As we’ve seen in the recent news, the Democrats, though a left wing party, are divided on certain issues. The present one is Israel. But there are others, like socialism.
Not all of the Democrats are socialists. Some like Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema are actual moderates. But a growing number of Democrats are antisemitic socialists. The press, for a story and because of ideological affinity, eggs on the radicals.
The antisemitism comes from the identification of racist black Democrats with terrorist groups like Hamas. The divisions will get worse, not better, anytime soon. To maximize their influence the socialists should consider bolting the Democrats and forming a third party. Now they are under the thumb of establishment Democrats. If the fanatical cult of personality Q types and rabid conspiracy theorists in the Republican Party did the same, we could even be looking at a fourth party. It would almost be a parliamentary situation.
If the socialists and radicals left the Democrats, as the Progressives did in 1948 and got 2.4 percent of the vote in the presidential election, they’d take about 40 percent of the Democrat base with them. They’d grab young voters, many minority voters, urban voters, and most voters in academia, the pop culture, entertainment, and media. The general culture would give this party very good coverage, positioning them as idealists.
A Republican breakaway party would grab about 30 percent. This would be a collection of rural voters, conspiracy types, hyper-religious voters, Trump cultists- as opposed to Trump supporters, and populists. They would be vilified by the culture. How would this play out in congressional and presidential elections?
The House would be a melee, as alliances would be formed to and fro and the likely end result would be a congressional majority of the establishment Democrats and Republicans against their old party colleagues. Same in the Senate. A presidential race would be a trickier proposition.
The congressional alliance could hold or all four could run separately, a kind of 1860 scenario. And even the Libertarians, who scored 1.2 percent in 2020 and double that in 2016, could become factors, as a path directly to 270 electoral votes would be problematic and the election could be thrown to the House where the Democrat-Republican alliance could prosper with a proper amount of horse trading. Now, the House would predominate and install itself as a control on the presidential process. Could this become the precursor to an American parliamentary system?
Personally, as a constitutional monarchist, I’ve always been a fan of the parliamentary system over our system. It promotes party policy, not cult of personality. It’s more accountable, as governments can rise and fall by party revolt and not only by general election. Though, that makes it more unstable as well. It also seems that when prime ministers come to power they are more adept at government than have generally been our presidents, as time on the front benches prepares them for high office.
And question time? Can you see any of our recent presidents, aside from Reagan and Clinton, surviving that crucible on a weekly basis. Not likely. Thus a three or four party national scene could make for interesting and different politics in DC. But the best part? It could carve the loons out of both major parties and possibly bring together reasonable people. Dwight Eisenhower, call your office.