Republican

[Nyarlathotep]

Now, as to whether a Catholic can be a good Republican is a fair question…but I, for the life of me, absolutely do not comprehend how Catholics can be registered Democrats…particularly considering the pro-abortion plank that has been in the Democratic Party’s platform for decades. The current position:

Assuming your question is asked sincerely:

catholicdemocrats.org/news/2008/10/abortion_questions_and_answers.php

…]

**"Can a Catholic vote for a pro-choice candidate? **Yes, a Catholic can vote for a pro-choice candidate.

In “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” the U.S. bishops explicitly say:

1. “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters.” (#42)
2. A voter “should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.” (#37)
3. “A Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position [on abortion] may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.” (#35)

Catholic Democrats, even those who are pro-life, believe that there are morally grave reasons to vote for a pro-choice Democrat over a Republican who wants to criminalize abortion.

**Why should someone who is pro-life vote for a pro-choice candidate? **
If the only difference between two candidates is that one is pro-life and the other is pro-choice, then a pro-life voter should obviously vote for a pro-life candidate.

However, elections are never so clear cut. Republican and Democratic candidates differ on many issues: healthcare, the war, the economy. In addition, as the bishops note, a voter “should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.”

Republicans have been promising to do something about abortion for years, yet they did nothing. Democrats, on the other hand, have supported programs that empower women to choose to have their children. Republican programs push women into poverty and result in more abortions. Increasing the minimum wage reduces the number of abortions. The Republican economic policies, which have caused the Bush recession, will increase the number of abortions. The choice is between rhetoric and results."

As to why I usually vote Democrat, see above. If my bishop tells me that I can never vote for a pro-choice politician any time the other candidated utters the “magic words” I’ll rethink my position – until then, I guess I’ll just have to use my own conscience. But I’m inclined to believe that my Bishop is too smart to fall for petty political manipulation.

 

[markomalley]

Assuming your question is asked sincerely:

catholicdemocrats.org/news/2008/10/abortion_questions_and_answers.php

…]**"Can a Catholic vote for a pro-choice candidate? **Yes, a Catholic can vote for a pro-choice candidate.

In “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” the U.S. bishops explicitly say:

1. “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters.” (#42)

The full statement says:

1. As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

1. A voter “should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.” (#37)

Paragraph 37 says, in full,
37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guidedby a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions . These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

1. “A Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position [on abortion] may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.” (#35)

Paragraph 35 actually says:

1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

As to why I usually vote Democrat, see above. If my bishop tells me that I can never vote for a pro-choice politician any time the other candidated utters the “magic words” I’ll rethink my position – until then, I guess I’ll just have to use my own conscience. But I’m inclined to believe that my Bishop is too smart to fall for petty political manipulation.

(Don’t take offense at me checking the quotes. I always do. Not a reflection on you, but on the site you were quoting from)

On edit:

One other question. Since you cited the USCCB document, take another look at paragraph #35:

35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
​

Would you mind telling me the morally grave reason why you voted for a clearly pro-abortion (or at least very stridently pro-choice) Barack Obama and rejected a clearly pro-life John McCain?

BTW, I would reject perceived “competence” or perceived “hope” or perceived “change” as a grave moral reason. I would think that such a grave moral reason should be able to be clearly linked back with something in the Magesterium that indicated that an issue, or combination of issues, would clearly outweigh, on a gravely moral basis, the position on abortion.

(Thanks for the serious answer. I am NOT trying to start a fight. I’m just trying to understand how you Catholic Democrats get from point “A” to point “B”)

 

[manualman]

Part of our problem in this country is that nobody has a decent vocabulary anymore. A “proportionate reason” is not just a reason that I happen to consider very important! A proportionate reason is finding and being of the opinion that the “other issue” in question poses a more dire circumstance or worse outcome.

Why do you never hear it expressed so clearly? Simply translated, if you think that Democratic policies on immigration, unjust war, health care or poverty assistance outweigh their legalized killing of 30 million+ unborn children (averaging about a million a year since RvW), then go ahead and vote Democratic. Do you? Really??

Personally, I think the Democrats ARE better than the republicans in each of those four areas (if still VERY imperfect). But no way does it come close to 30,000,000 dead human beings. Not. Remotely. Close.

