Third Party?

Two concerned citizens talk about the need for a Limited Government Third Party in America. For more information on the ACP, go to:

Join the ACP at:

8 comments on “Third Party?

  1. LeftLostRight says:

    Other than agreeing with the last comment about ‘federal level’, I must confess that I agree with the lady’s conclusion; not necessarily her augments, and thus disagree with the idea that a third party is a good solution.

    The problem is not the parties, because the parties are just representative of the wishes or the apathy of the people. If you look at the idea of limited vs. unlimited government in the abstract, there are two sides. One party has a proclivity for unlimited, and the other has more of a proclivity towards a limited role. These ideas transcend the parties, as the parties are just vehicles to represent these concepts. So if the ideas transcend the parties, then it’s the ideas that are important and not the parties, themselves. Thus a third party brings no new ideas to the table, only the hope that there’s another package that will usher in what we all would like to see.

    Political parties are no less opportunistic than are companies and corporations. Companies are not definitionally capitalist, they are definitionally opportunistic. They do not run on altruism, they run on opportunity. Political parties are no different. They are in business to seek power, and to stay in business. We can no more expect that a new label for a political party will establish our values, than will getting ‘better’ people in the Republican party. The system’s incentives at this point in time, are what they are. It is the system that entices and corrupts, and that system is the result of an insidious change in our culture, and attitudes towards the role of government.

    What has to change is the people. While we might like political parties to be driven by principles; or in the case of the left; ideology, the parties are driven by incentives and market signals. When and if the people change, then those signals are radiated out and the parties will get a clearer understanding of what is demanded by the people. The reason many believe that they’re not getting our signals, is rooted in a bit of myopia about how many of us actually desire a truly limited form of government. The real problem is, that the percentage of truly limited government types is very, very, small. We are far outnumbered by weak conservatives, centrists, moderates, independents, liberals, progressives, and leftists. There are the limited government types, and then there are the rest. The rest comprise the enablers; whom enable leftism.

    Until we sort out the enablers; intellectually encouraging them to choose between left and right, I’m afraid this problem is not going to be solved by creating a limited government party, stocked-full with really good people. The incentives in the system will corrupt anyone and everyone. It is the people; the electorate, that needs to change, before any party of the right will change.


  2. LogiPundit says:

    You’re right on most counts. But what if a Party operated like it was supposed to:

    1) Dedicated to a set of ideals and to educating voters on the value and importance of those ideals.
    2) Actively promoting laws and regulations which give power back to society from Government.
    3) Support candidates at every level, from any party, which hold to those ideals.

    Do either of the two major parties operate this way? No. The truth is that they are not parties. They are coalitions of special interests designed to aggregate power.

    In order to change the voter mindset, we need to get them (the voters) out of the Dem/Rep mindset, and the only way to do that is to focus on a set of other words…act like an ACTUAL political party. Yes. Ideology is the answer. Not independent moderateness, not “i vote for the person”, but clear, unadulterated limited-government ideology. If a Party actually focused on that, and started locally (see videos 2 and 3), it could most definitely accomplish something.

    • LeftLostRight says:

      “But what if a Party operated like it was supposed to:” ?

      I think the better question, is to ask why the parties are not operating the way they are supposed to operate. Let me try and help this along… Why are they not following ideals?

      • LogiPundit says:

        Because they don’t care about ideals. They care about power. As long as we have parties at all, we’re going to have to deal with parties that only care about power.

        My point is that we either have the choice of trying to change a party that really only brokers power, or creating one who actually works on ideas FIRST and on elections LAST.

        Believe it or not, that’s the way that MOST parties work all over the world. And those parties form working coalitions to govern.

        We have to start (which is sort of your point) with ideas, but it does not serve us to ignore the reality that our laws are controlled by a system that doesn’t involve ideas.

        Look, we can go back and forth from now until doomsday on why we have to change “hearts and minds” or we’re never going to change the system. THAT’S MY POINT. We need a PARTY who is going to focus on changing hearts and minds…for a purpose…or things will never change.

      • Left-Lost-Right says:

        So you agree that these ideas are not new, and it’s the people? “Because they don’t care about ideals.”

  3. LogiPundit says:

    Hey, someone answer me this:

    If you could get 5% of your local voting population to be engaged in a true limited government cause, how long would it take to effect fundamental change?


    • LogiPundit says:

      Never said “the People” don’t care about ideals. I said that the two “major” parties don’t care about ideals.

      • Left-Lost-Right says:

        Backing up a bit, there isn’t a thing that happens in government that doesn’t involve ideas. Everything can be traced to an idea.

        The two major parties are of course made up of people, so how can it not be the people that we’re referencing? You implied and I can’t disagree, that the parties focus on elections first, and ideas, second. Why do you think this is so?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>