Latest news with #Whigs
The Hill
10-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Third parties are a fool's errand in America, and Elon Musk is just the latest fool
Like a bad penny, the idea of a third party regularly shows up in American political discourse. It never comes to anything. Seemingly smart people sign up for these doomed efforts. That Elon Musk, Andrew Yang and Mark Cuban are piling in only proves that intelligence in business and engineering is rarely portable into politics. Opportunistically, Yang wants to team up with Musk, but says he wants to know 'what the path looks like.' How about 'dead end?' And it's not because of any conspiracy — although yes, institutions in power do tend to develop a survival instinct. Third parties crash and burn in America because our form of government is structured for a two-party system. To have viable third parties will require changing the Constitution — no easy task. The founding fathers certainly did not anticipate this result. But their creation — first-past-the-post winners elected geographically in states or districts — naturally favors two parties. Third parties tend to become wasted protest votes and inevitably wither away. When they do become a political force, they either replace one of the major parties, have their ideas absorbed by one (or both) of those two parties, or become regional. Of course, third parties have popped up from time to time in America. The Republican Party started as one. As a firmly abolitionist party, the Republican Party swept away the feckless Whigs in the 1850s. In the late 19th century, the Populist Party rose out of the Great Plains. But in 1896, Democrat William Jennings Bryan stole their thunder and their platform, with the Populists mostly drifting into the Democratic Party. Later, the Progressives in the 20th century straddled both parties up to the Great Depression, when they too mostly became Democrats. The last third-party gasp was Ross Perot's Reform Party. Perot had his moment in 1992 but cracked under the pressure. His movement was too dependent on his personality and the national deficit as an issue. When these failed, Reform flamed out. But this experience is not uniquely American. Both Britain and Canada show how this electoral structure pushes political systems to two parties. Britain has been dominated by two parties since the advent of political parties, with third parties occasionally nosing their way into coalitions. At first it was the Conservatives and the Liberals (starting as Whigs). Then, the early 20th century saw the rise of the more left-wing Labour Party. But Labour did not become a third wheel — it replaced the Liberals, who went from leading the government in 1910 with 274 seats to just 59 seats by 1929. While the party now known as the Liberal Democrats have occasionally had bursts of electoral success, they have not been able to maintain momentum. They grabbed 57 seats in 2010 and entered into coalition with the Conservatives, only to collapse to just 8 seats in the next election, wiped out by a geographic party, the Scottish National Party. And it is only these geographically based parties that can gain representation. Despite never gaining more than 5 percent of the British national vote, the SNP has been able to regularly outperform the Liberals. In 2017, with less than half the votes of the Liberals, the SNP gained 35 seats to the Liberals' 12. Canada demonstrates a similar dynamic with the same system as Britain. Again, Conservatives and Liberals have faced off against each other for more than a century. But two other parties have been part of the political story: the New Democratic Party, a leftist national party and Bloc Québécois, a regional party. Like Labour, the New Democratic Party rose up to challenge the Liberals from the left. Unlike Labour, it failed to replace them when it had the chance. In 2011, the NDP outpolled the Liberals and gained 103 seats to the Liberals' 34, but the next election, the party collapsed to just 44 seats. It has only weakened from there, holding just seven seats after the latest election. The Bloc has mostly stayed relevant, despite never gaining more than 10 percent of the vote. It currently has 22 seats, holding the balance of power in the Canadian parliament, with the Liberals (169 seats) just short of a majority. And that is the dynamic that stymies third parties while keeping regional parties relevant. Being a geographic also-ran without proportional representation is a disaster. With voters scattered across the country and thus diluted in each district, third parties cannot win seats, whether parliamentary, congressional or in the Electoral College. Voters don't like wasting their votes and tend to drop out or go to the least objectionable major party. In parliamentary systems, holding the few seats for a coalition government means a third party can bargain for some executive power. But in the American federal system, third parties have no power in the executive branch and can only, at best, trade votes in Congress, if needed. The independents who do get elected to the House and Senate are from small states with an independent voting streak. Alaska, Maine and Vermont — out-of-the-way states with small electorates — have a record of electing independents. However, in their current iteration, it's worth noting that the two independents, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) are independents in name only. They caucus with the Democrats and vote lockstep with them on everything. When former Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin ( and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) tried to broker centrist compromises, King and Sanders were nowhere to be found. If Musk, Yang and Cuban are as smart as they think they are, they would either plot to replace or take over one of the two major parties. Barring that, they could put together an advocacy group that would involve itself in Republican and Democratic primaries, supporting candidates who circle around a coherent platform. Their group would be a real nonpartisan organization, not the fake 'unbiased' PACs that grow like weeds in Washington. The bottom line is that Musk's America Party will eventually go the same way as No Labels and the Forward Party if it follows the same failed playbook — forward to nowhere. Keith Naughton, a longtime Republican political consultant, is co-founder of Silent Majority Strategies, a public and regulatory affairs consulting firm, and a former Pennsylvania political campaign consultant.
