Will we ever see another third party candidate make a serious run for President?

[NotFadeAway]

I'm not much for Obama but I'd hardly rate him among the worst. His administration managed to pull the economy away from the cliff, at least for a time and there are many aspects of the healthcare reform that are quite popular. Not a very good leader when it comes to communication however. Much of his message to Republican congressmen for years was "Nanana boo boo I'm in the driver's seat."

More on topic, the party within a party, The Tea Party causes a lot of conflict with the main party and I would be surprised to see them eventually break off outright.

I wouldn't rank Bush or Obama in the top five of worst. For all their faults, they don't come close to Ulysses S. Grant, Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, John Tyler, Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter. I think that a lot of people like to forget that the 1800's and early 1900's had A LOT of really bad Presidents.

Nor have they had the misfortune to be unimpactful like William H. Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James A. Garfield. Nor do they have severe crimes on their legacies like Andrew Jackson (Trail of Tears) and Richard Nixon (Watergate)

Look, I don't think Barack Obama is bad man and I think he truly believes he is helping. But, he has placed this country even further in debt than before, instituted policies that have created more federal control, and his healthcare reform that once revealed in fine print was rejected by most Americans based on polling and his own party fought over it. People wanted true universal healthcare, not Obamacare. I wanted universal healthcare, even with my libertarian ways. Contradictory, but who isn't!!! This man feels that he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, no matter who how fellow politicians or his citizens feel. And it's square peg round hole syndrome. His beliefs simply do not fit within the framework this country was created upon. It doesn't help that he is a career politician.

George Bush was simple yes man to neo-cons and Dick Cheney. I don't believe he ever had an independent thought and had two massive screw ups. One, obviously going to Iraq. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan and eradicated our enemies there when instead we took out Saddam and created a bridge between insurgents in Afghanistan and like minded individuals in Iran. Saddam was a necessary buffer. A tyrant, but he could have been dealth with once the true mission was complete. And Bush's education policy was a damn joke and has contributed to this country getting dumber by the day. Sad thing is, I really like Jeb Bush other than his backing of CORE. But he doesn't stand a chance because of George.

Those were some bad Presidents you listed, individually. Let me re-word my comment. We have had two of the worst Presidents, still my opinion, back to back. Thats the biggest problem. Two turds for 16 years. Each having significantly impacted the policies, procedures, economy, and the metaphorical mental health of this country. Look how divided, cynical, exhausted, and either radical or unpatriotic we have become under these leaders. Demoralization from both sides of the coin.

The tea party can drop down on their knees and pucker up. I feel like the bad impression they make harms the libertarian movement.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I find Grant rather underrated. 20th century Southern revisionists have really damaged his legacy.

Grant had a major role in ending the Civil War, and stabilizing the country politically and economically during Reconstruction. He unapologetically fought for the rights of black people in a way that would not be seen again for nearly a century. And his foreign policy wasn't bad either.

 

[DawnOfJustice16]

If Gary Johnson was allowed in the debates he could make a good run .

 

[NotFadeAway]

If Gary Johnson was allowed in the debates he could make a good run .

The People's President had my vote......I just wish a guy like Johnson had the forum to truly communicate with the American people!!!

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Gary as well as Perot did not have the right presence, charisma, or personality to really pick up steam with the general public vote as a serious Presidential worthy vote.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I find Grant rather underrated. 20th century Southern revisionists have really damaged his legacy.

Grant had a major role in ending the Civil War, and stabilizing the country politically and economically during Reconstruction. He unapologetically fought for the rights of black people in a way that would not be seen again for nearly a century. And his foreign policy wasn't bad either.

One cannot deny the role Grant played in ending the Civil War and his fight for black civil rights, but overall, the man was a ****** President. He rewarded far too many friends with political office and as a result was bogged down by far too much corruption in his administration to really be effective. And he was bogged down by a sluggish economy that was worsened by the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age and he did nothing about it. And personally, I kinda think that he was a lot like a bunch of military leaders who were pressured into office, they really didn't want it but felt obligated to do so.

 

[DawnOfJustice16]

The People's President had my vote......I just wish a guy like Johnson had the forum to truly communicate with the American people!!!

It's a shame he had great ideas .

 

[CaptainWagner]

One cannot deny the role Grant played in ending the Civil War and his fight for black civil rights, but overall, the man was a ****** President. He rewarded far too many friends with political office and as a result was bogged down by far too much corruption in his administration to really be effective. And he was bogged down by a sluggish economy that was worsened by the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age and he did nothing about it. And personally, I kinda think that he was a lot like a bunch of military leaders who were pressured into office, they really didn't want it but felt obligated to do so.

