Greens in '70s, Reform Party in '90s, space in U.S. politics for some Congressional victories?

Maybe in the 1970s, the Green Party could take anti-corporate sentiment and put it into some middle-of-the-road policy proposals.

In 1990s, I take it there was the Jesse Ventura wing of the Reform Party which advocated a socially liberal and fiscally conservative package of proposals.

And after Perot, let's say the emphasis was on contesting for House and Senate seats.
 
The problem with 3rd parties in the US system is the power of the Presidency, and the 'winner-take-all' apportionment of Electors from the various states.
This pretty much guarantees that the US settles on a 2 party system. Sure, you can have a third party arise, but it either takes over one of the two slots, or disappears.

If you want a 'Green Party', say, yes you could theoretically win a couple of Congressional seats, perhaps, but they'd pretty much have to caucus with the Democrats and they couldn't afford to run their own candidate for president - so what's the point.

Basically, a third party splits votes from whichever side it's on, leading to the other side's victory.

FPTP is part of the problem, of course, but Parliamentary systems like Britain and Canada have thriving (or a value of 'thrive') third parties.
 
Yes, a handful of Green Party seats would probably caucus with the Democrats.

I'm thinking of the UK model with Labour and the Liberals (now Lib Dems) where it basically splits geographically and whether that district has traditionally gone Labour or Lib Dem. Best that I understand, although I should point out that I'm a Yank. :)
 
The Green Party as we know it wasn't established until 1991, and even then didn't have a working national structure until the 2000 Presidential Election. There were other minor parties that often incorporated environmentalism, but it was often secondary to issues of social justice or other domestic issues they found more pressing. I'm not sure if there really is room for an earlier formation of the Party, unless of course there is a POD that radicalizes the Green movement as a whole earlier.

The Reform Party was a mess in that it was without a set ideology and fraught with infighting among its various factions, as exemplified by the attempted split in '96 and the actual split in 2000. It's possible of course that the Ventura/Perot wing could have taken back control of the Party by '04 rather than leave it behind entirely, but Buchanan's campaign eliminated many of the resources they previously had had at their disposal in terms of ballot access and federal funding meaning they would have started back at square one.

In OTL, both the Greens and Reform (especially the Independence Party of Minnesota, a successor) do place an emphasis on running and fielding candidates in Congressional and local races, even with the occasional success, but those successes remain few and far between on the local level and non-existent on the Congressional and State level (minus of course Ventura). The exact reasoning varies from area to area, but more often than not it comes down to the fact that exposure of their candidacies if extremely difficult in the best of circumstances, with funding that would enable efforts to mitigate that being found wanting. Until that issue is solves the whole concept is a bit of a non-starter, and there are no easy answers that come to mind.
 
Baltimore Sun, David Lauter (Los Angeles Times) , January 17, 1992

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/19...-income-american-families-two-earner-families
.
.
' . . . The first major trend was the sharp decline in hourly wages for most male workers, with the biggest declines hitting already low-paid workers, primarily those without a college education.

'Wives, by contrast, generally enjoyed increasing hourly wages during the 1980s and, even more strikingly, large increases in the number of hours worked. The gains were greatest for women at the top of the income ladder. The hourly wages of women in the lowest income group dropped slightly in the 1980s.'
Definitely economic issues to address in the '90s, still are!

And I think the method clearly is medium step, feedback, medium step, feedback, but seem to have hard time selling this. :-|
 
Last edited:

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
That one I might count as a positive! Too often ideology is presented as this big, heavy package, all wrapped up with a bow put on top.
That does have an issue where the Party is uncoordinated, though- if the Reform Party was formed with a core set of principles and a Party Constitution, it'd of lasted longer.

But yeah, as with most third parties, they usually end up caucusing and getting absorbed, especially if a pact of 'you can contest these seats, we contest these' is made. To draw a parallel with British Politics *load groaning*, for one of these third parties to really stand on its own, it'd likely have to stand on its own two feet and surpass one of the two Parties, similar to how Labour surpassed the Liberals. If Reform took the Republicans place as the party of the right, you're more likely to see the Republicans stick around, and bumped down to third party status.
 
That one I might count as a positive! Too often ideology is presented as this big, heavy package, all wrapped up with a bow put on top.
Ideology often acts as a cohesive though, and the lack of one is why the Reform Party ultimately splintered; by 2000 you had people like Patrick Buchanan and Lenora Fulani in the same party with their factions having about equal levels of influence, and with the Centre essentially being squeezed out or forced to pick a side. It was enough of a mess that it even made Donald Trump cease seeking their nomination for the Presidency. To be fair it was certainly possible that Buchanan after he had taken over could have continued to 'reform' the Reform Party to his views, his supporters had enough clout at the time, but he opted to return to the Republican fold, and those of his supporters that didn't also left and created the America First Party. Those that had followed John Hagelin didn't return to the Reform Party either, leaving the Reform Party a shell of its former self.

So no, it is not a net positive that they didn't have a clear ideology to operate within.
 
Amen. If the party merely starts out for 'Reform' in vague ways, down the road people might find out they really don't have a whole heck of a lot of agreement on the type of reform.

Of course, if you're too specific about policy, you might miss hitting the sweet spot between Democrats and Republicans, which combined with dissatisfaction with one of the majors, and the feeling that the new party will be a lot less corrupt for at least a generation, might actually be enough.

Not guaranteed by any means. To pull from a baseball analogy, but at least you're in there swinging.

I'm still big on interplay between theory and practice. Sometimes, based on how things work out, a person might even feel confident enough to change theory based on practice! and if you play your cards right, you can probably get me to discuss this more ;-)
 
Last edited:
If politics had been as polarised as now in the US, I could see the Libertarians doing far better earlier. Forget Greens, the Libertarians have a message that every American can find something in (though taken as a whole, well, a lot of Americans can find issues). I think it's certain the Libertarians would dilute their message as they grew in strength (they already basically have, but the saying "herding Libertarians into a party is like herding cats" holds very true). There's also the issue they end up a broad tent for weirdos of all stripes--I think they already have that issue, looking at some of the antics that went down at their 2016 convention and not to mention their Florida senate candidate Augustus Sol Invictus. But at the end of the day, a lot of Americans identify as "conservative economically, liberal socially", but how much of that is backlash against the Republicans? And how can you get Libertarian success earlier? I don't know--you'd need to screw the Republicans massively, since a lot of Libertarians will just end up voting Republican, particularly if they're voting for someone like Ron Paul. A Republican split would no doubt empower the Libertarian Party massively. The economically conservative, non-Religious Right wing would definitely throw support behind it.

Perot, on the other hand, genuinely could've built a major movement behind him assuming he wins.

Those that had followed John Hagelin didn't return to the Reform Party either, leaving the Reform Party a shell of its former self.

Speaking of cranks and association with weirdos, John Hagelin definitely isn't someone you want in any prominent position if you're trying to build a party. Much less as one of your few Congressmen. Take Augustus Sol Invictus--sure he won't win, but if ASB decreed it, he'd probably end up setting the Libertarians back years.
 
Top