Los Angeles Times
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Elon Musk's America Party is a long shot
'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom,' Elon Musk declared on his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter). Another billionaire quickly replied on his social media platform, 'I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely 'off the rails,' essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks,' President Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday night. 'He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States.' If I had to guess, Elon Musk's America Party will go nowhere. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even file the required paperwork — the amount is so large it could probably be seen from space. And that's just one of the daunting challenges facing third parties. Still, Trump is wrong. He is, after all, the head of the most successful third party in American history. The Republican Party was born in Ripon, Wis., in 1854. Two years later, the Republican candidate for president, John Frémont, carried 11 (out of 31) states. Four years after that, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican president, and the Whigs soon went the way of the dinosaurs. But other than that, lasting success — if measured by capturing the White House or being a major force beyond an election cycle or two — the record of third parties is not great. The primary reason for this is structural. Our first-past-the-post system for declaring a winner makes voting third party seem like a wasted vote. But that doesn't mean third parties don't matter. Teddy Roosevelt's 1912 Bull Moose Party split the Republicans and put Woodrow Wilson (the worst president of the 20th century) in office. People still debate whether Ross Perot's Reform Party doomed George H.W. Bush's 1992 reelection; Ralph Nader's 2000 Green Party run almost certainly cost Al Gore Florida, and hence the electoral college and the presidency. That's why political historian Richard Hofstadter's famous verdict on third parties is so enduring: 'Third parties are like bees: Once they have stung, they die.' Musk is ill-suited to replay the role of Perot, although both fit the description 'erratic billionaire.' As an immigrant, Musk can't run for president himself, as Perot did. This matters because if Musk is serious about the America Party, he'll have to find quality candidates to carry its banner. Given his toxicity among Democrats, and Trump's ongoing effort to anathematize him, that might prove difficult. The mid-19th century success of what was then a Grand New Party stemmed from the split among the Whigs over slavery, and slavery was the defining issue of the times. The country needed an anti-slavery party. The Republican Party was created to meet market demand. You could say the same in 2025; the demand is there. A majority of Americans have wanted a third party for decades. But desire is not enough. A third party's success will be defined by specific issues. Is it for or against abortion rights? Does it see debt and deficits as Musk does (and I do too) or as Bernie Sanders does? We don't know the specifics yet, or if the America Party will even get that far. Musk appears to believe that the country is much less divided on issues than the parties and media would have us believe. I think there's something to that. The intense partisan polarization of the last quarter-century is driven less by ideological commitment than by tribalized hatred of Republicans and Democrats for the other party. When presidents change their party's policy stances, most partisans change with them. For instance, Trump changed the GOP's position on trade, and formerly pro-trade Republicans moved with him. And in a sense so have Democrats, although in the opposite direction. When Trump is for something, many Democrats suddenly oppose it. Hyperpartisans want hyperpartisanship. But Musk's theory is that there is a middle 60% or 70% sufficiently sick of hyperpartisanship to stick their thumbs in the eyes of both parties. That's where I'm skeptical. Still, Musk's strategy to test the proposition seems like the right one. He says the America Party will concentrate 'on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts.' Given the incredibly narrow margins in Congress, if those contests break for Musk it could be enough to profoundly change the political dynamics in both houses. If decisive votes for legislation were held by America Party members, that translates to enormous power to shape legislation. Forcing Congress to get back into the business of crossing party lines to form factional coalitions would be a very healthy improvement. Again, the actual issues would matter enormously, as does Musk's ability to harness his outrage into organizing a party structure. But popular dissatisfaction with Democrats and Republicans is so great, stinging each might actually work for just enough candidates to matter. @JonahDispatch
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ex-Democratic leader warns party is 'dying' as key issues leave voters wanting 'new way forward'
