Connect with us

Federalists

Third parties done wrong, and done right

Published

on

I wanted to talk about JD Rucker’s interview with Steve Deace, but I really felt compelled to tell you about why we are stuck with the Republicans and Democrats and why we can’t replace either of them. That in part is because of Duverger’s Law, and how that infected modern American politics.

Two-party power politics has led to creeping socialism

http://noqreport.com/2017/09/30/two-party-power-politics-led-creeping-socialism/Believe it or not, a lot of creeping socialism has been accepted by many Americans whether they know it or not. Some of the biggest ideals that have slowly crept into the political world are indeed out of situational ethics. The biggest one is that of “voting for the lesser of two evils,” and out of that a philosophical law espoused regarding how a two-party political system anywhere on the planet forces weaker factions to join stronger factions in order to win power in elected office…but it also disallows the good candidates (based mostly on character) not to run for office and get behind a candidate is that most likely to win (regardless of the candidate is of character or morally corrupt).

Background

In Steve Deace’s interview with JD Rucker, Rucker admits that he had a successful business and that he could have just focused on that, and try to be a good provider for his family. However, as a citizen of America he decided that he needed to be the one to truly step up and look for a new way to break the current two-party system; and how they keep certain players in place in spite of the primary system.

I disagree with the ideal Steve Deace presents that the current established third parties are fragile. The problem with them is that these political parties are nothing but a protest, throwaway, wasted, “all of the above” vote. Have these parties actually tried to run at the local levels, regional levels, county levels, and state levels? Not nearly as much as they should.

I am a fan of KOA NewsRadio’s Mandy Connell out of Denver, Colorado. One thing she said about third parties when I called in to her show is that they need to start locally and build from there. Rucker is doing what Mandy Connell told me is what a third party needs to do.

Analysis

Start with city governments, school boards, country governments (including the local sheriff), college/university regents etc. Get grass roots people truly involved in the hands of pulling the levers in government at the local level. With that momentum, then focus on the state level, and after that our federal races.

Only then can the White House be a goal. You’ve heard the saying, “all politics is local.” Starting small forces a focus on what is truly local. Remember that the emotional and historical attachments bred by Duverger’s Law are powerful, and many in the media will remain cultishly loyal to the two-party system. The likes of Hugh Hewitt and KOA NewsRadio’s Mike Rosen fall into this category.

At the same time, allies must be pulled from the crop of media who are open to change. Those kinds of people will forever change their opinions not necessarily based on their honest convictions, but by the whims of certain masses of what a group of people think about things. Mark Levin while an honest constitutional scholar will still work within the whims of Duverger’s Law trying to uncorrupted what was already corrupted, and his history reminds us; that is truly Mission: Impossible. Good luck Mark, but your government will eventually self-destruct. Maybe not in five seconds, but it will eventually. I do, howver, believe that a Convention of States (Article V) must happen.

The Takeaway

I totally agree with Rucker and the fact that the Federalist Party must do whatever humanly possible to stay a grassroots party, and never be influenced by big money, regardless if that is from big labor or major corporations. The big union bosses or the big corporate officers must never become the voice of the Federalists like they did with the Democratic and Republican parties. Otherwise we shall ensure the swamp that we are trying to drain now only gets swampier.

Someone who wants to be a voice for liberty and freedom. Telecom (Radio/TV) Pikes Peak Community College 1993-1998, BS Journalism, minor Political Science, Colorado State University-Pueblo 1999-2004

Continue Reading
Advertisement
5 Comments

5 Comments

  1. Alan Levy

    October 11, 2017 at 11:20 pm

    If Duverger’s Law is that which is highlighted above then it’s nonsense and unnecessary. The Founder’s themselves in a extremely rare moment agreed in unanimity about the dangers presented from a two-party system, and went so far as to provide clear examples of the inevitable outcome, that closely follow our condition today. Socialism is in itself not a driver, but only a tool used by those seeking a methodology for control. It’s a way station to the inevitable further tightening on the reins of power because it is uneconomic, and in the end must rely either on brutal force and or a continual replenishment of a constantly dwindling population. That said, the article, in it’s chastisement of earlier third-party failings, actually returned to the scene of the crime and suggested another try. Einstein warned that the definition of insanity was to keep doing the same over again while expecting a different outcome. “Socialists” commonly explain that their failures were because of not having the opportunity to succeed, instead of the truth, which is that they actually did succeed and it simply doesn’t work. Apparently, there’s too much use of “philosophy” for self-promotion and not enough common sense. Politics are local, but political parties are built around a state. Attempting to conduct politics prior to building a political party is the exact reason our third parties fail. Someone with many decades of experience and an understanding of party operations, from the top to the bottom, would know that. The first goal of a successful political party is not to run candidates, but to gather public participation in the political process. Candidates rarely attract the public and convince them to participate. And, even when that rare occasion occurs, it is insufficient to build an ongoing party. Think on it, the smallest county may have close to 200 elected officials. Winning a handful out of 200 offices doesn’t exactly inspire confidence for changes to come. It’s correct to recognize a need to attract public participation, but the problem with of third parties is that they fail to learn how to offer the public sufficient reason for participation. They fail to offer an exacting path to power. Do that, and the public will come. Vague promises for future electoral successes don’t work. And yet, there is a path. It simply hasn’t been explored. Do as I did, and study what powers are already allocated to the public. Then learn how to exploit them, turn them into something even more useful, and afterwards deploy them in a way that feeds off the two-party system. Do that, offer them power, and the people who already participate within the political process will become your allies.

