Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
On both sides, changes in campaign finance and information technology have weakened the institutional role of the parties. It doesn't mean that a third (or fourth) party is going to come into being. It means that the parties are weak. They don't control the money, or much of anything else.
Where is the point where a Republican or Democrat should rationally walk away from their party to join a third party if he or she wants more clout? Um, never? The ability to influence the choice of one of the top two people on the ballot is much more valuable than the ability to influence the choice of the third (or fourth) person on the ballot.
|
Both parties are splitting. The extreme left on the D side and extreme right on the R side are unique parties, separate from their respective moderate wings.
Moderate Ds and moderate Rs (those being primarily focused on pocketbook issues) are closer to each other than they are to their respective extreme wings.
I see:
1. A right wing populist R party (socially conservative, anti-immigrant, isolationist, desirous of European safety net programs for "natives" [themselves] only, protectionist);
2. A moderate R party (socially moderate, against zealous regulation, free trade, emphasizing above all else neo-liberal economic policy);
3. A left wing populist D party (socially liberal, desirous of European safety net programs, protectionist); and,
4. A moderate D party (socially moderate, pro regulation, free trade, emphasizing above all else neo-liberal economic policy with enhancement of safety nets for those harmed by globalization/automation).
1 and 3 are actually quite close. They unite on the major economic issue of protectionism, and split on the major issue of who gets covered by enhanced safety nets (the right wants them limited to 'Muricans, the left wants them expanded broadly). If these two groups were smart, they'd come together. Thankfully, they're not.
2 and 4 are awfully close. They unite on the major economic issues of free trade and neo-liberal economic policy. They also aren't too far apart on social issues. Like the other two, they split over spending on safety nets. And they diverge on regulation, but not a ton (all moderates recognize there has to be some form of regulation).
Right now, one could say there are two parties: Extremists vs. Moderates. Or it could be 4 parties (Crazy Rs, Crazy Ds, mod Rs, Mod Ds). One could also see the Moderate Rs and Ds making peace with the extreme Left, creating a scenario in which its those three together versus the Extreme Right. Or it could be Moderate Rs and Ds together vs. the extreme Right, on one hand, and the Left on the other.
But I don't see the Warren/Bernie wing of the D party making peace with the Schumer wing. And I don't see the Bannon wing of the R party making peace with the McConnell wing.
