In the US context, what exactly is a political party? I ask, because from my observations, they operate very differently from UK parties. In particular, they don't seem to have a membership structure, or any process for adopting or changing party policies. Also, they are at least as active at local and state level, as at federal level. Is that a reasonable summary?
In the US context, what exactly is a political party? I ask, because from my observations, they operate very differently from UK parties. In particular, they don't seem to have a membership structure, or any process for adopting or changing party policies. Also, they are at least as active at local and state level, as at federal level. Is that a reasonable summary?
Yes, they function very differently from the UK context. And as with so many things, it varies from state to state.
In my state, as I think is the case in most states, “belonging” to a political party is simply a matter of identification as part of voter registration. That is to say, when you register to vote, you affiliate with a recognized party, or you register as “unaffiliated.” A growing number of people do that latter.
Parties are typically very active at the state and local level. Broadly speaking, one’s ability to participate in formal party structures—precinct meetings, county meetings, statewide conventions or national conventions, or executive committees of state or national structures—is based on affiliation with that party as part of one’s voter registration. And it’s those conventions and executive committees that have the power to set policies.
That said, not all states include party affiliation as part of voter registration. (And North Dakota doesn’t have voter registration at all.) In those states, the parties set the requirements for participation in party structures and running as a candidate of the party.
And of course the primary system in the US, which dates back to the late 60s and early 70s, means that selection of party candidates is outside the formal party structures. Some states have “closed primaries,” which means only persons affiliated with a party through their voter registration can vote in that party’s primaries. Other states have “open primaries,” where anyone can choose which party’s primary to participate in. And still other states (like mine) have something in between—if you’re affiliated with a party, you can only vote in that party’s primaries, but unaffiliated voters can vote in the primary of any party that has opened its primaries to unaffiliated voters.
Yes - very different. There clearly is a Green Party to belong to, but I'm still wondering what exactly that would mean. I suspect it means that activism would be even more likely than it is for party members here - ?
And apart from things like local school boards and other lower level stuff, what is the use of voting for any third party in the system we currently have in the United States? Until we get something like a ranked-choice system so we don’t wind up basically (and I believe correctly) saying that voting for a third party will just be like taking your vote away from the candidate that will have a snowball’s chance in Hell of defeating the one you desperately don’t want… Which is maddening…
I don’t really know enough about the US Green party to say how much I would actually want to elect someone from it, but I do know that if it’s a choice between basically anyone in the MAGA crowd and any Democrat, I think I’m going to always have to go for the Democrat. (I would love to believe that the Republicans would actually become sane again, but I’m not holding my breath for any time soon…)
Yes - very different. There clearly is a Green Party to belong to, but I'm still wondering what exactly that would mean. I suspect it means that activism would be even more likely than it is for party members here - ?
Left-wing, of the more anti-American and pro-"Eurasian" variety. George Galloway would probably be a rough equivalent in Europe.
@MaxNRH please post what you want to discuss on this thread, or an opinion, or something more than one line and not sourced from A.I. within the next 48hrs - this to ensure we know you are not a bot. If you do not do this, your account will be suspended until or unless you contact one of the admin team to confirm you are not a bot. Apologies for having to do his - but it is the world the billionaire class has created.
Thanks very much. Please read the forum guidelines, they are slightly different for each part of the forums, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory etc. They are at the top of each forum page - but the whole lot can be found here, the 10 commandments can be found here - the rolling policy update which includes guidance on issues as and when they crop up, can be found here.
Yes - very different. There clearly is a Green Party to belong to, but I'm still wondering what exactly that would mean. I suspect it means that activism would be even more likely than it is for party members here - ?
Left-wing, of the more anti-American and pro-"Eurasian" variety. George Galloway would probably be a rough equivalent in Europe.
I don't think that the US Greens are left-wing, just alt-populist. I would say the same about Respect-era Galloway. Someone who shills for Putin isn't left-wing.
Typically, Third Parties like the Green Party will be absorbed into one of the two major parties. I think you will find them going into the Democratic Party.
A case the Greens will be interested in is the SCOTUS case Suncor v The Boulder County Commissioners. See the SCOTUS thread.
I would say many people are very concerned about climate issues in the US, but they are not organized into just one party.
Yes - very different. There clearly is a Green Party to belong to, but I'm still wondering what exactly that would mean. I suspect it means that activism would be even more likely than it is for party members here - ?
Left-wing, of the more anti-American and pro-"Eurasian" variety. George Galloway would probably be a rough equivalent in Europe.
I don't think that the US Greens are left-wing, just alt-populist. I would say the same about Respect-era Galloway. Someone who shills for Putin isn't left-wing.
That's a credible argument. But would you have said the same thing about the Communist Party of Great Britain during the Molotov-Ribbentrop period when, in the words of George Orwell, they were preaching that "Germany was more sinned against than sinning"?
IMO, THE only time thevUS Green party did well was in 2000, when Ralph Nader was its nominee.
Well, that's a bit more than an opinion. 2000 was by far their best presidential showing since they started contesting that office in 1996.
Interestingly, Nader in 2004 ran not with the Greens but as an independent, backed by the Reform Party, who over their history hosted an ideologically syncretic line-up of politicians including Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Donald Trump, Jesse Ventura, and even some survivors from the wreck of the Natural Law Party.
Left wing right wing is too reductive to capture the variance in policy. Do we mean:
more or less authoritarian
more or less state control of the economy
more or less socially conservative
more or less libertarian
more or less local vs central control
more or less unfettered capitalism
more or less socialism
more or less taxation - possibly independent of other policy choices
more or less committed to rule bound governance
more or less working cooperatively vs competitively with other nations
more or less committed to reducing human impact on the climate and/or mitigation of climate damage
Et cetera. I have probably missed some, and I am unclear what people mean by populism - is it really political choice, or is it a characterisation of someone else’s policy position you disagree with ?
