Latest news with #politicalSystem
CNA
07-07-2025
- Politics
- CNA
Commentary: Elon Musk has launched his own party – US history suggests it will fail
NOTTINGHAM, England: To paraphrase a very old joke, how do you make a small fortune in America? Start with a large fortune and fund a third political party. American political history is littered with the wrecks of challengers who thought they could break the two-party system and failed. This makes Elon Musk's launch of his own new political party as an act of defiance following his falling out with US President Donald Trump even more intriguing. What do we mean by a two-party system though? Since the 1860s, the Democrats and Republicans have dominated the US political landscape, holding the presidency, Congress and the vast majority of elected positions. Attempts at third parties have usually floundered at the ballot box. Some have lasted only for a few electoral cycles, including the Progressive Party in the 1910s and the Citizens Party of the 1980s, while others like the Libertarian Party and Green Party have lasted decades and, in some cases, managed some electoral success at the local level. But this is where an important distinction has to be made between third parties and third-party candidates. Because the US system is so personality-driven rather than party focused compared to Europe, quite often third parties have been built around a single person. A good example is the previously mentioned Progressive Party. It was founded in 1912 by former president Theodore Roosevelt after he split from the Republicans. Without him it quickly faded away. The Reform Party was created by billionaire Ross Perot in 1995 after he managed to get 18.9 per cent of the vote in the 1992 presidential election. While it continued without him for some years, it was a shell of its former self. Other parties like the Socialist, Libertarian and Green parties have sprung from more organic movements and thus have been more successful at a local or state level. When you look at recent polling though, it seems strange that the two parties continue to dominate. Public dissatisfaction with politics as usual seems at an all-time high. In a recent Pew Research poll when asked whether 'I often wish there were more political parties to choose from' describes their views, 37 per cent of respondents answered: 'Very well' and 31 per cent answered: 'Somewhat well'. In another poll, 25 per cent of respondents said that neither of the two main parties represented their interests. So if there is an appetite for some sort of change, why have so few challengers succeeded? The two main parties seem entrenched to the point where it resembles a cartel. ODDS STACKED AGAINST THIRD-PARTY INSURGENCY The first and arguably most important reason is the electoral system. First past the post does not guarantee a two-party system (look at Britain, for instance). But political scientist Maurice Duverger argued that it does mean that the two main parties have a significant advantage. There are prizes for coming first and second, nothing for third place. Equally, many of the big prizes in American politics such as the presidency and state governorships are indivisible and cannot be shared. So it has become received wisdom that voting for anyone other than Democrats or Republicans is a wasted vote. In these cases, people either vote for what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils or stay at home, rather than voting for a candidate with no chance or that they may not support. The other multi-billion-dollar elephant in the room is money. The sheer cost of running for elections in recent years means that any third party is unlikely to be able to raise the funds to be truly competitive. At the last election, the Democrats and Republicans spent hundreds of millions of dollars (which isn't even counting all of the super-PAC money spent on their behalf). Whenever billionaires like Perot have attempted to self-fund a party, they have left themselves open to the accusation that it's a vanity project or lacks true mass appeal. There is also the fact that to run successfully you must have media coverage. The media tends to focus almost exclusively on the two main parties. This creates a 'chicken and egg' situation where you need success to help raise money and media coverage, but it's difficult to be successful without first having money and media coverage. The final reasons are that of the open primary and ideological flexibility of the main parties. Trump briefly considered running as president for the Reform Party back in 2000. In 2016, the open primary system that both main parties use meant that he could impose himself on the Republican Party despite most of the party elite despising him. Why bother starting your own party when you can run for one that already exists? It could now be argued that the Republicans have effectively become the Trump or MAGA party, although whether this will survive his presidency is open to debate. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY Elon Musk has, for the moment, money to burn. Whether he's willing to invest in the long term to turn this into more than a vanity project remains to be seen. He also has charisma and a national platform to amplify his voice like few others. But, having been born outside America, he can't run for president. If he's serious about electoral success, he'd have to find someone to run, and that would mean, effectively, they'd lead his party. Musk's public persona suggests that he does not play well with others. Founding a third party isn't impossible, but unless there is a political earthquake it seems difficult to see how one could succeed.
Russia Today
06-07-2025
- Automotive
- Russia Today
Trump blasts Musk's plan to break up two-party US system
US President Donald Trump has lashed out at Elon Musk over the tech billionaire's plan to launch a new political party, accusing him of promoting 'disruption and chaos' and undermining the stability of the American political system. In a post on Truth Social late Sunday, Trump criticized Musk for what he described as erratic behavior in recent weeks, calling the entrepreneur a 'train wreck.' He claimed that Musk's proposal to form a third party – dubbed the 'America Party' – would fail and only serve to divide voters. 'I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely 'off the rails,' essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks,' Trump wrote. 'He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States – the system seems not designed for them.' 'The one thing Third Parties are good for is the creation of Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS,' the president added, blaming the Democratic Party for already bringing 'enough of that.' Trump also defended his recently signed multitrillion-dollar spending package, dubbed the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' which has drawn sharp criticism from Musk. The president claimed that the billionaire opposed the legislation only because it eliminated federal electric vehicle mandates that had benefited Musk's business. Trump also took issue with Musk's alleged attempt to have one of his associates appointed to run NASA, noting that the candidate was a Democrat and that the appointment would have raised concerns over a conflict of interest, given Musk's ties to the space industry. 'My number one charge is to protect the American public!' Trump wrote. The remarks follow Musk's announcement on Friday that he is moving ahead with the creation of the America Party, pledging to 'give freedom back to the people' and attacking both major parties for 'bankrupting' the country. The billionaire did not elaborate on how much progress he had made with the plan but briefly outlined his strategy and hinted that the first move could be expected 'next year,' during the US midterm elections in November 2026, when 33 of the 100 Senate seats and all 435 House seats will be up for grabs. 'The way we're going to crack the uniparty system is by using a variant of how Epaminondas shattered the myth of Spartan invincibility at Leuctra: extremely concentrated force at a precise location on the battlefield,' Musk stated. Musk previously insisted that his criticism of Trump and his policies was not about subsidies but was triggered by a sharp budget deficit hike he had been recruited to reduce. The tech billionaire was one of the key figures in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a much-hyped temporary organization established to cut budget costs and excessive federal spending. Since the honeymoon ended, Musk and Trump have been locked in a recurring war of words, with the US president accusing his former close ally of receiving more US government subsidies 'than any human being in history,' threatening to sic DOGE on him, and even mulling a potential deportation of the South African-born entrepreneur.
