In the US, if one wants big changes, should one run as third party or run as D or R?

[skepticalbip]

The Abolition movement was a popular movement legislators yielded to when it got popular enough

I'm.... utterly baffled by this sentence. What account of the 19th century did you read? Literally no part of this sentence is true in any way whatsoever, and indeed it suggests a historical trajectory very nearly opposite to what actually happened. Which, as most Americans know by the time they are seven, was one of the bloodiest civil wars in history up to that point. and ongoing regional tension that moves US politics to this very day.

WTF? Do you really believe that there was not a large abolitionist movement before slavery was abolished? You really need to re-read your history, that is if you have actually read it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

In the US, if one wants big changes, should one run as third party or run as D or R?

Neither. In the U.S., if one wants big changes, they should start a popular movement among the population to convince and attract enough people to the idea so that elected officials seeking their votes to stay in office will express the popular movement's desires in legislation. The idea of winning office to pass legislation the majority of the public does not support is the tactics of tyrants.

Big changes in the U.S. were made by popular support and demand. Example: The Abolition movement was a popular movement legislators yielded to when it got popular enough. The popular prohibitionist movement resulted in outlawing alcohol then public demand resulted in the ban being repealed.

We had the example of The Grange. A movement that threatened to start a new party and forced change, essentially getting what they wanted and faded away. The Grange members melded into the two parties.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The Abolition movement was a popular movement legislators yielded to when it got popular enough

I'm.... utterly baffled by this sentence. What account of the 19th century did you read? Literally no part of this sentence is true in any way whatsoever, and indeed it suggests a historical trajectory very nearly opposite to what actually happened. Which, as most Americans know by the time they are seven, was one of the bloodiest civil wars in history up to that point. and ongoing regional tension that moves US politics to this very day.

The abolitionist movement was quite successful in the Northern states. Slavery was de facto abolished there. Then the problem shifted to stopping slavery from being introduced into non-state territories. Bloody Kansas. This drove the Confederacy to try to secede. It was the successes of abolitionism that drove that.

 

[Politesse]

The Abolition movement was a popular movement legislators yielded to when it got popular enough

I'm.... utterly baffled by this sentence. What account of the 19th century did you read? Literally no part of this sentence is true in any way whatsoever, and indeed it suggests a historical trajectory very nearly opposite to what actually happened. Which, as most Americans know by the time they are seven, was one of the bloodiest civil wars in history up to that point. and ongoing regional tension that moves US politics to this very day.

WTF? Do you really believe that there was not a large abolitionist movement before slavery was abolished? You really need to re-read your history, that is if you have actually read it.

Of course there was. But you are vastly over-simplifiying the path from A to B, and inexplicably trying to pretend that "bowing to" a grassroots movement for change is how slavery ended. Ignoring the war. Ignoring the role that legal rulings played. Ignoring the fact that abolition became law well before the majority of the population supported it and had to be instituted by force. Ignoring the fact that all of this is still controversial. Ignoring the fact that both the Republican and Democratic Parties and their politicians (Especially Lincoln, who was taking a gamble by running with the Republicans and they with he) had a lot to do with how things played out in the end. Ignoring that abolition though almost universally popular now in the abstract has never entirely been achieved in practice.

Saying this is like saying, "Hitler only came to power because he was popular, and then when he wasn't popular any more he had to step down." I mean, yeah, but it was a bit more fucking complicated than just passive centrists slowly changing their mind about something and ka-boom everything solves itself.

 

[skepticalbip]

WTF? Do you really believe that there was not a large abolitionist movement before slavery was abolished? You really need to re-read your history, that is if you have actually read it.

Of course there was. But you are vastly over-simplifiying the path from A to B, and inexplicably trying to pretend that "bowing to" a grassroots movement for change is how slavery ended. Ignoring the war. Ignoring the role that legal rulings played. Ignoring the fact that abolition became law well before the majority of the population supported it and had to be instituted by force. Ignoring the fact that all of this is still controversial. Ignoring the fact that both the Republican and Democratic Parties and their politicians (Especially Lincoln, who was taking a gamble by running with the Republicans and they with he) had a lot to do with how things played out in the end. Ignoring that abolition though almost universally popular now in the abstract has never entirely been achieved in practice.

Saying this is like saying, "Hitler only came to power because he was popular, and then when he wasn't popular any more he had to step down." I mean, yeah, but it was a bit more fucking complicated than just passive centrists slowly changing their mind about something and ka-boom everything solves itself.

Once again, WTF?

Yes, the southern states seceded over the question of slavery. The reason the issue of slavery existed as a political dispute was because of the growing strength of the abolitionist movement. The war didn't begin to eliminate slavery but to preserve the union. At the beginning of the war, there were four slave states that remained in and fought with the Union, and slavery was still legal in D.C. Though by the end of the war there was only one slave state still in the Union, Delaware (a state that fought with the Union). Slavery was not ended in Delaware until the Constitutional amendments made it illegal.

Even in the middle of the war, Lincoln's concern was preservation of the nation, not slavery. The abolitionist movement grew considerably during the war. It was the pressure by the then quite large abolitionist movement that resulted in the federal abolition of slavery.

