I think there can be we will call it the peoples party. Only statesman can apply.
2006-12-06 12:01:32 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You mean the classic liberals?
FDR wanted to create a progressive party that would stay true to the better long-term development development of Americans and mankind rather than actually believing in a certain policy. Obviously, it didn't (and wouldn't) work because politics demands loyalty and obedience, two things a classic liberal party wouldn't be able to work with in a realist democracy.
2006-12-06 12:06:16 · answer #1 · answered by Mikey C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not only possible but by ll rights necessary since long!
The only problem is, that these two big parties have manifested themselves so deep in the heads and minds of the American citizens that a change in the near future is not likely!
To start a party, which is able to out-do the democrats and the republicans would require a person of great charisma, a person, who can really get the message over and convince people, a person, which is not in sight right now!
2006-12-06 20:16:21 · answer #2 · answered by defender 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The parties are now useless. I don't think we should abolish them, but they are so broad that basically any pragmatist will be able to identify himself with a single party. I have cross-party beliefs, but I can identify as a party member due to the priority I place on them.
Since they are so broad, only radicals and those advocating a complete change in government structure have their own parties. These parties (save perhaps Green) are too idealistic, as America seems happy with a democracy. So only parties advocating democracy really have a chance.
The workers' parties, etc. will only be able to succeed if the Democratic and Republican parties identify themselves stringently with ideas that leave room for dissent. Otherwise, all the little parties are just sects of the larger two.
2006-12-06 20:06:04 · answer #3 · answered by Aegor R 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, yes and no. The reason we have these two is because they are not only the most populous, but the two that are most widely seen as just. (at the moment). The only reason we have government is because no one is perfect. The people's party, as it was called under Mao Tse-Tung's reign was a communist party, communism controlled daily life down to even a phone call. Control, control, control
2006-12-06 20:07:58 · answer #4 · answered by Damien S 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would be great. If people would support it, it might have a chance. The name is a bad idea. Most of the communist nation have names like that.
2006-12-06 20:31:51 · answer #5 · answered by Saint 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wish there were a real conservative party not this neo-conservative crap that's simply a guise for liberalism.
2006-12-06 20:02:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Won't be happening any time soon.
2006-12-06 20:04:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