Grant himself wasn't a bad president, just utterly inexpirienced with politics and vry naive. This unfortuantly led to his legacy being destroyed by his friends and his refusal to believe they were capable of crimes against the country.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

One cannot deny the role Grant played in ending the Civil War and his fight for black civil rights, but overall, the man was a ****** President. He rewarded far too many friends with political office and as a result was bogged down by far too much corruption in his administration to really be effective. And he was bogged down by a sluggish economy that was worsened by the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age and he did nothing about it. And personally, I kinda think that he was a lot like a bunch of military leaders who were pressured into office, they really didn't want it but felt obligated to do so.

Thankfully, Sherman had the balls to tell them no.

 

[NotFadeAway]

It's a shame he had great ideas .

Yes he did and a lot of my line of thinking matches up with Johnson!

Grant himself wasn't a bad president, just utterly inexpirienced with politics and vry naive. This unfortuantly led to his legacy being destroyed by his friends and his refusal to believe they were capable of crimes against the country.

I like my Presidents too have good military experience. I think it teaches you a lot about serving your country and the duty of protecting the people. But, thats all Grant was. An amazing General that probably shouldn't have been a politician.

Thankfully, Sherman had the balls to tell them no.

Off topic, I'd love to see a Sherman biopic!!

 

[Green Goblin]

It's really a choice between the lesser of two evils;

A Facist party that absolutely loves guns and free trade capitalism to death, hates gays, immigrants, women and hasn't a shred of human decency.

The other is hardly "left wing", it's centerist. Sure is has liberal values but it still loves guns and free trade capitalism, just not as much as Republicans...

 

[hippie_hunter]

It's really a choice between the lesser of two evils;

A Facist party that absolutely loves guns and free trade capitalism to death, hates gays, immigrants, women and hasn't a shred of human decency.

The other is hardly "left wing", it's centerist. Sure is has liberal values but it still loves guns and free trade capitalism, just not as much as Republicans...

The Democrats have no choice but to be center-left. The left-wing movements in the United States that attacked capitalism like the Populist Movement or various Marxist movements ended with spectacular failure because they kinda go against the liberal culture of the United States. The biggest reason why the Progressive Movement took off was because they took the bulk of the ideas of the Populist Movement, but embraced American entrepreneurial attitudes. By embracing capitalism, the Progressives were able to attract the upper and middle classes that we see to this day as opposed to just limiting themselves to the poor and minorities.

 

[Decepticonus]

It's really a choice between the lesser of two evils;

A Facist party that absolutely loves guns and free trade capitalism to death, hates gays, immigrants, women and hasn't a shred of human decency.

The other is hardly "left wing", it's centerist. Sure is has liberal values but it still loves guns and free trade capitalism, just not as much as Republicans...

Ummm yeaaah that is not even remotely close to fascism.

 

[Green Goblin]

Ummm yeaaah that is not even remotely close to fascism.

Ummmm yea it is. The tea party movement is far right.

 

[Decepticonus]

Ummmm yea it is. The tea party movement is far right.

Again you know nothing except for what atypical people have taught you.
Fascism was created by Benito Mussolini, a ardent member originally of the Italian Socialist Party. His father was a socialist as well, who read him Das Kapital as basically bed time stories. In fact his full name is Bentio Amilcare Andrea Mussolini. Amilcare and Andrea being the names of two Italian socialists - Andrea Coasta and Amilcare Cipriani. He grew up a radical socialist, running from the authorities, dodging military service and instigating strikes. He wrote for the Italian Socialist Party newspaper. He founded Fascism during WWI as basically a nationalist socialist party. They've been deemed right because for whatever reason at this time in Europe, nationalism was deemed a right wing trend. But look to many other people - Castro, Nassar, Chavez all leftists but big time nationalists. Chiang Kai Shek as well. Including all the reds locked them out too, it was in 1928 I believe Soviets basically made it law to shun out all other forms of socialism - fascism, even social democrats. It was the sense you are either playing for team Soviet Union or you're just against us and not a real socialist.