Unless the proportionate reasons are real, there is no justifying voting for pro-abortion candidates. An awful lot of American Catholics are either: a) poor at vocabulary, b) poor at math, or c) don’t really believe an unborn child is every bit as human as the rest of us. It’s really that simple.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Someone told me that 73% of Republicans are murders? don’t know if this is true. But, i told her that i was a Republican, and she responded with “eww”. She is a Catholic, and when i stated that liberals support gays and abortion, she said “you act like that’s so bad, what about the other things”? It’s amazing to me how people think abortion is not a big deal.

This has to be a joke. You are kidding aren’t you? .

 

[manualman]

Oh, I didn’t address the ‘magic words’ comment. This is a good point, but has become an overplayed hand. I can understand how someone could justify note voting to re-elect Bush the First under such reasoning. He showed by his actions (Court nominations, i.e. Souter) that he either wasn’t very competent about vetting nominees for authentic pro-life convictions or he was playing us for fools. In such cases, proportionate reasons ARE different if you have sound reason for believing the guy ‘claiming’ pro-life principles is not sincere and will not hold up his end of the bargain.

Bush 2, for all his faults, seems to have kept his word. I know of no reason McCain wouldn’t have kept his as well (his voting record was very high percentage pro-life).

But to simply argue that nominal pro-lifers are all just manipulating us so that you can rationalize the pro-abort candidate utterly wastes our voting potential as catholics. If catholics ALL voted pro-life as their FIRST priority, the Democrats would drop the abortion plank fasters than a radioactive potato. Then we could apply our unified efforts to war. Then immigration. Then health care. But no, instead we cancel each other out and smaller, unified groups (like Planned Parenthood) deliver the unified swing votes that detrmine policy. Nice work, guys.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Would you mind telling me the morally grave reason why you voted for a clearly pro-abortion (or at least very stridently pro-choice) Barack Obama and rejected a clearly pro-life John McCain?

I didn’t vote for Obama. I voted for my cat. His name is Ozzy. He didn’t win; some technicality about having to be 35 years or older. Filing a challenge petition was cost-prohibitive, unfortunately.

But I did vote for John Kerry and Al Gore.

BTW, I would reject perceived “competence” or perceived “hope” or perceived “change” as a grave moral reason. I would think that such a grave moral reason should be able to be clearly linked back with something in the Magesterium that indicated that an issue, or combination of issues, would clearly outweigh, on a gravely moral basis, the position on abortion.

(Thanks for the serious answer. I am NOT trying to start a fight. I’m just trying to understand how you Catholic Democrats get from point “A” to point “B”)

You can reject whatever you want to reject about my voting preferences – doesn’t bother me a bit, unless you’re wearing the big pointy hat. It’s not my burden to come up with a citation to some piece of Magesterium every time I go to the polls. I weigh what is morally “good” about one politician, and what is morally “good” about the other, and pull the lever (touch the screen, whatever). It’s the burden of whoever seeks to point a finger at me and say “you’re going to Hell, sinner!”) to come up with a pretty good reason to substantiate that or, in the alternative, kindly keeping your layman’s opinion wrt my politicial affiliation and afterlife destination to yourself.

In any even, Western Pennsylvnia was going Obama; it didn’t matter who I voted for, but if my vote had any consequence whatsoever, I probably would have voted for him. Why? It doesn’t matter how many aborted babies die if environmental degredation means that thousands of generations of children never get to be born becuase we’ver turned out planet into a smoking hole. Drill baby drill – reliance on foreign and domestic oil until the supply runs out and hilarity ensues. Dismiss alternative energy as corn-burning hippie New Agieness. You disagree? Fine. But I sincerely believe that, in most cases, voting Republican hastens the demise of this planet God gave us. There’s a “proportionate” reason.

Republican economic policy – the rich get richer and the poor suffer. Is it “worse” to have been aborted or to live in wretched misery over the course of a long and painful life because your government tells you it’s “every man for himself” or that private charity should help you, not the government, or that the labor laws that protect the ever-dwindling middle class are “unfair” in a capitalist system? Also, you’re on your own for healthcare. Free trade for everybody! Welcome Wal-Mart, kick out mom & pop, drive your gas guzzlers in the suburbs instead of living where you work and actually participating in your “community”. You disagree? Corporations are persons!!! Hospodi pomilui!

Foreign policy – war, killing, torture, repaying the favors you owe your private contractor and oil company buddies at the cost of innocent lives, lying about WMD’s. Oh, but there are so many more abortions than deaths in war! So, this is a numbers game, is it? Whichever evil causes the greater ***number *** of deaths is your barometer? I don’t think morality is so simplistic.

The list goes on, and I have to catch my bus, which is funded thanks to Democratic government.

