I'm still reading, but had to take a pause upon reading, "Frightened liberals tend to fight in the “fight or flight” game. They respond to crises with hammers and tongs. The more they think Trump is on rails, the more extreme they’ll become." Seriously, Steve???? It is this kind of partisan ridiculousness that contributes to the ever widening chasm. Frightened Liberals...Really??? I think what you mean 'frightened people.' How you can formulate that thought process, completely forgetting the frightened conservatives during the Obama years, is beyond me. Stop it. Fear creates extremism regardless of which side experiences it.
Politics creates some very distorting lenses. Most people, in stress situations flee but in politics they fight. I wasn’t saying liberals as in my neighbors, I meant it in a political context. Good point though. I should have used better words.
Not sure what you mean. It sounds like a blacksmithing reference. I use tongs only for grilling delicious meat. The "LOL" seems to indicate a good natured comment which I really appreciate. But all I do is vote the way I see fit and complain and praise on commentary web sites. I'm not a public protester - just a NE Georgia hillbilly who tries to avoid Atlanta.
LOL means "laugh out loud". The reason they said it was because that's what Steve says liberals do when we think we are going to have to fight. Because were all communists.
Not all. Some are merely socialist. And I said that. I have never seen a comment from Steve to that effect. He is extremely tolerant of all of us ideologues.
I think many, maybe even a majority, of people who vote Republican understand the "conservative worldview" about as much as they understand what it means to be a Christian. If that seems harsh, well good.
I agree that the current Republican party needs to wither off the vine and so does the two party system. Our two parties fail to represent the majority of Americans, most of the time. But both R's and D's have made sure that the two party system holds. It would be nice to have at least 5 strong parties, but the time for those changes has long come and gone. I have a very pessimistic outlook for the future, especially when I see how entrenched the Republican party is in so many states down to the lowest levels of state government. Reading The Powell Memo has certainly put the last 40-50 yrs of Republican politics into perspective.
It's hard to break out of a two party system in a winner-take-all system where the first past the post wins all the spoils. In the absence of a Constitutional amendment opening the door for more parliamentarian representation, your best bet for breaking the two-party duopoly is advocating for more ranked-choice voting where the race isn't just about the two dominant parties, and smaller parties can influence the outcome in a coalition-like format where the votes of a failed party aren't disregarded altogether, but count toward the next best choice remaining.
A Constitutional amendment is a high bar. The next one will be meaningless or revolutionary after either the Socialists or Conservatives have finally won control. Most likely, none of us will see it. The forced ranking system might hinder radical extremists from taking over but it will result in mediocrity. No visionaries or change agents allowed.
That could work given a century or two of grooming candidates. I could support it given candidates I generally agree with. Anything that leads to more of the current administration and congressional control is a non-starter for me. And, I do not vote just to keep someone out of office. I vote because I am more in favor of one candidate's policies. I would be nice if my candidates were intellectually honest and personable. Unfortunately, very few candidates on either side are.
I get wanting a third party, what I don't get is why you would want a party that at best 25 percent of the public would vote for. Barely 25% of this country considers themselves conservative. Why wouldn't you try and create something that could grow into a real contender?
That is an excellent question. It will take a full length post to answer but let’s start with this: “conservative” in its conception is not a fringe worldview. Look at the huge pushback Democrats get when they take their bubble groupthink policies to the public. Even solid Democrats (look at Virginia) can’t stomach it. A true Conservative party won’t be unpopular.
I guess I would need a definition of a "true Conservative party". Because the public has soundly rejected conservative social positions save maybe trans rights. Do you really think Texas' abortion law would fly in any purple state? As to the public rejecting the more socialist parts of the democrat platform I don't see how that is an indication that people want conservative government. If anything the last 20 years has shown its that Americans like the government spending money. You could probably convince people that we need to stop debt spending but no party is ever going to get off the ground by purely reducing government. The US population has no desire for that.