Mussolini could careless about free market capitalism. He had businesses cartled, put in price and wage controls, he outlaw lock outs from business. He was in favor of tariffs. There were bail outs, which I'm sorry is not free market capitalism. The free market capitalism approach to that is that business should sink or swim, with no government money. The party was founded in response to WWI during the rise of nationalism. For Marxism the great calling card to action was class but Mussolini saw the call to action now was nationalism because everyone at the time was willing to lay down their own personal and private interests for the good of the nation, the state!

The party had a platform asking for
-Lowering the minimum voting age to eighteen, the minimum age for representatives to twenty-five, and universal suffrage, including for women.

- The abolition of the Senate and the creation of a national technical council on intellectual and manual labor, industry, commerce and culture.

- End of the draft.

- Repeal of titles of nobility.

- A foreign policy aimed at expanding Italy's will and power in opposition to all foreign imperialisms.

- The prompt enactment of a state law sanctioning a legal work day of eight actual hours of work for all workers.

- A minimum wage.

- The creation of various government bodies run by workers' representatives.

- Reform of the old-age and pension system and the establishment of age limits for hazardous work.

- Forcing landowners to cultivate their lands or have them expropriated and given to veterans and farmers' cooperatives.

- The obligation of the state to build "rigidly secular" schools for the raising of "the proletariat's moral and cultural condition."

- A large and progressive tax on capital that would amount to a one-time partial expropriation of all riches.

- The seizure of all goods belonging to religious congregations and the abolition of episcopal revenues.

- The "review" of all military contracts and the "sequestration of 85% of all war profits.

- The nationalization of all arms and explosives industries.

In the american context, this is a very liberal platform. He blended Georges Sorel's syndicalism, some Nietzche and William James' pragmatism. Because yes, some things like the telephone companies were privatized in the beginning but it was in the sphere of pragmatism. Does privatizing x, y & z benefit the state? If so then do it. It was to be a society as he said nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. To borrow from FDR's NRA - "We do our part" Hell, during his puppet rule he was planning to nationalize all companies with 100+ employees but unfortunately that pesky war was in the way.
I could go and on if you want me to?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Decepticonus is right here. Fascism is a left-wing ideology, not right-winged one. For some reason, Hitler gets associated with it when he really isn't technically in the same boat of the political spectrum as Mussolini.

 

[The Overlord]

Again you know nothing except for what atypical people have taught you.
Fascism was created by Benito Mussolini, a ardent member originally of the Italian Socialist Party. His father was a socialist as well, who read him Das Kapital as basically bed time stories. In fact his full name is Bentio Amilcare Andrea Mussolini. Amilcare and Andrea being the names of two Italian socialists - Andrea Coasta and Amilcare Cipriani. He grew up a radical socialist, running from the authorities, dodging military service and instigating strikes. He wrote for the Italian Socialist Party newspaper. He founded Fascism during WWI as basically a nationalist socialist party. They've been deemed right because for whatever reason at this time in Europe, nationalism was deemed a right wing trend. But look to many other people - Castro, Nassar, Chavez all leftists but big time nationalists. Chiang Kai Shek as well. Including all the reds locked them out too, it was in 1928 I believe Soviets basically made it law to shun out all other forms of socialism - fascism, even social democrats. It was the sense you are either playing for team Soviet Union or you're just against us and not a real socialist.

Mussolini could careless about free market capitalism. He had businesses cartled, put in price and wage controls, he outlaw lock outs from business. He was in favor of tariffs. There were bail outs, which I'm sorry is not free market capitalism. The free market capitalism approach to that is that business should sink or swim, with no government money. The party was founded in response to WWI during the rise of nationalism. For Marxism the great calling card to action was class but Mussolini saw the call to action now was nationalism because everyone at the time was willing to lay down their own personal and private interests for the good of the nation, the state!

The party had a platform asking for
-Lowering the minimum voting age to eighteen, the minimum age for representatives to twenty-five, and universal suffrage, including for women.

- The abolition of the Senate and the creation of a national technical council on intellectual and manual labor, industry, commerce and culture.

- End of the draft.

- Repeal of titles of nobility.

- A foreign policy aimed at expanding Italy's will and power in opposition to all foreign imperialisms.

- The prompt enactment of a state law sanctioning a legal work day of eight actual hours of work for all workers.

- A minimum wage.

- The creation of various government bodies run by workers' representatives.

- Reform of the old-age and pension system and the establishment of age limits for hazardous work.

- Forcing landowners to cultivate their lands or have them expropriated and given to veterans and farmers' cooperatives.

- The obligation of the state to build "rigidly secular" schools for the raising of "the proletariat's moral and cultural condition."