 

[mary_bobo]

No, not true. There could be other “proportionate reasons”. This is perhaps the 60th time this issue has come up here. Otherwise, merely uttering the “magic words” would be enough to secure the entire Catholic vote. Not a world we want to live in, folks. I’m sorry, but I’m not voting for an anti-environment, pro-corporate capitalist domination, anti-labor, anti-poor every-man-for-himself war-mongering death-penalty sweatshop-subsidizing libertarian just because he smiles at me and says “I’m pro life.”

And that ain’t politics talking, that’s faith.

God gave us brains so that we could use them.

I’m sure you already know of the five intrinsic evils which the Church says should take first place in judging our governmental choices. To try to find “proportionate reasons” for doing otherwise seems to me to put politics first. Call it whatever you choose, it is still putting party first. And to suggest that there is only one way to attack the other problems in the country, I presume you mean the Democrat way, is just plain wrong. There is more than one way to “skin a cat” as the saying goes.

 

[markomalley]

I didn’t vote for Obama. I voted for my cat. His name is Ozzy. He didn’t win; some technicality about having to be 35 years or older. Filing a challenge petition was cost-prohibitive, unfortunately.

But I did vote for John Kerry and Al Gore.

You can reject whatever you want to reject about my voting preferences – doesn’t bother me a bit, unless you’re wearing the big pointy hat. It’s not my burden to come up with a citation to some piece of Magesterium every time I go to the polls. I weigh what is morally “good” about one politician, and what is morally “good” about the other, and pull the lever (touch the screen, whatever). It’s the burden of whoever seeks to point a finger at me and say “you’re going to Hell, sinner!”) to come up with a pretty good reason to substantiate that or, in the alternative, kindly keeping your layman’s opinion wrt my politicial affiliation and afterlife destination to yourself.
.

Thanks for the formerly constructive dialog.

If you would like to have a substantive discussion on the subject, I’ll be more than happy to engage.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

I’m sure you already know of the five intrinsic evils which the Church says should take first place in judging our governmental choices. To try to find “proportionate reasons” for doing otherwise seems to me to put politics first. Call it whatever you choose, it is still putting party first. And to suggest that there is only one way to attack the other problems in the country, I presume you mean the Democrat way, is just plain wrong. There is more than one way to “skin a cat” as the saying goes.

Does the Church list five intrinsic evils or are your refering to the pamphet that CA sent out?

 

[markbrumbaugh]

If my bishop tells me that I can never vote for a pro-choice politician any time the other candidated utters the “magic words” I’ll rethink my position – until then, I guess I’ll just have to use my own conscience. But I’m inclined to believe that my Bishop is too smart to fall for petty political manipulation.

Your are wrong and taking the easy way out to believe that your Bishop is that smart. He is not infallible and many are just flat wrong.
I can’t tell you what to do, but the catechism and infallible instructions from Rome are the Church’s teaching, NOT whatever some Bishop says.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

I didn’t vote for Obama. I voted for my cat. His name is Ozzy. He didn’t win; some technicality about having to be 35 years or older. Filing a challenge petition was cost-prohibitive, unfortunately.

But I did vote for John Kerry and Al Gore.

You can reject whatever you want to reject about my voting preferences – doesn’t bother me a bit, unless you’re wearing the big pointy hat. It’s not my burden to come up with a citation to some piece of Magesterium every time I go to the polls. I weigh what is morally “good” about one politician, and what is morally “good” about the other, and pull the lever (touch the screen, whatever). It’s the burden of whoever seeks to point a finger at me and say “you’re going to Hell, sinner!”) to come up with a pretty good reason to substantiate that or, in the alternative, kindly keeping your layman’s opinion wrt my politicial affiliation and afterlife destination to yourself.

In any even, Western Pennsylvnia was going Obama; it didn’t matter who I voted for, but if my vote had any consequence whatsoever, I probably would have voted for him. Why? It doesn’t matter how many aborted babies die if environmental degredation means that thousands of generations of children never get to be born becuase we’ver turned out planet into a smoking hole. Drill baby drill – reliance on foreign and domestic oil until the supply runs out and hilarity ensues. Dismiss alternative energy as corn-burning hippie New Agieness. You disagree? Fine. But I sincerely believe that, in most cases, voting Republican hastens the demise of this planet God gave us. There’s a “proportionate” reason.

