4 ms·

Dozens of former Republican officials in talks to form anti-Trump third party

7 points by crazypython 6y ago

jfengel 6y ago
Why not just join the Libertarians? They're already in the ballot in a lot of places. Even if they have ideological differences with them, that's the whole point of being a party: you negotiate the stuff you disagree with but can tolerate, to get the stuff you agree about (plus one or two other things). Otherwise, they're not the "third party". They're the fourth -- or maybe the fifth, behind the Greens. At best.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Why not just join the Libertarians? Probably because they aren't libertarians. And perhaps also because the (few, to be sure) past models for successful emergent major parties aren't minor parties that hung around for decades without success first.
ratsmack 6y ago
"Former Republican" generally means they weren't Republicans in the first place. You see these same types of chameleon like politicians on both sides of the political spectrum that choose to just blend in, in order to "land the job" so to speak.
- crazypython 6y ago
  Many Republicans chose not to run for re-election in 2018 and 2020. Perhaps those are the "former Republicans"?
  - ratsmack 6y ago
    Seems that you are correct, as they saw the writing on the wall.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > "Former Republican" generally means they weren't Republicans in the first place. No, it usually means they were Republicans at least in part because they had values that the Republican Party at the time best expressed, and not purely out of tribalism and cultish subservient devotion, and the party changed on ways which no longer matched their values. The idea that people like ex-Republican strategist and McCain Presidential campaign manager Steve Schmidt, former Reps. Joe Walsh and Joe Scarborough, George Will, and numerous other were “weren’t Republicans in the first place” is ludicrous revisionism (and the same would be true if you said it of many of the Democrats who switched parties especially between the 1960s and mid-1990s.) When parties changes, people with strong values that corresponded to the pre-change state but not the post-change state are likely to leave.
  - polka_haunts_us 6y ago
    The kind of hidden thing here is that, in few party systems like the US, the parties are composed of lots of different beliefs, the severity of which are highly variable. For example, if I strongly believed abortion is murder, I would hold my nose and vote Republican every time, but that doesn't mean the fiscal responsibility wing of the party cares about that issue in any meaningful way, they just vote for it because in return I vote for their tax cuts even though I'd really prefer 2000 dollar checks in perpetuity. The reason people stick around is there's meaningful balance, however if the balance goes out of whack and the party became solely about anti-abortion at the expense of the fiscal responsibility, why would a fiscal responsibility person stick around? This is what happened to British Labour in the late 70s where the party started becoming solely about radical socialism (which was anti-Europe), and a number of high profile pro-Europe members left to form their own party, or more recently a number of pro-Europe Tories defecting to join the successor to said party. In defense of OP though, there are plenty of Labour politicians who were radical socialists in 1979 who became bonafide Blairites by 1997, there are absolutely politicians who just go where the political wind blows (in the case of someone like Scarborough that could be his MSNBC paycheck).
- detaro 6y ago
  "former republican officials" is no the same as "former republicans", unless everyone who ever left a job while being republican is failed?
- cafard 6y ago
  A lot of the people who like to use the expression "Republican In Name Only" or RINO are basically Dixiecrats who crossed the aisle.

7 points by crazypython 6y ago

Why not just join the Libertarians? They're already in the ballot in a lot of places. Even if they have ideological differences with them, that's the whole point of being a party: you negotiate the stuff you disagree with but can tolerate, to get the stuff you agree about (plus one or two other things). Otherwise, they're not the "third party". They're the fourth -- or maybe the fifth, behind the Greens. At best.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Why not just join the Libertarians? Probably because they aren't libertarians. And perhaps also because the (few, to be sure) past models for successful emergent major parties aren't minor parties that hung around for decades without success first.

ratsmack 6y ago

"Former Republican" generally means they weren't Republicans in the first place. You see these same types of chameleon like politicians on both sides of the political spectrum that choose to just blend in, in order to "land the job" so to speak.

crazypython 6y ago
Many Republicans chose not to run for re-election in 2018 and 2020. Perhaps those are the "former Republicans"?
- ratsmack 6y ago
  Seems that you are correct, as they saw the writing on the wall.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> "Former Republican" generally means they weren't Republicans in the first place. No, it usually means they were Republicans at least in part because they had values that the Republican Party at the time best expressed, and not purely out of tribalism and cultish subservient devotion, and the party changed on ways which no longer matched their values. The idea that people like ex-Republican strategist and McCain Presidential campaign manager Steve Schmidt, former Reps. Joe Walsh and Joe Scarborough, George Will, and numerous other were “weren’t Republicans in the first place” is ludicrous revisionism (and the same would be true if you said it of many of the Democrats who switched parties especially between the 1960s and mid-1990s.) When parties changes, people with strong values that corresponded to the pre-change state but not the post-change state are likely to leave.
- polka_haunts_us 6y ago
  The kind of hidden thing here is that, in few party systems like the US, the parties are composed of lots of different beliefs, the severity of which are highly variable. For example, if I strongly believed abortion is murder, I would hold my nose and vote Republican every time, but that doesn't mean the fiscal responsibility wing of the party cares about that issue in any meaningful way, they just vote for it because in return I vote for their tax cuts even though I'd really prefer 2000 dollar checks in perpetuity. The reason people stick around is there's meaningful balance, however if the balance goes out of whack and the party became solely about anti-abortion at the expense of the fiscal responsibility, why would a fiscal responsibility person stick around? This is what happened to British Labour in the late 70s where the party started becoming solely about radical socialism (which was anti-Europe), and a number of high profile pro-Europe members left to form their own party, or more recently a number of pro-Europe Tories defecting to join the successor to said party. In defense of OP though, there are plenty of Labour politicians who were radical socialists in 1979 who became bonafide Blairites by 1997, there are absolutely politicians who just go where the political wind blows (in the case of someone like Scarborough that could be his MSNBC paycheck).
detaro 6y ago
"former republican officials" is no the same as "former republicans", unless everyone who ever left a job while being republican is failed?
cafard 6y ago
A lot of the people who like to use the expression "Republican In Name Only" or RINO are basically Dixiecrats who crossed the aisle.