Crazy? Nah, dude, I've been waiting years for something like this. I'm in.
The problem currently is that the two parties have monopoly control over the political process. Both parties know that no matter who sits in the White House, or controls Congress, they will be showered with hundreds of millions of dollars. They have absolutely no incentive to govern effectively or respond to the will of the people. The monopoly that needs to be broken up is the one in Washington, and I'm not at all convinced that can be done through the parties themselves.
But the Libertarians? I'm not against it, but I mean, it would have to be a total takeover. New name, new platforms, absolutely everything. It would be like a corporate takeover where the new ownership changes the name and everything and the only thing left of the original organization is the legal infrastructure. I guess you could argue that this kind of thing happened with both of the major parties over the years so it's not impossible.
And, the enticing part of this is that conceivably you can build a new coalition out of not only the vast majority of people who hate both parties, but people who are only nominally loyal to those parties and would vote for a new third party. In fact, the only people you could not realistically appeal to are the party loyalists, and they are a minority of the overall electorate.
I think, too, the important way to approach this is from the bottom up, not the top down. Don't worry about the White House. Don't worry about big, splashy, national campaigns. Start at the local level. Build the movement from the ground up. I don't care if you have to start at school boards. The problem with top-down is that you get this high profile I'm-running-for-president thing that can't work and once it fizzles out the movement has nowhere to go. Starting local is the way to build a lasting movement across election cycles.
We need to use the Green Party, instead of the Libertarian Party! The Green Party already has a great platform is it is completely democratically run, so it would be the perfect framework to take over!
It's not. I'm a Green and It's the perfect party if you are left of AOC. We get a bad rap because they say we are the spoilers in Democrat elections. Maybe if the Democrats adopted more of our values, they would have more appeal. For example, we don't take corporate money and we don't take AIPAC money.
That is one of those myths the Democratic Party's corporate-owned leadership keeps alive! I should know, because I was a Democrat for all of my voting life... and I was a precinct committee person for several years until after this last Pres election, when I finally got fed up with having to hold my nose and vote for corporate-sellouts like Clinton and then Biden! So now I am a member of the Green Party. The Dems love to make the Green Party the scapegoat for the real reason they lose the elections....which is because they are as bought off as the GOP.... only they do it behind the scenes, while pretending to be on the side of working people!
So you’re seeing no connection between her and Russia/Putin? Because I don’t think that was made up. I’ve never blamed her for losses to Trump. I’m a Bernie fan. I’m not trying to be a smart ass here. I genuinely want you to tell me how you know Jill Stein doesn’t have Russian/putin connections. Because if I’m wrong, I’ll admit I am.
There has never been any evidence presented that Stein actually ever had any political connections to Russia. Please read the ENTIRE article....carefully.... and all the way to the very end (at the link below) and then tell me what you think. To me, it is crystal clear that Stein was simply targeted because she was the Green Party candidate and therefore the Democratic Party's leadership was determined to make her part of the scapegoating the Democratic Party does EVERY time they fail to win an election!
If believing that Assange is not a criminal, and that the American people need to know the dirty behind-the-scenes corruption of the DNC constitutes a political connection to Russia, then I (who do not even know anyone who is Russian, have never been to Russia, and who despises what Putin has done and is doing) must have a Russian connection too!!! I really do want to hear back from you on this... please.
Now the greens are not green due to photosynthesis and chlorophyll, but green backs of 'legal tender.' Follow the money. Stein is a Russian shill. It is easy to corrupt an idea if you buy it, bribe it, berate it and bilk it of its philosophy. You have something against the very heart of Nature? Try living without biology, I fucking dare you.
Jill Stein is a nut. She's given the green party a bad name. Plus all the culture war stuff they've signed on to. As a voter climate change is my #1 priority, but the Green Party is a joke in the US and I wouldn't sign up for it.
The greens are not a joke. By not supporting them, you are the joke. In 1992 I helped organize it in my state. Right now it would be a center right progressive effort, backed by science, logic, data and sociology of human behaviors. It would have busted both idiotic parties of R and D, but no thanks to millions of uninformed and laconic skeptics like you, it failed, and now the country has failed. We no longer have a country, we have a corporation with a thousand shell companies, all sucking the taxes and salaries of every 'murkan who earns less than 80K$ a year. You should just shut up about your dangerous joke. You definitely know the least informed persons.
Well, isn’t that a well-considered, thoughtful, and knowledgeable answer to my request for specific information about Jill Stein’s connections to Putin! No, it is not.
Hilarious. No. It just did not post. Now it is posted. Stein and Russia is old news. But Stein is not. Putin is, in your mind, a green? Sure looks like it to me. So who is gaslighting who?
Oy. People and the "Russian connections". Such BS. First of all, why do you hate/fear Russia/Putin? And second: have you checked out Aaron Mate's work at the Grayzone on Russiagate, the Hillary Clinton-backed initiative (Steele Dossier, etc.)? As long as gullible kooks prevail in the Democratic Party, we are doomed. (If in fact, you are a kook, and not just a troll). Take care. BTW change will not come from people like you and me who write on substack.
