Dear Friend:
It’s not often I read in a major newspaper that there is an urgent need for a third party. This past Sunday there was a forum in the New York Times of all places. It started with this comment from a retired professor of economics:
The two-party system has become a curse. It is responsible for a destructive polarization of American society and government.
Then readers like this one from California reacted:
I wholeheartedly agree. It is nothing short of absurd to assume that upward of 300 million Americans of incredibly diverse backgrounds can all be fitted into just two political parties. This is why political participation and voter turnout are so shamefully low in this country.
And this comment from a New York voter:
A true multiparty system in the United States would be a step forward … actual competition of ideas might ensue, and voter turnout might rise … unfortunately, it is not simple. Electoral laws in the United States are rigged to give two parties dominance, and have mostly eliminated competitive electoral districts.
Just a month or so ago, Gallup polls once again revealed that a majority of voters want a third party — but this time the margins of support were the highest ever, with 52% of Republicans and 49% of Democrats stating they are seeking an alternatives to their own party’s candidates.
Frankly, despite the hospitable political climate we are working in, the Constitution Party has practical and burdensome issues to deal with. Ballot access is number one. I’ve addressed it in the current newsletter. Outreach is second: we have a brand new website — we need to promote this exciting new recruitment tool. We have friends in the Tea Party, right-to-life movement, homeschoolers, and so many more patriots looking for a political home. They just need to know we are here.
That’s why I’m asking you to help with our mini-campaign to raise $1,100 — we can post ads on Facebook and Google that will be seen by thousands. When we’ve experimented in advertising before, it was a resounding success. We need to do more.
Your gift of $25 or $50 is needed to put finishing touches on the website and to place ads. A donation of just $20 will really help. If only 15 members and friends of the Constitution party gave $35, we’d be half way to our goal.
Will you contribute $35?
No matter what your investment, $15 or $150, we are moving ahead as you will see in the December newsletter. And that, thanks to you, is something we can point to with pride.
Sincerely,
Frank Fluckiger
Chairman
National Executive Committee
There have been many different Constitution Parties over the decades that had no relation to each other.
“I think that the Constitution Party is a very good name for a political party, and I can envision ways in which the Constitution Party could be far more successful than they are. I think that their biggest problems are is poor public outreach.”
Leaving aside the points Paulie brought up, it seems in states with voter registration by party, more people identify with party labels that either have ‘independent’ in their title, or have a catchy, populist zing to it.
The CP name lacks both, plus there used to exist another third party called the ‘Constitution Party’ back in the late 50’s early 60’s that largely had racist overtones, fyi.
Again, I’m speaking of the overall impression created by the party as a whole, including state parties and candidates, not just some of their members. I’ll grant that some candidates and members are not as bad, but the overall picture is pretty dismal.
That’s almost too ridiculous for words, but I’ll try to treat this seriously for a half minute.
No, sorry, I can’t. An invasion of gardeners and maids, armed with mops, buckets and pruning shears?
Come on. No one could seriously believe that. That has to be pure unadulterated BS to justify an otherwise blatantly unconstitutional position.
Can anyone actually make such an argument with a straight face?
Even Barr and Root as LP candidates had IMO a lot more redeeming points than, say, Goode.
Goode’s top issues displayed proudly on his presidential campaign site last year included saving SS and medicaid (!). And while he half-stepped away from his warmongering record in office much like Barr, he never as far as I know made any attempt at all to walk back his extremist-islamophobic record. Barr made more of an effort there, regardless of how temporarily and whether he was honest or not, e.g. lobbying against his own bad marijuana bill in DC, working prominently with ACLU and MPP, reversing himself on at least parts of DOMA and his comments about pagans in the military, etc. And, hell, Wayne Root marched in a gay pride parade. Goode, on the other hand, both as a politician and as a person, was, is and has consistently remained a complete waste of skin.
Sincere or not, Barr’s main rhetorical emphasis as a LP candidate was smaller government. Tancredo’s was that everyone should look and speak Murrikin.
Agreed, and it rarely if ever works out to those parties’ benefit, especialy in the long term.
Naturally, everything I say is my opinion. In this case I’ve come to it by carefully observing them for many years in more detail than just about any other non-supporter, reading every single posting of theirs I can find, etc.
And I have seen no reason to change my opinion.
Granted, someone could say that, but I’m speaking from my perspective. But setting that aside, most of what they choose to emphasize is mixing church and state and bashing migrants. The other issues take a back seat. Thus, I don’t think Constitution Party or Taxpayers Party is a very accurate name for them in terms of what their top issues seem to be based on their public communications.