- A large and progressive tax on capital that would amount to a one-time partial expropriation of all riches.

- The seizure of all goods belonging to religious congregations and the abolition of episcopal revenues.

- The "review" of all military contracts and the "sequestration of 85% of all war profits.

- The nationalization of all arms and explosives industries.

In the american context, this is a very liberal platform. He blended Georges Sorel's syndicalism, some Nietzche and William James' pragmatism. Because yes, some things like the telephone companies were privatized in the beginning but it was in the sphere of pragmatism. Does privatizing x, y & z benefit the state? If so then do it. It was to be a society as he said nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. To borrow from FDR's NRA - "We do our part" Hell, during his puppet rule he was planning to nationalize all companies with 100+ employees but unfortunately that pesky war was in the way.
I could go and on if you want me to?

Except Mussolini was only a socialist earlier life, when he became a fascist, the socialists of Italy actively opposed him, there were clashes between socialists and fascists in the streets and Mussolini wrote anti socialist speeches, blaming them for Italy's problems. I don't think he was loved by socialists at point, when he switched political ideologies. Really how many socialists wanted to establish a colonial empire like Mussolini tried to do?

The problem with American political thought, is it assumes that all big government movements are left wing and all small government movements are right wing, but is a ridiculous over simplification.

Anarchist socialists are the most radical left wing group out there and they want to abolish the state entirely, they believe in a much smaller government then Libertarians and neo cons have dramatically increased the power of executive branch while in office.

Most idealistic radical left wingers, big government is just a means to an end, even Marxism stated the dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to die off and be replaced by a stateless, classless society. The problem is, they have no idea how to get there.

I think the tea party started off as a libertarian moment, but by the time Bachmann became "queen of the tea party" and no really seemed to have a problem that, the tea party for the most part sold out and became another party that "hates big government", unless its big government for the industrial military complex or religion, then big government is okay. The tea party sold out by giving authority to people like Bachmann, they are no longer a true small government movement.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Depends of the socialist. Mussolini was still a socialist in the end, but he fell more along the lines of authoritarian socialism, which kinda goes against their more democratic socialist brethren that would naturally oppose Mussolini.

 

[The Overlord]

Depends of the socialist. Mussolini was still a socialist in the end, but he fell more along the lines of authoritarian socialism, which kinda goes against their more democratic socialist brethren that would naturally oppose Mussolini.

Mussolini didn't seem to consider himself a socialist after WW1, he said this in 1919:

"Socialism as a doctrine was already dead; it continued to exist only as a grudge"

I also don't think a socialist would support the creation of a colonial empire, like Mussolini wanted to do. The fascist party also opposed class warfare. So I do kinda challenge the idea that he was really a socialist after the war, but he was one before the war. I think Mussolini's opposition to his former socialist comrades is more then opposition to more democratic forms of socialism, Italian fascist propaganda often used socialists as scapegoats for all of Italy's problems. Just because Mussolini was not a laissez faire capitalist doesn't mean he remained a socialist after the war, fascism doesn't seem to follow the socialist ethos. He didn't seem to support the socialists fighting against Franco in the Spanish Civil War, quite the opposite actually.

But to get back to the main point, I just find this idea of right wing always equals small government and left wing always equals big government that is thrown around in American politics over simplistic and not always true.

I don't think the tea party is fascist, but by embracing religious zealots and neo cons, it has given up all claims of being a truly small government movement. I also find that Republicans and other right wingers often support a form of nationalism that dissuades critical thinking and promotes a herd mentality, which contradicts their ideas of promoting individualism and freedom.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Decepticonus is right here. Fascism is a left-wing ideology, not right-winged one. For some reason, Hitler gets associated with it when he really isn't technically in the same boat of the political spectrum as Mussolini.

Dude. Fascism is as right-wing as you can get. Fascism is a reaction to communism. Literally. That was Mussolini's intent. It's nationalism taken to its most logical extreme.

Nazism is just a uniquely German brand of Fascism, with a touch of Völkisch and eugenics.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Fascism is a European concept, which I am honestly not sure if it works in American politics. Don't get me wrong, I use it all the time, but I mean in a serious politics discussion, I don't know if I would use that.

The Tea Party is what I would call Christian Nationalistic. I would say they're more like Islamists than Fascists, in the sense that they see the world in terms of religion and nationalism. The Catholic Church sanctioned Fascism, but it didn't play a big role in Fascist policy, besides the inherited beliefs and prejudices (against Jews) its members had.

