While the modern parties stood for different ideas, wasn’t that a more recent historical anomaly?
In 19th century America and well into the 20th century, weren’t party coalitions based more on ethic groupings and patronage networks rather than political philosophy?
No there were very real differences going back to federalists and anti-federalists (pre dating the parties). Monetary policy was a huge driver of differing philosophies of government.
Abolition was, of course, a profound philosophical difference between the parties.
Although at least locally we’ve had this before. The politics of Chicago weren’t based on ideology between its founding and probably the early thirties. And Teddy Roosevelt basically flipped the Republican Party’s ideology on its head by creating the National parks, the FDA, and trust busting. The temperance movement was long-lasting and counted “dry” supporters and “wet” antagonists on both parties.
Parties change. Let’s remember Democrats were the slavers. Parties change. The whole point if the essay is this is NOT that. This is a different development
Perhaps the Republicans will faction off into a billionaire reality TV show, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the country will. I don’t think the Dems are facing the same tribal path if they keep their eye on authentic candidates focused on economic platforms. G. Elliott Morris just wrote a great substack on the engagement gap for voters today- well worth the read. It points out the path forward for the one party that still believes in democracy- electing authentic candidates with an economic platform and belief in the rule of law. Policy debates will flow from that.
It’s time to focus on the goal. As a high ropes course facilitator, when I coach people through walking on a cable high in the air, conquering fears, I ask them to focus their efforts to their next immediate goal. You don’t focus on the fear of heights to conquer the fear of heights, you keep moving forward, working the problem, grabbing the next handhold or rope to press yourself onward, one small goal at a time. It’s time to buckle down and focus on conquering the problem at hand and leave noise behind, to quit focusing on Trump and Elon and the chaos and noise and focus on what matters- electing lawmakers who will legislate on behalf of the people, even if their policy beliefs differ far from our own.
His grievance is he and tesla cant get the sweet tax payer teat they was getting before. Now they actually have to sell a lower quality version of homer’s car
Musk changes his minds constantly so not sure I see him following through. I must also point out that Musk got plenty of government largess for Tesla, not to mention all the defense contracts. He just wants to cutting spendings that negatively impact people he hates.
Mike, your analysis holds true for the Republican Party but you don't mention the Democratic Party. I'm not sure at this point there's a basis to think that this will be a Ross Perot with money moment for Elan
I don't think so. The real danger, apart from entrenching celebrity politics, is that he will siphon off the swing voters and Democratic voters who are unhappy with Trump and blame Democrats for "not doing enough"...although exactly what more they can do given they do not hold the House or Senate is beyond me.
This is really not the time to create a third party of dubious aims.
Note that Elon could to do a great deal for the citizenry without creating a third party. He could for starters make up for all the harms done via DOGE. He could fill in the cost of the Medicaid budget that is disappearing in 2026. He could fund the renewable, clean, domestic energy sector. He could fund quality public education. He could support principled election oversight (ironic, that).
If Musk were to do any of the things you mentioned, it would be motivated solely by his personal gain. His beef with the BBB is that it cuts EV incentives and this cuts into his Tesla profits. I see no indication that he cares about Medicaid cuts nor the gutting of agencies by DOGE.
While the modern parties stood for different ideas, wasn’t that a more recent historical anomaly?
In 19th century America and well into the 20th century, weren’t party coalitions based more on ethic groupings and patronage networks rather than political philosophy?
No there were very real differences going back to federalists and anti-federalists (pre dating the parties). Monetary policy was a huge driver of differing philosophies of government.
Abolition was, of course, a profound philosophical difference between the parties.
Fair enough.
Although at least locally we’ve had this before. The politics of Chicago weren’t based on ideology between its founding and probably the early thirties. And Teddy Roosevelt basically flipped the Republican Party’s ideology on its head by creating the National parks, the FDA, and trust busting. The temperance movement was long-lasting and counted “dry” supporters and “wet” antagonists on both parties.
Parties change. Let’s remember Democrats were the slavers. Parties change. The whole point if the essay is this is NOT that. This is a different development
Isn't this just the Bull Moose Party for the Twitter age?
Perhaps the Republicans will faction off into a billionaire reality TV show, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the country will. I don’t think the Dems are facing the same tribal path if they keep their eye on authentic candidates focused on economic platforms. G. Elliott Morris just wrote a great substack on the engagement gap for voters today- well worth the read. It points out the path forward for the one party that still believes in democracy- electing authentic candidates with an economic platform and belief in the rule of law. Policy debates will flow from that.
It’s time to focus on the goal. As a high ropes course facilitator, when I coach people through walking on a cable high in the air, conquering fears, I ask them to focus their efforts to their next immediate goal. You don’t focus on the fear of heights to conquer the fear of heights, you keep moving forward, working the problem, grabbing the next handhold or rope to press yourself onward, one small goal at a time. It’s time to buckle down and focus on conquering the problem at hand and leave noise behind, to quit focusing on Trump and Elon and the chaos and noise and focus on what matters- electing lawmakers who will legislate on behalf of the people, even if their policy beliefs differ far from our own.
His grievance is he and tesla cant get the sweet tax payer teat they was getting before. Now they actually have to sell a lower quality version of homer’s car
Musk changes his minds constantly so not sure I see him following through. I must also point out that Musk got plenty of government largess for Tesla, not to mention all the defense contracts. He just wants to cutting spendings that negatively impact people he hates.
Mike, your analysis holds true for the Republican Party but you don't mention the Democratic Party. I'm not sure at this point there's a basis to think that this will be a Ross Perot with money moment for Elan
Assuming this holds and the American Party is on future ballots, how does this play out? Will this essentially split the "Republican" electorate?
I don't think so. The real danger, apart from entrenching celebrity politics, is that he will siphon off the swing voters and Democratic voters who are unhappy with Trump and blame Democrats for "not doing enough"...although exactly what more they can do given they do not hold the House or Senate is beyond me.
This is really not the time to create a third party of dubious aims.
Note that Elon could to do a great deal for the citizenry without creating a third party. He could for starters make up for all the harms done via DOGE. He could fill in the cost of the Medicaid budget that is disappearing in 2026. He could fund the renewable, clean, domestic energy sector. He could fund quality public education. He could support principled election oversight (ironic, that).
If Musk were to do any of the things you mentioned, it would be motivated solely by his personal gain. His beef with the BBB is that it cuts EV incentives and this cuts into his Tesla profits. I see no indication that he cares about Medicaid cuts nor the gutting of agencies by DOGE.