Former California Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero warned Tuesday that the party she once called home is "on its last stand," accusing its members of abandoning common sense and core American values in favor of identity politics. "It is a dying party. It will go the way of the Whigs in a century past," she said while appearing on "Fox & Friends First." "The new way forward is an America-first party, the Republican Party under Donald Trump… This is really a new party, and it's one that recognizes that borders matter, citizenship matters, safety for all [matters]. We care about the content of one's character much more than we care about the color of our skin, and across the board… we are there together to say, 'Stop the nonsense. Speak common sense.'" Former Democrat Hill Staffers Challenge The Aging Establishment In Congress: Report Romero said many former Democrats – Tulsi Gabbard, Leo Terrell, RFK, Jr. and herself included – tried to be voices for reform within the party, but saw the writing on the wall and ultimately resigned themselves to leaving altogether. Her comments lambasting Democrats came after Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. John Fetterman bucked his party over the border and antisemitism during a Fox Nation-hosted debate with his Republican colleague Sen. Dave McCormick on Monday. Read On The Fox News App "Antisemitism [is] out of control… Building tent cities on a campus and terrorizing and intimidating Jewish students – that's not free speech, and now we've lost the argument in parts of my party," he conceded. Biden Cover-up Scandal Could Usher In New Era Of Republican Dominance "Our party did not handle the border appropriately. Look at the numbers: 267,000, 300,000 people showing up at our border. Now that's unacceptable and that's a national security issue and that is chaos." Romero applauded the Keystone State lawmakers for showcasing a commitment to working across the aisle in a way she wishes more politicians would consider. "Sadly, Democrats are still caught in that web, the ideology of identity politics, and it [working across the aisle] has not yet taken root," she Here To Join Fox Nation "They still stand up and scream that everybody's a Nazi, everybody's racist. Or still defend open borders, deny the rampant antisemitism, and refuse to stand up for America first. But hopefully, with the Fetterman-McCormick discussion debate, I hope it really sends a message across the country that this is what the American people want – for our elected officials to grow up, to listen to each other, and work with each other for Americans."Original article source: Ex-Democratic leader warns party is 'dying' as key issues leave voters wanting 'new way forward'
Boston Globe
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
What the Whigs can teach us
Today the Whigs are regarded as a fusty barnacle on American history, a long-ago movement banished to historical oblivion. But the historian Allen Guelzo has The party took its name from the British Whigs, themselves formed to provide a legislative counterpoint to powerful executive rule, in their case the monarchy. For nearly two centuries, the Whigs — the term is derived from the Scottish Gaelic name for a horse thief — sought a series of substantial transformations in the political culture of Britain. They sought to empower the middle class, abolish slavery, and reform the country's political system, then an untidy and undemocratic amalgam of legislative districts known as 'rotten boroughs' that were the power centers of land owners and other aristocrats. Advertisement The American Whigs were motivated by the muscular presidency of Andrew Jackson, so lionized by President Donald Trump that he placed a portrait of the seventh president in the Oval Office in both his terms. The Whigs' gloom over Jackson's overreach — they regarded his 1829-1837 White House tenure as years of executive tyranny — prompted them to seek a new path to restore an old balance. Advertisement Why the need for a new Whig party? Though only four months old, Trump's second administration is marked by unprecedented attempts to exert executive power and a flurry of executive orders that bypass Capitol Hill. Only a handful of measures have been approved by Congress, which has ceded not only the initiative in American politics but also many of its roles. Though Congress has Constitutional responsibilities in trade — and two once-powerful subcommittees specifically devoted to the issue — Trump has unilaterally imposed tariffs on friends, trading partners, and military and commercial foes alike. Though independent agencies created by Congress are historically, and legally, regarded as impervious to presidential interference, Trump has attacked them, removed their directors, and curtailed their remits. And earlier this month, the head of the executive branch summarily removed the leader of an institution called the Library of Congress . President Donald Trump arrived to deliver an address to a joint session of Congress on March 4. KENNY HOLSTON/NYT This has occurred while Congress slept. The Democrats might have mounted an aggressive opposition to Trump had they not been in the minority in both chambers and struggling to reshape their tactics and their message. Advertisement 'The American system has shared powers as much as a separation of powers,' Andrew Ballard, a Florida State University political scientist, said in an interview. 'But Congress has done just about nothing. Congress has to have incentive to share power or wrestle back some of its policy-making role from the executive. Right now they don't and seem happy with the outcomes. They haven't yet seen that the administration has crossed some line they cannot countenance.' Indeed, the eclipse of Congress has been one of the distinctive qualities of the era. 'The lack of major legislation is not because Mr. Trump failed but because he has not even bothered to try,' the conservative Wall Street Journal noted in a recent editorial. 'Even though his own Republican Party controls both houses of Congress, the president has all but disregarded Capitol Hill so far.