Yes and no.

Yes- most Americans realize something needs to change about the current political setup, and a third-party (or n-th party) system offers a theoretically easy alternative.

No- Americans are glued to this us vs. them mentality. As much as "we" want the freedoms that "they" are controlling, we just can't handle the fact that "they" want to free things that "we" want controlled. Guns, health care, the environment, gay marriage, etc. Compromise is currently out, and the us vs. them continues. As much as the libertarian party is a 3rd party contender, I doubt most Americans could deal with the true libertarian hands-off approach and compromise on their favorite hot-button topics (not Gentlemint podcast ones. Those are ha-AUT BUTTTTON...topics). Ex. less gun restrictions go hand in hand with less abortion restrictions and the reverse.

Aside comments: Government spending isn't a consideration in the party system at this period in history since both parties spend money at a furious rate, they just argue about how it should be spent.

I'd be willing to bend on some of my own personal stances except for the preservation of public lands. I like my national parks, national forests, etc.

Reply

1. "Are you willing to bend on some of your personal stances in order..."

2. Yes. There isn't canidate I can support that doesn't require a little bending. Which requires the least bending?

3. "How do we ensure we have more choices in our political system..."

4. By supporting canidates outside the main stream system: with our votes and our money. The options we have will look like the options we support.

5. "How do we convince the current government to support them?" Excellent question. This seems like a small follow on question but I think it is the biggest most important question you ask. How does a system that only acts according to its own self-interest to act differently? It doesn't and it won't. Violence is the worst thing to do. Ghandi and MLK have moth shown there is a better way. Provided the system hasn't become too corrupted, nonviolent opposition is the only effective way. But I believe there is still a constitutional possibility as well.

I don't have a clear response yet. I'm going to let it simmer some more and better organize my thoughts ....the kids just finished with their class so I'm cut short anyway.

Excellent questions, excellent thread; this is going to be fun.

Just wanted to respond to the low hanging fruit while I had a moment though.

Reply

Here are some additional thoughts on the subject from an external site.

Reply

There is already a third party - Trump. He has broken so far from the traditional GOP that he has effectively forged a new way. The Democrats drift harder and harder to the left in terms of social policy and the republicans make sure to stay only a few years behind them (hence the 'cuckservative' meme) whilst both parties seem to support globalism, massive state power and spending, crushing the middle class, wealth redistribution and serving the interest of the 0.1% Personally I've floated the idea that there ought to be 5 state funded parties - far left and right, centre left and right and a centrist/third way party.

Reply

What's this? Not a single, solitary reactionary, fear-fomenting comment? Am I still on the Internet?

I love the idea of the n-th party systems because of a broader reason: it puts the WORK of liberty back in the hands of citizens. In the two party system, especially in its present American manifestation, it's Rince Pribus and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who are doing the work of politics and running ad campaigns trying to convince the masses to choose their respective ways. So many people radically reduce one's "civic duty" to pulling the lever for someone else who's going to do the work. The first benefit of multiple political parties is that more people would be involved with working for the the public good. And I don't mean campaigning for a politician. I mean working to make a difference in the lives of people that live in the same place that you do.

Just look at this sample of extraordinarily thoughtful guys on this site. Clearly we are passionate about the good of our country and I know I'm not alone in feeling straight-jacketted by our present environment. Other parties would release the political energy for good--as opposed to the "anyone but" mentality we have today.

So I suppose this is just a long answer to the first question above: "How do we, as Americans, go about ensuring we have more choices in our political party system?" I think the answer is by normal, industrious, clear-thinking people, like the guys here, growing their influence on the common good in our own communities. To often it is the radicals and power-hungry that fill this role instead of the hard-working, responsible people like you and I.

For many reasons, I'll be voting for the American Solidarity Party in a few weeks.

What are the long-term prospects for this politics of individuals working for the common good in their own communities? To quote Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov,

"[W]e must keep the banner flying. Sometimes even if he has to do it alone, and his conduct seems to be crazy, a man must set an example, and so draw men’s souls out of their solitude, and spur them to some act of brotherly love even if he seems crazy, so that the great idea may not die."

Reply

I do love this site! If I may add fuel to the fires of revolution...

In reality that is the way talk like this should be viewed after all. We are, if even just in thought revolting against the established system. While I think we can all agree that the established system does not wholly resemble the original blueprint, I feel it should be pointed out that in a world of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" an assault on established thought is every bit as violent as shooting a president in the head and declaring the same to all tyrants.

For my own part I am more or less a Libertarian at this point. With my background it was not a particularly easy leap to make, once one challenges their preconceptions however it becomes an obvious choice. In my mind the party system itself has come down to, rather than if we should meddle in peoples lives, but in what way should we meddle this week.

Let me also state, though I feel I have rambled enough by way of introduction, that I feel violence is necessary. I do not condone violence, nor do I welcome it, however I fear that if for a moment a President, Congressman, Clerk of Court, or any other governmental body should stop fearing violent repercussions against their own person as a possibility, then their actions can and, by way of powers corrupting influence, will take a more directly sinister turn.

As I said before, I am a Libertarian currently. I wont vote for Johnson, as I don't agree with a lot of his politics. Many people wont switch to Libertarian because many of the issues they advertise do not resonate. Primarily you will never get my mother to vote for anyone campaigning on the idea we should legalize pot. I think it is a matter of presentation, and no matter how good a candidate the party may crank out, they will be tainted by the over advertising of such a small thing. Seriously potheads are not a very sexy image.

So I guess when it comes down to it we need a party that people can join more easily. The Democrat and Republican parties are huge business and I don't think nearly as many people relate to them as they used to, but they are familiar. Tea Party and Libertarian parties have the look of crazies and potheads associated with them so it is hard for the more serious crowds to take them seriously at all. I think what we really need at this point, and I think this is the point in history where it is most needed, is a marketable party.

Reply