I think the idea isn't to run candidates, but like New York's Conservative Party, to demonstrate that there are X voters that will pick either the GOP or the Democrats based on which ones are being the least psychotic. The idea is to tell the GOP that as long as it courts Trumpism and other anti-conservative ideals, those voters will go Democratic, which in our close elections will flip the election against them. (As WI's Ron Johnson stated so eloquently recently[1].)
The party leadership has to decide then whether to continue placating the #MAGA folks at the cost of losing the votes of the new party or moderate their #MAGAism sufficiently for the third-party folks to come home. This becomes a clearer decision to make if we can say that there are a specific number of folks who will vote accordingly, instead of leaving that number nebulous, which is what happens if the anti-Trumpers just join the Democratic party.
If this were actually the case then aren't you creating the party to punish Trump voters? Because Steve said that isn't why he wants a third party. He also stated he doesn't believe the GOP is worth saving at all. Any legitimate and worthwhile venture into a third party, to me anyway, can't disregard half the population. Nobody who votes left is ever going to consider a conservative party. At least not the way I envision it. So if that's the case then all you are doing is splitting the right side of the country and that has to be a democrats wet dream.
If the layers of your decision-making is primarily left vs. right, with "will respect results of a democratic election" vs. "will not respect the results of a democratic election" as a secondary concern, then you're 100% correct, and you wouldn't be contributing to increasing the vote share of the right versus the left.
However, if your decision-making is primarily "will respect results of a democratic election" vs. "will not respect the results of a democratic election", with left vs. right being the secondary concern, then this approach does contribute something by penalizing the "will not respect" folks until that position becomes untenable to hold, "will respect" resumes its role as something both sides subscribe to, and we can get back to maximizing the Right's share at the Left's expense.
There's nothing that inherently links Election Trutherism to Conservatism, so there's not any reason that the GOP needs to continue to running with it. It's basically taking the idea that there's enough people to swing an election who have turned "won't support a candidate who wouldn't turn down a good coup" into single-issue voters that candidates are incentivized to support, and disregard at their peril.
Also, this isn't anything that punishes Trump voters - it's designed to punish candidates that refuse to buck Trump and discard his discredited election conspiracies.
What a fascinating morning for an old Humphrey democrat. Three emails in my box this morning; Charlie Sykes, Erick Erickson and now yours Steve. I don't always read them all; i pick and choose which ones appeal to me. In this case, all three did.
Obviously the reason for each of the introspective looks was due to Goldberg's suggestion to create a new third party. Apparently a variety of writers beyond those i follow have all been looking in the mirror and sorting out the reflection.
Hell, we all do that. Just those who have any kind of a following create a stir when they have to sift the through the realities of where we are. Any sane minded human being has to admit, we just aren't in a very good place right now.
Doesn't matter, right, left or independent we are precariously perched on the edge of a cliff and there is no one suggesting we try and move away from it. In fact, those fringe players of both parties keep pushing us to follow their lead and jump off...and should we, it will all get better.
Pure and utter nonsense. The far right and the far left represent such a small minority, the idea anyone should listen to them is ludicrous. We all know those shouting the loudest are the ones most often heard, but when you listen closely, what they are saying seldom makes any sense.
I struggle to believe we will come out of this malaise any time soon; except when i see columns like i opened this morning. My hope is smarter people than me will rally the masses and create the "let's get shit done party." Okay, maybe that isn't the right moniker, but i suspect you all get my point.
We've allowed the crazies to become the defining points in our country. It's a place where only a small majority exist and frankly those of us in middle should be tired of them setting the agenda of where we are headed. Today's column's may well be the start of a much better tomorrow.
Thanks for adding your thoughts, who knows? We'll see.
Count me in. Democrats don't seem to be interested in assembling a "coalition of the sane", so supporting a decent third party that can say "hey, look at this cache of votes here for the least wackadoo" seems to be as productive as anything else I can do.
Just looking at the title, I though David wrote it. You surprised me. That's not a bad thing.
