Political parties in the US aren’t monolithic entities that never change or shift positions. Every 30 or 40 years they change and factions can switch sides. The southern strategy saw “Dixiecrats” become Republicans in the 70s and 80s.
Ross Perot won approximately 18 percent of the popular vote in 1992. Once again, parties shifted their policies and absorbed those voters.
I think we are overdue for another major shift and possibly a third party run. Many “Moderate” Republicans are Republicans in name only at this point. Their party has been co-opted by Racists, secessionists, MAGA, Qanon, Evangelicals and other fringe elements. (Whom they freely courted in the past and viewed as useful idiots to further their own goals.)
The business community, fiscal conservatives, NeoCons and moderates aren’t used to being out of power. They are organized and have money. Their goals overlap more than MAGAs. It’s only a matter of time before they realize they no longer control the Republican Party and may never control it again.
If Trump or MAGA acolytes stay in power after 2024 you will probably see a significant fracturing of the Republican Party.
What evidence is there that Xi consolidated all the power? Is it that he led an anti corruption campaign and has been in power for ten years? Is it that he isn’t directly elected by the people? Because by those standards Angela Merkel would also be a dictator.
I mean just go read the CPC constitution. There are translations of it in English readily available.
As far as I can tell, the party constitution gets updated at every party congress and doesn’t afford Xi any special powers. He is included as an ideological leader in the party’s general program but that’s not unique to him. The same can be said for every CCP leader since the constitution was first adopted. Additionally, the constitution still clearly states that all party leadership is subject to oversight. It also lays out rights every party member has that no member of leadership is allowed to curtail. I don’t know how you could read this document and come away thinking it gives Xi total control over the party unless you’re already biased to interpret it that way.
One has to understand internal CCP politics through very imprecise measures, but one key thing to look at factional power within the CCP. Xi, by all accounts, has managed to suppress and marginalize all other factions within the party. This can be seen in the tangible result of his norm breaking additional term(s?) as leader of the party.
The CCP is a democratic centralist party. As such, factionalism has always been heavily discouraged. None of that is new.
Additionally the role of president, for which term limits were abolished, is not a particularly powerful one in China. The president serves at the behest of the national people’s congress standing committee and only has leeway to engage in foreign diplomacy. Xi likely has more influence over Chinese state affairs as general secretary of the CCP which never had term limits.
That said, it’s weird to see western media trying to read the tea leaves so they can write salacious stories about China’s palace intrigue when policy debates are happening out in the open. I’m willing to bet most western experts on China just don’t actually read any of the primary sources.
Oh sorry, you must have meant the Democratic Party where unelected party insiders (super delegates) chose Clinton to run against Trump despite Sanders polling better in the matchup.
Lol no. Xi has eliminated or purged every individual and has gutted every institution that could serve to oppose his reign that there is no one left who can make policy decisions on a national level.
Xi has also killed the messenger so many times that there is no one left who will bring him accurate information.
Bottom level bureaucrats are reduced to making decisions based on what they think Xi wants. The result has been a string of absolute failures wolf warrior diplomacy, the spy balloon, etc.
The CCP and China are what state failure looks like in its early stages.
What evidence is there for this beyond mere speculation? Most articles on Xi from the western press read more like gossip magazines than investigative journalism. They’re full of things like “body language experts” and other fluff but not much else.
The same is true for the “spy balloon” or “wolf warrior diplomacy”. While we don’t know what the balloon’s purpose was, the US has basically admitted that it wasn’t collecting any data. As for “wolf warrior diplomacy” it amounts to minor Chinese state officials being sassy on twitter. There’s no evidence that such behavior was state policy.
Concluding that China is bound to collapse based on this kind of flimsy evidence is so silly.
You asked for an example of a third party and I gave you a relatively recent one. Moving the goal posts after my response is just petty.
I also gave you the effects of third parties on American politics. It causes the two main parties to shift their stances or go extinct.
The occupy movements of the early teens didn’t last, nor did it metamorphose into a third party. But it’s effect on politics was felt and galvanized Democrats to oppose austerity.
The lack of a third party doesn’t mean that other views aren’t adopted or incorporated into the two main parties. The lack of a third party is a symptom of our winner take all electoral system.
TLDR: The U.S. does not have a parliamentary system. Don’t expect its political parties to function the same as one.
American society drives the makeup of our parties not the other way around.
The CCP drives the makeup of Chinese society. The Average Chinese person has no voice and no way to influence change besides subtle protest of policy or outright revolution.
The last third party to receive more than 20% of the vote was Teddy Roosevelt.
In 1912.
Tell me more about this “viable third party alternative.”
Political parties in the US aren’t monolithic entities that never change or shift positions. Every 30 or 40 years they change and factions can switch sides. The southern strategy saw “Dixiecrats” become Republicans in the 70s and 80s.
Ross Perot won approximately 18 percent of the popular vote in 1992. Once again, parties shifted their policies and absorbed those voters.
