prestige. After how many years are voters supposed to believe the terrible consequences will kick in? 80? 90? 100?
Most people in the US seem to think that to win elections they need to get more votes. But what you actually need to do is have your opponent get fewer votes. You do that by giving voters someone else to vote for.
Starting a second conservative party would mean fewer votes (and money) for the Republican candidate. So why not do just that? Spend less time bitching and moaning on the internet, and more time forming a spoiler party.
And hell, if you do too good a job you can always have your party vote for progressive issues while staying true to the fiscally conservative platform.
ETA And keep in mind nothing is forcing you to be fiscally conservative. If you want run a conservative party that’s all about lower taxes for the rich. Point is to get Republicans to vote for you.
