Many times in this forum I have made calls for a viable third party. I have also heard this call from others and believe it is far past time for us to begin organizing a nonviolent popular revolt against many of the things are politicians are doing that run counter to the interests of the people. I use the term "Middle Party" to describe this movement because I believe it accurately describes where I (and many other thinking independents) sit on the issues. Personally, I am a fiscal conservative with a sense of social justice. Generally this means that I am stuck since the Republicans (until very recently) are the fiscal conservatives and the Democrats are the party that values social justice. I find myself between the two majors on nearly every issue, believing that many of the policies put forth by Democrats have merit, but also believing that there are ways to balance the need versus the money that should (or shouldn't) be spent by the government. I think this party should begin as a conversation among independents and that, until it becomes viable, we should not actually run people for office, opting instead to endorse candidates that make efforts to address our concerns. Eventually, we can have a real impact on elections by organizing independents as a block. Even if, over the course of a decade or so, we only organized a block of 5% of the electorate (in a world where 40% of voters identify themselves as independent), we could have a major impact on elections. The overriding principle of this party should be compromise. That is the one major thing that is missing in Washington DC and the states, and to a lesser extent in local politics. We must all be willing to bend a bit on our beliefs without compromising our principles. It is almost always possible to find middle ground, and the Middle Party is just the organization to look for said ground. I believe that the two core goals of this organization should be tax law reform and election reform, not necessarily in that order. Personally, I am a fan of publicly funded elections combined with a ban on any outside funding of candidates. I think that the only way that our elected officials will be responsive to the people is to make sure that it is the people that pay for the elections. As long as big money interests and corporations are the ones who pay for elections, it will be big money interests and corporations that have access to and influence on our politicians. I believe that it is possible (easy even) to elect the entire federal slate for less than the $200 million that GWB will spend all by himself on this election cycle. For tax law reform, I am a fan of the consumption tax, but I would be OK with a flat income tax with no loopholes or deductions of any kind (for people or corporations). Our income tax code is over 5800 pages and it should not take any more than 200 pages or so to detail tax law. In addition, I am not personally married to the "Middle Party" as the moniker for our movement, so if there are any other suggestions, feel free to put them out there.
Uh, I'm pretty sure you don't want any of those names unless you want to join up with these guys: http://www.americafirstparty.org/ I think their HQ is the bunker to the left of bamaslammer's.
I agree with you and am all for it. I've long felt that there really isn't a party or major candidate for me. My views tend to be socially liberal (libertarian ) and fiscally moderate. I think we are in dire need of social security reform, for free trade, think we need to control deficits and am generally believe market based reforms are better than government mandates. I have agreed with many of GW Bush's domestic policy but firmly oppose most of his foreign and social policies. At the same time I don't like the Dems rhetoric on trade and demagogery on social security and medicare. For the presidential races like in 2000 I'm primarily left with deciding which one I worry more about making Supreme Court appointments rather than which one's overall policies I like more. Unfortunately I think we have a long way to go to develop a moderate / pragmatic third party alternative. I had a lot of hope when here in MN Jesse Ventura got elected and the MN Independence party started to get some leverage. FYI they are exactly the kind of party you are looking for and they were attracting disaffected moderates from both the Repubs and Dems. Unfortunately their appeal couldn't survive beyond Ventura and since he himself did little to promote it that party less than two years after Ventura left office is pretty much dead. Futher their influence never could grow beyond MN and instead of becoming a broader movement that would draw former Perot supporters and people disaffected with their own parties like John McCain and Bill Bradley they died out. I'm still looking for a viable middle of the road third party and if I see one coming I will join it but until then it still is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
We do have a long way to go, but with the help of open minded, pragmatic individuals like yourself, we will get there.
The history of third parties is that they get consumed by one of the major parties (see Populists and Dems) or vice versa (see Republicans and Whigs). Hard for me to believe that we will ever have a sustained 3 or more party system in the US. Doesn't mean you can't work to change one of the parties, but after a few decades, we'll probably be back to the calcified duality we enjoy today.
I believe that much of that is due to the competition for candidacy. This is the major reason I think we should endorse candidates instead of running people against the majors. If we do end up getting swallowed by one of the majors, I would think it would happen as a result of positive changes in that party. At any rate, I still think that the issues listed above, in addition to a few others, distinguish us from the ranks of the majors. I just think independents can have a positive impact beyond just being the "swing" voters or spoilers.
