"It is needless to observe, I presume, that both rebels and hereticks are those unlucky persons who, when things have come to a certain degree of violence, have the misfortune to be of the weaker party. In a nation distracted by faction, there are, no doubt, always a few, though commonly but a very few, who preserve their judgment untainted by the general contagion. They seldom amount to more than, here and there, a solitary individual, without any influence, excluded by his own candour, from the confidence of either party, and who, though he may be one of the wisest, is necessarily upon that very account, one of the most insignificant men in the society. All such people are held in contempt and derision, frequently in detestation, by the furious zealots of both parties. A true party-man hates and despises candour; and in reality there is no vice which could so effectually disqualify him for the trade of a party-man as that single virtue. The real, revered and impartial spectator, therefore, is upon no occasion at a greater distance than amidst the violence and rage of contending parties. To them, it may be said, that such a spectator scarce exists any where in the universe...Of all the corrupters of moral sentiments, therefore, faction and fanaticism have always been by far the greatest."
--Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, pp. 205-6
Showing posts with label third parties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label third parties. Show all posts
Monday, January 3, 2011
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Tea Parties Should Work within the GOP
The Poli-tea blog has an interesting post (h/t Chris Johansen). The blog argues that Tea Party activists should avoid working within or infiltrating the GOP:
"Infiltrationist strategy plays right into the hands of the ruling political establishment: filling out the apparatus of the Democratic-Republican Party political machine is literally exactly what the ruling political establishment wants you to do!"
It is unlikely that the Tea Party will ultimately constitute a major party. The reason is its inability to find a national leader. My good friend Phil Orenstein is a likely candidate who seems to have been overlooked. Otherwise, there has been so much confusion that one of the groups claiming to be the Tea Party had Sarah Palin as their keynote speaker.
There are several reasons why a third party will not work. First, Americans have been committed to a two party system almost since the first Congress. Initially, partisanship was considered unseemly, and politicians did not consider it appropriate to volunteer to run--they ought to have been asked, they thought. Washington was concerned about the formation of independent political clubs. Nevertheless, by 1790 two discernible parties had formed, the Democratic Republicans of Jefferson and the Federalists of Hamilton. Although after Jefferson's election in 1800 there was a twenty-something year respite from parties (the "era of good feelings") partisanship reasserted itself when Andrew Jackson took several aggressive stands, especially against the Bank of the United States. In response, Henry Clay formed the Whig Party. The Whig Party was the forerunner of the Republican, but it broke up just prior to the Civil War and was replaced by an all-northern Republican Party that included abolitionists.
If you look at the history of the parties they were all started by charismatic or special leaders: Federalists-Hamilton; Democratic Republicans-Jefferson; Democrats-Jackson; Republicans-Lincoln. Who is the charismatic leader of the Tea Party (besides Phil Orenstein)?
Second, there is a long history of third parties playing a prodding role in American history. In the 1850s The Anti-Masonic Party pushed for some nativist platforms in the Whigs. In the 1890s, the Populist Party pushed for inflationist and "Progressive" platforms among the Democrats. I believe that the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan was in part due to prodding by the Libertarians.
The major parties have been good at integrating insurgent interests. In contrast, insurgents have been generally poor at building independent parties. The Progressive Party, founded by the redoubtable Theodore Roosevelt, spoiled the 1912 election and had an effect in the days of Progressivism and social democracy. But it never gained power. The same for Ross Perot. Perot was an almost-successful leader. But the proof was in the pudding. The failure of his party to generate a continuous organization shows how difficult it is to start a new party. Even a leader of Perot's caliber was unable to do it. I don't think Phil Orenstein can either (although he never said he was forming a third party--he's an active Republican).
In sum, the difference in difficulty of working through the GOP and starting a new party is the difference in difficulty of sending someone to the moon and sending someone to Mars or Venus. So far, I am not convinced that the Tea Party knows which end is up, much less whether it can start an independent party.
Infiltration of the GOP is possible. This is what happened to the Populist movement. When the Democrats ran William Jennings Bryan in 1896 as the inflationist/populist candidate, it had just seen four years of libertarian leadership by Grover Cleveland, a "Bourbon Democrat" from New York. Bryan lost to McKinley, who was a pro-tariff Republican who supported sound money. But within forty years, Franklin D. Roosevelt adopted most of what Bryan had advocated (in 1896 and in two subsequent failed presidential runs). In other words, the Populists transformed the Democrats.
That is a more fertile strategy for the Tea Party than to start a third party. I worked with the Libertarian Party in the 1970s and know that third parties are very difficult without charismatic leadership. And if Orenstein keeps refusing the job of leading the Tea Party, I'm not sure who is going to do it.