I've already left the Dems and become an independent and I'm ready to join with a movement of people like me. I'm also willing to get under a big umbrella with a bunch of Americans (like my Southern cousins) who hate the dirty filthy mega rich. We all want to see justice and we want unity to get our country back.
The party of true progressives is the Green Party. Many progressives who make it into public office started out as Greens, but pass as democrats. Bernie could have gone with the Green Party with his massive support and given it real legitimacy. They have achieved good ballot access. The Socialist and working class goals are the same as the Oligarchy Tour has shown. The connection needs to be made without the labels.
I am in the Green Party in Philadelphia. We are pro-people, in every form. Yes, the Democrats have blocked our ballot access as much as they can. I don't think anyone can argue with our values. I couldn't be in any other party. Instead, the Democrats should adopt what we stand for.
The Democratic Party has a messaging problem now... It seems to me that using the "Libertarian" brand would create a huge messaging problem right off the bat, trying to throw off the mantle of "remove all impediments to big business" that I think of when I hear the name "Libertarian".
If taking over an existing (non-Democratic) party is necessary, the Green Party is in a lot of states, and I think has an existing "name association" that is more consistent with what we want to achieve than "Libertarian" does, so it would be less likely to cause messaging confusion right off the bat ???
The Democratic Party has a structural and core value problem. Messaging is the least of it; that's a pitch from speech writers for more work. Lack of leadership is more critical. Yes, Schumer saying I sent a strongly worded letter to Trump about blah blah blah, is a poor message when everyone knows Trump will not likely read it or care about what it contains. But the bigger problem is Dem leadership continuing to support or meekly opposing Israeli genocide, insider stock trading, Manifest Destiny, and a whole host of other social, economic, and moral cowardices.
Join the Green Party! It already has a perfect platform.... read it! And they were on 38 state ballots last time, and is completely democratically run!
I feel exactly the same way about "libertarian". The general population just doesn't understand that the term "de-regulation" means that businessess can do whatever in the wide world of sports they WANT to do...including employment practices. It's painful to see such ignorance.
I like the idea, but Libertarians have a negative connotation with the people I know. I agree with others here that the Green Party is a better route to take.
If we are talking about consolidation of like minded people into an existing party, it would provide the funding and people power to get on the ballot of the remaining states. The DNC fought the Greens at every step to deny them access and self interested or scared shitless dems let them do it. The DNC stands for status quo. Where were all the "progressives" when the Greens were fighting for their rights in the very expensive courts? Where were the donations?
The Green Party was printed on the ballots in 38 states and had write-in status in several more states, including Illinois, Kansas, New York, and Delaware.
The Libertarian party is already in the ballot. They did the leg work the legal work. The signatures the whole 9. Their party is weak and not very popular.
The Green Party was printed on the ballots in 38 states and had write-in status in several more states, including Illinois, Kansas, New York, and Delaware. That's a 42 state access. The Libertarian Party's state access was 47.
Research how to take over the Libertarian Party, and change its name immediately upon takeover. Don't know that the name matters much, as long as it has no baggage. Rs and Ds will pillory it anyway and try to soil its name. That will be the first fight.
Then consult with the Greens about what sort of coalition of the willing might be possible.
Used to be. How many under-60 year olds have read Ayn Rand? Or have any other grounds to make such an association? (I am 73 with three 40-ish offspring whose friends I know pretty well)
It's a great question. I'm curious what "Libertarian" symbolizes as a brand to younger folks.
I asked ChatGPT what the US Libertarian Party symbolizes as a brand.
The answer surprised me: "In short: If the U.S. Libertarian Party were a brand, it would symbolize outsider rebellion, uncompromising individualism, and protest against the establishment."
Quite different than my association of the word with icky Peter Theil crypto-bro vibes.
What "AI overview" had to say just now is that young independent voters under the age of 40 do not strongly prefer either the Green or Libertarian Party. Their defining characteristic is rejection of the major parties, not devotion to a minor one.
I’m 32 and Ayn Rand was definitely on my right-leaning friends bookshelves. I’m not sure if they ever read her stuff in full (I haven’t) but I think most people are familiar with the basics and just turned off by the length. Everybody I know who is politically active has at least some understanding of what the libertarians believe.
Ayn Rand was a Russian immigrant who advocated the survival of the fittest while collecting American Social Security and Medicare. Major hypocrite, and not even a good writer.
The majority of Ayn Rand fans like it. The majority of people in my age group do not like the libertarian ideology, but may agree with parts of it (such as marijuana legalization)
I’m 32 and Ayn Rand was definitely on my right-leaning friends bookshelves. I’m not sure if they ever read her stuff in full (I haven’t) but I think most people are familiar with the basics and just turned off by the length. Everybody I know who is politically active has at least some understanding of what the libertarians believe.
