Libertarianism (or a watered-down version of it) has actually been mainstream in America since Reagan. In that time, the country moved to a hyper-capitalist society where the rich and big corporations got all sorts of breaks, and they were constrained by fewer and fewer regulations and had no checks on their power. It also became harder for the poor: safety net slashed, social mobility virtually stopped.

We also got more socially liberal: women and minorities obtaining positions of power, legalizing same-sex marriage, recognizing transgender, becoming more secular, [and legalizing pot (highlighted in the beginning of the video seen above, featuring Gary Johnson).]

That’s the crux of a really enriching book I read a while ago, Age of Abundance, written by the Cato Institute liberaltarian Brink Lindsey, who argues that the U.S. since the 1950s has become more and more libertarian—socially liberal, economically conservative (i.e. free market). I hear echoes of that argument in Gary Johnson’s slogan from his previous presidential run, which Molly covered in our October 2012 issue:

Johnson has adopted the slogan “You Are Libertarian,” based on his contention that millions of Americans are already libertarians at heart, even if they don’t vote that way. The vaguely accusatory phrasing also suggests that he is urging people on a journey of self-discovery: you are libertarian, deep down, whether you admit it or not.

Johnson’s belief in his quixotic project has precedent: his experience backing drug legalization. He has been a vocal advocate since 1999, when, early in his second term as governor, he declared the drug war an expensive failure. Though New Mexico was by then accustomed to his unorthodox leadership style—he vetoed hundreds of spending bills and periodically left town to participate in grueling Ironman triathlons—his announcement came as a shock, and his approval rating quickly plummeted 30 points. By the time he left office in 2003, though, it had largely rebounded. His old supporters hadn’t come around; rather, he’d gained different ones—young people and liberals who had come to see him in a newly progressive light.

As Nate Silver put it last year, “there are few libertarians, but many Americans have libertarian views.” But the heterodox views of most voters don’t fit with the more rigid, black-and-white (or red-and-blue) party lines:

[T]he parties themselves — who have disproportionate influence in the primaries — have highly partisan views by definition. Almost all voting in the U.S. Congress, on social issues and economic issues alike, can be reduced to a single, left-right dimension.

Does this make any sense? Why should views on (for example) gay marriage, taxation, and U.S. policy toward Iran have much of anything to do with one another? The answer is that it suits the Democratic Party and Republican Party’s mutual best interest to articulate clear and opposing positions on these issues and to present their platforms as being intellectually coherent. The two-party system can come under threat (as it potentially now is in the United Kingdom) when views on important issues cut across party lines.

That’s bad news for [libertarian-esque] candidates like Rand Paul. Nonetheless, the rigidly partisan views of political elites should not be mistaken for the relatively malleable and diverse ones that American voters hold.

Indeed, Rand Paul fizzled early in the GOP primaries. Nick Gillespie, the editor of the libertarian magazine Reason, contends that Paul “got his teeth kicked in” by Trump “because he refused to stick to [libertarian] principle.” And since then, Paul proved himself to be an embarrassment to libertarianism after endorsing Trump last week. Here’s Reason’s Robby Soave:

The libertarian-leaning Republican [Paul] isn’t wrong about Clinton’s awfulness. But Trump—a thin-skinned lunatic who peddles conspiracy theories, encourages violence and censorship, prefers big government, and loathes the free market—is just as bad, and arguably much worse, including and especially from a libertarian perspective. There is virtually no issue where Trump’s views align with libertarianism (his continued support for eminent domain, a policy that virtually no one else in the GOP or libertarian movement supports, is perhaps the best example of this). And while it’s true that some conservatives can be counted on to advance libertarian positions on a handful of issues, this doesn’t apply to Trump, because he isn’t even a conservative. He’s a member of the authoritarian populist right—a segment of the population that shares nothing in common with libertarianism.

On economic issues, the Green Party is likewise the only party offering meaningful solutions to solve wealth and income inequality and unequal access to opportunity for marginalized groups. While the Republicans are living off the teat of petroleum billionaires, the Democrats are seeking to further enrich the extremely wealthy global super-elite with opaque trade deals and further unregulated globalization.

Free trade is hardly a bad thing, but poorly regulated free trade is certainly a bad thing for many people involved: the American workers who are left with no job opportunities or social safety net, the citizens of developing countries whose then suffer from brutal pollution and work conditions, and the governments—and by extension the public—who cannot collect tax revenue due to enormous holes in international tax policies. Again, here the Green Party is vehemently against many of these aspects of these free trade agreements.

The Green Party is also built on a strong platform of inclusion and social justice. While the Democrats have a very strong record on the “identity politics” that reader Gary elaborated on, there will always be the specter of Bill Clinton’s neoliberal policies and Hillary’s flip-flopping on LGBTQ rights issues. In my region, the Democratic Party and Green Party both work very closely with tribal leaders on a wide range of issues; Republican officials don’t have an enviable record on this front, being the party of intentional obstruction and low-key racism.

