Do the R's and D's steal ideas from from the L's and G's?

[ThatRobGuy]

Throughout time, we've seen the two major parties shift their positions on a number of issues.

We've also seen talking points from the two major parties suggesting that the Libertarians and Greens are the 'fringe' parties, and thus, should be regarded as "outsiders" or "a joke".

But an interesting observation...

Just about every major policy shift on key issues you can find from the two major parties that they've used to appeal to their base, appear to be stances that the "3rd parties" had for a while (and used to be labelled "fringe" for).

For instance, if you look at the issues of Gay Marriage and Legalized Marijuana, fewer than a 3rd of Democrats (and even a smaller amount of elected Democratic politicians) supported those things in 1995. Now Democrats use those positions as a way to seem like the "cool" "modern thinking" party. The Libertarian party supported both of those things as party of the Founding party platform document in 1972.
"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws"

Same could be said with police reform.

The same could also be said of them taking some of the environmental positions from the Greens. It wasn't until Nader showed up on the scenes, that Democrats started getting serious about that issue (or pretending to be at at least)...likely due to the fact that they saw their progressive vote split (to Bush's advantage) in the 2000 election?

Prior to that, environmental efforts of any kind (while bipartisan at the time) were scant.
https://www.c2es.org/content/congress-climate-history/


One could also make the argument that many modern Republican positions on guns and taxation were largely lifted from the libertarian party.


Is it a case where the two major parties steal ideas from the two minor parties (once they see the ideas catching on), claim them as their own, while simultaneously depicting the minor parties as "a joke"?

 

[PloverWing]

Is it a case where the two major parties steal ideas from the two minor parties (once they see the ideas catching on), claim them as their own, while simultaneously depicting the minor parties as "a joke"?

I'd say it this way: It's rare (not unheard of, but rare) for a candidate who's not affiliated with one of the two major parties to get elected to public office in the US. So a Green or Libertarian or Independent candidate running for Congress or a similar office is not likely to get elected. (I expect that's why Bernie Sanders ran for president as a Democrat, and Donald Trump ran as a Republican.)

However, a small party or a charismatic Independent candidate can influence the larger parties. They can put an issue onto the national stage and thus make the large parties deal with the issue. That is a healthy and positive role that small parties can play.

 

[DaisyDay]

I would certainly hope they would steal the good ideas and incorporate them into their own policies.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I would certainly hope they would steal the good ideas and incorporate them into their own policies.

Well, sure...in theory, everyone should do that.

My question was more along the lines of why people have the perception that they're "wacky outsiders" when their own parties have basically co-opted their ideas and made them their own.

If the "other parties" are basically the source of the good ideas that the main parties co-opted, shouldn't the "other parties" get a shot on the national debate stage?

We let the Trump v. Biden train wreck happen on network TV. What's the harm in letting the other guys on stage with them?

I'm pretty sure the Libertarian VP candidate from last time around (Spike Cohen) could easily handle a Trump or a Biden in a debate.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

These kind of "if everyone would just vote third-party..." discussion are completely and utterly pointless until we have ranked-choice voting where third-party candidates actually can receive votes without the voter feeling like they're throwing away their vote or we switch to a more parlimentary form of government where receiving enough of a percentage of the vote gets a candidate elected to a seat. Among a plethora of other political system reforms... I think we're stuck with a 2 party system for the long haul.

 

[Vylo]

I'd say it this way: It's rare (not unheard of, but rare) for a candidate who's not affiliated with one of the two major parties to get elected to public office in the US. So a Green or Libertarian or Independent candidate running for Congress or a similar office is not likely to get elected. (I expect that's why Bernie Sanders ran for president as a Democrat, and Donald Trump ran as a Republican.)

However, a small party or a charismatic Independent candidate can influence the larger parties. They can put an issue onto the national stage and thus make the large parties deal with the issue. That is a healthy and positive role that small parties can play.

It is more than just rare. There have only been 4 major political parties in the entire history of the US. The Federalists, Whigs, Democrats and republicans in order of when they came into being.

Only twice, in 200+ years have a major political party fallen in the US. The democratic party is actually the oldest major political party on the planet.

 

[PloverWing]

It is more than just rare.

I don't know whether you mean "more common" or "less common" than "rare".

I have in mind that occasionally small-party or Independent candidates get elected to office. Examples include Senators Bernie Sanders and Angus King (both Independents) and former Governor Jesse Ventura (Reform Party, then Independence Party). So it does sometimes happen. But, as TheIbanezerScrooge has noted, there are elements of the American government structure and voting system that make us tend to have two large parties holding most of the offices most of the time.

 

[Vylo]

I don't know whether you mean "more common" or "less common" than "rare".

I have in mind that occasionally small-party or Independent candidates get elected to office. Examples include Senators Bernie Sanders and Angus King (both Independents) and former Governor Jesse Ventura (Reform Party, then Independence Party). So it does sometimes happen. But, as TheIbanezerScrooge has noted, there are elements of the American government structure and voting system that make us tend to have two large parties holding most of the offices most of the time.

Less common.

third parties don't exist in any meaningful way in America. They never really have. Only 2 have ever been usurped, the federalists (by the then combined democrat and republicans) and then the whigs (by the republicans).

The US has been extremely hostile towards more than 2 parties. new rules were put in place after Perot nearly brought a third party to the runnings.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, sure...in theory, everyone should do that.

My question was more along the lines of why people have the perception that they're "wacky outsiders" when their own parties have basically co-opted their ideas and made them their own.

If the "other parties" are basically the source of the good ideas that the main parties co-opted, shouldn't the "other parties" get a shot on the national debate stage?

We let the Trump v. Biden train wreck happen on network TV. What's the harm in letting the other guys on stage with them?

I'm pretty sure the Libertarian VP candidate from last time around (Spike Cohen) could easily handle a Trump or a Biden in a debate.

I've long seen libertarians as half hearted anarchists. Perhaps that's a little harsh but it seems like an accurate assessment .

I don't know how a libertarian would win any debate. It's a naive idealistic viewpoint in the same way communism is. Instead of minimizing liberty to maximize equity or equality (communism) it minimizes equity and equality to maximize liberty (libertarianism). These approaches say more about what the person who advocates for them values than anything else.