I agree that most libertarian policies are unattractive to a majority of people. But the libertarian party has been, by far, the strongest voice in this country for peace, dropping punishing sanctions on other countries, respecting the sovereignty of every nation, and a complete re-write of U.S. foreign policy.
I’ve been following Corbin Trent for about a year now and I like everything he advocates. But over that same year, I’ve yet to read one word from him that advocates for peace and a new U.S. foreign policy. This is THE critical question because, with a trillion dollar U. S. defense budget, every dollar spent on the MIC and the security state is a dollar not spent on everything Corbin Trent advocates.
So my question to Corbin Trent is: do you throw the baby out with the bath water when you take over the Libertarian Party? Do you discard the entire libertarian platform, including is deeply admirable foreign policy, or do you retain at least that much of it? And how would you accomplish that?
Very interesting idea. It would be so much better if we could just get the candidates we want through in the Democratic Party, but you’re right, the “leadership” has made that impossible. I would have to know more about the actual process. Wouldn’t we still have to spend millions to get in all 50 states? I also think the Greens would be more palatable to most people.
It’s a great idea but the wrong party. We need to do to the Democratic Party what trumpers did to the former Republican Party-take it over. Nobody is using it now except for fundraising emails. It is ours for the taking if we are willing to do the work.
I am strongly progressive, and was in the Dem Party for many, many, many years, and the reason we cannot take it over is because it is not democratically run. It is made to look like it is, but that is just window dressing! The court has ruled that because the Democratic Party is a private entity... not a publicly-owned entity.... its wealthy leadership can use its wealth to do whatever it wants when it comes to all decisions... such as what it did to rig primaries and to ignore the majority of its members desires re Presidential Nominees and endorsements, etc. The court stated that while it found the party's leadership's behavior unethical, and definitely did not condone it, nevertheless, the courts have no jurisdiction over whatever the leadership of a privately owned party does... including ignoring and breaking its own party's rules.
I think people underestimate how easy it would be for a group of like-minded people (a single individual is not enough) to take over a Democratic county party outside of the big cities. Do that enough times you could start building power.
The court stated that while it found the party's leadership's behavior unethical, and definitely did not condone it, nevertheless, the courts have no jurisdiction over whatever the leadership of a privately owned party does... including ignoring and breaking its own party's rules. This means that no matter who the base votes to nominate, the leadership has the power to overrule the majority of the votes of its base, and nominate whomever they wish. When the DNC was taken to court over rigging primaries and sabotaging Sanders' campaign, they didn't even try to deny they had done these things. But the court pointed out that because the Democratic Party is not a publicly-owned entity, the leadership can do whatever they want... including completely ignoring what the majority of its base votes for. How are you going to take over a party where you have no power to enforce your collective will, no matter how many of you there are???
Yeah! And why do you think Corbin cannot seem to wrap his head around the concept that the Green Party is the perfect alternative to this clusterfuck we’ve currently—and for generations now—have been told is our democratically elected representation….
I think it's because the Democratic Party's leadership has been so incredibly successful at scapegoating the Green Party every time the Dem's corporate-bought candidates have lost. It is really sad. No one even bothers to read the Green Party's platform... or seriously look into all the ways the Dem's have sabotaged every Green Party candidate at ALL levels of government!
Yep, but it’s sooo frustrating to see someone get so close to understanding this—and yet literally veer off into nonsense like using the Libertarians as a way forward. The idea of Socialists also seemed to be problematic…I suspect for similarly ingrained—not intellectual—reasons. After all, we were taught practically from the cradle to equate capitalism with democracy….
Works for me as an independent, and it already "sounds" independent.
From the little experience I have of libertarian, it definitely needs a rebranding before I'd consider joining.
But ... I'm a true independent, so the offering would have to be so good as to make an independent want to risk "group think", like checks and balances against group think. Something that says, "Integrity is our bottom line."
And most definitely a bottom line that includes every member of our species, however they are born, whatever they choose for themselves.
Referencing ANY proposal for change as "crazy" pales in comparison to the craziness inherent in remaining with the same cartel system of two parties whose operatives are addicts to money and power, have no interest in good governance, and neither respect the Constitution nor the citizens of the USA. They regard the former as a nuisance and the latter as their enemies. Corrupt parties can ONLY form corrupt governments. There are NO EXCEPTIONS.
