Thursday, July 06, 2006

U.S. Multiparty system

Jim Henley, responding to my earlier post,highlights the dilemma that we (classical) liberals/libertarians face on election day in this two-party system (yes, yes, I know that there is a libertarian party) when he points out that he dislikes (well, despises) Jim Webb's economic nationalist agenda while approving of his position on Iraq. This is when many of us fantasize about a multi-party system in this country (and yes, yes, I know why our sytem is more effective in preventing the rise of dangerous demagogues, is more stable, etc.). So here is my proposal for a new multi-party system (and note that I've chosen "fresh" faces to lead them, e.g., Sailer, and not Buchanan to lead the Nationalist Party).

The Liberal Party led by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Supports free markets/free trade. Liberal on social-cultural issues (drugs, gays, abortion, etc.). Pro-immigration and anti-interventionist (although I can imagine a scenario when a few neocons influence the party's foreign policy agenda in a more "Wilsonian" direction). Jim will probably vote for these guys.

The Nationalist Party led by Steve Sailer. The Jacksonians. Orientation towards economic nationalism and anti-immigration. Expect some divisions over social-cultural (Buchanan Catholics and Southern Protestants vs. Midwestern conservatives) issues and foreign policy (Buchanan vs. Malkin).

The Christian-Democratic party led by Chuck Hagel. The moderate/centrist party on the political right. You get the idea.

The Social-Democratic party led by Russ Feingold. The moderate/centrist party on the political left. Again, you get the idea.

The Green Party led by Robert Kennedy Jr. Economic nationalist, pro-immigration, liberal on social-cultural issues and anti-interventionist.

Now... you have to admit. That would be an exciting election. And even more exciting would be the efforts to form post-election coalition. What's you favorite combinations? Liberal/Christian-Democrats? Green/Social-Democrats? Nationalists/Christian-Democrats? Liberal/Green/Social-Democrats? Christian-Democrats/Social-Democrats?


Nell said...


You bet! If only....

Anonymous said...

Funny idea, but you left out a big segment of the right. What exactly do pro-market voters pick? Not much choice here really.

Your "Arnold" party will take in lots of low-skilled left-leaning immigrants, and thus quickly undermine any support for economic freedom. At any case Arnold and other soft libertarian types are never especially pro-market in practice, look at 3 billion socialist Stem cell initiative.

Sailer/Buchanan are economically pretty leftwing, they accept most populist "Oh the powerful rich are screwing the workers" rhetoric and world view. Paleos also seem to have a weakness for Al-Gore style environmental nonsense. Anyone read the last article in American Conservative about Global Warming? I almost puked.

Hagel is basically a leftist, AND wants more unskilled immigrants.

Put in a secular hardcore rightwing choice in there. Milton Friedman is unfortunately too old, let me suggest Newt Gingrich or Charles Murray as leader.

KevinM said...

4 previously elected politicians vs. Steve.

Yeah Steve!

But I don't know even a proximate position of his on many issues of importance. Then again, I'd just as soon he stays focused on what he does well.

Anonymous said...

This is a different anonymous from above. Hey - that's a good list - It could be a good game. It's not realistic though. The Rep party right now is not acting in any way that could be called conservative. Even their actions on the social issues - where they vote conservative are designed to fail so as to keep the issue alive. RFK is probably more Dem than Green - if you think of Nader as the Green. What about Mayor Bloomberg?

Anonymous said...

Our party system and our electoral system is good for what it prevents more than for what it accomplishes. Steve S. is a very good/funny writer and his movie reviews and words about golf courses are always interesting. But his analyis/interp. of recent developments in genetics misses the mark. But since he upsets a lot of the right people, he maybe a hero in error. Milton Friedman is too interesting to garner enough votes in today's GOP. Since he is skeptical about waging war on drug addicts, he would be seen as waaay too liberal. Is Al Gore part of the Davos/NAFTA party? Or is he part of the envrionmental left? Was Clinton more free market than Bush - a case can be made that he was. The Buchanan faction would probably concur, but others prefer to maintain the myth that Bush is a champion of free markets. Much trumps ideology - supporting Webb has a lot to do with who is opposing.

Otto Kerner said...

I'd rather stick a fork in my eye than vote for any of those people (although I think Steve Sailer is a genius and probably a very decent person). An election with these parties would, it's true, be somewhat more interesting than our current elections. Still, what's the point of a multi-party system without any even halfway radical parties?

I suspect a real American multi-party system (God speed the day) would have no more than three big centerish parties and a handful of smaller, more radical ones.

Otto Kerner said...

(I meant to say, "without any even halfway radical parties, other than the Greens")

Global Paradigms said...

