Is creating a party for the middle 80% a good idea, as Elon suggested?

[Lycanthrope]

What accommodates the middle 80%?

There's the rub.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Would a third party be able to overcome a coordinated effort by the DNC and GOP to undermine it? They ain't willing to share power.

 

[Dans La Lune]

???

???

I’d disagree. I’d make the case that the Democratic Party is a corporatist political entity supporting corporate special interests. Which makes it quite similar to the Republican Party. Just some of the corporate special interests vary.

What do you think corporatist / special interest politics are in America? That's the moderate centrist route. Third Way.

I’d state we actually are much closer to one political party than three. The Demopublican Corporatist Party (Repubdemocratic Corporatist Party, if you prefer).

The best analogy I've seen made is that the Democrats serve as the Washington Generals. Republicans serve the same interests as Dems. Dems feign resistance and allow Republicans to dunk on them repeatedly. It's political theatre.

Washington Generals - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's the moderate centrist 'Third Way'.

It's disgusting. Progressives basically caucus with Neoliberals under the banner of the Democratic Party because here's only two vehicles to achieve an agenda. The other party (Republicans) have moved far to the right, whereas Dems have moved to the right (of center) to keep pace with them.

 

[Chomsky]

Musk would commit as much as tens of billions to make sure HIS choice wins, don't fool yourself with altruistic assumptions about Elon Musk, or ANYONE who is the richest man on Earth saddled with severe psychological issues. You have got to be kidding me.

And you seriously think that's his gambit?
Uh uhhh, not with half a trillion at his command, get real.

You believe based upon money alone, Musk will beat the two established parties?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You believe based upon money alone, Musk will beat the two established parties?

This is approximately what I believe.



All we need is a Gambini.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

There is no "middle 80%."

That's just not how any of this works.

 

[Chomsky]

Ah cool.

Elon Musk, the AfD supporting, love giving in a nazi way, white genocide is upon us, guy, is now the leader of the both sides, middle of the road people.

We are entering the far right delusional stage. @Chomsky 's out here shaving imaginary percentage points and that's me being polite.

Given historical record, with examples like Jill Stein in 2016, and Ralph Nader in 2000, you need to provide more substantive analysis than mere assertions of "shaving imaginary points." History shows those points to be real, and to be determinate, indeed causing two recent Dem losses (2000, 2016).

 

[JoeyJoystick]

Well I will agree you were not stumping FOR "Elon's Third Party" but by attaching "as Elon suggested" to your opener it's not hard to imagine people assuming you might be.
The cray cray thing about it is, Elon could stump for a cancer cure and there's no doubt he would do it only if he could require that cure come with an added "requirement" nobody wants.
If he was guaranteeing world peace it would turn out to be the "Whirled Peas" joke only the joke is on us. Pax Elonus would turn out to be slavery.
Everything is peaceful now that we're all in chains, everyone except Elon, of course.

But I get it, I believe you when you say it was just running with his suggestion and not an endorsement of Elon.
It's become quite radioactive...that whole Prince Elon thing.

No argument there. I should have made it clearer in the first post.


Joey

 

[Chomsky]

Musk would commit as much as tens of billions to make sure HIS choice wins, don't fool yourself with altruistic assumptions about Elon Musk, or ANYONE who is the richest man on Earth saddled with severe psychological issues. You have got to be kidding me.

There's no altruism involved. Just basic political theory.

Musk would draw primarily from the Right. He would be a spoiler. No different than Ralph Nader in 2000, and Jill Stein in 2016.

Both aforementioned spoilers were determinate, throwing the election to the GOP.

History (& political theory) is on my side, my friend.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

No argument there. I should have made it clearer in the first post.


Joey

This stuff is hard.
It happens to the best of us BECAUSE this shit is tough to work with.
I can't even count the number of times the fate of this country and most other free and democratic republics have hung by a slender thread.

We're being tested like other countries have been tested only for us it's been at least a century and a half since the last time it got this bad.
The biggest problem is that "the phone calls are coming from inside the house" and too many of us don't realize it yet.
But they're about to.