From a Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley over a year into the war....

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union ... [¶] I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In the US, if one wants big changes, should one run as third party or run as D or R?

Big changes in the U.S. were made by popular support and demand. Example: The Abolition movement was a popular movement legislators yielded to when it got popular enough.

Well yes, movements are the best method to gain something big, but they usually take some time.

The abolition movement required about 80 years to end slavery and in that, it took the deaths of 600,000 Americans as the South really forced that issue!
Women suffrage would be another example of the grass roots movement coming to fruition in 100 years!

The US hasn't accomplished much since woman suffrage going the movement route through legislation. Almost everything else was via the courts, Jim Crow, gay marriage, heck America just decriminalized private consensual gay sex not 20 years ago in a 6-3 decision!

 

[skepticalbip]

In the US, if one wants big changes, should one run as third party or run as D or R?

Big changes in the U.S. were made by popular support and demand. Example: The Abolition movement was a popular movement legislators yielded to when it got popular enough.

Well yes, movements are the best method to gain something big, but they usually take some time.

The abolition movement required about 80 years to end slavery and in that, it took the deaths of 600,000 Americans as the South really forced that issue!
Women suffrage would be another example of the grass roots movement coming to fruition in 100 years!

The US hasn't accomplished much since woman suffrage going the movement route through legislation. Almost everything else was via the courts, Jim Crow, gay marriage, heck America just decriminalized private consensual gay sex not 20 years ago in a 6-3 decision!

The question being addressed was if it was better to run in a third party or one of the major parties in order to make "big changes". A lone representative or senator who is trying to make "big changes" will be ignored by those in the chamber who want to be re-elected by their constituents. So those "big changes" ain't gonna happen unless there is significant popular support for them that other representatives want to take advantage of. "Big changes" have more chance of being achieved by rousing a public demand than trying to push through unpopular legislation... That is except in dictatorships.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Here in the US, one wants big political, economic, and social changes, and one wants to run for office to try to implement them, should one run in some third party or should one run as either a Democrat or a Republican?

Bernie and Trump have arguably been our best modern examples. Both changed parties to the one that offered the most leverage.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

In the US, if one wants big changes, should one run as third party or run as D or R?

Big changes in the U.S. were made by popular support and demand. Example: The Abolition movement was a popular movement legislators yielded to when it got popular enough.

Well yes, movements are the best method to gain something big, but they usually take some time.

The abolition movement required about 80 years to end slavery and in that, it took the deaths of 600,000 Americans as the South really forced that issue!
Women suffrage would be another example of the grass roots movement coming to fruition in 100 years!

The US hasn't accomplished much since woman suffrage going the movement route through legislation. Almost everything else was via the courts, Jim Crow, gay marriage, heck America just decriminalized private consensual gay sex not 20 years ago in a 6-3 decision!

The civil rights act was the result of movement politics

 

[ZiprHead]

The Abolition movement was a popular movement legislators yielded to when it got popular enough

I'm.... utterly baffled by this sentence. What account of the 19th century did you read? Literally no part of this sentence is true in any way whatsoever, and indeed it suggests a historical trajectory very nearly opposite to what actually happened. Which, as most Americans know by the time they are seven, was one of the bloodiest civil wars in history up to that point. and ongoing regional tension that moves US politics to this very day.

WTF? Do you really believe that there was not a large abolitionist movement before slavery was abolished? You really need to re-read your history, that is if you have actually read it.

Start a parade and you will find politicians willing to stand in front of it.

 

[lpetrich]

Change only happens within the two big parties. For example, the Tea Party movement. The Reagan revolution. Progressives like AOC working within the Democrats is the only way to accomplish change there. we might see the beginning of that if women voters are responsible for Trump losing and flipping the Senate.

Sometimes a new party gets enough strength to pose a challenge to the two major parties, like the Populist Party of 1900, but it often gets coopted and absorbed by one of the major parties, in the Populists' case, the Democratic Party.

As to the present-day progressive faction, what might be a good name for it? The Herbal Tea Party? The Green Tea Party?


I think that it was the earlier Tea Party that turned "primary" into a verb. That was part of its attack on the Republican party establishment -- competing with its members in Republican primaries. This attack did have a big success: Dave Brat primarying House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2014. Though he was a professor of economics, he was a nobody while in Congress, and he was defeated four years later.

More recently, AOC got into power by primarying longtime incumbent and party boss Joe Crowley. She campaigned for Cori Bush and she talked about primarying other incumbents, but she apparently backed off. For this election year, she initially backed only two challengers of Democratic incumbents, Jessica Cisneros against Henry Cuellar and Marie Newman against Dan Lipinski. JC failed and MN succeeded. She ended up backing two more, but I think that in both cases, that was because of moral lapses on the part of the candidates and/or their campaigners. She backed Jamaal Bowman after House Foreign Affairs Chair Eliot Engel showed his negligence in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. He stayed in DC without as much as a message to the people back home, he lied about where he was, and he claimed in a rally in NYC that if he didn't have a primary, he wouldn't be there. After AOC endorsed JB, EE made it worse by saying that this is not a dictatorship, as if AOC was some party boss. Likewise, AOC backed Alex Morse against House Ways and Means Chair Richard Neal after a sex scandal about him turned out to be a fake that was created by his opponents.

