It’s not the time for a presidential third party run… but it is the time for third parties to create bottom-up change. These aren’t mutually exclusive, but one is clearly the better option
Please, I’m begging you to re-read my comment. The time is after a grassroots bottom-up movement builds an actual framework for lasting change. I know people want quick change with just a single figurehead to lead the way, but that’s not how this works.
The time is after a grassroots bottom-up movement builds an actual framework for lasting change.
And both major parties will have slid us into fascism before then if environmental catastrophe hasn’t collapsed society.
I know people want quick change with just a single figurehead to lead the way, but that’s not how this works.
No, how it works is that people who don’t want change keep putting arbitrary conditions on anyone attempting to make change. Except change for the worse. That sails right through.
Okay, go back to the 90s and see how Perot or Nader turned out. After their (relatively successful) runs, the US collapsed back into the two party system immediately.
I’m really not trying to argue with you, but rather convince you that as much as I would love a third-party ticket, it just won’t work, unless you want that third party to rule authoritatively without consent from the legislative or judicial branches. I’m pretty sure we agree on almost all points otherwise; the two party system needs to be broken, and it needs to be broken yesterday. But, as someone who voted for Stein, please believe that I’m arguing from a place of not wanting but needing change, and just electing a woke president isn’t change.
Yes, it’s much harder to go bottom-up, but I’m really not seeing any arguments still as to how or why a third party ticket would actually affect that change.
Yes, it’s much harder to go bottom-up, but I’m really not seeing any arguments still as to how or why a third party ticket would actually affect that change.
The problem is that we’ve reached a point where bottom up is no longer possible given the time frame we have to work in. With Democrats and Republicans in charge, we’ll get to fascism or environmental disaster before “just start at dogcatcher and fight both parties for a century or two” pays off. Pretending that if we just take tiny enough baby steps forever we’ll get any meaningful change for the better is insulting.
But these don’t have to be tiny baby steps, and starting at ‘dogcatcher’ is clearly not arguing in good faith. For instance, if the DSA abandoned their platform of being explicitly not a political party, there would already be a network of hundreds running for real important positions like mayors, councilmembers, district attorneys, etc. Would most of them lose these races? Probably. But you have to imagine the average American is not politically aware at all, and seeing a neighbor making real local change may be the only way to get ‘centrists’ onboard. Otherwise, you’re just constantly fighting the media and establishment, or ordering pogroms in order to maintain power and affect change.
Also, political parties historically have not taken centuries to take off, even in two-party systems like the US. We’ve got so much good data on how to actually do this, things like the Lib-Lab pact in the UK, that show us exactly how to bootstrap a party from irrelevance to dominance in just two or so election cycles. Is that too late to stem fascism or environmental collapse? Maybe, but I’m 100% sure that a third party couldn’t rise inorganically in that timeframe either.
The fault doesn’t lie in people wanting to do this in a sustainable way, but in relying on entrenched systems like the Democratic Party to make these moves, when it’s clear as day that they prefer maintaining the status quo over progressivism.
But these don’t have to be tiny baby steps, and starting at ‘dogcatcher’ is clearly not arguing in good faith.
It’s an exaggeration, but not much of one.
With both parties fighting them, it would take a miracle for even one to win.
Probably. But you have to imagine the average American is not politically aware at all, and seeing a neighbor making real local change may be the only way to get ‘centrists’ onboard.
Is that too late to stem fascism or environmental collapse?
Yes, and it’s why the “just build a whole assed political party from the ground up before even thinking about running for national office” is another way of saying “there is never going to be a situation in which a third party will be ok.” Your conditions cannot be met.
This is just not true, there are countless historical examples. Again, I think the most pertinent one to refute your ‘fighting against two parties’ point is the Lib-Lab pact. Obviously it can’t work the exact same way in the US, but there are methods that countries have used to escape entrenched parties, and we just haven’t tried it in the modern US. Also, why would this point not apply to the Electoral College? Wouldn’t the eco-friendly party draw more support from Dem voters, all but guaranteeing a Republican victory?
I think it’s worth trying something that has some evidence behind it before going straight to eco-fascism, no?
It’s not the time for a presidential third party run… but it is the time for third parties to create bottom-up change. These aren’t mutually exclusive, but one is clearly the better option
Conveniently never is and never will be.
Please, I’m begging you to re-read my comment. The time is after a grassroots bottom-up movement builds an actual framework for lasting change. I know people want quick change with just a single figurehead to lead the way, but that’s not how this works.
And both major parties will have slid us into fascism before then if environmental catastrophe hasn’t collapsed society.
No, how it works is that people who don’t want change keep putting arbitrary conditions on anyone attempting to make change. Except change for the worse. That sails right through.
Okay, go back to the 90s and see how Perot or Nader turned out. After their (relatively successful) runs, the US collapsed back into the two party system immediately.
I’m really not trying to argue with you, but rather convince you that as much as I would love a third-party ticket, it just won’t work, unless you want that third party to rule authoritatively without consent from the legislative or judicial branches. I’m pretty sure we agree on almost all points otherwise; the two party system needs to be broken, and it needs to be broken yesterday. But, as someone who voted for Stein, please believe that I’m arguing from a place of not wanting but needing change, and just electing a woke president isn’t change.
Yes, it’s much harder to go bottom-up, but I’m really not seeing any arguments still as to how or why a third party ticket would actually affect that change.
The problem is that we’ve reached a point where bottom up is no longer possible given the time frame we have to work in. With Democrats and Republicans in charge, we’ll get to fascism or environmental disaster before “just start at dogcatcher and fight both parties for a century or two” pays off. Pretending that if we just take tiny enough baby steps forever we’ll get any meaningful change for the better is insulting.
But these don’t have to be tiny baby steps, and starting at ‘dogcatcher’ is clearly not arguing in good faith. For instance, if the DSA abandoned their platform of being explicitly not a political party, there would already be a network of hundreds running for real important positions like mayors, councilmembers, district attorneys, etc. Would most of them lose these races? Probably. But you have to imagine the average American is not politically aware at all, and seeing a neighbor making real local change may be the only way to get ‘centrists’ onboard. Otherwise, you’re just constantly fighting the media and establishment, or ordering pogroms in order to maintain power and affect change.
Also, political parties historically have not taken centuries to take off, even in two-party systems like the US. We’ve got so much good data on how to actually do this, things like the Lib-Lab pact in the UK, that show us exactly how to bootstrap a party from irrelevance to dominance in just two or so election cycles. Is that too late to stem fascism or environmental collapse? Maybe, but I’m 100% sure that a third party couldn’t rise inorganically in that timeframe either.
The fault doesn’t lie in people wanting to do this in a sustainable way, but in relying on entrenched systems like the Democratic Party to make these moves, when it’s clear as day that they prefer maintaining the status quo over progressivism.
It’s an exaggeration, but not much of one.
With both parties fighting them, it would take a miracle for even one to win.
Yes, and it’s why the “just build a whole assed political party from the ground up before even thinking about running for national office” is another way of saying “there is never going to be a situation in which a third party will be ok.” Your conditions cannot be met.
This is just not true, there are countless historical examples. Again, I think the most pertinent one to refute your ‘fighting against two parties’ point is the Lib-Lab pact. Obviously it can’t work the exact same way in the US, but there are methods that countries have used to escape entrenched parties, and we just haven’t tried it in the modern US. Also, why would this point not apply to the Electoral College? Wouldn’t the eco-friendly party draw more support from Dem voters, all but guaranteeing a Republican victory?
I think it’s worth trying something that has some evidence behind it before going straight to eco-fascism, no?