My last point here is that the Green Party is outspoken on electoral reform, going so far as to advocate for alternative voting schema more akin to those used to elect the Bundestag in Germany: voting schema that don’t gravitate towards two polar opposite parties and that allow less dominant parties to participate in the political ecosystem.

Another reader, Evan, points a finger at the press:

The strength of the two-party system is a façade. The mainstream media is reluctant to recognize and give coverage to other factions, for many reasons, but the most obvious one is that our minds are designed to fit competing interests into a simple narrative: Red team v Blue team, Good v Bad, Us v Them (see the work of David Berreby, among others). It’s easy: Pick your side, your issues, your arguments, your facts, your made-up stats, and play the game. What could be more fun!

In reality, people have much more complicated clusters of ideas and positions on politics and policy, but the most time is given to the polemics (See Trump’s free media coverage).

Here’s the latest snapshot of how disgruntled Americans have become with the two-party system:

Peter Sloan argues along those lines:

Almost half of Americans don’t consider themselves Republican or Democrat. Why should we all be held hostage by these ossifying political bureaucracies of yesteryear? Why do they get to determine the boundaries of what is “possible”? Why do they get to decide who gets onstage at a debate? Why is ballot access so tilted in their favor?

When in a time of genuine, transcendent crisis and genuine, radical hope, the major parties put up two wholly insufficient options, it is the chance of a lifetime to tell them to go jump in the lake. I believe that Democracy is contingent upon individual voters voting in line with their genuine, personal interests. The system cannot reflect the needs of the people accurately otherwise.

So this November, I’ll be voting for the candidate whose platform I prefer, and that happens to be Jill Stein of the Green Party, who has a Green New Deal plan that does what is required to mitigate the climate crisis. I don’t think she will win, but I do think she can break through the 5% national popular vote barrier to receive federal funding in the future, and maybe get some news coverage, without threatening Clinton’s inevitable victory over Trump.

I think this cycle gives us an opportunity to have it both ways: Trump is so hilariously awful, the Democrats are nearly assured victory, so those of us who have big problems with the Democrats from the left (not just on climate but on finance and military interventionism and health care and education), and especially those of us who don’t live in “swing states,” can use our votes to keep the Democrats accountable: Move too far right, and you throw our votes away.

And if the Democrats choose to continue to move into the place abandoned by the GOP—the place of Reaganesque neoliberal corporatism—then there will simply have to emerge a new party to its left focused on structural democratic and social and environmental reforms. There is a wide space in American politics for such a party—one of Occupy, of #BlackLivesMatter, of radical environmentalists, of native communities. Bernie gave the Democrats the opportunity to become such a party this year. They rejected him, and they rejected us. We have other options.

Connie, on the other hand, thinks we should ignore the Greens:

What has the Green Party done to warrant additional media coverage? If Jill Stein had not tweeted one of the nastiest messages against Hillary Clinton on Mother’s Day, I think I would have happily gone through this election cycle without reading or hearing her name.

If that tweet personifies her and the Green Party, I am happy to and proudly ignore both. Great way to get noticed, JS! You are no different than Trump or Sanders: all bark but no realistic solutions (at least that I have read).

One more reader for now, Paul:

Thank you for raising this important topic. I think the reason a “green party,” or any party campaigning on “labor policies,” would fail is that it has no constituency. If it did have a constituency, it would be natural for the Democrats to talk up pro-labor policies. Democrats talk up identify politics because they do have a constituency. Dislikers of Democrats talk up the Democrats’ abandonment of labor issues because they enjoy calling Democrats (or the left) hypocrites: Wealthy people using the votes of poorer people to obtain what wealthy people want.

While America has a working class, it doesn’t have a constituency for working-class issues. This is because laborers are anti-labor. This 2012 article in The Guardian sums it up pretty well. White working-class folks do not like policies intended to help them. Folks continue to study why, but possible reasons appear to be:

1. Dislike of the idea that they need help (minorities—who see how unfair life is—can appreciate help from the government. White folks, being in the majority, think that the system is fair—because we see it’s a white folks system. )
2. Dislike what they see as the corrosive affects of government assistance on friends and neighbors. As that Guardian article points out, the greater folks in an area are dependent upon the government (the more aid they get), the greater that working-class white folks reject such government programs. Interviews with these working folks reveal that they are horrified by the seeming drop in the independence and good character of friends and neighbors once they become dependent upon government aid. (As a liberal myself—and still a supporter of such government programs—I have to admit that their horror gives me pause, and I hope to read further studies of this horror).

In sum, white working-class folks vote for politicians who promise both less government and less taxes. Republicans already have a death grip on those issues. As liberals and Democrats, we don’t believe that less government and taxes is the best way to create the strongest Republic (at least I don’t).

Last thing: Democrats certainly should push labor-friendly policies once in office ($15 minimum wage!). We should keep our heart. But “Greenies” should recognize that Democrats lose votes when they try to keep their heart.  Democrats still need to put the most effort into those policies that will continue to get Democrats elected. Labor friendly policies send the votes of white laborers to the opposition.