…Executive orders feed his appetite for instant action, while enacting legislation can involve arduous and time-consuming negotiations.' The 19th-century Whigs present an appealing prototype for moderate Democrats seeking a way out of their paralysis and for Republicans impatient with, or horrified by, the Trump ascendancy. They grew out of a debate that, Michael F. Holt wrote in his 1999 'Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party,' was 'about the proper character of a republican society, that is, about what social and economic arrangements would best sustain citizens' virtue, their commitment to the public good or commonweal.' These are precisely the questions in the air today. Americans sharing those concerns gathered under the Whig banner 'focused on its everlasting basic principle: opposition to executive usurpation in general' — another analog to today. Advertisement Sean Wilentz's characterization of the Whigs in his 2016 'The Politicians and the Egalitarians' demonstrates the breadth of the 19th-century party and leads us to wonder if a 21st-century version, shorn of some of the original party's constituencies, might be appropriate for our own time. The Whigs, he wrote, were 'a national coalition dominated by pro-business conservatives, humanitarian reformers, Christian evangelicals, supporters of federally backed economic developments and moderate Southern planters.' No historical comparison works completely, or even neatly. Susan Hanssen of the University of Dallas has noted that Trump has some Whig characteristics, particularly his embrace of tariffs. The Whigs didn't endure as a powerful entity. Weakened by sectional divisions growing out of fevered debate over slavery, they collapsed soon after their 1852 presidential nominee, Winfield Scott, was soundly defeated by Franklin Pierce. In their death were the political nutrients that helped nourish the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln. Debates about the limits of presidential power have been a hardy American perennial. The Whig philosophy was perhaps best expressed by William Henry Harrison, the party's first president, who, in a reference to Jackson and President Martin Van Buren, said that considering one person 'the source from which all the measures of government should emanate is degrading to the republic.' The new Whigs could steal that quote as the founding statement of their own party. This column first appeared in , Globe Opinion's free weekly newsletter about local and national politics. If you'd like to receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up . Advertisement David Shribman is a nationally syndicated columnist. He can be reached at
Glasgow Times
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Glasgow Times
Dailly: 'Out with the useless, in with the hopeless'
For the last 100 years or so, the two-party state at Westminster has been a tussle between the Tories and Labour; before then it was between the Tories and the Liberals – with the Liberals having grown out the Whigs in the 1850s. The term "hegemony" comes from Ancient Greece. It means to lead and represents the ascendancy of one group or elite within a society over everyone else. It's arguable that until the 1920s, the UK's hegemony operated principally for the royalists, aristocracy, landed gentry, and wealthy. The rise of the Labour Party marked a sea change shift with a political party representing the working class and trade unions. However, last week's local council elections in England witnessed working class voters reject both Labour and the Conservatives. One might suggest that Labour in 2025 has more in common with 1920's conservatism than Ramsay MacDonald's Labour Party. Nigel Farage's Reform UK gained 677 councillors and control of 10 councils. The Tories lost 674 councillors; while Labour lost 187. The Lib Dems gained 163. Some commentators have tried to play down the complete wipe-out of Tory and Labour councillors, pointing to the fact there are 317 councils in England – comprising county, district, unitary, and metropolitan councils among others. But English local government elections operate in yearly cycles. What was up for grabs last week was mostly county and a few unitary and metro councils, with six directly elected mayors. Many of these elections were in traditional Labour heartlands and Reform took 41.5 per cent of the 1,631 council seats available, along with 2 mayoral contests and a MP in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election. If that wasn't seismic, I'm not sure what would be. Here's the thing. We will have another cycle of council elections in England next year – including all 32 London borough councils – and another cycle in 2027 too. Never has a governing party that won a landslide victory at Westminster – just 10 months ago – lost support so quickly amongst the electorate. The message from the voters is simple. We've had enough of the two mainstream parties. The Tories literally ran a clown show for the last few years. Labour come into office with grand promises of improving people's lives and the first thing they do is cut the winter fuel payment and hike up employer's national insurance contributions. No taxes for the uber rich but plenty of money for weapons of war. To balance the books, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have proposed a raid on welfare spending with £5bn of cuts to disability and sickness benefits. There's a Westminster Hall debate on the planned cuts this Wednesday afternoon. Perhaps the saddest aspect of all of this is that Reform UK offer little. No hope. Just more division. For sure, they are good at calling out Labour's duplicity and uselessness. Just like Labour did with the Conservative Party – and how did that end? And yet people are voting for Reform UK in England in their droves to express their frustration and disdain for the two traditional parties. How will Reform play out in Scotland? We have the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election for Holyrood on 5 June. And then the Holyrood elections in May – so we shall soon find out.