    • Don McCullen

      October 12, 2017 at 9:08 am

      I think those are fair statements Alan. It is still trying to empower the grassroots, which need to be done.

      • Alan Levy

        October 12, 2017 at 10:56 am

        Even the term grassroots is a misnomer. The public is not grassroots, they are constituents or voters. They are the body politic. Political participation neither begins nor ends at the voter’s booth, except under totalitarian government. The public participates in the political process through membership in a political party. You cannot empower the public without first drawing them into the process, into a political party. On a rare occasion you might convince them to support an individual wild card candidate such as President Trump, but that’s infrequent and one need look no farther back than to President Reagan to see most results are temporary at best. The key is to find and provide “power” directly to the public. If you can do that, the public will return to political participation, which is to say they will return to membership and participation in a political party. And at this point, if you find and can provide something so seemingly illusory as “power,” the public won’t care the name of the party. Once you realize who you’re trying to sell to, and what they want to buy, the rest is only a laborious study into the political and legal processes. After that, you only need apply technology to speed the outcome. But you must realize that the only way to join the ranks of major political parties is by subsuming the body politic already participating, subsuming the party membership itself. And to get away with that takes a whole different set of smarts.

        • Don McCullen

          October 12, 2017 at 11:25 am

          Alan, we can nit pic at this all day. I know the term “Body Poltic” as much as I know the term “Grass Roots.” I think we are on the same side, just think about things differently. I agree you have to do have more that just the voting booth. Much more.

          Right now final decisions being made for the “Body Poltic” who based on the benefits of large corporations and government bureaucrats and workers. I don’t speak for the Federalist Party as the editors and some of the writers of the NOQ Report do, but I can say that they are trying to get power back to the common people who we have termed Grass Roots.

          Yes their are those in the Body Poltic with different viewpoints and their is a division. Those who want more Liberty and Freedom and Limited Government, and those who think that the Government would do better by micromanaging our culture in hopes out of that we will get the best outcome.

          Problem with bigger government is that it usually is set up to benefit a few while many suffer. It was always this way…ever attempt to make equalize everyone through the government has failed.

          • Alan Levy

            October 12, 2017 at 12:18 pm

            What you’ve stated is true but are the usual generalities continually repeated over the last several decades. There’s no benefit to be had by complaining about government. And it provides no solution. I wasn’t arguing, only trying to provide a frame of reference for understanding the problem and recognizing where the solution could be found. I found it after a great deal of study. But having participated within the political and party processes for more than four decades, I had personal experience to call upon. Yes, we need a new party. But it takes more than dedication and resources to succeed. And generalities won’t attract the skills or constituency needed. After having talked with a number of third parties, I’ve yet to find one with the broad knowledge base necessary for success. And they all use the same words and promote the same processes found in the new Federalist Party presentation. My attraction, and willingness to take the time to respond, was only to discover whether there might be some meat on the bones. Something more than the usual grandiose pronouncements. That is to say, actual working solutions. And, although there are a somewhat complex series of steps that can be taken to succeed, I’ve yet to find anyone having already attained sufficient political experience achievement who would want to disrupt the current process. But thanks for the repartee.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Federalists

How does the Federalist Society relieve stress? “But Gorsuch” stress balls, of course.

Published

on

But Gorsuch

Conservatives who aren’t pleased with the actions, direction, and/or rhetoric coming out of the White House often invoke a simple phrase: “But Gorsuch!” It’s intended to remind them that no matter what the current administration does that goes against limited-government principles, at least they can find solace in a Constitution-loving judge being appointed by President Trump to the Supreme Court.

This popular meme made its way to the Federalist Society’s annual convention as the R Street Institute, a free-market think tank, distributed stress balls to attendees. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s image and the famous words of solace were printed on the balls.

No matter how bad it gets, remember that it could have been worse, at least from the bench.

