It's a little simplified, but it points to something true: there's a huge opening in American politics that the duopoly isn't filling.
It's not the "fiscally conservative/socially liberal" brand of centrism that's so popular in the Beltway.
If *that* was really that popular, Mike Bloomberg wouldn't have spent 10 million dollars for every delegate he won in the Dem primary.
What's actually missing is a communitarian vision: a politics the puts families and communities first in both economic and social policy.
No party is really doing that, though a few prominent figures are vaguely gesturing at it.
For all their supposed "populist" turn, Republicans are still captive to warmed-over Reaganomics.
Democrats are split between neoliberals and would-be social democrats, but its a radically individualist ideology in the social sphere that unites them.
Until recently, third parties weren't filling that space either.
If you want to be a Republican, but more so, you've got the constitution party.
If you want to be a progressive Democrat, but more so, you've got the Greens.
Libertarians, at least, are offering something distinctive.
It might even be a compelling governing philosophy in a society that entirely consisted of self-employed childless 30-year-old men.
The truth is that although "rugged individualism" may be part of our national character, Americans have always thrived in communities.
We need neighborhoods. Families. Religious communities. Unions and professional associations. Local businesses.
We need a party for them, too.
We're a young party. So far, we don't have long lists of massive donors. We don't have celebrity candidates. We don't have political machines.
What do we have is a set of convictions. And we're starting to see that a lot of Americans share them.
In this election we proved in multiple states that we could out-perform better-known, better-funded candidates when we got to chance to go head-to-head on the ballot.
The votes are still coming in, but we already know that we've at least quadrupled our vote totals from 2016. What that showed us is that there is an untapped potential for that "Upper Left Quadrant" to turn into a real political force in America.
The bad news is that most Americans still haven't heard of us.
The good news is, most Americans still haven't heard of us.
Because nobody else is offering a vision quite like ours, we are nowhere near the ceiling of our potential support.
In the coming weeks we're going to be building on the energy from the presidential race, developing plans for running local and state races throughout the country on a scale we haven't achieved before, as well developing the infrastructure to support them.
We're going to need people like you for that, though.
You can get get involved in a state chapter, donate, write for our blog, or just talk us up to your friends.
To take it a step farther, run for something, and tell us you want to run with us.
It's true Republicans are increasingly a party *of* the (white) working class.
That's a different thing than being a party *for* working people at the policy level.
There are some good ideas for things like family-friendly tax and spending policy floating around conservative intellectual circles, and we're glad to see people like @AmerCompass reassess movement dogma about labor rights, trade, and more.
For a long time American conservatives liked to say that liberals were the party of "moral relativism." The conservatives stood up for the old fashioned moral truths, while liberals believed "if it feels good do it."
They weren't *entirely* wrong about this, but...
...the American Right has long suffered from its own form of moral relativism in the economic sphere.
Specifically, the idea that outcomes in the marketplace are somehow above moral judgement.
Right-leaning economists tend to believe that the market produces the best outcomes because it rationally aggregates the subjective preferences of all the actors involved. Whatever exchange value people are willing to give up to get something, that is what it is worth, they say.
"Why do Third Parties run candidates for president? Wouldn't it make sense to start with local and state races that are less long-shot, and build their way up?
Maybe you have asked that question yourself. It's a fair question.
This thread's for you.
To start, off we absolutely agree that state and local races are important. We're a party that believes in subsidiarity. That's the idea that higher levels of authority exist to support the lower levels in their proper function.
But there's the thing:
State and local races are also very difficult for third parties. The odds are stacked against us by the duopoly. To be a real contender takes resources. Even something as relatively low-level as a state representative race takes ample volunteers and tens of thousands of dollars.
It's Monday night, let's kick back with a distributism thread.
Remember back when George W Bush had this idea called the "ownership society?"
Yes, that does seem like a lifetime ago.
Here's what President Bush said about it back then: "If you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country."
This poll a good example of what often passes for conservatism in this country.
It has such an impoverished understanding of liberty that it can't conceive of anything between "I do what I want" and communism.
Edmund Burke, often considered the founder of conservatism as a political philosophy, had this to say:
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites."
Guess he should have subscribed to Prager U.
The truth is that neither of the duopoly parties in this country have a remotely adequate understanding of how our individual rights should be balanced with responsibilities to serve the common good.