 

[Chomsky]

Wake up people, Elon Musk proposing a new political party is the ultimate Trojan Horse.
Come on, use your brains, people.

How is Musk a "Trojan Horse", if he will split the vote of the Republican Party? This is a good thing.

 

[Chomsky]

Creating the party isn't the issue. There are already several political parties in the US, including more centralist ones. The issue that would need to be addressed is the fundamental political system in the US that is intentionally designed to prevent any third parties from making any significant impact on the power of the big two.

I wouldn't say the system was "intentionally designed" to that affect. Yes, the two parties do what they can to meet that goal. However, two dominate parties are the natural fall-out from our type of government and electoral process.

This is fairly accepted political science.

The alternative, might be trying something like a Parliamentarian system of governance. That results in a larger number of parties having their voices heard. Canada and Britain are two peer country examples.

Check it out -

Here:

Duverger's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

How is Musk a "Trojan Horse", if he will split the vote of the Republican Party? This is a good thing.

I'm too cynical to believe that is his intent.
If anything like that happens it would be an accident.
Have you ever heard the term "honey trap"?

You're on your social media and you get offered a free game or a free piece of software, but hidden in the EULA is your agreement (because you checked the box) that gives them the right to install a root kit on your OS kernel.

Come on Chom, do you still honestly believe that Elon and the rest of these clowns are altruistic?
That's like asking the Crips to come help your neighborhood because the Bloods* have been terrorizing people.

*or should I have said: Gangster Disciples, Black Disciples, and Vice Lords? (Chicago)

I refuse to believe that one cartel killing off the other cartel helps the people in any way whatsoever.
To actually believe they would is way too naive for someone as intelligent as you are, sir.

 

[Chomsky]

Elon Musk and others who propose this kind of solution tend to view politics as an optimization problem rather than a democratic process. But democracy is not about maximizing consensus. It’s about creating space for disagreement and representation.

A party that claims to represent the “middle 80%” of the population may, at first glance, seem like a unifying and reasonable idea, especially in a politically polarized climate, like in the US. But it is both unrealistic and undemocratic. Democracies need a functioning opposition, not consensus on every issue. People hold different positions on different topics (one person might be socially liberal but economically conservative). Trying to package all of that into a single party either leads to watered-down policies or internal contradictions. is also no way for the voters to know what policies that will be presude ones this party takes power.

A “super-party” that claims to represent the broad majority also tends to marginalize opposition and make accountability harder. Creating a party for the “80%” implies that the remaining 20% , whether radical, ideological, marginalized, or simply critical, should be excluded from political discourse. This is fundamentally an anti-pluralist mindset.

Society contains inherent conflicts of interest; between workers and employers, between urban and rural populations, between different views of freedom, justice, and tradition. The role of politics is to manage these tensions, not erase them in an “everyone-agrees” party.

Awesome post, Juks.

And unfortunately in single-winner elections, with single-choice vote casting, we run up against Duverger's Law.

I've actually gotten to the point I think I'd prefer we had a Parliamentary form. It's much more inclusive.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

???



What do you think corporatist / special interest politics are in America? That's the moderate centrist route. Third Way.



The best analogy I've seen made is that the Democrats serve as the Washington Generals. Republicans serve the same interests as Dems. Dems feign resistance and allow Republicans to dunk on them repeatedly. It's political theatre.

Washington Generals - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's the moderate centrist 'Third Way'.

It's disgusting. Progressives basically caucus with Neoliberals under the banner of the Democratic Party because here's only two vehicles to achieve an agenda. The other party (Republicans) have moved far to the right, whereas Dems have moved to the right (of center) to keep pace with them.

My point is it’s all supporting those who pay the bill that keeps elected federal asses in Congressional seats.

That ain’t us.

 

[Chomsky]

Ooo, a new political party. We haven't tried that one before! /s

How about ranked choice voting. There is ZERO reason we shouldn't have ranked choice voting.

Agreed!

But, it's easier to form a party than change the Constitution. Which is why we have a plethora of non-completive parties of small stature who's only effect is occasional vote spoiling, never rising to Office themselves.