I'm still reading, but had to take a pause upon reading, "Frightened liberals tend to fight in the “fight or flight” game. They respond to crises with hammers and tongs. The more they think Trump is on rails, the more extreme they’ll become." Seriously, Steve???? It is this kind of partisan ridiculousness that contributes to the ever widening chasm. Frightened Liberals...Really??? I think what you mean 'frightened people.' How you can formulate that thought process, completely forgetting the frightened conservatives during the Obama years, is beyond me. Stop it. Fear creates extremism regardless of which side experiences it.
Politics creates some very distorting lenses. Most people, in stress situations flee but in politics they fight. I wasn’t saying liberals as in my neighbors, I meant it in a political context. Good point though. I should have used better words.
Good point. I was frightened during to Obama years and even more frightened and appalled now.
But did you grab your hammers and tongs? LOL!
Not sure what you mean. It sounds like a blacksmithing reference. I use tongs only for grilling delicious meat. The "LOL" seems to indicate a good natured comment which I really appreciate. But all I do is vote the way I see fit and complain and praise on commentary web sites. I'm not a public protester - just a NE Georgia hillbilly who tries to avoid Atlanta.
LOL means "laugh out loud". The reason they said it was because that's what Steve says liberals do when we think we are going to have to fight. Because were all communists.
Not all. Some are merely socialist. And I said that. I have never seen a comment from Steve to that effect. He is extremely tolerant of all of us ideologues.
I think many, maybe even a majority, of people who vote Republican understand the "conservative worldview" about as much as they understand what it means to be a Christian. If that seems harsh, well good.
I agree that the current Republican party needs to wither off the vine and so does the two party system. Our two parties fail to represent the majority of Americans, most of the time. But both R's and D's have made sure that the two party system holds. It would be nice to have at least 5 strong parties, but the time for those changes has long come and gone. I have a very pessimistic outlook for the future, especially when I see how entrenched the Republican party is in so many states down to the lowest levels of state government. Reading The Powell Memo has certainly put the last 40-50 yrs of Republican politics into perspective.
It's hard to break out of a two party system in a winner-take-all system where the first past the post wins all the spoils. In the absence of a Constitutional amendment opening the door for more parliamentarian representation, your best bet for breaking the two-party duopoly is advocating for more ranked-choice voting where the race isn't just about the two dominant parties, and smaller parties can influence the outcome in a coalition-like format where the votes of a failed party aren't disregarded altogether, but count toward the next best choice remaining.
A Constitutional amendment is a high bar. The next one will be meaningless or revolutionary after either the Socialists or Conservatives have finally won control. Most likely, none of us will see it. The forced ranking system might hinder radical extremists from taking over but it will result in mediocrity. No visionaries or change agents allowed.
That could work given a century or two of grooming candidates. I could support it given candidates I generally agree with. Anything that leads to more of the current administration and congressional control is a non-starter for me. And, I do not vote just to keep someone out of office. I vote because I am more in favor of one candidate's policies. I would be nice if my candidates were intellectually honest and personable. Unfortunately, very few candidates on either side are.
I get wanting a third party, what I don't get is why you would want a party that at best 25 percent of the public would vote for. Barely 25% of this country considers themselves conservative. Why wouldn't you try and create something that could grow into a real contender?
That is an excellent question. It will take a full length post to answer but let’s start with this: “conservative” in its conception is not a fringe worldview. Look at the huge pushback Democrats get when they take their bubble groupthink policies to the public. Even solid Democrats (look at Virginia) can’t stomach it. A true Conservative party won’t be unpopular.
I guess I would need a definition of a "true Conservative party". Because the public has soundly rejected conservative social positions save maybe trans rights. Do you really think Texas' abortion law would fly in any purple state? As to the public rejecting the more socialist parts of the democrat platform I don't see how that is an indication that people want conservative government. If anything the last 20 years has shown its that Americans like the government spending money. You could probably convince people that we need to stop debt spending but no party is ever going to get off the ground by purely reducing government. The US population has no desire for that.
