Changing the GOP from the inside

[John_James]

@vive la insurrection

The quickest overly simplified examples I’ll give:

the deep South’s relation with the post “Reconstruction” Dems - where they would break off from time to time and form a States Rights party - until they were picked up by the Republican Party

The Populist Party - was eventually picked up by the William Jennings Brian branch of the Democratic Party (with a Populist even running as VP in the 1896 election). This in turn, was the first step that led to the more modern version of the Democratic Party we know today

The extreme case of the Republican splitting from and replacing the Whigs - in a radically changing US political landscape

So I’m still not clear how you are defining “effective” here. I’m also not sure how these situations relate to the libertarian movement we are seeing today. It’s by and large not (and never really was) considered part of the Republican Party. In fact, it was largely created out of a disgust for the two major parties (especially if you include the Tea Party movement). This is essentially the focus of Welch and Gillespie’s book The Declaration of Independents which talks about how roughly 40% of the electorate don’t affiliate with either major party (or something the that effect). And getting back to the libertarian aspect, everyone from rank and file Republicans to Democrats in the media take every opportunity to remind everyone that these “libertarians” are not really Republicans. They even try to take advantage of a leery feeling most people have in association with the term “libertarian” by bringing it up every chance they get. Again, look at Ron Paul’s listed “occupation” in his recent Time Magazine 100 Most Influential People section.

So again, I’m not seeing where this needed “split” is supposed to come in. At best one might argue it’s already largely occured, but I would argue the two were never really joined.

And what’s more, (again, as mentioned in the other thread and other discussions about 3rd party), I’m not sure if the system would allow for such a thing as a 3rd party legitimacy. Again, if you won’t read the thread and the arguments made there (which I wish you would, it would save time), at least check out Holland’s article.

@vive la insurrection

About Perot: When he ran as a third party (in his second run, where he didn’t enter debates) - he still managed to pick up over 5% of the vote, which meant major funding for Th Reform Party. The Reform Party managed to get a governor elected. I don’t want to focus on the actual Reform Party itself, because I do think it was an ultimate nonentity without much to say - but when Perot ran as a de facto third party, something came out of it.

“Something” largely inconsequential. I honestly wasn’t even aware Ventura won on the Reform Party ticket. And if you really want to try and compare all the resources that were dedicated to Perot’s Reform Party and try to claim it was “effective” because Jesse Ventura served one term as Governor of Minnesota, you’re welcome to try that, but I don’t really see that being a successful argument.

I don’t see how pointing to a billionaire getting 19% of the vote (and 0% of the electoral college), even when getting in the debates, and then everything going back to business as usual until he came back and got a quarter of the support he did before, and someone happened to use his party for a gubernatorial run and won, and then again, business as usual — helps your argument that a 3rd party route is “effective” and is the best way to go in rolling back government.

I’ll get to the other stuff a little later

Okie dokie.