Further Reading

‘But Gorsuch’ stress balls give relief to distraught lawyers at Federalist Society conference

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/but-gorsuch-stress-balls-give-relief-to-distraught-lawyers-at-federalist-society-conference/article/2641092“I adore Gorsuch and he’s a dream judge on so many levels and we don’t do a ton with the judiciary at R Street … [but] we just love doing the silly stuff,” said Shoshana Weissmann, R Street Institute’s digital media specialist who hand-delivered the balls to attendees on Friday.

Weissmann said the R Street Institute made 150 balls, which it started distributing when the Federalist Society’s annual convention began in Washington on Thursday. The think tank had about 50 balls remaining Friday, with attendees coming to get them while Weissmann spoke with a reporter.

Continue Reading

Federalists

The Obamacare Debacle: Why we need a second political party

Published

on

By

Sometimes you simply hope that your predictions will be wrong and that events will miraculously turn out differently; unfortunately, this is not one of those times. Most people with a modicum of common sense anticipated that the Republicans would now take the blame for the troubles of Obamacare, and that has come to pass.  The aphorism ‘You broke it, you bought it’ comes to mind, and while somewhat unfair to the situation, perception is reality in the world of politics.

Tear it down and start over.

While not endeavoring to reign blows upon a deceased equine, this is why the Republican party needed to keep its promise on Obamacare. It’s also the reason why it’s time to sweep away the old and begin anew with a brand new second major political party. That phrase was deliberately used because it has become quite evident that the Republican and Democratic parties have started to merge in far too many ways.

The Obamacare debacle is a prime illustration of this unfortunate merging. O’Sullivan’s First Law explains this to a fair degree since the denizens of a certain party will – over time – want to keep the bureaucratic levers of power with the false idea that they can have it run more efficiently. Besides the simple expedient of term limits, a new party could start anew with a mandate to avoid this political trap.

An illustration from the world of engineering seems more than appropriate in this instance. There are times when a machine or structure has become so riddled with worn out or failed components that it is far better to simply scrap or tear it down and build something from scratch. The aphorism is to start with a clean sheet of paper such that the old assumptions and constructs are swept away in favor of something entirely new and innovative. “We’ve always done it this way” is replaced with questioning skepticism with regard to what works, and what doesn’t.

Existing components that have proven to be of service can be utilized in the new construct but only if they meet certain criteria, not simply because they are carried along with everything else of the old. By the same token, members of the old party can become a vital part of the new but only if they are up to the task.

The final word on the Republican party.

It is more than likely that the people responsible for that bureaucratic mess will use it to good political advantage against those who opposed it in the first place. We should be getting rid of governmental interference in the free market, but instead will see a complete control with national socialist healthcare [i.e., the ‘single payer’ deception].

There is no other choice than to limit the damage now with a new party that will stay true to conservative principles. The results of the alternative are too horrible to contemplate.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Damaged Democrats win big despite party crumbling. What does that say about the GOP?

Published

on

There was a headline earlier today that caught my attention, not because it was surprising but because of the source: CNN. The story’s headline was, “Poll: Views of Democratic Party hit lowest mark in 25 years.”

In case it ever gets changed or deleted, I even took a screenshot:

Views of Democrats CNN

Later the same night, Democrats win Virginia, New Jersey, and New York City. Though the latter two were expected, the Virginia race was supposed to be a toss up. As of the writing of this article, Ralph Northam was up by nearly five points on Ed Gillespie. Fears that the Libertarians may sway the election were negated by Northam getting over 50% of the vote.

How do we reconcile these two opposing ideas? Are the Democrats crumbling? Yes. Did they win big in the only major election day of 2017? Yes.

There was a time not too long ago when I said the only thing going for the Republicans and their alleged “civil war” is that the Democrats are experiencing the same if not worse. I stand by that statement. The Democrats really are cracking up as they seem intent on pushing as far to the left as they’re allowed by their base. This is worrisome because the part of the party that was once considered the fringe is now falling in line with people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are jumping on board. Nearly every emerging movement friendly with the party is pushing for them to move ever closer to communism. They are leaving most of America behind… just like the Republicans.

It’s different for the GOP, though. They’re not losing people because they’re becoming too radical. They’re losing people because they’re becoming too moderate politically while embracing the bombastic style of their leader. These factors combine to give us two major parties that are completely out of touch with what America needs and what their constituents want.

The GOP will play this off as races that were always tilted towards the Democrats and they’d be correct, but this was also supposed to be a continuation of the strides they made a year ago when they broke through to win some tough races. This year, not so much.

America hasn’t been as ready to explore third party alternatives since the 19th century. Between the failed policies of both parties and the rise of Americans realizing they don’t like either major party, it gives me hope that the Federalist Party, which I co-founded, has an opportunity to make an impact in the near future.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.