There appears to be an opening for a populist third party in the western states. Nebraska’s Osborn candidacy seems to be an early sign for this. Most of these independent campaigns in Montana, South Dakota, Idaho, and Nebraska are running on largely the same platform. It would be interesting to see if a new party arises out of it (like in the 1890s).
Nick, I think that is a very interesting comparison, particularly the 1890s reference. What happened then is a reminder that political realignment does not necessarily begin in Washington. It can start regionally, with independent candidates responding to concerns the existing parties are not adequately addressing.
Osborn is especially worth watching in that regard. The larger question is whether campaigns like his remain isolated independent efforts or eventually develop enough common ground, organization, and infrastructure to become something more durable.
That gets right to the question I’m raising in this article. An opening may exist, but turning an opening into a viable party requires much more than dissatisfaction with the two existing parties. Thanks for adding this perspective to the discussion.
A third party is not a "need" debate...that is obvious. It's a "how" debate in my opinion. A rational and viable third party will need to start in the states, win a few legislative (state house) elections and then move up to Congress.
That is very difficult, requires vision, money, volunteers and focus.
We think you’ve put your finger on the real question, Scott. The case for why America needs another viable political option is becoming easier to make. The much harder question is how you build one that can actually win and govern.
Starting at the state and local level, proving viability through real electoral wins, and building the organization, volunteers, funding, and credibility from the ground up may be the most realistic path. It certainly won’t be easy, but as you said, it’s way past time to seriously work through the “how.”
Without a significant donor pool and systemic reforms, it will be a challenge. There’s an opening to really get something going, but there are also enormous obstacles. I love what we’re seeing, particularly in Montana, S. Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho, etc… but obviously a lot depends on if any of them win and the impact losses have on that momentum. Regardless, I hope what we’re seeing morphs into a larger ‘independent coalition’ rather than a true third party.
That difference between a traditional third party and an “independent coalition” is an important one. The activity you’re pointing to across these states may tell us a lot about whether a new political force needs to look like the parties we already have—or whether there’s a different model for organizing the growing number of voters who no longer feel represented by either one.
And you’re right: funding, electoral rules, and, ultimately, whether these candidates can actually win will go a long way toward determining whether this becomes a movement or just a moment.
Richard, I’d make a distinction between political movements and actual competing parties. Bernie Sanders is an independent who caucuses with Democrats, and the Democratic Socialists of America is an organization rather than a third major party competing with the Democrats and Republicans for governing power.
That distinction is central to my argument. We have plenty of ideological factions and smaller parties. What we don’t have is a viable contender party capable of competing for seats, building a durable coalition, and exercising governing power.
The question I’m raising is whether the conditions now exist for such a party to emerge. I believe they do, but I’m very open to debating the evidence.
I contend that the Democratic Socialists are as much 3rd party given the headaches they present to the DNC. I admit that I may be tossing about semantics here but the fact is the DNC can’t seem to shut out Bernie even though he has not taken an oath of allegiance to the DNC. They are not the “silent majority” of old that the RNC totally failed to include, politically. They are up front and the antithesis of the ole’ boy DNC. A party within a party. Independents need a standard bearer. With no recognized leadership they will continue, as always, to be ripe for manipulation by established politicians. So yes, a 3rd/4th entity must rise.
There appears to be an opening for a populist third party in the western states. Nebraska’s Osborn candidacy seems to be an early sign for this. Most of these independent campaigns in Montana, South Dakota, Idaho, and Nebraska are running on largely the same platform. It would be interesting to see if a new party arises out of it (like in the 1890s).
Nick, I think that is a very interesting comparison, particularly the 1890s reference. What happened then is a reminder that political realignment does not necessarily begin in Washington. It can start regionally, with independent candidates responding to concerns the existing parties are not adequately addressing.
Osborn is especially worth watching in that regard. The larger question is whether campaigns like his remain isolated independent efforts or eventually develop enough common ground, organization, and infrastructure to become something more durable.
That gets right to the question I’m raising in this article. An opening may exist, but turning an opening into a viable party requires much more than dissatisfaction with the two existing parties. Thanks for adding this perspective to the discussion.
A third party is not a "need" debate...that is obvious. It's a "how" debate in my opinion. A rational and viable third party will need to start in the states, win a few legislative (state house) elections and then move up to Congress.
That is very difficult, requires vision, money, volunteers and focus.
Way past time to get it done though.
We think you’ve put your finger on the real question, Scott. The case for why America needs another viable political option is becoming easier to make. The much harder question is how you build one that can actually win and govern.
Starting at the state and local level, proving viability through real electoral wins, and building the organization, volunteers, funding, and credibility from the ground up may be the most realistic path. It certainly won’t be easy, but as you said, it’s way past time to seriously work through the “how.”
Without a significant donor pool and systemic reforms, it will be a challenge. There’s an opening to really get something going, but there are also enormous obstacles. I love what we’re seeing, particularly in Montana, S. Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho, etc… but obviously a lot depends on if any of them win and the impact losses have on that momentum. Regardless, I hope what we’re seeing morphs into a larger ‘independent coalition’ rather than a true third party.
That difference between a traditional third party and an “independent coalition” is an important one. The activity you’re pointing to across these states may tell us a lot about whether a new political force needs to look like the parties we already have—or whether there’s a different model for organizing the growing number of voters who no longer feel represented by either one.
And you’re right: funding, electoral rules, and, ultimately, whether these candidates can actually win will go a long way toward determining whether this becomes a movement or just a moment.
We already have 3. DNC, RNC and Democratic Socialist Party lead by Bernie Sanders.
Richard, I’d make a distinction between political movements and actual competing parties. Bernie Sanders is an independent who caucuses with Democrats, and the Democratic Socialists of America is an organization rather than a third major party competing with the Democrats and Republicans for governing power.
That distinction is central to my argument. We have plenty of ideological factions and smaller parties. What we don’t have is a viable contender party capable of competing for seats, building a durable coalition, and exercising governing power.
The question I’m raising is whether the conditions now exist for such a party to emerge. I believe they do, but I’m very open to debating the evidence.
I contend that the Democratic Socialists are as much 3rd party given the headaches they present to the DNC. I admit that I may be tossing about semantics here but the fact is the DNC can’t seem to shut out Bernie even though he has not taken an oath of allegiance to the DNC. They are not the “silent majority” of old that the RNC totally failed to include, politically. They are up front and the antithesis of the ole’ boy DNC. A party within a party. Independents need a standard bearer. With no recognized leadership they will continue, as always, to be ripe for manipulation by established politicians. So yes, a 3rd/4th entity must rise.