The case for a strengthened Libertarian and Green Parties?

[eric82oslo]

Is this article, based on academic research into what kind of political systems that actually cause a tough on crimes environment, a strong case for the further promotion of the two main alternative parties alive right now in the US, the right of center Libertarians and the left winged Greens?

"How a third party could reduce incarceration in the U.S.": http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/17/how-a-third-party-could-reduce-incarceration-in-the-u-s/

[TNF]

Neither of those parties have the potential to become a real mass party capable of challenging either the Democrats or the Republicans. Any potential mass third party would have to have a stable group of supporters that compose a non-negligible portion of the population (which rules out the upper middle class Libertarians and Greens entirely), as well as a stable base for funding and party outreach and development.

[DC Al Fine]

Neither of those parties have the potential to become a real mass party capable of challenging either the Democrats or the Republicans. Any potential mass third party would have to have a stable group of supporters that compose a non-negligible portion of the population (which rules out the upper middle class Libertarians and Greens entirely), as well as a stable base for funding and party outreach and development.

To add to what TNF said, the American system is naturally a two party one. Unless one of those parties manages to displace the GOP/Dems (extremely unlikely), they won't have any long term success.

[TNF]

I think that a third party could operate within the existing order of things, provided that it was able to capture a fairly stable amount of electoral votes every cycle. A hypothetical labor party would probably do fairly well in the rust belt, for example. Provided that it could win the rust belt every cycle, and perhaps expand their base to throw the election to the House, and we could end up talking about electoral reform that ends the electoral college. Trust me, a third party strong enough to send an election to the House two or three cycles in a row is going to make electoral reform a very big priority, especially if the House that elects the President isn't the majority party among the electorate.

[eric82oslo]

Neither of those parties have the potential to become a real mass party capable of challenging either the Democrats or the Republicans. Any potential mass third party would have to have a stable group of supporters that compose a non-negligible portion of the population (which rules out the upper middle class Libertarians and Greens entirely), as well as a stable base for funding and party outreach and development.

To add to what TNF said, the American system is naturally a two party one. Unless one of those parties manages to displace the GOP/Dems (extremely unlikely), they won't have any long term success.

Except for the presidential aspect - which I agree is a very important one - the US system is not all that different from the UK one though. You're both electing your lower house representatives from one-man districts in a winner-takes-all manner. In the UK this has developed from a traditional two party system (Labour & Conservatives) into a three party system which we've had for a while now (with the Liberal Democrats) to what seems to becoming right now a four party system (adding the UK Independence Party as well). Additionally to this, you have the regional, nationalist parties of course of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Now, since the US is just one nation, and the only thing that can challenge that is the influx of immigrants (since the Native Americans have never had any political power or hardly even influence), it doesn't seem likely to turn into several nations in the future either. Now, there's no doubt that the entire Western Europe is a much more modern place than the current USA. Especially when it comes to religiosity, that's the case. The only Western European nations I can think of that somewhat resembles the power religion has in US politics and everyday society would be Italy and Malta, and I think even there the religious aspect is rapidly waning. Especially now that Berlusconi seems to have lost his political influence altogether and Italians seem to finally be ready to move on and face modernity once and for all (although it's all very complicated with the Vatican State located in Rome).

The US will eventually match up with where Western Europe is at present, the question is simply how long it will take (the South will be the real drag on this timeline of course). At best, the US remains about 10 years behind Western European society when it comes to modernity and embracing academic approaches to things rather than simply trusting your gut feeling or what your spirituality tells you is the right thing. At worst, the US could be as far behind as 20 to 25 years. I remain optimistic, especially in an ever changing, rapidly accelerating globalized world, and would say that the US electorate probably only will lag Western European societies with about 10 to 15 years. Which could mean that the US could have at least one strong third party come 2030, simply because much of the electorate will be truely fed up with the status quo and the ultra rigid parties they can chose between at present (honestly only the Republican party is ultra rigid, but that's another debate). To pretend that the US is doomed and destined to remain with a two party system for ever and always is simply to indulge with superstition. People used to say that most European democracies would remain with only two or three major parties forever as well, but look at what has happened to basically every single Western European nation for the past few years and decades. Spain has changed from a two party system to a multi party system because voters have been fed up with the two major parties for quite some time. In Greece the same has happened thanks to the everlasting damage caused by the financial crisis. In the UK it is under way as well. In France, the two major parties have lost almost all credibility. Even in Germany, minor parties are starting to gain more ground, despite Angela Merkel's astronomical popularity. In Sweden the multiplication has gone on for a long while already. Basically I don't think there's a single exception to the rule as far as I can see. Voters simply want diversity. Just like consumers demand competition in the private service sector and multitude of products to chose from in their local supermarket, more and more this happens to be the case even in the public arena of politics. At least that's what I believe.

