AHC-Make Constitution Party a major US Party

Abhakhazia

Banned
So, you challenge is to make the Constitution Party a US Political Party that gets electoral votes in the Presidential Race, and seats in the house and senate. How would this be possible.
 

AStanley

Banned
Maybe if Giuliani won the Republican Nomination, they become a Social Conservative Third Party that courts Republicans unhappy with Giuliani's nomination?

If they get someone high-profile to run (Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee etc.) They could win several southern states, which would lay the foundations for becoming a regional party.
 
Have John McCain and George Bush get into a major slugging match reminiscent of 2008, except have it go all the way to the convention, and provide plenty of bad blood between the Party's Moderates and Conservatives. John McCain then wins the nomination on the second ballot by the narrowest of margins. Despite calls for him to pick a Conservative as his runningmate, have him pick someone like Tom Ridge or Christine Todd Whitman. Likely more than a few delegates will storm out at such a prospect following these events.

Have Patrick Buchanan run under the Taxpayer's Party banner in 2000 rather than that of the Reform Party. Robert Smith might be a slightly unlikely prospect but one could suppose he would accept the nod to be Buchanan's runningmate in the election.

Not sure how well they would do though.
 
Depends on what exactly you mean by major party and what PODs you're OK with.

By some accounts, it already is, along with the Greens and LP, the only parties aside from the Dems and GOP to break the 100K voters level.

If, and that's a big if, you can get the merger between the various far right parties under the CP banner that's been discussed in recent years, it might maybe break the 1% mark.

If you're willing to play around some, you could rename the GOP or DP the Constitution Party, or have some POD resulting in the rise of a mainstream party by that name. But if you want the current incarnation of the CP to replace the GOP under the current electoral system, then I'd say that's borderline ASB. Even with the hard shift to the right by both the GOP and DP, the CP's policies are just too far outside the mainstream of US politics.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
So, you challenge is to make the Constitution Party a US Political Party that gets electoral votes in the Presidential Race, and seats in the house and senate. How would this be possible.
A possible point of departure would be to have Ron Paul run Third Party in 2008.

He was already assured the Libertarian Party slot had he chosen to go that route.

The Constitution Party Candidate, Chuck Baldwin, had stated that he was only in the race because Ron Paul wouldn't accept the Constitution Party slot.

Entirely possible that the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party at least temporarily merge into another organisation --For the purpose of discussion, let's call it "The Liberty Alliance"-- and are joined by Libertarian-minded Republicans who are disgusted with the direction of the Republican Party.

Then the Constitution party Socio-cons take control of the leadership.

Of course, while it has a heavy religious emphasis, the Constitution party OTL is NOT monolithic. It is usually composed of Evangelical Protestants, but in my home state, it is largely a party of Conservative Roman Catholics.
 
You would need a later POD that would have a more modern conservative America. Probably need to continue union busting and strike crushing from the Gilded Age into more modern times and maybe disenfranchisement of more poor people. Need to butterfly away or crush the progressive and populist movement. Maybe a conservative co-opting of bimetallism.
 
Entirely possible that the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party at least temporarily merge into another organisation --For the purpose of discussion, let's call it "The Liberty Alliance"-- and are joined by Libertarian-minded Republicans who are disgusted with the direction of the Republican Party.

Then the Constitution party Socio-cons take control of the leadership.

Of course, while it has a heavy religious emphasis, the Constitution party OTL is NOT monolithic. It is usually composed of Evangelical Protestants, but in my home state, it is largely a party of Conservative Roman Catholics.
If the libertarians and constitution party were to merge it would fall appart immediately the progressive libertarians wouldn't be too fond of the religious aspects of the constitution party and the more religious in the constitution party would not be too hot on the seperation of church and state that is so importaint to many libertarians.

Now if you have a POD that allows for electoral fusion you could have Paul accept both nominations and do quite well.
 
How about an earlier start? Have Nelson Rockefeller run as a centrist/liberal Republican in 1968, losing to Humphrey. The Republicans never run with the "Southern Strategy" and a coalition of former Goldwater Republicans and paleocons and libertarians outside both the centrist Republican Party and an increasingly liberal Democratic Party eventually form a third party, which becomes more or less the modern Constitution Party. Much of what IOTL is the "Reagan Revolution" is diverted into this stream and the Constitution Party is a major contender for office, particularly in the South.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
If the libertarians and constitution party were to merge it would fall appart immediately the progressive libertarians wouldn't be too fond of the religious aspects of the constitution party and the more religious in the constitution party would not be too hot on the seperation of church and state that is so importaint to many libertarians.

Now if you have a POD that allows for electoral fusion you could have Paul accept both nominations and do quite well.
Already recent precedent for such an event in the formation of the TEA parties --plural, it's important.

The Organisation was originally a limited government-fiscal conservative group that really didn't place much emphasis on social issues and aside from it's stated objectives, was a very 'big tent' organisation. So far they've managed to resist being formally absorbed into a political party, or becoming a third party. --Conceding of course that due to their fiscal conservative goals, they will tend to lean toward Republicans.

As time went on, the Socio-Cons took control after their success in the 2010 elections OTL. Still, that they were effective is beyond dispute. Whether they continue to be effective in this election cycle, stay tuned.

BTW, i strongly disagree with your assertion concerning the Separation of Church and State. The Baptist religious tradition is paranoid beyond belief about state interference in religion. Even Pat Robertson was so indoctrinated into Separation of Church and State that he resigned his ministerial credentials with the Southern Baptist Convention before he announced as a Candidate for the Republican Nomination back in 1988.

Chuck Baldwin did not to my knowledge do so when he was the Constitution Party Candidate in 2008, but religion was not an issue in that election.