I think the idea isn't to run candidates, but like New York's Conservative Party, to demonstrate that there are X voters that will pick either the GOP or the Democrats based on which ones are being the least psychotic. The idea is to tell the GOP that as long as it courts Trumpism and other anti-conservative ideals, those voters will go Democratic, which in our close elections will flip the election against them. (As WI's Ron Johnson stated so eloquently recently[1].)
The party leadership has to decide then whether to continue placating the #MAGA folks at the cost of losing the votes of the new party or moderate their #MAGAism sufficiently for the third-party folks to come home. This becomes a clearer decision to make if we can say that there are a specific number of folks who will vote accordingly, instead of leaving that number nebulous, which is what happens if the anti-Trumpers just join the Democratic party.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/08/31/gop-sen-ron-johnson-concedes-trump-lost-his-state-51000-republican-voters-didnt-vote-for-him/
If this were actually the case then aren't you creating the party to punish Trump voters? Because Steve said that isn't why he wants a third party. He also stated he doesn't believe the GOP is worth saving at all. Any legitimate and worthwhile venture into a third party, to me anyway, can't disregard half the population. Nobody who votes left is ever going to consider a conservative party. At least not the way I envision it. So if that's the case then all you are doing is splitting the right side of the country and that has to be a democrats wet dream.
If the layers of your decision-making is primarily left vs. right, with "will respect results of a democratic election" vs. "will not respect the results of a democratic election" as a secondary concern, then you're 100% correct, and you wouldn't be contributing to increasing the vote share of the right versus the left.
However, if your decision-making is primarily "will respect results of a democratic election" vs. "will not respect the results of a democratic election", with left vs. right being the secondary concern, then this approach does contribute something by penalizing the "will not respect" folks until that position becomes untenable to hold, "will respect" resumes its role as something both sides subscribe to, and we can get back to maximizing the Right's share at the Left's expense.
There's nothing that inherently links Election Trutherism to Conservatism, so there's not any reason that the GOP needs to continue to running with it. It's basically taking the idea that there's enough people to swing an election who have turned "won't support a candidate who wouldn't turn down a good coup" into single-issue voters that candidates are incentivized to support, and disregard at their peril.
Also, this isn't anything that punishes Trump voters - it's designed to punish candidates that refuse to buck Trump and discard his discredited election conspiracies.
What a fascinating morning for an old Humphrey democrat. Three emails in my box this morning; Charlie Sykes, Erick Erickson and now yours Steve. I don't always read them all; i pick and choose which ones appeal to me. In this case, all three did.
Obviously the reason for each of the introspective looks was due to Goldberg's suggestion to create a new third party. Apparently a variety of writers beyond those i follow have all been looking in the mirror and sorting out the reflection.
Hell, we all do that. Just those who have any kind of a following create a stir when they have to sift the through the realities of where we are. Any sane minded human being has to admit, we just aren't in a very good place right now.
Doesn't matter, right, left or independent we are precariously perched on the edge of a cliff and there is no one suggesting we try and move away from it. In fact, those fringe players of both parties keep pushing us to follow their lead and jump off...and should we, it will all get better.
Pure and utter nonsense. The far right and the far left represent such a small minority, the idea anyone should listen to them is ludicrous. We all know those shouting the loudest are the ones most often heard, but when you listen closely, what they are saying seldom makes any sense.
I struggle to believe we will come out of this malaise any time soon; except when i see columns like i opened this morning. My hope is smarter people than me will rally the masses and create the "let's get shit done party." Okay, maybe that isn't the right moniker, but i suspect you all get my point.
We've allowed the crazies to become the defining points in our country. It's a place where only a small majority exist and frankly those of us in middle should be tired of them setting the agenda of where we are headed. Today's column's may well be the start of a much better tomorrow.
Thanks for adding your thoughts, who knows? We'll see.
Count me in. Democrats don't seem to be interested in assembling a "coalition of the sane", so supporting a decent third party that can say "hey, look at this cache of votes here for the least wackadoo" seems to be as productive as anything else I can do.