"Infiltrationist strategy plays right into the hands of the ruling political establishment: filling out the apparatus of the Democratic-Republican Party political machine is literally exactly what the ruling political establishment wants you to do!"
It is unlikely that the Tea Party will ultimately constitute a major party. The reason is its inability to find a national leader. My good friend Phil Orenstein is a likely candidate who seems to have been overlooked. Otherwise, there has been so much confusion that one of the groups claiming to be the Tea Party had Sarah Palin as their keynote speaker.
There are several reasons why a third party will not work. First, Americans have been committed to a two party system almost since the first Congress. Initially, partisanship was considered unseemly, and politicians did not consider it appropriate to volunteer to run--they ought to have been asked, they thought. Washington was concerned about the formation of independent political clubs. Nevertheless, by 1790 two discernible parties had formed, the Democratic Republicans of Jefferson and the Federalists of Hamilton. Although after Jefferson's election in 1800 there was a twenty-something year respite from parties (the "era of good feelings") partisanship reasserted itself when Andrew Jackson took several aggressive stands, especially against the Bank of the United States. In response, Henry Clay formed the Whig Party. The Whig Party was the forerunner of the Republican, but it broke up just prior to the Civil War and was replaced by an all-northern Republican Party that included abolitionists.
If you look at the history of the parties they were all started by charismatic or special leaders: Federalists-Hamilton; Democratic Republicans-Jefferson; Democrats-Jackson; Republicans-Lincoln. Who is the charismatic leader of the Tea Party (besides Phil Orenstein)?
Second, there is a long history of third parties playing a prodding role in American history. In the 1850s The Anti-Masonic Party pushed for some nativist platforms in the Whigs. In the 1890s, the Populist Party pushed for inflationist and "Progressive" platforms among the Democrats. I believe that the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan was in part due to prodding by the Libertarians.
The major parties have been good at integrating insurgent interests. In contrast, insurgents have been generally poor at building independent parties. The Progressive Party, founded by the redoubtable Theodore Roosevelt, spoiled the 1912 election and had an effect in the days of Progressivism and social democracy. But it never gained power. The same for Ross Perot. Perot was an almost-successful leader. But the proof was in the pudding. The failure of his party to generate a continuous organization shows how difficult it is to start a new party. Even a leader of Perot's caliber was unable to do it. I don't think Phil Orenstein can either (although he never said he was forming a third party--he's an active Republican).
In sum, the difference in difficulty of working through the GOP and starting a new party is the difference in difficulty of sending someone to the moon and sending someone to Mars or Venus. So far, I am not convinced that the Tea Party knows which end is up, much less whether it can start an independent party.
Infiltration of the GOP is possible. This is what happened to the Populist movement. When the Democrats ran William Jennings Bryan in 1896 as the inflationist/populist candidate, it had just seen four years of libertarian leadership by Grover Cleveland, a "Bourbon Democrat" from New York. Bryan lost to McKinley, who was a pro-tariff Republican who supported sound money. But within forty years, Franklin D. Roosevelt adopted most of what Bryan had advocated (in 1896 and in two subsequent failed presidential runs). In other words, the Populists transformed the Democrats.
That is a more fertile strategy for the Tea Party than to start a third party. I worked with the Libertarian Party in the 1970s and know that third parties are very difficult without charismatic leadership. And if Orenstein keeps refusing the job of leading the Tea Party, I'm not sure who is going to do it.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Exchange with Doug Ross Re Minor Parties
In response to my post regarding Phil Orenstein's blog on tea parties legendary blogger Doug Ross writes:
>As Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt have stated on a number of occasions, any attempt at forming a third party would be disastrous: it would simply split the conservative vote when, even united, the job ahead will be monumentally difficult.
We must not and can not endorse the formation of a third party. It represents suicide for the conservative movement. We must instead reshape the Republican Party behind the aegis of Liberty vs. Tyranny.
Best Regards,
Doug Ross
Doug Ross @ Journal
My response:
I disagree with Hewitt and Levin as to the lack of viability of third parties. Third parties do not win but they influence future elections. There have been quite a few examples. One was the Anti-Masonic Party which never won but was instrumental in the formation of the Whig Party, and the Whig Party (a second party) was instrumental in the formation of the Republicans. Another was the Populists, which never won but succeeded in seeing the nomination of William Jennings Bryan. Although Bryan lost in 1896, his ideas were ultimately adopted via Franklin Roosevelt. This pattern also occurred via the Progressive Party in 1912. Although the Progressive Theodore Roosevelt lost, his socialist ideas, which were similar to Bryan's, ultimately won in 1932. Thus, there is typically a multi-step process involving third parties. They do not win but the major parties adopt their ideas.