The Tea Partiers seem to envision their ideal America as a sort of homogenous quasi-theocracy. They're ultra-reactionaries, but they have an interesting relationship with the concept of a strong state. Regionalism seems to hamper them from being traditional nationalists who want a strong state.

 

[Decepticonus]

The problem is what socialism meant back then. Socialism/communism meant internationalism. Marx said workers of the world unite and the working man has no country. People like Mussolini said "********". You can be a nationalist AND a socialist as well. Plus, he felt socialism was done, outdated. He didn't go from left to right. He was more of when the New Left replaced the Old Left in the 60's here in America. These were people who read Marx and eventually left Marx, not in some right-wing conservative reaction of "No he's wrong, liberal and evil." But more of a "I've read this, I understand and agree to some extent but he's wrong and has a few holes." Plus, don't forget what I mentioned earlier. One of his polices for the Republic of Salo was to nationalize large industries. Furthermore, his new doctrine or platform was being helped written up by Nicola Bombacci, a disciple of Lenin and founder of the Italian Communist Party. This man would later be executed with the Duce.
As far as his colonialism and lack of democracy, well.... even his is original socialist days he was against colonialism yes but democracy as well to be honest. I mean the Soviets weren't afraid to go into other countries and say "ours" technically not colonialism but loosely in the same boat, loosely. As historian Richard Pipes said, both Bolshevism and Fascism are heresies of Marxism. Because they both believe in this vanguard leading the revolution. Again, he was really into Nietzsche which as far as I can tell is not discussed or read in socialist circles. He was not into egalitarianism at all. He was extremely anti-clerical and thought anyone entertaining or tolerating religion, having a church wedding or baptizing their kids should be kicked out of the party.
His support of Franco, well keep in mind one group within the Nationalists side, which was the Falangists. They adopted the colors of blue, representing the blue overalls of the workers. They favored a syndicalist system, very nationalist but had the ear of the working class somewhat. When Mussolini invited their leader to a meeting of other Fascist leaders, he turned him down saying what they were doing wasn't fascist, it was "spanish." Hell, Hitler said about this war...

I must say, in general, that during the civil war the idealism was not on Franco's side; it was to be found among the Reds ... one of these days we'll be able to make use of them... The whole thing will start all over again. But with us on the opposite side.

Now Nazism as Fascism is well still slightly debatable most serious historians say no or treat it completely separate. And this is the problem Fascism means something different to each nation because each nation is different. Meanwhile, Hitler never reffered to himself as a Fascist. He mentions fascism roughly only twice in Mein Kampf. And there were quarrels between the two at first.

I agree the Tea Party are extremely reactionary and support almost something of a Christian theocracy, but they're just not intelligent enough to see it. The Catholic Church supported fascism yes, because it was the better option over Communism. But the Duce found ways, he censored the Vatican's papers, still mocked them, was still anti-clerical, in sections where it read his or he (in reference to Mussolini) it would be capitalized much like how you do with God. But back to the topic, they aren't nationalists in any true sense of the word. Their ways are a mix of extreme protestantism being applied to the law and culture, along with dare I saw a almost Randian view on society and economics - there are poor looters and productive businessman, there should be no assistance for anyone. They act as if they are trying to turn the clock back to a time that existed but never truly did exist to begin with.

 

[chaseter]

It's really a choice between the lesser of two evils;

A Facist party that absolutely loves guns and free trade capitalism to death, hates gays, immigrants, women and hasn't a shred of human decency.

The other is hardly "left wing", it's centerist. Sure is has liberal values but it still loves guns and free trade capitalism, just not as much as Republicans...

That was quite possibly the worst comparison I've read on here.

 

[Decepticonus]

That was quite possibly the worst comparison I've read on here.

Oh yes it is. Though I'm disappointed I was hoping in this comparison the Democrats would communists because they are.... right? I know FOX says they are.

 

[Taarna]

Will we ever see another third party candidate make a serious run for President?

Yes. But for the candidate to have a serious chance, I think he/she must have the following.

1 ) A clean political career and business career.

2 ) Being from a large state, with the ability to win it.

3 ) Deep pockets or a winner at fund raisers.

4 ) A weak field of Dem's and Republican's

5 ) A complete melt down of USA economy and a nation at its tipping point for social programs where neither party has an answer.


Ross Perot was the last serious independent candidate, and he won 18.9% of the vote, but no states.