Not relevant to what? It’s relevant to my opinion of what their biggest problem is.
But that was only because you brought that question up. My original point is that they are not very true to their current or former name, and I still believe that.
I do believe that the Libertarian and Green parties are much more in line with their names, although the Green party sometimes comes off as the Watermelon Party (red on the inside).
No doubt.
Dunno about that. I’ve seen signatures that look like that. Also depends on what kind of writing utensil you use.
The signature on the letter looks fake. It’s too perfect. I suspect he’s using a cursive writing font. Not a big deal? Maybe not — but I say if you can’t trust them on the little things, you should think twice before trusting them on the big things either.
They also tend to run a lot of candidates such as Goode and Tancredo who are bad even on many issues that their platform is good on.
They have the same problem as many 3rd parties, in that they are easily seduced by any “name brand” candidate who is even remotely sympathetic to their ideology.
Paul said: “That may be their second biggest problem. Their biggest problem is just plain being wrong on a lot of issues, and emphasizing those issues heavily.”
This is your opinion. Every party has things which people could says that there are areas where a party is wrong. People say that the Libertarian Party is wrong about a lot of things, and that Libertarians push a lot of issues where the party is wrong.
How much you agree or disagree with the Constitution Party is not relevant. I think that with the right marketing, and a big increase in activism, the Constitution Party could be a lot more successful than they are. The same goes with the Libertarian Party and the Green Party.
“paulie December 20, 2013 at 12:41 am
The religious talk, and anti-constitutional migrant bashing, seem to be their top issues as far as I can tell.”
Maybe for some of their party members, but I think others see other issues as their main priorities, such as ending abortion, gun rights, ending the Federal Reserve System, ending the income tax, gun rights, getting the US out of the United Nations, etc…
They view the migrants in question as invaders, and the US Constitution has a clause about repelling invasions.
“They also tend to run a lot of candidates such as Goode and Tancredo who are bad even on many issues that their platform is good on.”
They may have had a few candidates like this, but I don’t think that they make up a majority of their candidates. Remember that the Libertarian Party has not always had candidates that are really completely in-line with the Libertarian Party in philosophy. See Bob Barr and Wayne Root for two examples.
The religious talk, and anti-constitutional migrant bashing, seem to be their top issues as far as I can tell. They also tend to run a lot of candidates such as Goode and Tancredo who are bad even on many issues that their platform is good on.
“paulie December 20, 2013 at 12:28 am
Yes, but I am speaking of the party as a whole, its public statments, website, paltform, etc.”
I think that they seem to get it right on the Constitution most of the time.
Going by my personal taste, I would recommend dropping a lot of the religious talk.
Yes, but I am speaking of the party as a whole, its public statments, website, paltform, etc.
Paul said: “It would be a good name for A political party, but it does not seem to be a good fit for the political party which currently lays claim to the name. I don’t believe it accurately reflects what they are really about, and neither does their previous name. In other words it is a type of mislabeling or deceptive advertising.”
A range of views exist within all political parties. So having said this, I think that are some members of the Constitution Party who come closer than others to adhering to what the Constitution says.
It would be a good name for A political party, but it does not seem to be a good fit for the political party which currently lays claim to the name. I don’t believe it accurately reflects what they are really about, and neither does their previous name. In other words it is a type of mislabeling or deceptive advertising.
That may be their second biggest problem. Their biggest problem is just plain being wrong on a lot of issues, and emphasizing those issues heavily.
I’ve heard Christian or Christian Nationalist suggested, but I don’t think that is fair to the actual teachings of Jesus Christ.
“Cody Quirk December 19, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Granted, if the CP changed their name to something more populist-sounding, as well as redo their platform, even their bylaws, and do a better job in the public outreach department- then they might have a chance to capitalize on this voter discontent.
Otherwise, except for maybe a few states with strong CP organizations, tapping into this mass discontent is a pipe-dream for them.”
I think that the Constitution Party is a very good name for a political party, and I can envision ways in which the Constitution Party could be far more successful than they are. I think that their biggest problems are is poor public outreach.
Good point.
I think it would be more accurate to call them something that reflects their top issues, which are enforcing biblical morality through government laws and limiting immigration.
Hell, the U.S. Taxpayers Party name sounded better.
So the Taxpayers party name wasn’t good enough?
Granted, if the CP changed their name to something more populist-sounding, as well as redo their platform, even their bylaws, and do a better job in the public outreach department- then they might have a chance to capitalize on this voter discontent.
Otherwise, except for maybe a few states with strong CP organizations, tapping into this mass discontent is a pipe-dream for them.