Sadly, the assertion of economically liberal folks being “turned off by Democratic cultural messaging” under-describes the real issue – racism. The true question is whether or not white folks of any stripe will vote for economic or social policy that would truly level the playing field across ethnicity. I think we’ve seen time and again that the answer is no. So whether one tries to co-op the Libertarian party or the Green party, if you are looking to include people of color, the party would have to have equitable policy around funding education, reforming the police, housing and geographic segregation and discrimination (no NIMBY), social safety net, etc. that would give everybody a fighting chance no matter their race - which I just don’t think enough white people would support. #ProveMeWrong
So here are the words (and criticism of the Dems) from the founder of the Lincoln Project who was interviewed by Marc Elias, "They make everything into this like vanilla paste of policy. They always want to win a battle about issues or policy because they still believe that elections are waged up here, when they're waged here [heart] and in your gut. We (the Lincoln Project) understand that emotion is a powerful driver." That being said, I think white (racist or cluelessly racist) voters were down with Obama because of the "yes, we can" hopeful message that was intentionally and obviously inclusive. So the key is the framing of the message that must be aimed at the heart and the gut. Then folks respond. (Just look at the idiocy churned up emotionally via the culture wars!) So it may not matter which party- Green or Libertarian or the Dems (the the latter has a pretty bad reputation at the moment with white lower and middle classes) that this happens. It requires that the message be inclusive of whites as well as everybody else. When white people (who are clueless about race or are racist) hear that it includes *their* concerns - particularly economically or that it will benefit their children and families - they vote for their self-interest. Party be damned!
The REAL issue with the Democratic Party and why it has continued to lose, is entirely due to ONE thing... its corporate-owned mega-wealthy leadership and their choice of one corporate-owned candidate after another!!! Those of us who are truly progressive need to stop being distracted by focusing on the idea that the Democratic Party's losses are in any way due to "better messaging" or anything else..... other than the FAILURE of those corporate-bought candidates to (once in office) really fight and pass laws that favor working class people and block laws that favor the wealthy..... period. If this country can ever just get an actual progressive candidate to be in the debates and on the ballot..... that person will WIN IN A LANDSLIDE!!!
I completely agree, but it’s about time period, influences, national dynamics, etc. Our country has become undeniably more racist since Obama – and in fact principally because of Obama’s election, which fundamentally broke some brains. In fact, Obama is exhibit A of a tipping point, where we have seen fewer white folks vote in common and equitable interest ever since.
The ONLY way to get rid of racism is to get rid of capitalism! Capitalism is the worst thing that has ever happened to humankind! It requires an underclass to be exploited by those who have all the wealth... and that is why people start turning on one another. Racism and xenophobia and all sorts of nasty discriminations pop up and grow bigger and bigger as the crumbs of wealth falling from the tables of the wealthiest become fewer and are fought over by those at the bottom of the economic pyramid.
The Green Party Platform promotes green politics, specifically environmentalism, nonviolence, social justice, participatory democracy, anti-war, AND ANTI-RACISM!
Absolutely, but that platform would have to be durable even as the tent got much much wider to include the percentage of Americans that the OP was referencing. We have seen issues abandoned in the past.
Crazy idea, but I like it! As an Independent for all of my voting life, I have mostly voted Democratic, but this time I'm not sure that the Dems have what it is going to take to move beyond MAGA and Trump! How would Bernie and AOC feel about this? Have you floated by them or any other potential supporters? Like Caroline F., I want Justice, Unity, and our country back.
What exactly would be the steps for reinventing the Libertarian party? There is a party in CA with a similar name— they are far right extremists… how do we tell the two apart?
Please explain why you think taking over the Libertarian Party would be better than taking over the Green Party, when the Green Platform already incorporates what a majority of all voters want according to polls, and does not have any group in it that would need to be "run out"!!!
So the infrastructure could conceivably be overtaken, but the name must remain? (Sounds trivial, but trying to be clear. I know a libertarian and don't with to be labeled as such!) I appreciate your bold proposal. And if a real estate scammer turned TV clown could take over the Pubs, well....I guess anything is possible.
Crazy? Nah, dude, I've been waiting years for something like this. I'm in.
The problem currently is that the two parties have monopoly control over the political process. Both parties know that no matter who sits in the White House, or controls Congress, they will be showered with hundreds of millions of dollars. They have absolutely no incentive to govern effectively or respond to the will of the people. The monopoly that needs to be broken up is the one in Washington, and I'm not at all convinced that can be done through the parties themselves.
But the Libertarians? I'm not against it, but I mean, it would have to be a total takeover. New name, new platforms, absolutely everything. It would be like a corporate takeover where the new ownership changes the name and everything and the only thing left of the original organization is the legal infrastructure. I guess you could argue that this kind of thing happened with both of the major parties over the years so it's not impossible.
And, the enticing part of this is that conceivably you can build a new coalition out of not only the vast majority of people who hate both parties, but people who are only nominally loyal to those parties and would vote for a new third party. In fact, the only people you could not realistically appeal to are the party loyalists, and they are a minority of the overall electorate.
I think, too, the important way to approach this is from the bottom up, not the top down. Don't worry about the White House. Don't worry about big, splashy, national campaigns. Start at the local level. Build the movement from the ground up. I don't care if you have to start at school boards. The problem with top-down is that you get this high profile I'm-running-for-president thing that can't work and once it fizzles out the movement has nowhere to go. Starting local is the way to build a lasting movement across election cycles.
So, like, okay, what next?
