AHC: turmoil in '70s leads to U.S. libertarian socialist Third Party?

I mean, this party rolls with the whole anti-corporate mood of the times. They take positions skeptical of both big government and big business.

Bonus points if the majority of members vote NOT TO compete in presidential elections for at least a couple of cycles and instead concentrate on Congressional elections.
 
Last edited:

Minty_Fresh

Banned
The Democratic Party's anti-CIA witch hunt phase that coincided with its most virulently anti-corporate rhetoric during the Ford years but pre-Carter might have fit the bill for a small amount of time.

But I am sure that the various Socialist Parties in the US at the time also fit the bill, hating business and (The US) government equally.

I don't see how you are going to get any ideology that wants to abolish social security and privatize roads and the military into power, 70s or not, however. Libertarianism is simply not popular. Its more popular views on social issues and foreign policy issues are outweighed by its desire to push Grandma off of a cliff.
 
The closest the Democratic party ever got to being actually socialist was under FDR, and even you might possibly, just barely call it democratic socialist. And skeptical of government/big business isn't socialism. That's just healthy.
 
In conventional terms, no question. If the country was to "go socialist," it would have been in the 1930s.

I have in mind something different.
 
The Democratic Party's anti-CIA witch hunt phase that coincided with its most virulently anti-corporate rhetoric during the Ford years but pre-Carter might have fit the bill for a small amount of time.

But I am sure that the various Socialist Parties in the US at the time also fit the bill, hating business and (The US) government equally.

I don't see how you are going to get any ideology that wants to abolish social security and privatize roads and the military into power, 70s or not, however. Libertarianism is simply not popular. Its more popular views on social issues and foreign policy issues are outweighed by its desire to push Grandma off of a cliff.
You are aware what "Libertarian Socialist" means, right? Not rhetorical, I'm just making sure I didn't make an error in reading your post.
 
in the 1970s . . .

strip mining is such a glaringly stupid, irresponsible way to mine coal, and the companies don't give a damn, and our elected representatives seem feckless to do anything about it. Easily a good handful of other environmental issues, where the regulation is pro forma and designed to make us feel better. And environmentalism was a big issue in the '70s.

the feeling that nothing works, that government tries to discourage smoking at the same time it give subsidies to tobacco.

the feeling that government is in bed with corporations,

that personal income tax is a hell of a lot more complicated than it needs to be.

etc.
 
okay, in 1974 the Libertarian Socialists win 2 seats in the U.S. House,

in '76, they win 12 seats.

They also have some victories in state legislative houses.

And I want some unexpected areas, especially the South.
 
How about Charlton Heston running as one of their candidates. IIRC, he was originally a liberal Democrat but was pro-NRA, and had some libertarian leanings (again, iirc).
 
I think in the '70s the NRA was considerably more middle-of-the-road. For example, they may have had no problem with the idea that gun show dealers should follow the same rules as everyone else ? ?

In any case, the timeline I'd prefer for the above Lib Soc Party is that it's not all theory and all first principle. But instead, embraces very healthy interplay between theory and practice.
 
Last edited:
The Democratic Party's anti-CIA witch hunt phase that coincided with its most virulently anti-corporate rhetoric during the Ford years . . .
I think it came across this way.

Because at the end of the day most Americans are in favor of spying. And we certainly don't want to discard this Ace when the Soviets are still playing this Ace.

The Church Committee should have pursued the issue of propping up dictatorships. This one has a lot less popular appeal. (as well as the lesser-known Pike Committee in the House)
 
So, from the surges between '74 and '76, the Libertarian Socialist Party rather plateaus in '78, but then comes 1979.

the three high tech failures between mid-Spring and mid-Summer '79 (can you name them? one arguably regular tech)

the energy crisis from Spring into Summer, the sneaky suspicion on the part of many Americans that oil companies were taking advantage of a bad situation, but people leaning toward different solutions,

President Carter's "Crisis of Confidence" speech on Sunday night July 15, 1979, initially well-received, but then two days later he fired half his cabinet.

Sounds like a ripe time for a new party to energetically engage the public in looking for new solutions.

======

The members of the Lib Socials vote 60% NOT TO field a presidential candidate in 1980. Instead they make big gains in Congress.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I don't see the Democrats or Republicans sitting idly by, letting any party with "Socialist" in its name be seen as anything other than a tool of Moscow. And after 1971 they would also have the "co-opting" Libertarians to deal with. Libertarians who want to starve poor children, revive the gold standard and allow people to opt out of Social Security. And the 12 Libertarian Socialists in the House of 1976 wouldn't dent the Democratic Majority: 280 Dems, 143 Rep and 12 LS (Assuming they won all Previously Democratic Party seats). And the 1980 gains in Congress come in an election where 3rd parties didn't play a big role- with the Hostage Crisis (and continued presence of the Co-Opting Libertarians with their non interventionist foreign policy).
*I'm skeptical because even in 2016 there was little distinction between between a socialist and "communists". This would only be more intense in the late 1970 and early 80s.)
 
because they hit it right. Because it sure looks like the Lib Soc(h)s are pushing ideas of taking on Exxon, Shell, and all the rest where the remedy isn't worse than the disease.

Perhaps they use talk radio in the early days. They engage the public in a real conversation where at least "we're trying to ask the rights questions."

And for a POD, maybe FCC regulations are slightly different so that low-wattage community radio is actually possible rather than just theoretically possible and/or the Lib Soc(h)s have good lawyers!
 
And the 12 Libertarian Socialists in the House of 1976 wouldn't dent the Democratic Majority: 280 Dems, 143 Rep and 12 LS (Assuming they won all Previously Democratic Party seats).
Apparently, hitting the middle is easier than it looks.

There's a political science study where Nader voters in Florida in 2000 were at least 40% Republican voters. Yes, would have voted for Bush. That's what they found. And they did this by looking at downticket voting.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf

I agree the name's a problem! Embrace it. Use it as a conversational lead-in.
 
Last edited:
Top