More thoughts on third parties (I'm a masochist)
Aside from the Establishment (Red and Blue), we currently have two meaningful (>1% support) parties in the US: Green and Gold. Their positions vis-à-vis the Establishment imply very different paths to success.
Let’s start with Gold, the party of laissez-faire. The pitch here is that social freedom should appeal to liberals and economic freedom should appeal to conservatives. So here’s the strategy:
- Recruit 34% of the Blue team on the social stuff.
- Recruit 34% of the Red team on the economic stuff.
- Gold team wins!
Of course it doesn’t happen in practice because most liberals see a difference between social freedom and social justice, and most conservatives prefer not to have to stop at a tollbooth every time they drive through an intersection.* But at least there’s a degree of internal logic.
Now for Green. Per their website: “Committed to environmentalism, non-violence, social justice and grassroots organizing, Greens are renewing democracy without the support of corporate donors.” What’s not to like? So that means:
- Recruit a vast chunk of the Blue team on a one-two combination of social stuff and environmental awareness.
- ???
- Red team wins!
I feel bad bagging on these people because their message is good and deserves attention. But structurally, this makes no sense as a third party. The only possible path to victory is to get essentially all of the Blue team on board. That’s the opposite of a third party. That’s just straight-up replacing one of the existing Big Two. Not going to happen by dicking around on the sidelines and undermining the folks you’re trying to recruit.
* Apologies to Gary Johnson, who by all accounts is a decent guy with a successful track record of actual governance. But he didn’t win the Gold nomination on the first round like Mr. Trump did and Secretary Clinton will, because the LP is a shitshow. The question of whether building roads is a legitimate function of government is still not settled on the Gold team. What can I say?