Hi...Thanks for all the comments. One has to consider that even under a multi-party system -- by which I'm assuming a parliamentary election that require formation of rulling coalition -- there would still be some divisions inside the various parties that reflect differences over socio, economic, and cultural issues. Hence my "prediction" that the Liberal Party could include competing foreign policy factions, Wilsonians vs. Jeffersonians. And I don't have any doubt that the issue of immigration could ignite debate among Liberals as it has been doing in Europe where liberal (and social-democrats) are facing a dilemma: If you support free immigration, you end up welcoming certain demographic groups that don't share you liberal values. One could make an argument that poor and uneducated Hispanics would end up creating pressure for more welfare and state intervention (not to mention the fact that as Catholics they would tend to be more conservative on social-cultural issues. No easy answer here. I proposed Arnold but my ideal candidate for the Liberal Party would be a high-tech entrpreneuer from the Sillicon Valley. I think that Steve Sailer could help transform the image of a Nationalist Party, more 21st Century, with some original ideas and interest in economics (contra Buchanan). Still, as I pointed you could end up with divisions in this party between populists and modernists, between military-hawks and anti-interventionists, and so on. Many of those who share Steve's views on immigration also tend to be proponents of Bush's Iraq policy. Newt Gingrich would be perfect for a Christian-Democratic party. Charles Murrary is too much of an intellectual. Nader is history. And Milton Friedman is a bit old...

Anonymous said...

Any breakup of the two party system would unleash Hezbollah, the party of God, but Christian rather than Moslem. These nuts could do all sorts of damage and even if there isn't a theocracy, they could get all sorts of weird demands in coalition politics as the religious parties in Israel do.

beowulf said...

Good stuff, I'd vote for Steve. He's actually a very nice guy and once did a friend of mine a great favor. However, he needs to get a new picture. He could be like Napoleon Dynamite's Uncle Rico and let Glamour Shots work their magic or even easier, be like the War Nerd and steal some guy's picture off the internet.

Its interesting that the people who do get nominated by both the Democrats or Republicans (and then get elected if their district and/or state trends their party's way) are the people who best paper over the differences between their respective party's financial base and electoral base.

If we had public financing of elections, the parties would have it easier-- Find the best looking guy who agrees with their electoral base.

Joe Populist said...

I'm not buying into your analysis.

It just reflects niche groups within the main two parties.

The dominant political belief in the United States is either Clinton Democrat or Bush/Cheney Republican.

Both CD and B/CR share most of their core beliefs though: globalization and outsourcing, internationalism and interventionism in foreign policy, Alan Greenspan style economics skewed to benefit the investment banking industry at the expense of labor or industrial production.

Basically, the only difference between the 2 major parties are subtle shifts in emphasis. For instance, the disagreement in the duopoly is not over substance, but over implementation. For example, Bush2's "unilateralism".

The Clinton Democrats definately support the projection of US power in protection of the "New World Order" of world government and international finance capitalism. They merely criticize the management of the project by Bush as inept and blundering.

I would agree however, that by temperament, the majority of Americans are skeptical of interventionism, nor do they like "free" trade (which like "free lunches" doesn't exist) and would prefer "fair trade" that protects US jobs and industries from Chinese "dumping"---which is what they are doing.

Anonymous said...

Somebody sed: "Funny idea, but you left out a big segment of the right. What exactly do pro-market voters pick? Not much choice here really."

"Libertarianism" is missing. But on the other hand, most libertarians are not libertarians at all, but pimps for Wall Street or the CEO classes parading about with the flag of "freedom" wrapped around their necks.

For instance, the Libertarian Party is very divided on the "War on Terror", with half of them believing the US government is justified in military occupation of the world, to make it safe for international finance capitalism.

As a political force, true liberatarians are scarce, I'm afraid.

Jonny Democracy said...

What about Social-Libertarians, more to the kind of Kevin Zeese,

They don't fit the Arnold nor the Green. But they would draw alot of support.

Anonymous said...

Joe Populist is somewhat correct - not sure how much. It is true that Democrats believe in X, while the Republicans believe in Y. But both parties share belief in A,B,C and the rest. A whole host of issues are not even debated or challanged. While Bush pushed the war with Iraq - he had much support from the Dems - they just preferred a different stylistic approach and a maintaince of the subtle fiction that they were opposed.

Global Paradigms said...

Hi... and again thanks for all your responses. I just want to make a few points: First, the Liberal Party is the one committed to classical liberal/libertarian positions which resist the role of Big Government in the economic AND cultural spheres. BTW, in Europe the term "liberal" is associated not with social-democratic positions (like in this country) but with what we call "libertarian" views (in Latin America it's called "neo-liberalism"). I think that kind of "liberalism" would draw a lot of here. Arnold and Bloombers in NYC are NOT libertarians, but their views are closer to those positions which explains why they win in elections. In any case, I think that what I'm proposing here would help to accentuae the ideological differences between the moderate-conservatives (represented in the Christian Democratic party) and our Labor Party (the Social-Democrats). And that the need to form coalitions with those parties on the more extreme left and right would make that it even more likely. Which is the downside in all of this, as many critics suggest, that it would increase political divisions, make it more difficult to reach compromises, make the political system less stable. In short, we have to choose between "pragmatism" and "ideology."