Join the Green Party! It already has a perfect platform.... read it! And they were on 38 state ballots last time.
I LOVE your idea!!! It makes sense AND it's doable! Starting from the local level is vital to establish deep rooted success in communities.
I'd LOVE to call the party "Progressive" something. But getting anyone to accept that would take a HUGE cultural shift.
We need to use the Green Party, instead of the Libertarian Party! The Green Party already has a great platform is it is completely democratically run, so it would be the perfect framework to take over!
I'll drink to that...plus for ME, the term "Libertarian"
means "future MAGA nut" People simple don NOT understand what "less gov't involvement" REALLY means!
How about the Green Party? They were on 38 state ballots in 2024?
Totally off-putting even to me and I am left of AOC. The Green Party “brand” seems like a dangerous joke to everybody I know.
It's not. I'm a Green and It's the perfect party if you are left of AOC. We get a bad rap because they say we are the spoilers in Democrat elections. Maybe if the Democrats adopted more of our values, they would have more appeal. For example, we don't take corporate money and we don't take AIPAC money.
But what do they keep nominating a tool of Russia, Jill Stein?
That is one of those myths the Democratic Party's corporate-owned leadership keeps alive! I should know, because I was a Democrat for all of my voting life... and I was a precinct committee person for several years until after this last Pres election, when I finally got fed up with having to hold my nose and vote for corporate-sellouts like Clinton and then Biden! So now I am a member of the Green Party. The Dems love to make the Green Party the scapegoat for the real reason they lose the elections....which is because they are as bought off as the GOP.... only they do it behind the scenes, while pretending to be on the side of working people!
So you’re seeing no connection between her and Russia/Putin? Because I don’t think that was made up. I’ve never blamed her for losses to Trump. I’m a Bernie fan. I’m not trying to be a smart ass here. I genuinely want you to tell me how you know Jill Stein doesn’t have Russian/putin connections. Because if I’m wrong, I’ll admit I am.
There has never been any evidence presented that Stein actually ever had any political connections to Russia. Please read the ENTIRE article....carefully.... and all the way to the very end (at the link below) and then tell me what you think. To me, it is crystal clear that Stein was simply targeted because she was the Green Party candidate and therefore the Democratic Party's leadership was determined to make her part of the scapegoating the Democratic Party does EVERY time they fail to win an election!
If believing that Assange is not a criminal, and that the American people need to know the dirty behind-the-scenes corruption of the DNC constitutes a political connection to Russia, then I (who do not even know anyone who is Russian, have never been to Russia, and who despises what Putin has done and is doing) must have a Russian connection too!!! I really do want to hear back from you on this... please.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/30/politics/jill-stein-russia-documents-senate-request
Now the greens are not green due to photosynthesis and chlorophyll, but green backs of 'legal tender.' Follow the money. Stein is a Russian shill. It is easy to corrupt an idea if you buy it, bribe it, berate it and bilk it of its philosophy. You have something against the very heart of Nature? Try living without biology, I fucking dare you.
Jill Stein is a nut. She's given the green party a bad name. Plus all the culture war stuff they've signed on to. As a voter climate change is my #1 priority, but the Green Party is a joke in the US and I wouldn't sign up for it.
The greens are not a joke. By not supporting them, you are the joke. In 1992 I helped organize it in my state. Right now it would be a center right progressive effort, backed by science, logic, data and sociology of human behaviors. It would have busted both idiotic parties of R and D, but no thanks to millions of uninformed and laconic skeptics like you, it failed, and now the country has failed. We no longer have a country, we have a corporation with a thousand shell companies, all sucking the taxes and salaries of every 'murkan who earns less than 80K$ a year. You should just shut up about your dangerous joke. You definitely know the least informed persons.
Well, isn’t that a well-considered, thoughtful, and knowledgeable answer to my request for specific information about Jill Stein’s connections to Putin! No, it is not.
Which I believe it is. One more “key” to taking down democracy in Putin’s pocket.
Seriously: “Mick” replied twice, within minutes of each other, with completely opposing perspectives.
But in both comments, “Mick” felt the need to berate me for having asked questions.
So Vlad, I mean “mick,” which is it?
And while we’re at it, what makes you feel the need to be so fucking rude?
And now he’s taken down one of them. What a kind, sensitive, progressive representative of his(Vlad’s) party.
Hilarious. No. It just did not post. Now it is posted. Stein and Russia is old news. But Stein is not. Putin is, in your mind, a green? Sure looks like it to me. So who is gaslighting who?
Is that a joke? There is no Russian connection, you are thinking of Trump.
Oy. People and the "Russian connections". Such BS. First of all, why do you hate/fear Russia/Putin? And second: have you checked out Aaron Mate's work at the Grayzone on Russiagate, the Hillary Clinton-backed initiative (Steele Dossier, etc.)? As long as gullible kooks prevail in the Democratic Party, we are doomed. (If in fact, you are a kook, and not just a troll). Take care. BTW change will not come from people like you and me who write on substack.