I think we are overdue for another major shift and possibly a third party run. Many “Moderate” Republicans are Republicans in name only at this point. Their party has been co-opted by Racists, secessionists, MAGA, Qanon, Evangelicals and other fringe elements. (Whom they freely courted in the past and viewed as useful idiots to further their own goals.)
The business community, fiscal conservatives, NeoCons and moderates aren’t used to being out of power. They are organized and have money. Their goals overlap more than MAGAs. It’s only a matter of time before they realize they no longer control the Republican Party and may never control it again.
If Trump or MAGA acolytes stay in power after 2024 you will probably see a significant fracturing of the Republican Party.
The CPC isn’t a monolithic entity either. While the leader of the party is the most powerful, actual change in the party happens from the bottom-up.
lol. Tell that to the autocrat that consolidated all the power.
Change doesn’t happen in that party unless Xi says so. Same with Russia and Putin.
What evidence is there that Xi consolidated all the power? Is it that he led an anti corruption campaign and has been in power for ten years? Is it that he isn’t directly elected by the people? Because by those standards Angela Merkel would also be a dictator.
I mean he changed the party constitution….
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/ways-chinas-xi-jinping-amassed-power-over-decade-2022-10-10/
A brief google assuming you have access to an unfiltered internet will give you tons of examples and more details. But Xi is the party now.
I mean just go read the CPC constitution. There are translations of it in English readily available.
As far as I can tell, the party constitution gets updated at every party congress and doesn’t afford Xi any special powers. He is included as an ideological leader in the party’s general program but that’s not unique to him. The same can be said for every CCP leader since the constitution was first adopted. Additionally, the constitution still clearly states that all party leadership is subject to oversight. It also lays out rights every party member has that no member of leadership is allowed to curtail. I don’t know how you could read this document and come away thinking it gives Xi total control over the party unless you’re already biased to interpret it that way.
One has to understand internal CCP politics through very imprecise measures, but one key thing to look at factional power within the CCP. Xi, by all accounts, has managed to suppress and marginalize all other factions within the party. This can be seen in the tangible result of his norm breaking additional term(s?) as leader of the party.
The CCP is a democratic centralist party. As such, factionalism has always been heavily discouraged. None of that is new.
Additionally the role of president, for which term limits were abolished, is not a particularly powerful one in China. The president serves at the behest of the national people’s congress standing committee and only has leeway to engage in foreign diplomacy. Xi likely has more influence over Chinese state affairs as general secretary of the CCP which never had term limits.
That said, it’s weird to see western media trying to read the tea leaves so they can write salacious stories about China’s palace intrigue when policy debates are happening out in the open. I’m willing to bet most western experts on China just don’t actually read any of the primary sources.
Oh sorry, you must have meant the Democratic Party where unelected party insiders (super delegates) chose Clinton to run against Trump despite Sanders polling better in the matchup.
Trump?
They are what trump wishes he could do, and thankfully, has so far been unable to.
The unable to is the difference bub.
What did Trump fail to achieve while in office?
A dictatorship. Did you not watch the news
Lol no. Xi has eliminated or purged every individual and has gutted every institution that could serve to oppose his reign that there is no one left who can make policy decisions on a national level.
Xi has also killed the messenger so many times that there is no one left who will bring him accurate information.
Bottom level bureaucrats are reduced to making decisions based on what they think Xi wants. The result has been a string of absolute failures wolf warrior diplomacy, the spy balloon, etc.
The CCP and China are what state failure looks like in its early stages.
What evidence is there for this beyond mere speculation? Most articles on Xi from the western press read more like gossip magazines than investigative journalism. They’re full of things like “body language experts” and other fluff but not much else.
The same is true for the “spy balloon” or “wolf warrior diplomacy”. While we don’t know what the balloon’s purpose was, the US has basically admitted that it wasn’t collecting any data. As for “wolf warrior diplomacy” it amounts to minor Chinese state officials being sassy on twitter. There’s no evidence that such behavior was state policy.
Concluding that China is bound to collapse based on this kind of flimsy evidence is so silly.
It’s like you are being deliberately obtuse. Or maybe you really are just not very bright, I don’t know.
18% of the vote! And yet, received zero electoral votes.
Hmm. How is that a “valid third-party”? Dude got no votes.
You asked for an example of a third party and I gave you a relatively recent one. Moving the goal posts after my response is just petty.
I also gave you the effects of third parties on American politics. It causes the two main parties to shift their stances or go extinct.
The occupy movements of the early teens didn’t last, nor did it metamorphose into a third party. But it’s effect on politics was felt and galvanized Democrats to oppose austerity.
The lack of a third party doesn’t mean that other views aren’t adopted or incorporated into the two main parties. The lack of a third party is a symptom of our winner take all electoral system.
TLDR: The U.S. does not have a parliamentary system. Don’t expect its political parties to function the same as one.
American society drives the makeup of our parties not the other way around.
The CCP drives the makeup of Chinese society. The Average Chinese person has no voice and no way to influence change besides subtle protest of policy or outright revolution.