Over at The Federalist, Dominic Lynch has an excellent piece detailing the seriousness of the Democratic Party’s collapse, and shares the Czar’s view that the Democrats are poised to fold as a party, even though they might not actually do so. The Czar was pleased that Mr. Lynch listed all of our reasons in meaningful detail, and so we will not repeat them; it’s a good read, so if you have time, we recommend it.
But neither the Czar or Mr. Lynch are quite ready to write the Democrats’ obituary just yet. The fact they are imploding does not mean they are finished; they have plenty of time to correct their course. If they wish to do so, that is.
The Czar has long advocated that the Democrats are an aberration politically. He has done so many times and in different media, so much so that he thought he should sketch out his scenario once and for all for you to read.
As you know, the Democratic Party arose from the issue of slavery; at the time, it was hardly a liberal organization—although modern ideologies like “conservative” and “liberal” were absent, there was definitely a choice for gentlemen of the time in choosing between libertarian and traditionalist aspects to government. The early Democrats arose to preserve slavery in the South, making them traditionalist (although plenty of jackasses have insisted it was all about states’ rights, much in the way defenders of communism insist it was about helping the poor). After the civil war, when Democrats were just about defeated, they allied themselves with organized crime until the 1930s; then they jumped on the totalitarian bandwagon until the 1950s, where they were infiltrated by the Left and began their long march toward progressive socialism. The Democrats have committed so many unpardonable acts that someone could actually write a book documenting all of them. Indeed, someone has.
The Czar’s exact position is that American federal politics has been broken since about 1820, and that a more correct bipartisan structure isn’t Republicans v. Democrats, it should be Republicans vs. Libertarians. In this scenario, voters choose between a socially connected federal government (Republicans) and a restrained, distant federal government (Libertarians). When times are good, you vote Republican, which diverts tax money to some social programs (parks, business technology investment, pro-bono medical research), and when times are a little rough, you vote Libertarian, which rolls back spending to bare essentials in order to reduce taxes and stimulate economic growth. Odds are you’ll change parties quite frequently based on your own needs, which is as it should be.
The only reason we don’t have this is because our bipartisan structure has been Democrats v. Everyone Else, with everyone else voting Republican to counter the former group. Sort of like a world of night and day being transformed into Party Time and twilight.
So if the Democrats continue to collapse into obscurity and become the third-party fringe organization they properly should be—say with 18% of the vote at most—what would it take for this correction to occur: how do we get Republicans v. Libertarians at election time?
This isn’t a prediction this will occur; it’s just an analysis of what could transpire, if we wanted to right the country again.
One thing you need is to have the Republican Party acknowledge that it serves two political aims. For example, the more government-friendly types and the less-government-at-all types. And you are seeing this, with frequent studies of whether the GOP is going to go more in the direction of Trump (populist) or more in the direction of Cruz (libertarian). So, checkmark for that.
Another thing you would need is a plausible party to emerge, with just enough numbers, to be taken seriously. Whereas the Libertarians were a joke party just a few years ago, the rise of Ron and Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, and even Evan McMullen, with all their respective faults as candidates, have made Libertarianism a real word, as opposed to a nutcase faction of technophobes. These candidates received real votes, got on ballots, and were featured on debates, prime-time commercials, and radio interviews. Yard signs appeared for them. Thus: a contender party with real national organization? That’s another checkmark.
Therefore, if the Democrats collapse entirely as a state and national (and that could be decades away, given their local prominence in the cities), you might see a Republicans switch to Libertarian, and plenty of fed-up Democrats switch to Republican. The Republican Party is closer to the Democratic party of the 1960s (some folks can’t see a difference at all), and Libertarians are finally realizing that running a candidate who isn’t a total whackjob (pretty much just Dr. Rand Paul at this point) can grab real votes.
This would result in the Republicans grabbing the majority of the votes for a while (also, another checkmark) until this stabilizes, but what good things might come from this? Well, for starters, we might be able to tackle real problems as a country instead of nonsense social programs that take 8 years to set up and 8 years to dismantle. Instead of constant warring between Right and Left, we might be able to focus on the Whole. And if that’s all we get, that would be worth it.