The history of third parties is that they get consumed by one of the major parties (see Populists and Dems) or vice versa (see Republicans and Whigs). There's a good reason for this. 3rd parties are great in concept, and if there weren't two already established parties, it would be viable. However, all these third parties are predicated on an assumption that there are all these people that are disillusioned with the two parties and want another to represent them. That's great and all, but the devil is in the details. Yes, there are a lot of people that are unhappy with their two choices. However, those people don't agree with each other on anything. Some are pro-life, some pro-choice. Some pro-business, some pro-labor. Some pro-business, some pro-environment. etc etc It's not like this mass of disillusioned people all will come together under some "moderate" party. You'll get a few... then slowly they'll realize that voting for the new party instead of the major party which comes closest to representing them actually hurts their interests, and that will be the end of that. The Green Party is an example of that. A bunch of people thought the party represented their interests the best in 2000. Then they realized it helped elect someone who is antithetical to their interests, so they become Democrats again. You're not going to be able to come up with any substantively unique platform that captures more of the public's views than the Dems or Reps have ... primarily because they are not parties of ideology but pragmatism. They build their platforms specifically to capture as many people as possible (which is why they have some contradictory interests).
Again, at first I don't see us running our own candidates, instead focusing on forcing the majors to make changes to garner our support. If one of the majors were to represent us more closely, we would endorse that candidate and, eventually, that endorsement will carry some weight when we have sufficient numbers. We don't have to run someone that will take votes away from candidates we see as lesser evils (Nader in 2000), we can instead choose to focus on what the existing candidates have to do to get our votes.
I think most of you would find a home in the Democratic Party and could really be a force for change working through the party, instead of outside it. There is a need for folks like you to organize and moderate some of the Democratic stand on issues and get them to become more liberal on others. Clearly, the Republican Party of Nelson Rockefeller and Everett Dirksen has ceased to exist, where there was viable room for dissent and a moderate wing of some influence. Those two respected moderate Republicans would be considered "of the left" by today's RNC and the rest of the GOP leadership. Democrats have plenty of room for dissent, however... heck, we specialize in "dissenting" with each other. A group like you suggest within the Democratic Party could be very influential if it were organized. Just something to consider from a long-time Democrat who doesn't always agree with some within own his party, but knows it's the best damn thing out there in the current climate if someone wants to make an impact. In my opinion, of course.
But the one thing that these independents have in common is that they are not in lock-step with either of the majors. Our central theme will be compromise and moderation, which will certainly turn off some hard idealogues. Fortunately, we are not courting people who are so inflexible that they cannot see compromise in their positions. For example, one of the most divisive issues of our time, abortion, still has plenty of grey area that can be explored. Many of us (myself included) believe that reducing abortion is a noble goal. We also believe that there are some circumstances where abortion should continue to be available with reasonable controls. We further believe that some forms of abortion (e.g. late term) should be banned. We know that banning abortion altogether will not work, and so we work to find reasonable compromises and solutions in our positions that do not compromise our principles. For people who cannot be flexible in their beliefs (on any issue, not just abortion), this is probably not the party for you, though we welcome your opinion.
Major, I agree, but where third parties can make an impact is "crashing" election parties. What I mean is this: Say 20% of republicans are moderate socially but want limited government. They are probably fed up with Bush. If just half of them vote Libertarian this election, their voice would be heard loud and clear. The republicans would realize that with all of their pandering to one sect (religious/moral/extreme/big government right) they have left out an important group. I guarantee you they would not make the same mistake next time around.
You make a good point about throwing your weight behind the candidate who most represented your values and to get that candidate to make "concessions" in the party platform and perhaps get a cabinet post in return for the endorsement. That's why Nadir was such an idiot in 2000. He could have endorsed Gore just before the election and had influence in a Gore administration as the price for that endorsement. It would have given the Green Party some legitimacy as a force to be reckoned with. Nadir's ego excluded that possibility and the Green Party is diminished today because of it. Better to have a place at the table than standing outside trying to listen at the door.
deckard, I think some people like the idea of the "outsider" status. Sort of like the rock bands who don't "sell out." Personally, I agree with you that in some cases it is smart to join a major party and work through it.
Don't you think the Green Party would be stronger today if they had used the scenario I mentioned? I think they (Nadir) missed the boat. I guess it shows what poor leadership (Nadir again) can do to good intentions. Lord knows that's been a problem in the Democratic Party.