Anonymous said...

How about Buchanan/Amy Goodman fusion ticket -LOL - They can pledge non intervention at their convention and then all the delegates can start attacking each other. Then Rudy can against them on the POLO ticket - party of law and order - form an alliance with some Buchanan remnants and add on some free market support from Arnold.

Anonymous said...

How about a Buchanan/Amy Goodman fusion non intervention ticket. They can pledge peace at their convention, then their delegates can attack each other instead of foreign nations.

Robert said...

Right. If Sailer had been elected in 2000, Saddam would still be in power and would have nukes by now, as would Libya and perhaps Syria and definitely Iran. In fact, the whole Middle East would have turned to radioactive glass before the 2004 election. That's going to appeal big time! Wait a minute. He IS a genius!

Anonymous said...

Multi-party systems are worse than two-party systems. Have you noticed how the conservative parties in Europe are totally marginalized? The Democratic Party is a multi-party system. It has drifted leftward and has been wagged by its extremes. Federalism and Liberty would work, but are diminishing.

beowulf said...

Robert, I don't understand what you're saying. Siince we now know that Saddam wasn't even close to getting nukes or any other WMDs, how exactly would he have them if he hadn't invaded (unless your point is that President Steve would have given nukes to Iraq)?

Global Paradigms said...

Actually, in Europe political power have been shifting from the conservatives to the social-democrats and vice versa in the major countries (Italy, Spain, Germany, Portugal, etc.)

Anonymous said...

Roberts says, "If Sailer had been elected in 2000, Saddam would still be in power and would have nukes by now, as would Libya and perhaps Syria and definitely Iran. In fact, the whole Middle East would have turned to radioactive glass before the 2004 election."

Maybe not . Rather, maybe he would have cut a deal with Saddam - He would offer pull out the weapons inspectors outr of Iraq if Saddam agreed to provide him and other western lab with genetic DNA samples and IQ results from all the major Iraq tribes in the Mesopotamian phylogenetic tree. Then he would explain the cruel logic of the bell curve to Saddam as a way to coax him to make peace with Israel - the with money save, he would build a fence on the rio grande and then ask the UN Security Counsel to remake itself to include some of the better haplogroups that have been left out. After being impeached and hounded out of office - he can make a comeback as sports writer.

Armchair said...

The Temptation of Rumsfeld
(The Lost Gospel of Jed Babbin)

Then Rumsfeld was led by the Old Spirits to the top of the Pentagon to be tempted by The Shinseki. After cancelling forty legacy weapons systems and closing forty cold war bases, Rumsfeld became politically insecure..
The Shinseki came to him and said unto him, 'If you leave my army and all my leftist Generals alone, I will make sure you are popular on Capitol Hill.'
Rumsfeld answered, “It is written: 'Rumsfeld does not live on popularity, but every word of praise that comes from conservative journals.'
Then The Shinseki took Rumsfeld downtown and had him stand on top of the Washington Monument. ”If you are truly the hero of the intellectuals,“ The Shinseki said, ” the jump off this Monument. For it is written: Midge Dector writes great obits.“
Rumsfeld answered him, ”It is also written: 'Do not put The Dector to the test - She may change her mind.'
Again, The Shinseki took Rumsfeld to the top of The Pentagon. “All of this will be yours,” The Shinseki said, “if you promise to leave me and other Clintonian Generals alone so we can slither about the hallways and sow dissent and division.”
Rumsfeld said, 'Away from me, Shinseki! For it is written: 'Defend the Consitution against all enemies, and remember that civilians are in charge!'
Then The Shinseki left Rumsfeld and the Conservative Pundits came to help Rumsfeld and repair his image.
“You were so gentle with The Shinseki,” said one genius pundit, “now that The Clintons have been banished can we promote some war fighter Generals?"

This is a reminder to include find a place for Rumsfeld in the next election.

Anonymous said...

I don't think you can put the Religious Right into one party like that, and they would most definitely not follow a racialist like Steve Sailer. What the hell is a Jacksonian? Who's a Buchanan Catholic? Pat and Michelle Malkin aren't exactly major figures in foreign policy right nowadays.

Elias said...

This will not work as a matter of fact, that is what I believe.
hyundai dealers in st louis | birthday cards free | Triglycerides High | labor lawyers | ocean city nj hotels