Back in 2018, Ayanna Pressley also primaried a long-time incumbent, and Cori Bush tried that without success. She succeeded this year.

 

[bilby]

The entire purpose of representative democracy is to prevent any one person from making big changes.

If one person can make big changes, what you have is a dictatorship (of which monarchy is a subset).

So the only way to make a big change (if the US is working as designed) is to garner wide support for your proposal.

 

[lpetrich]

As we know, AOC got into office by running as a Democrat. Joseph Crowley - Ballotpedia has the election numbers. He was a 10-term incumbent, a proficient fundraiser, head of the House Democratic Caucus, and "King of Queens" local Democratic party boss.

She won against him 16,898 to 12,880, 56.7% to 43.3%. Her victory was from a massive get-out-the-vote effort, an effort that made AOC herself wear holes in her shoes. Gentrifying Neighborhoods Powered Ocasio-Cortez's Victory notes that voter participation went up 68% over the 2014 primaries.

But how might she have fared if she had run as a Green? Or in some other minor party? Or in no party?

We can tell from how many votes Joe Crowley typically got in general elections. During midterms, like 2018, 50,000 - 70,000. During Presidential election years, much more, 80,000 - 150,000.

She would have had a much bigger struggle, needing to recruit 25,000 - 30,000 likely Democratic voters, 50,000 - 70,000 additional voters, or some combination of the two. It would have been very hard for some unknown like her to win.

A more likely result would have been something like what Green Party candidates got. In 2012, Anthony Gronowicz got 2,570 votes, less than 2% of the total vote, and a little more than 1/9 of what the Republican got.

 

[Elixir]

The entire purpose of representative democracy is to prevent any one person from making big changes.

If one person can make big changes, what you have is a dictatorship (of which monarchy is a subset).

So the only way to make a big change (if the US is working as designed) is to garner wide support for your proposal.

Hence the primacy of propaganda.

 

[Patooka]

The entire purpose of representative democracy is to prevent any one person from making big changes.

If one person can make big changes, what you have is a dictatorship (of which monarchy is a subset).

So the only way to make a big change (if the US is working as designed) is to garner wide support for your proposal.

Hence the primacy of propaganda.

A distinction can be made between propaganda and campaigning in good faith.

 

[bilby]

The entire purpose of representative democracy is to prevent any one person from making big changes.

If one person can make big changes, what you have is a dictatorship (of which monarchy is a subset).

So the only way to make a big change (if the US is working as designed) is to garner wide support for your proposal.

Hence the primacy of propaganda.

A distinction can be made between propaganda and campaigning in good faith.

For campaigning on matters of fact, yes.

For campaigning on matters of opinion, I suspect that the only difference is whether or not you agree.

And I am of the firm belief that democracy is a last resort - and only to be used for matters of pure opinion, where a fact based policy cannot, by definition, be formulated.

So there's opinion based propaganda, and then there's statements that are either true or false. And to garner support for a false proposition or a matter of opinion requires propaganda.

Campaigning in good faith is just a subset of education, and in an ideal world shouldn't be necessary. Of course, our real world is far from ideal, and likely will never get very close, hence the need for campaigning in good faith.

It's a shame it's so rare.

 

[Terrell]

One of the two parties, whichever one is closer to what you want. It's something that's a very long term project requiring changing a party from within. If you're starting this project fresh out of college in your early 20s your children and grandchildren's generations are going to have to work towards your cause. Maybe your great grandchildren will benefit. There is no quick fix. The right has been gunning for Roe since the 70s, they might be able to overturn it in the near future. I doubt they'll stop there.

In order for such a fix to work, you're going to have to start with local offices. Next are congressmen & state legislative seats. Then Senate & other statewide offices, finally the President & the judiciary. You'll have to also groom replacements for these offices as death/retirement removes the guys that you started with.

 

[skepticalbip]

WTF? Do you really believe that there was not a large abolitionist movement before slavery was abolished? You really need to re-read your history, that is if you have actually read it.

Start a parade and you will find politicians willing to stand in front of it.

Not only willing to stand in front but eager to while loudly claiming that they organized it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The entire purpose of representative democracy is to prevent any one person from making big changes.

If one person can make big changes, what you have is a dictatorship (of which monarchy is a subset).

So the only way to make a big change (if the US is working as designed) is to garner wide support for your proposal.

This is absolutely correct.

 

[Bomb#20]

The entire purpose of representative democracy is to prevent any one person from making big changes.

If one person can make big changes, what you have is a dictatorship (of which monarchy is a subset).

So the only way to make a big change (if the US is working as designed) is to garner wide support for your proposal.

This is absolutely correct.

Actually, there is one way for one person to make big changes without garnering wide support, without being a dictator, without making the US stop working as designed, and without making his changes through either a major or a minor party. (Which I guess makes the correct answer to the poll Magical Brownies.) This guy made the states equalize legislative district populations, made the police tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, desegregated the schools, and legalized interracial marriage.