U.S. Multiparty system from Global Paradigms

[AltWorlder]

From a blog by some Cato Institute guy:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Isn't Steve Sailer a renowned racist?

[Smid]

Be most interesting with preferential voting...

[The Hack Hater]

I've seen that one before on another site a couple of years back. And yes, Sailer is a known racist. I can't say it's completely accurate as to how the populace would split up.

[Person Man]

I would be all for a SDP/LP coalition

[AltWorlder]

I prefer evilmexicandictator's 2004 scenario myself.  This Global Paradigms one smacks of ivory tower wonk detachedness from reality.  Who's a Jacksonian nowadays?  What the hell is a Buchanan Catholic?

[Verily]

I prefer evilmexicandictator's 2004 scenario myself.  This Global Paradigms one smacks of ivory tower wonk detachedness from reality.  Who's a Jacksonian nowadays?  What the hell is a Buchanan Catholic?

They're nice, neat terms for people the Cato Institute doesn't like

It's all-in-all not a terrible division of the population, although I find it highly unlikely that we'd get  pairs of moderate and radical parties.

Here's an IMO more realistic three-way breakdown, although some groups are left out or key ideas missing.


The Liberal Party is fine as-is, if highly idealistic, and I think I would read it as an identifiable group as economically center to center-left with a strong free trade streak. The party of the intelligentsia, with nearly all of its support in (wealthier) cities and suburbs, especially in the Mid-Atlantic and West Coast.

The Constitution Party is essentially the next group, economically protectionist (as a rule, not in order to intervene in specific industries) and opposed to internal intervention in the economy, including most forms of taxation (preferring tariffs and sales tax). Its support is mostly socially conservative, but it tends to shy away from government intervention in social issues, at least at the national level. At the local level, it can be harshly reactionary (or not, depending on the area). Strong in suburbs in the South and Midwest and in the rural mountain West.

The Labor Party is the party of unions. Economically protectionist and interventionist, it is the most economically left-wing of the major parties. On social issues, the party tends to be divided, supporting older "social liberalism" such as abortion while opposing, for example, gay marriage. Essentially, this is the non-Southern Democratic Party in about 1955. It has overwhelming support in the Rust Belt as well as a strong following in primarily white or Hispanic poor urban areas and generally in the most economically depressed zones even outside of the Rust Belt such as northern Maine or rural Oregon.

Some key groups left out include blacks (as it's unclear here which party would have been the party of Civil Rights: the Liberals otherwise fit generically black politics extremely poorly) and neoconservatives/nationalists (although they would probably find some manifestation as a streak running within the Constitutionists with some slight run within the Liberals).

In the end, I find it unlikely that blacks would have a separate political party; I'm just not sure whether they'd be more Liberals or Laborites (ideologically the latter, but in loyalties perhaps the former). Foreign policy also isn't a strong enough platform for a whole separate party.

[Jake]

If unionism is the basis for the Labor Party, there'd have to be another southern party around that eventually collapsed to make way for the Constiution Party to form as unionism hardly had a pulse in the south. So, if you had the Liberals, Labor, and this southern party which is kept alive by civil rights/racism and dies in the 60s/70s, either the Liberals or Labor could be the party of civil rights. Ideologically, I can't see the black community fitting into the outlined Liberal Party. I mean, Obama's able to make the coalition work, but he has once in a lifetime charisma that makes it possible. So Labor would make a lot sense.

Or (gasp) black politics might not be so polarized and supporters could be found in either party (though unlikely in the Constitution as it will be strongly supported by Dixiecrats).

[AltWorlder]

Anyone think that the "Crazy Election Scenario" maps out five possible parties pretty well?

[Willy Woz]

Anyone think that the "Crazy Election Scenario" maps out five possible parties pretty well?

Yeah, it was one of the best ideas I've seen in a while. Kudos to Evilmexicandictator.

Also, Verily, is that Liberal Party thing a libertarian party or is it just left wing?

[Jake]

Anyone think that the "Crazy Election Scenario" maps out five possible parties pretty well?

Not unless American democracy suddenly sprouted into existence in 2001.

No Conservative Party would exist alongside a Populist Party, especially not when the two of them are based on essentially the same voter groups (rural whites and Sun Belt suburbia. I also can't see how the Liberty Party and Centrist Party could exist as they'd be drawing almost all their votes from the same source (the middle class suburban white vote). If you read it, they have essentially the same beliefs on every issue. I do buy the existence of a Social Democratic Party though. That certainly could have roots in history, but there's no way the two right wing parties could've emerged attracting the voters they attract.

[AltWorlder]

I agree that the Centrist Party and Liberty Party are too similar, and the latter is probably not enough for the libertarians.  However, we are seeing a fracture in the GOP right in which we may soon see a Christian Democratic faction emerge, either transforming the GOP or carving out its own party.  And thus a CDP and a Conservative party could exist simultaneously, whereas the latter party relies on economic conservatives who disdain the libertarians, and the former relies on social conservatives who disdain the fiscal conservatives.  And somehow foreign policy would squeeze in somewhere.

[Jake]

Wait, you're expecting a Christian Democratic Party to emerge out of the Republican Party?

Is that a serious statement?

There's a fracture in the GOP right now, sure. The coalition between the pre-Goldwater GOP, the Dixiecrats, and the Religious Right was never perfect, but to change the coalitions in political parties takes a pretty earth shattering event. Civil Rights did it. Slavery did it. And that's about it. I certainly doubt the coalitions will shift so soon. We've only just in the last 15 years consolidated the coalitions and entered a period of hyper-partisanship.

No faction of the Republican Party could survive alone and no faction actually fits with the current Democratic Party (which is first and foremost an economically left-wing party and secondly a socially liberal party). Mega-church and Country-club are stuck together, like it or not, for the forseeable future simply because neither is electable nationwide without the other.

[AltWorlder]

One can speculate.

[Jake]

The point raised is interesting, but he mentions at the end the snag - unions. They're not going to abandon the Democrats without the Democrats doing something to deserve it (suddenly backing free trade, school vouchers, etc.). And that raises another snag. The Democrats are not becoming more libertarian on economics. If anything, this year's campaign (FWIW) has emphasized protecting social security, expanding government subsidized health care, the merits of fair trade, stopping outsourcing. There's no impetus for the Democrats to change on those positions; the Republican's conservative views on abortion, gay rights, Christianity, etc. are proving enough to attract white suburbanites without necessarily adopting their platform.

So no, to answer you and the Daily Kos guy, I don't think such scenario is possible. Firstly because the neither block of the right is electable without the other and secondly because the Democratic coalition would have to undergo a similar change that is not happening.

[AltWorlder]

It certainly is unlikely in that it states that the Dems are turning rightwards in terms of economics.   Mostly it's typical DailyKos anti-Clinton thought than anything.  Though it does make a good point in bringing up that recently the rich and the corporate have been backing the Dems over the GOP.  But maybe they're just from businesses who haven't been benefiting from the Bush administration.  I guess corporations are only for crony capitalism if they're the cronies.

I do think that the Reagan coalition is going to fall apart soon.  And that both party coalitions are going to mutate.  I mean, before Reagan, the Religious Right wasn't a big part of party politics as a faction, were they?  Who knows what other factions will arise in the future.