Should USA have a centric party?

[more_than_a_guy]

I'm not from the states, but I feel like each of the democratic and republican parties have good and bad. I think many people could be in the center, with aspects that are taken from both democratic and republican parties, and being far from the radicals from each side.

It's just absurd to me to see it like black and white, like my party is whole good and yours is whole bad.

Yes

No

Maybe

[nightdrot]

Paradoxically, it actually does - in the form of both parties. The larger cultural context in which the parties are operating determining which is closer to the center. With each party, gradually and often imperceptibly moving toward what the nation defines as the center at any given moment in time.

In a nutshell, the parties and their coalitions are constantly shifting as circumstances change. It being the case that American political parties are not ideological parties as you tend to see in Europe. Rather they are lose knit coalitions of regional, religious, ethnic, racial, income and other groups that have come together in part by common interests and in part by historical accident.

In the case of the GOP, it is a coalition made up of classical liberals - which Americans call conservatives, libertarians, small and medium sized business, religious and social traditionalists, lower middle and upper middle income earners, farmers, rural and exurban populations, older voters, the South, the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountain West and the state of Alaska, to name the most prominent groups.

On the Democratic side you get, ethnic and religious minorities, middle and high income wage earners, big business and entertainment industries, urban and inner suburban votes, radical liberals - which Americans call liberals. (Note, the term "radical" here does not mean as Americans use it, i. e. "extremist," but rather as the ancient Greeks used the term, meaning "to the root of.") The northeast, the mid-Atlantic, the Pacific coast and the state of Hawaii.

This is how you get a Republican Party that runs from Ted Cruz at one end to Susan Collin at the other. This is how you get a Democratic Party that runs from Joe Manchin at one end to Elizabeth Warren at the other.

Quite simply, party identification is not about ideological identity. It is about where in the country is being discussed, about class and racial breakdowns and much else.

Indeed, even this is changing. The description I provided of the parties above is already in transition - and indeed, this is part of the reason why politics is so chaotic at the moment.

The lower middle class blue collar voters that are now at the heart of the Trump coalition were, until VERY recently, the heart and soul of the Democratic party. The party of the "working man" and the New Deal. Now, the higher the income level, the more likely the person voted Democrat.

Ditto with age. In the 1980s, the 18 to 25 year old demographic was Reagan's best. The 65 and older set, his worst. Now it is completely the reverse, and even then, the elderly seem less enthralled with Trump than they were four years ago. Though still generally more favorable than their 18 to 25 year old children.

In terms of regions. As late as the early 1960s, the "Solid South" was solidly Democratic. Then it became solidly Republican, and now states like Virginia, Georgia and North Carolina are sometimes even battleground states. Ditto, states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin - once so solidly blue collar Democrat look set to tilt GOP.

Indeed, fun fact, over 400 counties that voted twice for Mr. Obama switched in the space of one four year period, to vote for Mr. Trump. Thus to this day that Mrs. Clinton is careening about the country explaining to anyone who will listen why she really won - or not - in 2016.

The differences then vary. In West Virginia, Democrats are the old blue collar coalition. Working the mines, church going, traditional and patriotic. In New York, they are quite liberal, likely racial or religious minorities - though not likely very likely to practice their religion through regular attendance at weekly services - and more likely to work in the tech or service sector.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

Republicans in the Midwest will look like West Virginia Democrats, albeit employed in the factories or on the farms rather than in the mines. In the northeast, they are more likely socially liberal and more dogmatically free market, low tax oriented.

So you pays your monies and you takes your chances. This being further complicated in time. In the 1930 to 1980s, both parties tended to agree on the role of government, broadly accepting a large ambit for government action. (Hence Republican Eisenhower establishes by Federal action the interstate highway system. Hence Republican Nixon established a whole raft of environmental action and widens the sway of civil rights laws.)

From the 1980s to the Trump presidency, there was more skepticism in both parties toward government. Hence Democrat Clinton announces in a State of the Union address that the era of big government is over. Hence, Democrat Obama cannot get the "public option" into his already watered down health care bill

[strateguy632]

brilliant give me permission to put this in a mytake, good?

[nightdrot]

@strateguy632 Sure. I'm very flattered. Thanks.

[goaded]

Not for a few years, at least. At the moment, the argument is between democracy and authoritarianism, and democracy has to win if you want another election. I wouldn't mind if there was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff_voting for a dozen or so candidates for president, or a candidate could choose to lend their voters to another candidate to reach a majority, but that's not the way it works. Vote for the chance to vote next time.

[Soteris]

Should? Maybe. Can it? No. The current system only ever allows for a two party system. Anything else is only ever going to fall apart and then become another two party system. This is an inevitable result from how their votes are cast, counted and how power is then divided. AKA there will only always be a winner and everyone else is a loser and the only way for the loser to compete with the winner they need to unite together.

This results as I said, in a two party system. Where you are not voting for a party, but against the other one.

[strateguy632]

clearly you never voted, in u. s. if you had you would SEE SEVERAL options

[Soteris]

@strateguy632 Well obviously, I am Swedish. But the reason I say USA is a two party system is because of how power is divided, not because you can't vote on Mickey Mouse. If all the power goes to the winner and the government is divided into several parts such as the house, senate and presidency then there can only exist two parties. That is just a fact. If you vote for anyone else then you are just ensuring that one of these two parties will win, which one depends on what party you normally would vote for. This phenomena is called "splitting the vote". The only way you can influence the election and change the winner if you are not on the side of the winner is to unite everyone else behind a 2nd party. One winner, one challenger, that makes two parties.

[Avicenna]

The real problem is, who is going to fund this centrist party? It would be the same oligarchs and multinationals that currently fund both the Democrats and Republicans. Think that will increase political pluralism if they're answering to the same paymasters?

[AviatorTom]

The two party system has served the US well, but maybe it's time to add a 3rd major party. Most other countries have more than 2 major political parties.

There is truth to The Mork rule, created by Robin Williams in the old TV show "Mork and Mindy" ... In a democracy, you need to have an odd number of people, otherwise you can have ties.

[strateguy632]

major? that doesn't depend on the libertarian that depends on voters... if they are not rnc and also not dnc then they simply don't vote not evem libertarian nor independent

[strateguy632]

take abortion topic, what would centric say? not choice? not life? then what? it is impossible.

[goaded]

Centric people would say it's the woman's choice. The alternative is that it's not her choice, which is unreasonable. The progressive position on many policies is supported by vast majorities of Americans.

[msc545]

There is absolutely nothing good about the Republican party.

[Anonymous]

We kind of already do. Most of the republicans just do what the democrats want anyway.

[Anonymous]

Yes, definitely.