Major Christian democratic third party in U.S.

I came across this awhile back. How about about George Romney as the leader of the American CDP?

A former officer of the Mormon Church, George Romney was on surer ground moralizing about what he considers the nation's most pressing problem, the disintegration of the American family. "There has been a decline," he told his fellow Governors, "in the faith, belief and principles on which America was built." The solution? "Personal responsibility, family responsibility and private institutional responsibility—and the place to start is in the home."

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Read more: [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835856,00.html#ixzz0m42XPLL5[/FONT]
 
Have Martin Luther King avoid assassination. He bids for the presidency in 1984, wedges out Mondale but Hart narrowly beats him. MLK then launches an independent third party candidacy based on Christian and Social Democratic principles, in response to Hart's pro-abortion stance and economic third way-ism. The majority of blacks, a minority of socially conservative whites and hispanics, and a minority of liberals(judging his more liberal economic and FP stances to outweigh his abortion opposition) rally behind him. Reagan wins 55% of the vote, Hart 29%, MLK 15%.

This split in the Democratic party sustains itself in 1988 when Jesse Jackson runs on the Christian Democratic ticket instead, though garnering only 10% of the vote.

In 1992, MLK makes another bid for the nomination of the Democratic party. It comes down to a brokered convention in which Clinton is handed the nomination. This, needless to say, leads to the best performance of the Christian Democratic party yet- Bill is the most pro-abortion and economically conservative Democrat to have run ever, his affairs provide further fire to attack him(subtly) on the Christian angle(assuming MLK's own affairs haven't come to light) and obviously a brokered convention cripples party unity.

MLK does even better among the CDP's prior base, getting a higher fraction of black/latino/liberal/socially conservative whites. But he also expands his appeal to independents by adopting Perotian rhetoric about the debt(Perot himself being absent) calling it a crime against the nation's children, and he occupies the position of only candidate that was opposed to the Gulf war. MLK 20%, Clinton 35%, GHWB 45%. Needless to say Bush is reelected.

In 1996 MLK finally wins the nomination, and remakes the Democratic party platform in the Christian Democratic party's image. This leads to the splintering of secularists and feminists to the Green party under Ralph Nader. The Republicans for their part nominate the contemptible Quayle. As polarizing as MLK is Quayle is hardly popular either... and the Republicans have been in power for 16 years... can MLK pull off a victory in these circumstances? I don't think so. 40% MLK, 5% Ralph Nader and 55% Quayle.

As a consequence of MLK throwing the 1992 and 1996 elections for the Democrats, another conservative justice(or 2) are appointed by Quayle/Bush and Roe v. Wade is overturned. Also the Democrats have developed a supermajority in the senate due to two more midterm elections- they win power with Ann Richards in 2000.
 
The idea of an American CDP being rooted in black liberalism (and having MLK as a figurehead) has been mentioned before, but never written out in full. Kudos, this is great stuff! I'm also wondering if the GOP might face their own divisions as well.
 
Have Martin Luther King avoid assassination. He bids for the presidency in 1984, wedges out Mondale but Hart narrowly beats him. MLK then launches an independent third party candidacy based on Christian and Social Democratic principles, in response to Hart's pro-abortion stance and economic third way-ism. The majority of blacks, a minority of socially conservative whites and hispanics, and a minority of liberals(judging his more liberal economic and FP stances to outweigh his abortion opposition) rally behind him. Reagan wins 55% of the vote, Hart 29%, MLK 15%.
Interesting. Not the most plausible, but not the most absurd, either.
This split in the Democratic party sustains itself in 1988 when Jesse Jackson runs on the Christian Democratic ticket instead, though garnering only 10% of the vote.
Jackson is IIRC pro-choice, and generally more liberal than MLK. Dick Gephardt seems like a better choice for this new party in 1988 if coming anywhere close to victory is the goal.
In 1992, MLK makes another bid for the nomination of the Democratic party. It comes down to a brokered convention in which Clinton is handed the nomination. This, needless to say, leads to the best performance of the Christian Democratic party yet- Bill is the most pro-abortion and economically conservative Democrat to have run ever, his affairs provide further fire to attack him(subtly) on the Christian angle(assuming MLK's own affairs haven't come to light) and obviously a brokered convention cripples party unity.
MLK is too old in 1992 and discredits his own party by potentially seeking the Democratic nomination here. Also, butterflies. Remember the butterflies. Clinton is an unlikely nominee here if Christian southern whites and minority entrepreneurs ans businessfolk have opened up to voting for King's party.
MLK does even better among the CDP's prior base, getting a higher fraction of black/latino/liberal/socially conservative whites. But he also expands his appeal to independents by adopting Perotian rhetoric about the debt(Perot himself being absent) calling it a crime against the nation's children, and he occupies the position of only candidate that was opposed to the Gulf war. MLK 20%, Clinton 35%, GHWB 45%. Needless to say Bush is reelected.
In 1996 MLK finally wins the nomination, and remakes the Democratic party platform in the Christian Democratic party's image. This leads to the splintering of secularists and feminists to the Green party under Ralph Nader. The Republicans for their part nominate the contemptible Quayle. As polarizing as MLK is Quayle is hardly popular either... and the Republicans have been in power for 16 years... can MLK pull off a victory in these circumstances? I don't think so. 40% MLK, 5% Ralph Nader and 55% Quayle.
Still too old. Perhaps Casey-Nunn win on the line of King's party. Then again, Doug Wilder might be a real possibility too.

As a consequence of MLK throwing the 1992 and 1996 elections for the Democrats, another conservative justice(or 2) are appointed by Quayle/Bush and Roe v. Wade is overturned. Also the Democrats have developed a supermajority in the senate due to two more midterm elections- they win power with Ann Richards in 2000.
ASB. First of all, Roe v. Wade being overturned has little direct effect on national politics, other than to restore/enhance abortion politics at the state level. Secondly, King's party has likely been eating away at Democratic support among minorities around the country and likely has the clout to thwart a Democratic congressional majority.
 
My last couple attempts to revive the U.S. CDU have ended in naught, and I've decided to bump this one with a question:

What would the economics platform of an American CDP look like?

If Wiki is to be believed, despite CDPs supposed fiscal progressive nature (in recent years in Europe, not so much, they've basically become run-of-the-mill neolibs), there seems to be no clearly defined Christian Democratic economics. As such, I've seen everything from distributism (which seems a bit too utopian to be practical), to German ordoliberalism (which is cool but I don't know if it can be imported to the U.S.), to Red Toryism (which may or may not just be morally bankrupt hype).

So, what would be the American counterpart? Import dirigisme policies?
 
So realistically even ordoliberalism is too leftist for America :(

Actually, now that I think about it, a variant of Red Toryism/Big Society of David Cameron, empowering private NGOs and institutions like churches is probably what the U.S. can stomach. Unfortunately that's basically "compassionate conservatism" of Bush, and we know how that went.
 
Once again, nothing other than a two-party system can emerge in the U.S. unless you drastically change the electoral system. FPTP + presidentialism makes a two-party system basically an inevitability. Things like greater public financing, easier 3rd party ballot access, electoral fusion, and instant-runoff voting would create SOME third-party representation, but nothing more than a sliver of power - well under 10% of Congress, for example.
 
Though that also leads me to wonder why the New Democrats didn't preserve a traditionalist/conservative stance and instead is now a mainstream leftist/liberal party.
Because it was never there to begin with. The NDP was formed from a merger of the agrarian socialist Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the Canadian Labour Congress. It's always been social democratic to socialist in its politics.
 
Top