Changes sometimes take a long, long time, other times they happen over night (like they've done in Greece and in UK with their Independence Party and in the US when it comes to gay marriage and cannabis legalisation). It's hard to predict exactly when the US will get a major third party, because history always surprises us to some degree, but I'd say it's quite likely to happen at some point during the 21st century. My prediction is that it will happen as some sort of local revolt first. Perhaps The Green Party will first gain strenght in Vermont or Maine. Perhaps the Libertarians will first break through in Colorado or Nevada. Immediately it will cause a tsunami of media attention, which in itself will accelerate the changes by several years, perhaps even decades. Modern history shows us that rapid changes are more the conventional wisdom than the exception (see the rapid rise of the Tea Party for instance). Call it the Meme of Politics or the Facebook Revolution of Politics if you want.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If either of the big parties were to give up on being a big tent party, we could see a third party emerge.  The Republicans would seem to be the one to be most likely to fracture at the moment. with a new New England-based fiscal conservative/social liberal party emerging from the ruins of the GOP in those states if toeing the national party line became the price of admission to the Republican Party apparatus.

[Orser67]

To me, while the article was focused on incarceration rates, the broader argument was more interesting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure whether or not I buy this argument. I could see the opposite effect, with crazy extremist parties taking positions that appear to be simple, quick fixes, and winning based on those positions. With that said, I could see how a non-big tent party could take more risks; the 2002 Iraq Resolution vote comes to mind.

[Cassius]

Eric, I take issue with your last post in this thread, and here's why:

1. The political systems of the United States and the United Kingdom are entirely different, partly due to the Presidential aspect that you acknowledged, which is a very important aspect which makes these two political systems different. But its much more than that; in the United States, the two major parties are entrenched, legally, psychologically, in terms of representation. Whilst the United Kingdom may be dominated by three major parties, in our system, its much easier to set up and develop new political movements (though the success of those is usually limited). I would also remind you that the UK was never quite a two party system; the Liberals may have been very heavily squeezed in the 1950's, but they still retained a small base in loca government, the House of Lords and in the Commons. From that base they were able to gradually build themselves back up (and even then, much of that success can be attributed to their alliance and merger with the SDP in the 1980's). No minor political party possesses that kind of base upon which to build. UKIP is perhaps a more apt comparison, but still a flawed one, as UKIP first obtained representation in the EU parliament, which is a much easier nut to crack even than local council elections (which aren't strictly comparable to local and state elections in America, as councils here have far less power, and elections are often seen as a 'popularity poll' for the incumbent government).

2. Your argument that voters are turning to third parties because they want 'diversity': I can see where you're coming from here, and there is an element of this behind the reasons why, in certain countries, previously dominant parties are falling into ruins. However, to be honest, these collapses are much more to do with the individual political context of each country in question. The Euro crisis is a massive cause of this; the countries which have been worst affected (Ireland and Greece for example) have seen their major parties severely weakened largely due to what the electorate sees as their spectacularly bad mishandling of the economy whilst in office. Even then, many of these major parties are still limping on (like Fianna Fail in Ireland), wounded but not dead. Moreover, the collapse of these parties has been helped by the fact that a lot of the countries in question have varying degrees of proportional representation, making it easier for smaller political movements to break through. But, as I was saying, these massive changes in respective party systems have only been brought about due to extremely testing political and economic conditions, which are simply not present on the same scale in the U.S.

3. The idea that the U.S is 'behind' Europe: I really disagree with this. Depending on how you define 'progress' the United States could be argued as being 'ahead' of many European countries on issues such as gay rights and drug use (there are still a number of countries where gay marriage is illegal). Furthermore, the US has, historically, been more 'progressive' on a number of issues than many Western European countries. For example, Ireland didn't legalise homosexuality and divorce until the 1990's, although that is partly due to the unique conditions regarding Church and state that were present in Ireland up to that point. In Spain, I believe you can still donate a portion of your tax to the Roman Catholic Church. I think this idea that the United States is more backward and less 'educated' than Europe is a bit of a silly myth to be honest with you.

Basically, the problem with you're analysis is that comparing the United States with Europe generally is like comparing apples and oranges, to use that particular cliche. Different histories, different political issues, different political systems.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Andrew Cuomo is the best case I've ever heard for a strengthened Green party.