America Needs a Third Party (and perhaps a fourth,fifth,sixth….)

One solid point driven home to me in 2016 is that the United States of America needs to depart from the very broken two-party monopoly system. I am also of the school that the current ideological roller coasters calling themselves the primaries are evidence that now is the time for brave folks to strike out on their separate paths and end this disgraced two-party system.

I believe the fallacy of the united party is just that,a complete and utter lie. It is the ultimate “thanks for the good time,I’ll call you-honest” moment a citizen experiences in terms of our collective democracy. This is true no matter the side. Both the Democrats and the GOP commits this atrocious and malevolent act on a regular basis. In 2016 it has reached a zenith.


Hillary Clinton who is boiled down to an establishment centrist in polite circles is the front-runner who has run an undeniably unexciting and criminal campaign. Her fanatic,pathologic c@#t Debbie Wasserman Shultz has orchestrated the debates to Hillary’s advantage and has ignored the screams and pleas of energetic registered (D)’s across the nation.

Bernie Sanders a self-proclaimed democratic socialist has run a campaign based on a relatively simple plank,Income inequality. Although he attempts to use that plank to cover other areas of the “floor” he is to his roots a single issue guy. The cure he prescribes would do great harm not only to the country but ironically to his own policy set. His cure is also not an isolated school of thought as his ideas enjoys support beyond his persona. Still he exemplifies an energy and concern amongst the population that is not likely to fade away even after he does. Sanders campaign is not the death of an ideology and movement,it is the birth of one.


The 2016 GOP field has been a shocking surprise and from my standpoint not remotely pleasant or positive. The GOP also offers ample examples of how the party bus is not an inclusive coach but instead the equivalent to three short buses racing about in a chaotic and comical demolition derby.

Donald Trump is a Republican because he says he is. He actually holds to a number of lines that are/were well established and celebrated party lines. He is on a personal level a puke bag though so now the Establishment shuns him. The thing is though a plurality of voters find in him much they believe in. For good or bad Trump is a manifestation of a cauldron of goo that was left unattended too long and the mess of it will need to be addressed and accepted.

Ted Cruz is clearly what folks would consider a Jacksonian,Tea Party Conservative. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should that be confused with being the same thing as a Reagan/Buckley conservative!  Conservatism is not something that “looks like a duck,walks like a duck,it must be a duck” applies. Cruz is a type of “conservative” but he is neither a duck nor swan.

Rubio/Kasich are what generally is accepted and at least currently touted as the Establishment.  I think they are great examples of how fucked up the Establishment is and how ripe it is for reform needed in American politics.

The New Parties ?

Clearly on the Democrat side there is evidence that at least two groups credibly carry banners.

The centrist and traditionalist Democrats are one such party.They keep the traditional name since I think they could prove to be the majority party in many places in the country. Cleaved of the New Progressives the Democrats could establish more traditional positions and revisit the glory days of their history.

The New Progressives could be viewed as an umbrella party that covers the Bernie Sanders types as well as elements of those groups who align Democrat but are all too often ignored after Election Day,the Greens perhaps a fitting example.

The Republicans are facing at least two offshoots in my opinion.

Conservatives would first and foremost have to coalesce under a unified roof. It is this group which could spawn at least one other group that just couldn’t be contained under the single banner the main party hoists. The Conservatives I think would cover the TPM types as well as the Evangelicals and all in all be Jacksonians. The Conservatives would be the only real choice for Evangelicals to remain relevant since on the larger stage they have clearly lost the war. The Conservatives would be well suited to offer fairly sound governance but would need to be vigilant about getting mired in nut job politics. A defining point of the Conservatives would be a focus on states rights. They may or may not be in line to keep the old name of Republican Party.

The next party on the right end of the spectrum could be called Nationalists or Federalists. This would be a party that embraces a number of traditional conservative points but buck the “states” thing as they see a higher purpose in international engagement both on how foreign affairs effect the USA and how the USA ,now forever diminished effects the globe. I think they would accept and or openly cause the faith-based types to go away and would adopt more technocratic and institutional thinking. In WR Meade terms they’d be Hamiltonians. These folks would perhaps most clearly mirror what some deem todays Establishment types but ideally this group would attract those who look at America through more realistic lenses. Free of some of the red meat dog whistles that drive the Conservatives they could easily afford to be different from the conciliatory bland country club GOPers of today.

Lastly there are the New Libertarians. No signs of LaRouche here folks! The New Libertarians would be all about Hayek on the economy and a managed level of laissez affair on everything else. They differ from the others on domestic issues essentially due to a pledge of purity to respect individual rights. I think they could stand as a party if the nations politics shifted to include all the above changes.

What do you think?




  1. Rutherford says:

    I think it’s worth noting that while Trump horrifies some of our friends overseas, they also find our two party system quaint. Having multiple parties, some with extreme views, is nothing new for Europe. They already have their Trumps.

    Following your recommendation, which I support, would only amount to catching up with other countries.

  2. Alfie says:

    Thanks for popping in. Yes I believe there would be a number of advantages not the least being a more engaged electorate and (wait for it)……more honest politicians.

  3. jonolan says:

    Yeah, because a melange of parties has worked so well for Britain and Europe…

  4. Alfie says:

    Actually it works very well indeed. In the rare cases they have to form coalition governments it is still functional democracy. Whether expanded parties in the USA would require coalition government or we just accept deeper plurality than we eat already is not really the point of this post.
    Voter identity and issues being heard are lost in the present system and the dysfunction is epic and dangerous. Either the parties split up or they get real honest real fast. I find the former is more logical and possible especially since the voters so obviously desire it even though the majority are too stupid or too apathetic to admit it.
    Thanks for popping in,was wondering how you were doing. Some needed off the radar time?

Comments are closed.