Posted on 09/30/2017 10:51:50 AM PDT by TBP
The Republicans have done a terrible job of governing. With the presidency and majorities in the House and Senate, they have been able to do nothing regarding health care. As a fiscal conservative, I am not optimistic regarding their ability to get tax reform done.
The Constitution does not mention political parties. There is no requirement to belong to any political party to run for office or vote. One can be independent of parties and do both. However, the reality of the high cost of campaigning has made most politicians seek out one party or the other for the fundraising capability.
In history, there have been several attempts at the establishment of other parties: the Whigs, Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party, Perot's Reform Party, and the current Libertarian and Green parties, among others. All have ultimately failed. Reasons vary from lack of money, weak leadership or unpopular agendas.
Most made futile attempts at electing a president. Teddy Roosevelt was the most successful, obtaining 27 percent of the vote. Ross Perot did nearly as well with slightly less than 19 percent. Both candidates took votes from the Republicans, leading to the election of Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton.
Today, the major parties are failing to effectively govern. The Republican majority failed without opposition. Democrats did not need to obstruct as the Republicans obstructed themselves.
After the election of President Obama, when Democrats held a majority in the House and Senate, it took them two years to pass Obamacare. With that majority they did nothing on immigration reform and several other issues. President Obama governed by executive order. Congress could not even pass a budget.
The American voter is deservedly angry with both parties in Congress. They seem to work mainly for their own benefit. They take long vacations, often traveling to exotic locations at taxpayer expense under the pretense of fact finding.
Laws they make do not apply to them. They are exempt from Obamacare, having their own special health care. They do not have to abide by insider trading laws. They take massive contributions from lobbyists for their campaigns. They seemingly leave with a much larger net worth than when first elected.
We need more parties. There is no unity in either the Republican or Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders ran for president as a Democrat while he generally identifies himself as either a socialist or progressive. President Trump has been registered as a Republican, independent and Democrat at various stages of his life.
The radical left has pushed the Democratic Party far to the left of the pragmatic politics of either JFK or Bill Clinton. Current Republicans bear little resemblance to the Reagan presidency and his ability to work with Tip O'Neil or the Gingrich Congress and the Contract with America.
If instead of two parties we had several, perhaps coalitions could be formed to work more in the interest of the electorate. For example, the first new party I would suggest would be a Latino party, the Partido. If the Partido had elected a couple of senators from heavily Latino states, it could have negotiated with the Republicans on the health-care bill, agreeing to support a bill in exchange for Republican support of reasonable immigration policies.
Taking personal responsibility for one's actions is a key element of conservative philosophy.
One must admit that few Americans did not benefit either directly or indirectly from undocumented immigrants. An attractive nuisance was created in our country to which immigrants flocked in search of jobs and a better life. A reasonable policy would be to block further illegal entry while acknowledging that those who came in when immigration policy was not enforced need to gain legal status, protected by our laws.
They should pay back taxes if they cannot prove payment and perform appropriate community service and be allowed to remain legally. A Latino Partido indebted to neither party but with votes to trade on key legislation could probably get immigration reform passed.
Democrats did nothing for Latinos when they had the chance, yet they expect Latinos to vote for them. Republicans do not seem to have an idea of how to deal with Latinos, yet many Latinos are fiscally conservative. Thus an independent Latino party would have leverage with either major party.
Likewise, it seems to me that the progressive/socialist wing of the Democratic Party should break off and call themselves what they are. They could similarly negotiate with either party in power in order to obtain policies they want.
The Freedom Caucus in the Republican party should do the same. They have little in common with establishment Republicans. They should leave the party yet use their voting leverage to negotiate at least some of their basic policies.
Moderate Republicans and Democrats could unite into one moderate party. As a huge voting block, they would wield considerable power, which might allow them to actually get some legislation passed.
He does, however, point up one problem with attempts (from all over the spectrum) to start new parties: they try to start at the top, trying to elect a president, rather than trying to lay the groundwork in local and state offices.
However, the reality of the high cost of campaigning has made most politicians seek out one party or the other for the fundraising capability.
Yep!
The one we have isn’t getting the job done.