 

[Chomsky]

They've been pitching Dems as the Third Way since the 1990s.The notion that Dems don't already occupy the Moderate Center shows that the Moderate Center is an illusion that "Libs" chase to the to the right.

No need to "pitch" They were Third Way. The Clinton's were 100% Third Way!

 

[Hatuey]

Given historical record, with examples like Jill Stein in 2016, and Ralph Nader in 2000, you need to provide more substantive analysis than mere assertions of "shaving imaginary points." History shows those points to be real, and to be determinate, indeed causing two recent Dem losses (2000, 2016).

We don't need any more middle of Russian road assets being presented as alternatives to a problem that isn't there. Democrats have won 3 of the last 5 recent elections. Why are their most recent losses the only ones you take into consideration in your rush to prop up right wing puppets?

 

[Chomsky]

There is no law against creating third parties, however the reality is that there will always be two dominant parties. One will be perceiving as representing the right of center and one the left of center. There is no 80% middle The so-called middle in reality does not give a shit and largely does not vote. If one dominant party goes off the deep end, that party good go the way of the Whig party and an alternative could step end, however I don't that will occur any time soon.

Bingo!

Because Duverger's.

Unless we do Ranked Choice Voting. Or, go Parliamentarian.

Here:

Duverger's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Chomsky]

I've love a strong 3rd party

I can never vote Democrat
I'm about done voting Republican

You'd probably be happiest with a "MAGA Party".

But then, you've kinda' already got that now.

 

[Chomsky]

The notion that either of the existing two major parties could be “the third way” in a two party system alludes me.

"Third Way" (note the capitalization) refers to a political ideology, not necessarily a "third" party.

For example: Bill Clinton was Third Way, and a strong proponent of the ideology.

Here:

Third Way - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Chomsky]

It shouldn't elude you, since that's been the foundation of the Democratic party for over three decades.

Third Way - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bingo! Making the Clintonian Dems virtually Center-Right by European standards.

 

[Chomsky]

I'm too cynical to believe that is his intent.

If anything like that happens it would be an accident.
Have you ever heard the term "honey trap"?

You're on your social media and you get offered a free game or a free piece of software, but hidden in the EULA is your agreement (because you checked the box) that gives them the right to install a root kit on your OS kernel.

Come on Chom, do you still honestly believe that Elon and the rest of these clowns are altruistic?
That's like asking the Crips to come help your neighborhood because the Bloods* have been terrorizing people.

*or should I have said: Gangster Disciples, Black Disciples, and Vice Lords? (Chicago)

I refuse to believe that one cartel killing off the other cartel helps the people in any way whatsoever.
To actually believe they would is way too naive for someone as intelligent as you are, sir.

Musk's intent has nothing to do with it. It matters not.

He will split the vote. Just as Nader & Stein did to the Dems, to allow G.W. and Trump (1st term) in. That's the salient point. Nothing else matters.

You may be over-thinking this.

 

[Chomsky]

We don't need any more middle of Russian road assets being presented as alternatives to a problem that isn't there. Democrats have won 3 of the last 5 recent elections.

Why are their most recent losses the only ones you take into consideration in your rush to prop up right wing puppets?

Because this is the current state of the electorate.

MAGA has been underestimated from day one. Do not underestimate its appeal, nor how many of your friends & neighbors, maybe even family members, vote for it.

Who cares what Musk wants? Or, what his motives are? That he will assist in taking the next election away from MAGA (advertently or inadvertently) is good enough.

 

[Dans La Lune]

No need to "pitch" They were Third Way. The Clinton's were 100% Third Way!

Yep. And that brand of politics permeates the modern Democratic Party. Obama was the successor to the Clintons, and Biden the bookend. It's basically a repackaged version of Blue Dog Reaganomics, Hawkish foreign policy, and lip service to social justice / inequality.

It's not that Dems have gone too far left, it's that the BASE is overwhelmingly progressive. Dems have lost their base BECAUSE of their moderation. On some issues Dems are dragged kicking and screaming towards progress, other times they hold firm on unpopular issues (see Ro Khanna's ideas on rehabbing Elon Musk).