This multi-step process has to be the case with a within-party insurgency as well. The reason is that there are no Republicans capable of leading a Lockean insurgency, and the party infrastructure is missing. Either way (insurgency or third party) there will have to be a multi-year process. An in-party insurgency will require several election cycles. The Goldwater election of 1964 was an insurgency that paved the way for Reagan in 1980. Similarly, the Bourbon Democrats, the pro-gold conservative Democrats, were around after the Civil War and saw their candidate, Grover Cleveland, win in 1884.
Messers. Levin and Hewittt overstate the distinction between an in-party insurgency and a third party. Either way (insurgency or third party) Lockean Republicans have little chance in the next two presidential cycles.
Additionally, I suspect that any Republican Presidential candidate who is put up to run in '12 will be just another big government type masquerading as a small government type unless there is a radical ideological cleansing of the entire Republican Party now. But I don't see how that could happen. So in a word, the Republicans serious about ideas ought not to think about winning an election in '12. If they do, they will just get more garbage. It is better to work on two things: building a new party and destabilizing the Democrats.
To give you an idea of how bad the Bush administration was, I went to Washington in 2005 to protest the accreditation of the National Council on Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), a left wing extremist body that has taken control of accrediting education schools. Rather than abolish the Department of Education, the Bush administration used the DOE as a patronage plum. But who received the patronage? Left wing extremists who supported NCATE---Many of the appointees on the board before which I spoke argued with me in favor of NCATE. So Bush appointed Lockean Republicans' enemies. It was more important to him to be able to do this than to abolish the DOE. That's how incompetent and stupid the incumbent Republicans are.
Do you really think a perpetuation of the current Republican Party is crucial? One of two things must occur in order to change: a third party or a serious insurgency. Otherwise, we will keep running around in circles forever.
>As Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt have stated on a number of occasions, any attempt at forming a third party would be disastrous: it would simply split the conservative vote when, even united, the job ahead will be monumentally difficult.
We must not and can not endorse the formation of a third party. It represents suicide for the conservative movement. We must instead reshape the Republican Party behind the aegis of Liberty vs. Tyranny.
Best Regards,
Doug Ross
Doug Ross @ Journal
My response:
I disagree with Hewitt and Levin as to the lack of viability of third parties. Third parties do not win but they influence future elections. There have been quite a few examples. One was the Anti-Masonic Party which never won but was instrumental in the formation of the Whig Party, and the Whig Party (a second party) was instrumental in the formation of the Republicans. Another was the Populists, which never won but succeeded in seeing the nomination of William Jennings Bryan. Although Bryan lost in 1896, his ideas were ultimately adopted via Franklin Roosevelt. This pattern also occurred via the Progressive Party in 1912. Although the Progressive Theodore Roosevelt lost, his socialist ideas, which were similar to Bryan's, ultimately won in 1932. Thus, there is typically a multi-step process involving third parties. They do not win but the major parties adopt their ideas.
This multi-step process has to be the case with a within-party insurgency as well. The reason is that there are no Republicans capable of leading a Lockean insurgency, and the party infrastructure is missing. Either way (insurgency or third party) there will have to be a multi-year process. An in-party insurgency will require several election cycles. The Goldwater election of 1964 was an insurgency that paved the way for Reagan in 1980. Similarly, the Bourbon Democrats, the pro-gold conservative Democrats, were around after the Civil War and saw their candidate, Grover Cleveland, win in 1884.
Messers. Levin and Hewittt overstate the distinction between an in-party insurgency and a third party. Either way (insurgency or third party) Lockean Republicans have little chance in the next two presidential cycles.
Additionally, I suspect that any Republican Presidential candidate who is put up to run in '12 will be just another big government type masquerading as a small government type unless there is a radical ideological cleansing of the entire Republican Party now. But I don't see how that could happen. So in a word, the Republicans serious about ideas ought not to think about winning an election in '12. If they do, they will just get more garbage. It is better to work on two things: building a new party and destabilizing the Democrats.
To give you an idea of how bad the Bush administration was, I went to Washington in 2005 to protest the accreditation of the National Council on Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), a left wing extremist body that has taken control of accrediting education schools. Rather than abolish the Department of Education, the Bush administration used the DOE as a patronage plum. But who received the patronage? Left wing extremists who supported NCATE---Many of the appointees on the board before which I spoke argued with me in favor of NCATE. So Bush appointed Lockean Republicans' enemies. It was more important to him to be able to do this than to abolish the DOE. That's how incompetent and stupid the incumbent Republicans are.
Do you really think a perpetuation of the current Republican Party is crucial? One of two things must occur in order to change: a third party or a serious insurgency. Otherwise, we will keep running around in circles forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
