1) All of us are disgusted & fed up with the Republican Party (except a few perpetual grifters in DC).

2) There are calls for a new "Patriot" or "MAGA" Party. I get it. Good intentions. But there are structural reasons why a new party will fail & why we have to take over the GOP

3) When I say "structural" some people gloss over that as if it's unimportant.

It's fundamental. You don't build a house on a bad foundation. If you set up a commerce site, you have a structure as to how you take payments.

You may wish you could go outside that structure . . .
3) contd . . . but if you want your money, you have to either work in the structure or completely obliterate the site. You can't have two competing sites for your money.

4) Likewise if you want to get in your house, you may have 20 keys, but the car key usually won't let you in
5) The structural basis of parties is unchangeable. It was set in the 1820s by Martin Van Buren as a way to protect slavery with the DemoKKKrat Party. But it's also embedded in the Constitution with the "winner take all/single member district" system of representation.
6) This has resulted in a 200-year-old system that is set in place. First, Van Buren, to get people to support a party that would protect slavery, had to reward them with something big.

Jobs.

He created the "spoils system" of rewarding loyalists with party & gubment jobs.
7) The more effective you were at getting out the vote, the higher your reward with a party or gubment job. Today, there are only about 3,000 directly appointed presidential jobs---but multiply that by all the people who have say over the people THEY give jobs to, or approve.
8) Now go down the line to the party bosses, the state bosses, the county bosses, etc. It's a massive jobs/spoils pyramid that despite the Civil Service Administration to this day still controls hundreds of thousands of jobs.

More important, they control millions of . . .
8) contd . . . wanna-be, hopeful future job seekers.

9) That's part one of the structure.

10) Part 2, winner take all/single member district, means that for any House seat, or any state house seat, you must win a majority of the vote.

11) Only one winner per district.
12) Jim Jordan either wins or goes home. He doesn't get a "45% seat" in Congress. No such thing. (Now, there IS such a thing in Israel & European countries that have "proportional representation." We don't have that.
13) So, when you combine the two---spoils/jobs with winner-take-all/single member district---it creates a dynamic of long-term loyalty to whoever stands to get close to 50%.

14) This is why no third party has ever succeeded in American history. (Remember, the Republicans . . .
14) contd . . . were NOT a "third party." They were the second party, because the Whigs had gone out of business (separate lesson on why).

15) The Libertarians get 1-3%; the Socialists get 1%; the Green Party gets 1%; and so on. They NEVER EVER grow. Why?
16) Because however valid (or invalid) their ideas, they have no reasonable shot over the course of more than 20 years of ever winning. That means they have no opportunity to reward followers/loyalists with . . . jobs.
17) If you are a loyalist who wants to actually see change from the Green standpoint, you have no hope in your lifetime. Moreover, no Greenies will EVER be appointed by a DemoKKKrat president to a position because . . .

those are reserved for loyal DEMOKKKRATS.
18) It's not just that some people want gubment cheese in the form of a job---some do. But many others want a (paid) chance to change policies.

19) And when they are successful at electing Foghorn Leghorn as GOP President, they expect to be rewarded & to reward THEIR underlings
20) Even if you have, as with the Reform Party, a party that got 17% of the presidential vote in 1992, how many House seats did they win?

None.

How many policies did they directly shape?

None. You might say, correctly, they influenced some.

How many jobs did Ross give away?
21) You get my point. The hopelessness of never having a shot at 50% soon erodes third parties, like the Populists or the Reformers. They move into one of the existing parties that actually are within 10 points in any given election of winning.
22) Thus, creating a whole new MAGA/Patriot Party, which starts way below 50% (because a significant # of Republicans would not leave), means that for the distant future neither the GOP nor the MAGA party would get close to 50%.

23) That creates hopelessness.
23) It is far easier--though not easy---to take over an existing party from within.

This is what the Socialists have done with the DemoKKKrat Party. They came really close in November to completing the job. Only Biteme's fraudulent victory saved the establishment . . .
24) contd . . . and Botoxic and SpewMore were able to crush the Occasional Cortex-led insurgents and reassert control.

25) Look at the person slated to replace Kampuchea in the CA senate seat. Full DemoKKKrat, not a non-party socialist (even though ideologically Alex Padilla . .
25) contd . . . is almost certainly a Socialist at heart. But you stay within the party. You reward loyalists.

26) Trump had to play that game. (Obviously, you also WANT your loyalists in power). Head of NASA?

Jeff DeWitt, Trump's AZ finance chairman.
27) Of course, this becomes a problem if the loyalists are more loyal to themselves and/or the party than to fixing the country (think Sean Spicer, Jeff Sessions, any number of revolving door appointees under Trump).

28) But I think I'm safe in saying that virtually . . .
28) contd . . . none of Trump's early picks for anything were "outside the party" guys except Bannon, who came with him from the campaign.
29) Hence, the takeover must be from the inside, and we can do it.

More from Larry Schweikart

More from Politics

My piece in the NY Times today: "the Trump administration is denying applications submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services at a rate 37 percent higher than the Obama administration did in 2016."

Based on this analysis: "Denials for immigration benefits—travel documents, work permits, green cards, worker petitions, etc.—increased 37 percent since FY 2016. On an absolute basis, FY 2018 will see more than about 155,000 more denials than FY 2016."
https://t.co/Bl0naOO0sh


"This increase in denials cannot be credited to an overall rise in applications. In fact, the total number of applications so far this year is 2 percent lower than in 2016. It could be that the higher denial rate is also discouraging some people from applying at all.."

Thanks to @gsiskind for his insightful comments. The increase in denials, he said, is “significant enough to make one think that Congress must have passed legislation changing the requirements. But we know they have not.”

My conclusion:

You May Also Like