I've already left the Dems and become an independent and I'm ready to join with a movement of people like me. I'm also willing to get under a big umbrella with a bunch of Americans (like my Southern cousins) who hate the dirty filthy mega rich. We all want to see justice and we want unity to get our country back.
Join the Green Party! It already has a perfect platform.... read it! And they were on 38 state ballots last time.
The party of true progressives is the Green Party. Many progressives who make it into public office started out as Greens, but pass as democrats. Bernie could have gone with the Green Party with his massive support and given it real legitimacy. They have achieved good ballot access. The Socialist and working class goals are the same as the Oligarchy Tour has shown. The connection needs to be made without the labels.
I am in the Green Party in Philadelphia. We are pro-people, in every form. Yes, the Democrats have blocked our ballot access as much as they can. I don't think anyone can argue with our values. I couldn't be in any other party. Instead, the Democrats should adopt what we stand for.
Cheri Honkala is a good example of the quality people in the Green Party. Wikipedia has pretty good coverage of her accomplishments and hardships.
Nonsense. Nothing at all progressive. Where is Labor among greens? Lower middle class? Spanish speakers? College educated?
You might consider educating yourself about the Green Party...possibly at their website.
All economic, social, and cultural differences are represented
The Democratic Party has a messaging problem now... It seems to me that using the "Libertarian" brand would create a huge messaging problem right off the bat, trying to throw off the mantle of "remove all impediments to big business" that I think of when I hear the name "Libertarian".
If taking over an existing (non-Democratic) party is necessary, the Green Party is in a lot of states, and I think has an existing "name association" that is more consistent with what we want to achieve than "Libertarian" does, so it would be less likely to cause messaging confusion right off the bat ???
The Democratic Party has a structural and core value problem. Messaging is the least of it; that's a pitch from speech writers for more work. Lack of leadership is more critical. Yes, Schumer saying I sent a strongly worded letter to Trump about blah blah blah, is a poor message when everyone knows Trump will not likely read it or care about what it contains. But the bigger problem is Dem leadership continuing to support or meekly opposing Israeli genocide, insider stock trading, Manifest Destiny, and a whole host of other social, economic, and moral cowardices.
The Democratic party has a substance problem, not a messaging problem.
Join the Green Party! It already has a perfect platform.... read it! And they were on 38 state ballots last time, and is completely democratically run!
I feel exactly the same way about "libertarian". The general population just doesn't understand that the term "de-regulation" means that businessess can do whatever in the wide world of sports they WANT to do...including employment practices. It's painful to see such ignorance.
I think you are not hearing “green party” through America’s ears.
I like the idea, but Libertarians have a negative connotation with the people I know. I agree with others here that the Green Party is a better route to take.
They’ve not got close to the same ballot access.
If we are talking about consolidation of like minded people into an existing party, it would provide the funding and people power to get on the ballot of the remaining states. The DNC fought the Greens at every step to deny them access and self interested or scared shitless dems let them do it. The DNC stands for status quo. Where were all the "progressives" when the Greens were fighting for their rights in the very expensive courts? Where were the donations?
The Green Party was printed on the ballots in 38 states and had write-in status in several more states, including Illinois, Kansas, New York, and Delaware.
Tell the Democrats to stop blocking us.
Explain please, Corbin. Access??
The Libertarian party is already in the ballot. They did the leg work the legal work. The signatures the whole 9. Their party is weak and not very popular.
The Green Party was printed on the ballots in 38 states and had write-in status in several more states, including Illinois, Kansas, New York, and Delaware. That's a 42 state access. The Libertarian Party's state access was 47.
Research how to take over the Libertarian Party, and change its name immediately upon takeover. Don't know that the name matters much, as long as it has no baggage. Rs and Ds will pillory it anyway and try to soil its name. That will be the first fight.
Then consult with the Greens about what sort of coalition of the willing might be possible.
This seems like impossibly bad marketing to me. The libertarian brand is deregulation and Ayn Rand style selfishness and greed...
Used to be. How many under-60 year olds have read Ayn Rand? Or have any other grounds to make such an association? (I am 73 with three 40-ish offspring whose friends I know pretty well)
It's a great question. I'm curious what "Libertarian" symbolizes as a brand to younger folks.
I asked ChatGPT what the US Libertarian Party symbolizes as a brand.
The answer surprised me: "In short: If the U.S. Libertarian Party were a brand, it would symbolize outsider rebellion, uncompromising individualism, and protest against the establishment."
Quite different than my association of the word with icky Peter Theil crypto-bro vibes.
What "AI overview" had to say just now is that young independent voters under the age of 40 do not strongly prefer either the Green or Libertarian Party. Their defining characteristic is rejection of the major parties, not devotion to a minor one.
So… Ripe for the leverage we seek?
Not sure what you are saying?