Republican economic policy – the rich get richer and the poor suffer. Is it “worse” to have been aborted or to live in wretched misery over the course of a long and painful life because your government tells you it’s “every man for himself” or that private charity should help you, not the government, or that the labor laws that protect the ever-dwindling middle class are “unfair” in a capitalist system? Also, you’re on your own for healthcare. Free trade for everybody! Welcome Wal-Mart, kick out mom & pop, drive your gas guzzlers in the suburbs instead of living where you work and actually participating in your “community”. You disagree? Corporations are persons!!! Hospodi pomilui!

Foreign policy – war, killing, torture, repaying the favors you owe your private contractor and oil company buddies at the cost of innocent lives, lying about WMD’s. Oh, but there are so many more abortions than deaths in war! So, this is a numbers game, is it? Whichever evil causes the greater ***number *** of deaths is your barometer? I don’t think morality is so simplistic.

The list goes on, and I have to catch my bus, which is funded thanks to Democratic government.

There just may be a place for you outside Galt’s Gulch.

 

[markomalley]

Does the Church list five intrinsic evils or are your refering to the pamphet that CA sent out?

1. Abortion. 2. Euthanasia:
   **Abortion (1) **and **euthanasia (2) **are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.
   

   - John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 73
   ​

​

3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Respect of the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo (3).

- Pontifical Council for the Family, Charter of the Rights of the Family, 4b
​

The obtaining of stem cells from a living human embryo, on the other hand, invariably causes the death of the embryo and is consequently gravely illicit (3): “research, in such cases, irrespective of efficacious therapeutic results, is not truly at the service of humanity. In fact, this research advances through the suppression of human lives that are equal in dignity to the lives of other human individuals and to the lives of the researchers themselves. History itself has condemned such a science in the past and will condemn it in the future, not only because it lacks the light of God but also because it lacks humanity”

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions, 2008 (paragraph 32)
​

​

4. Human Cloning

Human cloning (4) is intrinsically illicit in that, by taking the ethical negativity of techniques of artificial fertilization to their extreme, it seeks to give rise to a new human being without a connection to the act of reciprocal self-giving between the spouses and, more radically, without any link to sexuality. This leads to manipulation and abuses gravely injurious to human dignity

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions, 2008 (paragraph 28)​

​

5. Homosexual “Marriage”

In those situations where homosexual unions (5) have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
…
10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth…

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, 2003 (paragraphs 5 and 10)
​

​

The above pronouncements, within the context of the originals (and I provided links so you can read for yourself) are considered to be part of the Ordinary Magesterium of the Holy See, which all Catholics are to receive with religious assent of their spirit.

I personally think that opposition to IVF should be included in the list, as it is equally condemned.

Hope the above helps!

 

[peary]

Someone told me that 73% of Republicans are murders? don’t know if this is true. But, i told her that i was a Republican, and she responded with “eww”. She is a Catholic, and when i stated that liberals support gays and abortion, she said “you act like that’s so bad, what about the other things”? It’s amazing to me how people think abortion is not a big deal.

People like that need to be rejected. And it sounds like she has deep issues inside herself that she refuses to deal with, particularly with her Faith. You cannot serve two Masters. You either serve one and hate the other, or attempt to serve both and end up hating yourself.

 

[runningdude]

Part of our problem in this country is that nobody has a decent vocabulary anymore. A “proportionate reason” is not just a reason that I happen to consider very important! A proportionate reason is finding and being of the opinion that the “other issue” in question poses a more dire circumstance or worse outcome.

Why do you never hear it expressed so clearly? Simply translated, if you think that Democratic policies on immigration, unjust war, health care or poverty assistance outweigh their legalized killing of 30 million+ unborn children (averaging about a million a year since RvW), then go ahead and vote Democratic. Do you? Really??

Personally, I think the Democrats ARE better than the republicans in each of those four areas (if still VERY imperfect). But no way does it come close to 30,000,000 dead human beings. Not. Remotely. Close.

Unless the proportionate reasons are real, there is no justifying voting for pro-abortion candidates. An awful lot of American Catholics are either: a) poor at vocabulary, b) poor at math, or c) don’t really believe an unborn child is every bit as human as the rest of us. It’s really that simple.

I need to point out that Republicans also support war, commercial exploitation in foreign lands, etc, etc, and so forth. These issues have caused comparable numbers of deaths and suffering, and I would consider this to be “proportionately grave”. I cannot in good faith vote for a Republican. If they seriously did something to end the abortion holocaust, maybe I could vote for one in good conscience, but thus far all I’ve seen hiding equally grave evils under the guise of “pro-life”. We need a strong, pro-life, progressive third party.

