by WorldTribune Staff, August 24, 2017
The United States doesn’t need a third political party because it is currently being ruled by one “Uni-party,” an analyst said.
What America needs is a “New Party,” that would be dedicated to “returning America to the rule of law under the Constitution,” says Angelo Codevilla, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University.
“There is no doubt that today’s America is ruled by a single ruling party and that the Republican Party is part of that party rather than an alternative to it,” Codevilla wrote for The Washington Times on Aug. 20.
“Why vote Republican when that results, rhetoric aside, in being governed as by Democrats? America needs a true alternative to our ruling Uni-party, a true second party.”
“The New Party would be about … rolling back the judicial-administrative state that is restricting economic activity, religious freedom and imposing an alien morality on America.”
Congress’s refusal to repeal Obamacare marked the death of Republican Party, Codevilla wrote.
The GOP is now as dead as the Whig Party was in 1854 “after it colluded in the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act which opened these territories to slavery.”
“Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress as well as control of legislatures and governorships in 26 states veil the fact that, in 2017, there are no longer reasons to vote Republican any more than there were to vote Whig after 1854,” Codevilla wrote.
GOP successes in recent electoral cycles “were due to the American people’s desire not to be governed by a ruling class, headed by the Democratic Party, which is restricting, insulting and impoverishing the country. Republican voters were hopeful but doubtful. In the 2016 Republican primaries the overwhelming majority of votes went to candidates least tied to the party establishment.”
The Whig Party “finished itself off because its support of Kansas-Nebraska was the last in a long line of acquiescences to the Democratic Party’s agenda regarding slavery and expansion,” Codevilla noted. “Obamacare is a principal part of Democratic rule imposed on America. By embracing it in 2017, the Republican Party removed any prospect that it might serve as an alternative to Democratic rule.”
The New Party “would tailor ingress of foreign labor to America’s needs, and treat citizenship as a privilege,” Codevilla wrote. “Its foreign policy would aggressively defend vital interests while ending indecisive warfare.”
“There is no doubt that the New Party’s core would be formed by people who currently label themselves Republican, just as the original Republicans were mostly re-labeled Whigs, or that the new party would pursue much of what the Republicans have purported to pursue, just as the original Republicans pursued much of the old Whigs’ agenda.
“The crucial difference, now as 160 years ago, is that the New Party would cast aside its links to the establishment, would incorporate new concerns, and that it would mean what it said.
“Were such a New Party to present a presidential candidate in 2020, the only certainty is that the Republican Party’s standard bearer would receive fewer popular votes than either the Democratic Party’s or the New Party’s candidates. Since neither of these two would likely receive a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives would have to choose between them, each state casting one vote.
“The majority of states have a majority of Republican Congressmen. Whoever of these voted for the Democrat would cut himself off from his district. Whoever voted for the New Party candidate would thereby be applying for membership.”