Jump to content
270soft Forum

Could This be The Next Party System?


Recommended Posts

US Political historians define a Party System as when a significant shift occurs between the two major parties. Here's a theory for discussion, and a theory I don't completely believe in but which I think has a chance of occuring:

  1. That the Democrats or post-Trump Republicans will eventually take in all the establishment voters -- those seeking the stability of staying mostly the same, whether under a liberal, moderate, or conservative president. 
  2. That the other major party, whichever it is, because a sort of permanent populist, anti-establishment party, those that seek change, whether under a progressive populist or traditionalist populist. 
  3. This means, in a way, this returns to when both major parties had two real wings -- one left wing and one right wing. In this scenario, you have an establishment party with a liberal and conservative wing---agreeing on things such as trade, national defense, foreign affairs, and making bipartisan agreements on economics and social policy. Then you have the anti-establishment party that mostly agrees on foreign affairs, trade, national defense, but will likely never have any agreement on economics and social policy (outside of civil liberties). The wings of the anti-establishment party would be Libertarians/Constitutionalists (as in the 3rd party) and Democratic Socialists/Greens. 
  4. The anti-establishment party would actually be two parties temporarily aligned in hopes of being the new establishment party, even if they won't admit it. They take power and hope their wing devours the other wing. This would probably lead to another party system. 

I see this as a possible route, but I can also see how this might not happen. 

I would probably vote for the anti-establishment major party, but only if it seems the progressives are the majority in it and a progressive is at the top of the ticket. I'm sure others might have similar reactions to that kind of party, which might undermine this whole theory.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, vcczar said:

US Political historians define a Party System as when a significant shift occurs between the two major parties. Here's a theory for discussion, and a theory I don't completely believe in but which I think has a chance of occuring:

  1. That the Democrats or post-Trump Republicans will eventually take in all the establishment voters -- those seeking the stability of staying mostly the same, whether under a liberal, moderate, or conservative president. 
  2. That the other major party, whichever it is, because a sort of permanent populist, anti-establishment party, those that seek change, whether under a progressive populist or traditionalist populist. 
  3. This means, in a way, this returns to when both major parties had two real wings -- one left wing and one right wing. In this scenario, you have an establishment party with a liberal and conservative wing---agreeing on things such as trade, national defense, foreign affairs, and making bipartisan agreements on economics and social policy. Then you have the anti-establishment party that mostly agrees on foreign affairs, trade, national defense, but will likely never have any agreement on economics and social policy (outside of civil liberties). The wings of the anti-establishment party would be Libertarians/Constitutionalists (as in the 3rd party) and Democratic Socialists/Greens. 
  4. The anti-establishment party would actually be two parties temporarily aligned in hopes of being the new establishment party, even if they won't admit it. They take power and hope their wing devours the other wing. This would probably lead to another party system. 

I see this as a possible route, but I can also see how this might not happen. 

I would probably vote for the anti-establishment major party, but only if it seems the progressives are the majority in it and a progressive is at the top of the ticket. I'm sure others might have similar reactions to that kind of party, which might undermine this whole theory.

Traditionalist and Progressive Populists in the same party? You realize that's like having the Vendees and the Jacobins in the same party, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

I hope the parties get conservative and liberal wings again. Would allow for more coalition building. Or I could be wrong.

For the most part I do as well. However, provided Social Conservatives are such a minority that their stances on social policy never get much attention. 

I would hope:

  • One party is socially progressive-to-liberal, economically progressive-to-moderate, and mostly non-interventionist (militarily speaking).
  • One party was socially liberal-to-moderate, economically moderate-to-conservative, and moderately non-interventionist (militarily speaking). 

That would be my ideal two party system, but I know that won't happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Patine said:

Traditionalist and Progressive Populists in the same party? You realize that's like having the Vendees and the Jacobins in the same party, right?

I'm aware of that. They'd be aligned in the same way that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich often appeared together for shared interests against the establishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...