That’s why I never believed in the rhetoric of “it’s too late to consider 3rd party!” before the elections. Here it is just 6 months later and “we don’t have time for that”. Is it disingenuous then to just say there will never be time for that, like it is being implied here?
It takes years to get a new party off the ground and in a meaningful position to take federal offices at any significant rate. During that time, you are mostly helping your farthest opposition of the main parties win by splitting the vote.
This is literally why the Tea Party operated by internal change of the GOP and not by starting a third party. And love them or hate them, they were effective at shifting the GOP.
My concern with this take is “what are we considering this effect to be?” If we are taking the average republican who wholly considers themselves to be “Conservative”, their party was overtaken by extremists who are the antithesis to what the goal of that meaning is.
I don’t want a “Blue Maga” which takes the party away from progressive policies in an attempt to drum up fanatical support “against the tyrannical reds” while in reality they continue destroying the democracy we have. An example is a new DNC who wishes to prosecute and deport those who are on the right (there are examples on this site of individuals who are “progressives” but think the “right” should all be rounded up).
When people say they want a “tea party” I think it’s way to vague. Talking about the “effectiveness” of how the GOP has been changed is just completely scary, since in reality it just became a mask off-authoritarian free for all. I don’t need a Corporatized DNC to decide they no longer need the decorum of piece-meal policy that helps citizens since they know everyone has no other choice (like what happened with the GOP).
Again, I really hope a “Left Tea Party” would cause the DNC to capitulate to progressive ideology, but that’s not what happened on the conservative side (as evident from the big beautiful bullshit-bill).
It takes years to get a new party off the ground and in a meaningful position to take federal offices at any significant rate. During that time, you are mostly helping your farthest opposition of the main parties win by splitting the vote.
This is literally why the Tea Party operated by internal change of the GOP and not by starting a third party. And love them or hate them, they were effective at shifting the GOP.
My concern with this take is “what are we considering this effect to be?” If we are taking the average republican who wholly considers themselves to be “Conservative”, their party was overtaken by extremists who are the antithesis to what the goal of that meaning is.
I don’t want a “Blue Maga” which takes the party away from progressive policies in an attempt to drum up fanatical support “against the tyrannical reds” while in reality they continue destroying the democracy we have. An example is a new DNC who wishes to prosecute and deport those who are on the right (there are examples on this site of individuals who are “progressives” but think the “right” should all be rounded up).
When people say they want a “tea party” I think it’s way to vague. Talking about the “effectiveness” of how the GOP has been changed is just completely scary, since in reality it just became a mask off-authoritarian free for all. I don’t need a Corporatized DNC to decide they no longer need the decorum of piece-meal policy that helps citizens since they know everyone has no other choice (like what happened with the GOP).
Again, I really hope a “Left Tea Party” would cause the DNC to capitulate to progressive ideology, but that’s not what happened on the conservative side (as evident from the big beautiful bullshit-bill).
edit: taking=talking, fixed a confusing sentence