 

[peary]

Being a Democrat or Republican (or Libertarian, or anything else political, for that matter) is something separate from Faith. Most of the time, one’s political leanings are learned from one’s parents, or union, or neighborhood, etc.

For example, I am Catholic but I am also a Reagan conservative. As a Reagan conservative, I generally endorsed the conservative point of view as promulgated by Ronald Reagan when he was president.

What exactly do I believe in that makes me a Reagan conservative?

1. Individual Liberty.
2. Economic opportunity (i.e., if you feed a person a fish, he will soon be hungry. If you teach him how to fish, he can feed himself for the rest of his life.)
3. Global democracy. I believe that democracy is not just one of many alternative governmental systems, but though it is imperfect, it is still the best.
4. National responsibility. The primary purpose of government is to PROTECT us from intruders and today, terrorists. I also believe that taxes need to be cut in order to stimulate the economy, and that pro-life and pro-family policies need to be re-instituted; less government, and that we remain proud of our country and support our men and women who fight for our rights .

If you notice, nothing here will validate my Catholic Faith, but I am an American and the four points above are fundamental to being an American because each point validates what being an American is all about. At least, in my mind it does.

As for my Faith, there is nothing above that conflicts with it. I just happen to identify politically with that part of the Republican Party that is considered made up of Reagan conservatives.

 

[runningdude]

I couldn’t edit my previous post, so I’m posting a replacement. Please disregard the above.

Part of our problem in this country is that nobody has a decent vocabulary anymore. A “proportionate reason” is not just a reason that I happen to consider very important! A proportionate reason is finding and being of the opinion that the “other issue” in question poses a more dire circumstance or worse outcome.

Why do you never hear it expressed so clearly? Simply translated, if you think that Democratic policies on immigration, unjust war, health care or poverty assistance outweigh their legalized killing of 30 million+ unborn children (averaging about a million a year since RvW), then go ahead and vote Democratic. Do you? Really??

Personally, I think the Democrats ARE better than the republicans in each of those four areas (if still VERY imperfect). But no way does it come close to 30,000,000 dead human beings. Not. Remotely. Close.

Unless the proportionate reasons are real, there is no justifying voting for pro-abortion candidates. An awful lot of American Catholics are either: a) poor at vocabulary, b) poor at math, or c) don’t really believe an unborn child is every bit as human as the rest of us. It’s really that simple.

I need to point out that many Republicans also policies directly or indirectly support war and commercial exploitation. These issues have caused comparable deaths and suffering, and I would consider this to be “proportionately grave”. We need to remember that God is not a utilitarian (doing what is best for the greatest number of people). God values every human life equally, so much that he sent his Son to become a human, knowing full well what we would end up doing to Him.

Our political system right now is a **** shoot. Vote Mr. “Pro-life”, and we end up with a war that has killed thousands, or we fail to intervene in a war that kills millions. Vote Mr. “Pro-Choice”, and we continue get millions of defenseless babies killed. As it stands, both parties claim earnestly that they are doing the Good Work, yet both have miserable failings. I would advocate starting a new progressive, pro-life third party, keeping in mind even such a party would have its failings.

What would a political party in the Kingdom of God look like?

 

[peary]

I
What would a political party in the Kingdom of God look like?

Don’t give fundamentalists any ideas!! Can you just imagine a political party called the Kingdom of God?!!

 

[Dylpickleh8]

when i stated that liberals support gays and abortion

I do not support Abortion.
I don’t encourage Homosexuality, I feel like it is their choice, and if it does not harm me or anyone else, that’s fine.

 

[RWMorris]

… If catholics ALL voted pro-life as their FIRST priority, the Democrats would drop the abortion plank fasters than a radioactive potato. Then we could apply our unified efforts to war. Then immigration. Then health care. But no, instead we cancel each other out and smaller, unified groups (like Planned Parenthood) deliver the unified swing votes that detrmine policy. Nice work, guys.

I don’t often agree with you on politics, but you nailed it with the above.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

God is not a utilitarian (doing what is best for the greatest number of people).
…]
I would advocate starting a new progressive, pro-life third party, keeping in mind even such a party would have its failings.

tl;dr – we don’t count heads when it comes to important questions of morality.

I couldn’t agree with you more. But as for the 3rd party – it’d never work here. In the U.S., we have a “first-past-the-post” electoral system, which means that third parties are doomed. Plus, we don’t have a parliamentary system whereby small third parties can wield power by forming coalitions with larger parties. Here, you’re either in the “ins” or the “outs.”

Not that I haven’t dreamt of a resurgant “populist” movement myself, though.