I’m 32 and Ayn Rand was definitely on my right-leaning friends bookshelves. I’m not sure if they ever read her stuff in full (I haven’t) but I think most people are familiar with the basics and just turned off by the length. Everybody I know who is politically active has at least some understanding of what the libertarians believe.
Ayn Rand was a Russian immigrant who advocated the survival of the fittest while collecting American Social Security and Medicare. Major hypocrite, and not even a good writer.
Do the majority of them like or dislike the Libertarian ideology?
The majority of Ayn Rand fans like it. The majority of people in my age group do not like the libertarian ideology, but may agree with parts of it (such as marijuana legalization)
I’m 32 and Ayn Rand was definitely on my right-leaning friends bookshelves. I’m not sure if they ever read her stuff in full (I haven’t) but I think most people are familiar with the basics and just turned off by the length. Everybody I know who is politically active has at least some understanding of what the libertarians believe.
I agree that most libertarian policies are unattractive to a majority of people. But the libertarian party has been, by far, the strongest voice in this country for peace, dropping punishing sanctions on other countries, respecting the sovereignty of every nation, and a complete re-write of U.S. foreign policy.
I’ve been following Corbin Trent for about a year now and I like everything he advocates. But over that same year, I’ve yet to read one word from him that advocates for peace and a new U.S. foreign policy. This is THE critical question because, with a trillion dollar U. S. defense budget, every dollar spent on the MIC and the security state is a dollar not spent on everything Corbin Trent advocates.
So my question to Corbin Trent is: do you throw the baby out with the bath water when you take over the Libertarian Party? Do you discard the entire libertarian platform, including is deeply admirable foreign policy, or do you retain at least that much of it? And how would you accomplish that?
Very interesting idea. It would be so much better if we could just get the candidates we want through in the Democratic Party, but you’re right, the “leadership” has made that impossible. I would have to know more about the actual process. Wouldn’t we still have to spend millions to get in all 50 states? I also think the Greens would be more palatable to most people.
There is no Government with you! No business makes money without you!!! Together we control everything!!!!
"We the People"
It’s a great idea but the wrong party. We need to do to the Democratic Party what trumpers did to the former Republican Party-take it over. Nobody is using it now except for fundraising emails. It is ours for the taking if we are willing to do the work.
I am strongly progressive, and was in the Dem Party for many, many, many years, and the reason we cannot take it over is because it is not democratically run. It is made to look like it is, but that is just window dressing! The court has ruled that because the Democratic Party is a private entity... not a publicly-owned entity.... its wealthy leadership can use its wealth to do whatever it wants when it comes to all decisions... such as what it did to rig primaries and to ignore the majority of its members desires re Presidential Nominees and endorsements, etc. The court stated that while it found the party's leadership's behavior unethical, and definitely did not condone it, nevertheless, the courts have no jurisdiction over whatever the leadership of a privately owned party does... including ignoring and breaking its own party's rules.
I think people underestimate how easy it would be for a group of like-minded people (a single individual is not enough) to take over a Democratic county party outside of the big cities. Do that enough times you could start building power.
The court stated that while it found the party's leadership's behavior unethical, and definitely did not condone it, nevertheless, the courts have no jurisdiction over whatever the leadership of a privately owned party does... including ignoring and breaking its own party's rules. This means that no matter who the base votes to nominate, the leadership has the power to overrule the majority of the votes of its base, and nominate whomever they wish. When the DNC was taken to court over rigging primaries and sabotaging Sanders' campaign, they didn't even try to deny they had done these things. But the court pointed out that because the Democratic Party is not a publicly-owned entity, the leadership can do whatever they want... including completely ignoring what the majority of its base votes for. How are you going to take over a party where you have no power to enforce your collective will, no matter how many of you there are???
Yeah! And why do you think Corbin cannot seem to wrap his head around the concept that the Green Party is the perfect alternative to this clusterfuck we’ve currently—and for generations now—have been told is our democratically elected representation….
I think it's because the Democratic Party's leadership has been so incredibly successful at scapegoating the Green Party every time the Dem's corporate-bought candidates have lost. It is really sad. No one even bothers to read the Green Party's platform... or seriously look into all the ways the Dem's have sabotaged every Green Party candidate at ALL levels of government!
Yep, but it’s sooo frustrating to see someone get so close to understanding this—and yet literally veer off into nonsense like using the Libertarians as a way forward. The idea of Socialists also seemed to be problematic…I suspect for similarly ingrained—not intellectual—reasons. After all, we were taught practically from the cradle to equate capitalism with democracy….
Your last sentence hits the nail squarely on its head!
Works for me as an independent, and it already "sounds" independent.
From the little experience I have of libertarian, it definitely needs a rebranding before I'd consider joining.
But ... I'm a true independent, so the offering would have to be so good as to make an independent want to risk "group think", like checks and balances against group think. Something that says, "Integrity is our bottom line."
And most definitely a bottom line that includes every member of our species, however they are born, whatever they choose for themselves.
