Let's be real here. The only time in human history when a "third" party ever successfully used the democratic system to gain power were the Nazis. Whether or not you want to call them a "third" party or alternate party [because there were more than 2 active, viable parties in Germany at the time] is of little importance. The Nazis came out of nowhere to defeat the Social Democrats [who were like the Democratic Party in USA] and their more national [Republican] counterparts. Ultimately, if a Third Party is to achieve success, the same thing would have to be done here. I also believe that no matter the potential Third Party's ideology, it will be attacked and smeared as "fascist." This Third Party would only gain steam if it vowed to fight for the national interest as opposed to cooperating with the international community. For example, if we truly made ourselves energy independent, globalists would cry foul and point that is "fascism," because fascism, after all, is a nation using government to advance their national interest, like Hitler did. Thus, I believe, this is the ultimate challenge facing any alternate political power. To be honest, they would have to learn from the Nazis in a way. But then again, political leaders now even do that...
Well you are obviously not a history person so I will teach you. The Nazis didn't come out of nowhere, they were an established party in Germany well before the got swept into office. They also use a single issue to gain power, German Pride, if you will. The situation was right and they took advantage of it due to Hitlers prowess with crowds.
You seem to be forgetting the rise of the Republican Party in the U.S., they started out as a third party and came to power with their second national candidate. In the UK, the Labour Party was also a third party which came to power.
Libertarianism in America and its corresponding party has been a viable third party option in the last two elections. They would be the least likely and most opposite of any facist condemnation you illuminate in your paragraph here. Re-assess.
It appears as if it is you who needs a lesson in history and in political science. It is true that they were an established party for years on end. However, FOR MOST OF THEIR EXISTENCE IN THE 1920S THEY WERE AN IRRELEVANT PARTY THAT NEVER GOT MORE THAN 5% OF THE VOTE, JUST LIKE MANY THIRD PARTIES TODAY [Greens and Libertarians]. I am not trying to be rude here, I just need to emphasize that point. You can easily look up the election results in Germany during the 1920s online and in most encyclopedias. Thus, in a sense, they were like a Third Party that came out of nowhere, a fascist and racist party granted, but still a Third Party. They were not ever a mainstream party like the GOP or Dems until they gained power by grabbing 45% of the vote, and splitting the rest. Curmudgeon, the Republican Party originally were spun off of the old Democratic-Republican Party in the late 1700s, early 1800s. Their main opponents at the time were the Federalists. They have been a mainstream party for over 200 years, similar to how Germany's Conservative Party at the time of Nazism's rise had too been firmly established. Besides, are you really comparing the rise of a political party centuries ago with the potential rise of one in the future? Obviously, the methods and campaigning strategies employed by an up and coming party now would be entirely different than those used by a political party centuries ago. It was much easier to then, than it would be to do now.
Viable? How many votes did they get? In our system you have to win electoral votes, how many did the libertarians win? How many have they won in the past? To be viable you actually have to have the possibility of winning the election. Libertarians have never met that criteria.
no one’s ever told me they would join a 3rd party except 3rd party’s remind them of Nazis so i don’t think it’s an issue
I have had a few academics mention it to me. Honestly, I hope you are right though because America needs a new party.
Actually they received about 6% of the vote and yes they were not a contender but they were established. Similar to how the Green party is today in America.
Actually no. The modern Republican Party formed in 1854 specifically to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska act. It was made up primarily of Free-soil Democrats and "Conscience Whigs" and was anti-slavery. The modern Democratic party is the descendant of the Democratic-Republican party of Jackson. Let's go back to the election of 1844, the two parties that had Presidential candidates were the Democrats and the Whigs.The Dems won that one with Polk (the Whig was Henry Clay). In 1848 the candidates were Zachary Taylor (Whig), Lewis Cass (DEM) and Martin VanBuren (Free Soil). The Whigs won that election taking much of the south and mid-atlantic. In 1852 the candidates were Franklin Pierce (Dem), Winfield Scott (Whig) and John Hale (Free Soil), in that election it was pretty much a Democratic sweep, with the Whigs only wining 4 states, Kentucky, Tenn. MA and Vermont. In 1854 the Republican Party was formed by Northern Whigs who were abolitionists and Free Soiler's who wanted to give the western lands to small farmers and prevent southerner's from buying it all up. It was also a direct response to the Missouri Compromise which both the Free Soiler's and Northern Whigs opposed. In 1856 the Republicans ran John Fremont as their Candidate and they won New England and the Upper Mid-West. The winner was Buchanan (Dem) and the Know-Nothings ran Millard Fillmore and actually won the state of Maryland. In 1860, Lincoln ran as the Republican, The Democrats split and the Southern Dems ran John Breckenridge, the Northern Dems ran Douglas, and a new party formed called the Constitutional Union Party whose candidate was John Bell. Lincoln won 17 states and 180 electoral votes, Breckenridge won 11 states with 72 EV's. Bell won 3 states with 39 EV's and Douglas won 1 state and 9 EV's. The Republican party decidedly did not come out of the old Democratic-Republican party, that was the Democrats. The Republicans came out of the Abolitionist Whigs and the Free Soil/Know Nothing tradition, and the Whigs were the descended out of the Federalist party. The issue of slavery caused a massive re-alignment of the parties, with the southern Whigs joining with the Southern Democrats and putting a lock on the South for that party until the Civil Rights era of the 1960's. The Northern Whigs made up much of the new Republican Party and dominated in the North again until the Civil Rights era. During the 1960's and 70's we saw another massive realignment with Nixon's Southern Strategy and shift of the Democrats to pushing for Civil Rights for Blacks and their generally liberal policies (prior to that they had pretty much been the party of Segregation).
In my humble opinion, Nazism and the stigma associated with it have little if anything to do with the viability of alternative parties. What really matters is the framework of governing institutions as they pertain to elections. In a single, one-and-a-half, or two-party system it is rather difficult for any third party to make substantial headway without its opponents first making serious mistakes that make them seem "out of touch" with the People's best interests. For Americans the problem at least in part involves first-past-the-post voting (it encourages the dominance of one or two opportunistic, ideologically-ambiguous parties), winner-takes-all awarding of seats (adherents to minority ideologies will receive few, if any, representatives in legislative bodies), and a myriad of local rules and regulations (whose contents oft obstruct the efforts of minor party contestants to receive the same treatment or level of status as the major parties). It is also worth noting that, in any given electoral contest, the single party or two strongest parties competing tend to possess an overwhelming advantage in possession of capital relative to smaller, third party challengers. Unfortunately, I do not know how to compare this to the German experience at this time without first doing some research - which in all honesty I'm not in the mood to do today. My initial, intuitive impression is that Germany has a multiparty system today. Perhaps coalitions in such a country are a little bit like the major parties in a two-party system, except that the coalitions in a multiparty system have a lot more wiggle room to flexibly co-opt a number of different political factions should another that is crucial to their majority happen to break away. Well... that and you actually get to affiliate with a party advancing views similar to ones own rather than having to directly support a coalition and its nebulous foundations.