Yes - very different. There clearly is a Green Party to belong to, but I'm still wondering what exactly that would mean. I suspect it means that activism would be even more likely than it is for party members here - ?
Left-wing, of the more anti-American and pro-"Eurasian" variety. George Galloway would probably be a rough equivalent in Europe.
I don't think that the US Greens are left-wing, just alt-populist. I would say the same about Respect-era Galloway. Someone who shills for Putin isn't left-wing.
There seem to be a lot of folk, even Millenials and younger, whose conception of geo-politics is frozen around 1985, if not earlier. There are plenty of communists who simply haven't accepted the fall of the USSR and have baked into their heads "USSR good; America bad" and only barely noticed that the President of the Russian Federation is not the President of the Soviet Union. If you talk to them about capital and labour, trade unions and workers' rights, they're undoubtedly left wing. They just have a blindspot the size of Moscow.
And ideas of what is left wing and right wing may vary. I once saw The Economist (weekly current affairs magazine, centre right last time I checked) described by an American news outlet as left-wing, which to a European is absolutely hilarious. Although nowadays, many of our home-grown far-right would agree with them.
I am unclear what people mean by populism - is it really political choice, or is it a characterisation of someone else’s policy position you disagree with ?
Populism I believe is defined by dividing the nation into the people and elites (and optionally others) who are opposed to the people, and taking the side of the people (or claiming to).
Populism has left-wing variants where the elites are the wealthy, and right-wing variants where they are I suppose educated people and people with multinational economic interests.
Right-wing populism normally define the people to exclude immigrants generally. Once you start excluding groups in the nation from "the people" excluding other groups is much easier.
Populism can be liberal or illiberal, in the latter case seeing human rights laws as elite curbs on the democratic will. Left-wing populism can be either, but right-wing populism seems exclusively illiberal.
Comments
In my state, as I think is the case in most states, “belonging” to a political party is simply a matter of identification as part of voter registration. That is to say, when you register to vote, you affiliate with a recognized party, or you register as “unaffiliated.” A growing number of people do that latter.
Parties are typically very active at the state and local level. Broadly speaking, one’s ability to participate in formal party structures—precinct meetings, county meetings, statewide conventions or national conventions, or executive committees of state or national structures—is based on affiliation with that party as part of one’s voter registration. And it’s those conventions and executive committees that have the power to set policies.
That said, not all states include party affiliation as part of voter registration. (And North Dakota doesn’t have voter registration at all.) In those states, the parties set the requirements for participation in party structures and running as a candidate of the party.
And of course the primary system in the US, which dates back to the late 60s and early 70s, means that selection of party candidates is outside the formal party structures. Some states have “closed primaries,” which means only persons affiliated with a party through their voter registration can vote in that party’s primaries. Other states have “open primaries,” where anyone can choose which party’s primary to participate in. And still other states (like mine) have something in between—if you’re affiliated with a party, you can only vote in that party’s primaries, but unaffiliated voters can vote in the primary of any party that has opened its primaries to unaffiliated voters.
I don’t really know enough about the US Green party to say how much I would actually want to elect someone from it, but I do know that if it’s a choice between basically anyone in the MAGA crowd and any Democrat, I think I’m going to always have to go for the Democrat. (I would love to believe that the Republicans would actually become sane again, but I’m not holding my breath for any time soon…)
Left-wing, of the more anti-American and pro-"Eurasian" variety. George Galloway would probably be a rough equivalent in Europe.
Okay, Galloway during the heyday of Respect.
(But is Galloway 2026 as anti-immigration as Farage?)
Doublethink, Admin
Doublethink, Admin
I don't think that the US Greens are left-wing, just alt-populist. I would say the same about Respect-era Galloway. Someone who shills for Putin isn't left-wing.
A case the Greens will be interested in is the SCOTUS case Suncor v The Boulder County Commissioners. See the SCOTUS thread.
I would say many people are very concerned about climate issues in the US, but they are not organized into just one party.
That's a credible argument. But would you have said the same thing about the Communist Party of Great Britain during the Molotov-Ribbentrop period when, in the words of George Orwell, they were preaching that "Germany was more sinned against than sinning"?
Well, that's a bit more than an opinion. 2000 was by far their best presidential showing since they started contesting that office in 1996.
Interestingly, Nader in 2004 ran not with the Greens but as an independent, backed by the Reform Party, who over their history hosted an ideologically syncretic line-up of politicians including Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Donald Trump, Jesse Ventura, and even some survivors from the wreck of the Natural Law Party.
Et cetera. I have probably missed some, and I am unclear what people mean by populism - is it really political choice, or is it a characterisation of someone else’s policy position you disagree with ?
There seem to be a lot of folk, even Millenials and younger, whose conception of geo-politics is frozen around 1985, if not earlier. There are plenty of communists who simply haven't accepted the fall of the USSR and have baked into their heads "USSR good; America bad" and only barely noticed that the President of the Russian Federation is not the President of the Soviet Union. If you talk to them about capital and labour, trade unions and workers' rights, they're undoubtedly left wing. They just have a blindspot the size of Moscow.
Populism has left-wing variants where the elites are the wealthy, and right-wing variants where they are I suppose educated people and people with multinational economic interests.
Right-wing populism normally define the people to exclude immigrants generally. Once you start excluding groups in the nation from "the people" excluding other groups is much easier.
Populism can be liberal or illiberal, in the latter case seeing human rights laws as elite curbs on the democratic will. Left-wing populism can be either, but right-wing populism seems exclusively illiberal.