Referencing ANY proposal for change as "crazy" pales in comparison to the craziness inherent in remaining with the same cartel system of two parties whose operatives are addicts to money and power, have no interest in good governance, and neither respect the Constitution nor the citizens of the USA. They regard the former as a nuisance and the latter as their enemies. Corrupt parties can ONLY form corrupt governments. There are NO EXCEPTIONS.
Sadly, the assertion of economically liberal folks being “turned off by Democratic cultural messaging” under-describes the real issue – racism. The true question is whether or not white folks of any stripe will vote for economic or social policy that would truly level the playing field across ethnicity. I think we’ve seen time and again that the answer is no. So whether one tries to co-op the Libertarian party or the Green party, if you are looking to include people of color, the party would have to have equitable policy around funding education, reforming the police, housing and geographic segregation and discrimination (no NIMBY), social safety net, etc. that would give everybody a fighting chance no matter their race - which I just don’t think enough white people would support. #ProveMeWrong
Every time I say this to someone, they say ok fine, but explain to me Obama winning twice in Ohio.
All politics are local, I get it, but a black man was elected twice in red states.
White voter racism is not absolute
So here are the words (and criticism of the Dems) from the founder of the Lincoln Project who was interviewed by Marc Elias, "They make everything into this like vanilla paste of policy. They always want to win a battle about issues or policy because they still believe that elections are waged up here, when they're waged here [heart] and in your gut. We (the Lincoln Project) understand that emotion is a powerful driver." That being said, I think white (racist or cluelessly racist) voters were down with Obama because of the "yes, we can" hopeful message that was intentionally and obviously inclusive. So the key is the framing of the message that must be aimed at the heart and the gut. Then folks respond. (Just look at the idiocy churned up emotionally via the culture wars!) So it may not matter which party- Green or Libertarian or the Dems (the the latter has a pretty bad reputation at the moment with white lower and middle classes) that this happens. It requires that the message be inclusive of whites as well as everybody else. When white people (who are clueless about race or are racist) hear that it includes *their* concerns - particularly economically or that it will benefit their children and families - they vote for their self-interest. Party be damned!
The REAL issue with the Democratic Party and why it has continued to lose, is entirely due to ONE thing... its corporate-owned mega-wealthy leadership and their choice of one corporate-owned candidate after another!!! Those of us who are truly progressive need to stop being distracted by focusing on the idea that the Democratic Party's losses are in any way due to "better messaging" or anything else..... other than the FAILURE of those corporate-bought candidates to (once in office) really fight and pass laws that favor working class people and block laws that favor the wealthy..... period. If this country can ever just get an actual progressive candidate to be in the debates and on the ballot..... that person will WIN IN A LANDSLIDE!!!
Hopefully – time would tell.
I completely agree, but it’s about time period, influences, national dynamics, etc. Our country has become undeniably more racist since Obama – and in fact principally because of Obama’s election, which fundamentally broke some brains. In fact, Obama is exhibit A of a tipping point, where we have seen fewer white folks vote in common and equitable interest ever since.
The ONLY way to get rid of racism is to get rid of capitalism! Capitalism is the worst thing that has ever happened to humankind! It requires an underclass to be exploited by those who have all the wealth... and that is why people start turning on one another. Racism and xenophobia and all sorts of nasty discriminations pop up and grow bigger and bigger as the crumbs of wealth falling from the tables of the wealthiest become fewer and are fought over by those at the bottom of the economic pyramid.
The Green Party Platform promotes green politics, specifically environmentalism, nonviolence, social justice, participatory democracy, anti-war, AND ANTI-RACISM!
Absolutely, but that platform would have to be durable even as the tent got much much wider to include the percentage of Americans that the OP was referencing. We have seen issues abandoned in the past.
Good morning Corbin,
Crazy idea, but I like it! As an Independent for all of my voting life, I have mostly voted Democratic, but this time I'm not sure that the Dems have what it is going to take to move beyond MAGA and Trump! How would Bernie and AOC feel about this? Have you floated by them or any other potential supporters? Like Caroline F., I want Justice, Unity, and our country back.
She commented just before I did!
Who is Caroline F???
The “69 percent coalition” could coalesce around someone — I suggest Tom Hanks — who is respected by wide swaths of the American people. Let’s do it.
What exactly would be the steps for reinventing the Libertarian party? There is a party in CA with a similar name— they are far right extremists… how do we tell the two apart?
You take the party in CA over. That’s the idea. You would run the “libertarians” out of the Libertarian party.
Please explain why you think taking over the Libertarian Party would be better than taking over the Green Party, when the Green Platform already incorporates what a majority of all voters want according to polls, and does not have any group in it that would need to be "run out"!!!
Gotcha
Now THAT i can get down with!
So the infrastructure could conceivably be overtaken, but the name must remain? (Sounds trivial, but trying to be clear. I know a libertarian and don't with to be labeled as such!) I appreciate your bold proposal. And if a real estate scammer turned TV clown could take over the Pubs, well....I guess anything is possible.