Like it or not, Separation of Church and State is heavily ingrained into the American Religious experience, Liberal, Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Catholic, and even Mormon. i can't really see that being an issue. None of the groups mentioned would want to break that separation for fear of domination by one of the other groups. Hell, even Margaret Atwood knew this when she wrote The Handmaid's Tale --Note her references to Southern Baptist Guerillas attacking government outposts.

Frankly the argument reads like some of the criticism of the Kennedy campaign in 1960.
 
This year the Libertarians have Gary Johnson and the Greens have Roseanne. Frankly, the 2012 Constitution Party's nominee isn't Goode enough for name recognition. Alan Keyes aside, who else could be a more high-profile candidate for the CP?
 
Pnyckqx, I suggest you look up the CP's platform. It is very explicit in stating that it's goal is the mixing of state and religion.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
Pnyckqx, I suggest you look up the CP's platform. It is very explicit in stating that it's goal is the mixing of state and religion.
Constitution Party Platform:
Religious Freedom
Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.​
We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised.
We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted.
We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds.
Source.

There is nothing in that statement that calls for a theocratic rule of any group or any sort.

What individuals chose to do, they do.

DISCLAIMER: i am NOT a member of the Constitution Party or in agreement with the totality of their platform.

Again, i don't think that this would be the issue of contention between Libertarians and Constitutionalist.

Rather, the main area of concern would be the justifications that the Constitution Party uses for many of it's points. They're appealing to the harm to society of many of the things they oppose.

That's the same reasoning that banned certain food products in different areas of the country.:rolleyes:

Of course moral arguments have recently shown up in present OTL campaigns. Perhaps you've heard the expression of how "it is immoral for government to inflate the currency"?
 
Source.

There is nothing in that statement that calls for a theocratic rule of any group or any sort.

What individuals chose to do, they do.

DISCLAIMER: i am NOT a member of the Constitution Party or in agreement with the totality of their platform.

Again, i don't think that this would be the issue of contention between Libertarians and Constitutionalist.

Rather, the main area of concern would be the justifications that the Constitution Party uses for many of it's points. They're appealing to the harm to society of many of the things they oppose.

That's the same reasoning that banned certain food products in different areas of the country.:rolleyes:

Of course moral arguments have recently shown up in present OTL campaigns. Perhaps you've heard the expression of how "it is immoral for government to inflate the currency"?

From your source, in the Preamble: "the goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to it's biblical foundations".
 

pnyckqx

Banned
From your source, in the Preamble: "the goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to it's biblical foundations".
That's no more incriminating than the Declaration of Independence.

Hate to break it to you, but the Founders did borrow heavily from religious traditions for even mundane matters such as the form of our Representative bodies (The Presbyterian Church form of government). Not necessarily to establish one group over another, but because they knew a good idea when they saw it, and were prone to borrow it no matter it's source.

Recognising this is not a call for a theocracy...unless one would consider such things as

DO NOT STEAL
DO NOT COMMIT MURDER
DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS
DO NOT COVET....definition required: "
to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably.

as the beginning of a theocratic society.

Now if the Constitution Party was calling for the Execution of adulters, the banning of contraception, and forced 'treatment' of homosexuals, i'd worry....actually no i wouldn't worry...they'd be too far away from the sensibilities of the American People so as to be a joke, and have about the same following that the Prohibition Party enjoys today (Minus their inordinate influence in groups such as MADD).

ALL OF THIS MISSES THE POINT:

Namely, the TEA Party movement(s) have demonstrated that groups of diverse backgrounds can work together for a series of simple goals without respect to their views on social issues.

It simply takes a single candidate for the diverse groups to galvanise around.

Without commenting on the man good or bad, Ron Paul could have easily taken that position in 2008 had he chosen to accept third party nominations.

As another poster has noted, election laws would require the foundation of an umbrella organisation --as i proposed above in this exercise-- to get around the prohibition of diverse parties offering the same candidate. Such an organisation is the Sine Qua Non of this exercise.

It doesn't necessarily follow that --for the purpose of our discussion-- the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party give up their individual identities. The Constitution Party could easily come to dominate such an umbrella organisation, as it's views are more palatable to the general electorate than are many of those of the Libertarian Party.:(




It simply requires that they endorse the candidate of the umbrella organisation.

Now in my home state, the Constitution Party is at times very strong. In the 1994 gubernatorial election, the Constitution Party candidate took 13% --almost half a million votes-- against a popular Republican candidate, and again in 1998 over 10% against the same Republican Governor running for reelection...a governor who was once thought of to replace Dick Cheney as Bush43's running mate in 2004.

i haven't linked the above, because i'd prefer not to give away any information about myself on the forum. i can PM the details to you if you wish, but you should be able to figure out who that candidate was from the information i gave you.

Speaking as a Libertarian who has been a party member before many if not most of the people on this board were born --i actually had the opportunity to vote for Dr. Paul in the Party Nominating Convention and the general election in 1988-- the Constitution Party does not frighten us. Their fiscal views are fairly compatible with Libertarianism, and for the great majourity of the Party, those are the central issues. Without economic freedom, everything else is moot to the majourity of us.
 
I think one way to go with this might be to have Buchanan move to the Constitution Party for the 2000 election instead of trying to take over the Reform Party. Perhaps things are helped along from there if McCain rather than Bush is the GOP nominee and victor in the 2000 election?
 
Actually that's a great idea. Buchanan's paleocon leanings would be a no-brainer for the Constitution Party.

Imagine if he ran this year. Gary Johnson vs. Roseanne vs. Buchanan. All three major American third parties have a big celebrity slugfest.
 
Top