Look at the nations with multiple parties
Tell me how that is better
What is being suggested sounds like a parliamentary system, in which minor parties give support to a major party, in order to form a majority coalition.
We have historically had two major parties. The two parties have not always been today’s Democrats and Republicans. But historically we have two major parties at a time.
The last major change was when the Republican party arose when the Whig party dissolved. The Republicans became the 2nd major party in the 1850s.
Multiple parties gaurentees Rat victories. They sit there with an unwavering 39-43%. They have no McTraitors or Grahams. The libertarians have given them multiple important victories. We have to Primary the rinos out, it’s the only answer.
If there were any major differences between the Democrat elite and the GOPe I might agree. As the Republicans most recently indicated by dumping Trump’s budget plan while maintaining the same old, same old (welcome back, CPB), all either party is interested in is staying in power.
Deficit spending is easy. Change is hard.
First of all, political parties have ruined the country. Secondly,the two parties that we have, which is basically a uni-party, are pathetic and are spiraling the USA into the abyss. The theory that a circus of parties will be better is ludicrous. We as Conservatives should only focus on what we can change with our GOP. We make it better or leave it. That very well mean three parties and that usually does not work well for conservatives. It is quite a dilemma.
Ross Perot gave us the Clowntins.
Which gave us G.W....
Which gave us obama.
I think the dems have a much more fractured tent than the pubbie tent (conservatives and RINOs).
Too many factions in the dem tent don’t like each other. Jews, muslims, gays. Blacks, Latinos, etc.
I expect one dem factions to break out into 3rd or more parties 1st.
Perot changed little either way. Bush’s “Compassionate Conservatism” was democrat-lite and would have left us in the same boat as we were in anyway.
Precisely
See post 6
The conservatives think they own the libertarian vote and like to blame the LP for Republican losses. If the GOP would incorporate some of the things libertarians want, they would earn some support. But things like the liberty caucus and the liberty forum on FR are purely pacifiers. It’s like the Episcopal church building a church on the wrong side of the tracks to keep the riff-raff from using the downtown church.
Trump’s budget plan was libertarian-friendly in downsizing government. What did the GOP house pass? The same crap we’ve been getting all along. If you keep doing what you’re doing, you’ll keep getting what you’re getting.
Do you believe more parties would assure us that we would have better candidates or more choices?
A John McCain would still be a John McCain no matter what party insignia is in front of his name.
How could it help but offer more choices?
That’s the nature of the beast. More choice.
It’s like religion. A cult’s a cult until
it gets big, then it’s a denomination or
another religion of its own. If enough
people get behind the Constitution Party,
maybe the GOP would become less statist to
keep the flock in hand. And if it didn’t
the CP could become the main right-wing party.
I’ve lived under multiparty parliamentary government.
And actually survived! LOL
Then get out a primary the incumbent
Oh, I do, I do. Then I voted Republican at the top of the ticket. Until Trump, nothing changed. Now the GOP congress wants to make sure Trump can’t change anything, either.
I like Leep’s tagline — (Less talk more ACTiON!)
Most made futile attempts at electing a president. Teddy Roosevelt was the most successful, obtaining 27 percent of the vote. Ross Perot did nearly as well with slightly less than 19 percent. Both candidates took votes from the Republicans, leading to the election of Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton.
It would be nice if this writer got a few facts straight. The Whigs elected their first candidate, William Henry Harrison, with 53% of the vote in 1840. The same candidate, combined with two others, had gotten 49% in 1836.
The Whigs proceeded to lose elections in 1844 (with 48%), 1852 (44%) and 1856 (22%), though they won in 1848 with 47% in a three way race and, combined with the new Republican Party in 1856, totaled 55%.
They split over slavery . . . neither pro, like the Democrats, nor decidedly anti, like the Republicans, most saw encouraging economic factors to make the institution unprofitable and to phase it out as both the wise and prudent course.
Had I been around in 1856, I might have been a Whig and voted for Millard Fillmore for exactly that reason. And slavery, most likely, would have been gone by 1875 or earlier without a bloody civil war. So just maybe Fillmore and the Whigs were right before their time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.