If you see holes in that last argument and want to fill them, drop us an email. Update: Ask and you shall receive—and less than two hours after posting. Here’s Peter LaVenia responding to Paul:

I’ll preface this submission by saying that I am the co-chair of the Green Party of New York, and I have a PhD in Political Science from the University at Albany, SUNY.

It’s odd to read someone like Paul write that the United States may have a working class, but no constituency for working-class issues. This is summarily false. There are consistent studies that show large majorities of Americans support working-class issues: massive job creation programs like the (Green) New Deal, increasing the minimum wage to a living wage, Medicare-for-all (single-payer health care), affordable housing and rent control, and increased spending on education(to name just a few).

The contradiction Paul raises is one addressed by the author Thomas Frank in his seminal work What’s The Matter With Kansas?, in which he examines why a state known for backing Populists and Democrats became known for electing increasingly conservative Republicans to office. Frank’s conclusion—one he shares with many who have analyzed this phenomenon—is that the Democratic establishment largely abandoned the industrial working class in the U.S. and joined forces with the Republican Party to promote policies that eviscerated American manufacturing, labor unions, and the majority of gains made by the class militancy of labor during the New Deal era. Wall Street and the 1%—what was once more honestly called the ruling class—have gained at the expense of workers. New Democrat third-way triangulation under Bill Clinton attacked workers with NAFTA and continued the slicing of social welfare programs begun under Reagan.

Workers aren’t stupid; they realize quite clearly that the Democratic officials may occasionally mouth words of support for labor, but their policies have destroyed swathes of the country and left behind shattered communities. Candidates like Hillary Clinton support coups like the one in Honduras that have led to labor union organizers murdered by government death squads; at home it’s simply a matter of making it easier for companies to flee from the U.S. to peripheral dictatorships where sweatshop labor, and life, is cheap.

Many, many decades ago, workers had vibrant Socialist and Communist parties here in the United States—third parties!—that ran candidates, published their own papers, had working-class clubs, and built a culture, a consciousness about what it meant to be working class, and what that meant for working-class politics. People debated seriously the idea of what an economy built and run democratically by the working class would look like and how to get there.

These things served as an antidote to vicious right-wing propaganda; Democratic and Republicans worked together during the late 1940s and early 1950s to dismantle those parties and that working-class consciousness. Is it any wonder that in the absence of vibrant left-wing (socialist, communist, anarchist) media and culture, combined with the absolute abandonment by the Democratic Party, many workers have drifted into the right-wing, pro-business echo chamber that is our media and politics?

As a Green (and a socialist, Marxist, thinker and activist), I don’t believe the Democratic Party establishment has any interest in cultivating the working class, or working-class issues. That would jeopardize the income stream of their donors. The political scientist Thomas Ferguson has pointed out time and again that parties build their policy agendas based on what donors, not voters, want.

Yet that working class is there. The support given to Occupy in 2011 (until it was crushed largely by Democratic big-city mayors working in concert with the Obama regime) and the extreme fear it generated in the 1% shows there is a large amount of room for working-class issues and militancy. The Green Party is trying to build a real working-class labor party in the U.S. for the first time in many decades, and in doing so help build a new working-class politics and culture. Ballot access laws and our plurality voting system make it difficult, and they need to be reformed—which is exactly why the establishment parties fight so hard against doing so.

A vote for a Green (or another third party) is, however, the only non-wasted vote a person can make this November. Anything else is simply electing a different face to represent the interests of the wealthy, not the workers.

This is an interesting thread, but I’m somewhat skeptical of what would happen if Jill Stein was actually elected. (I say this as a guy who voted for Ron Paul in 2008, so I’m sympathetic to third parties.) The Green Party has no governing power at any level of government, so it’s hard to imagine what a Stein administration could actually accomplish. If the Green Party wants to become a force, it would make more sense to get after local offices like the Tea Party did in the early 2010s. (I disagree with just about everything the Tea Party movement stands for, but that’s the model of electoral change that appears to be working.) [CB note: Molly this morning asks the question, “Is the Tea Party Responsible for Donald Trump?”] For all the talk about how the country is becoming more liberal, you’d never know it from looking at state houses, governors, school boards, etc.

Pat, on the other hand, points to an example where even a tiny representation by a third party can heavily influence national politics:

Since I vote in California, a winner-take-all state, voting for a minority party would be a waste of my vote. However, it is worth reflecting on Australia under the Labor Party (now unseated) where Labor had to hold a regular election, and the result was a split with both major parties having almost the same number of seats. But there were two Green Party candidates elected, as well as an independent, so they agreed to vote as a bloc. And in doing so, they terrified the Labor Government, since these three minority senators could force an election and probably see Labor dismissed.

I had never seen a government dominated by three radical elected individuals, and while I dislike the winner-take-all system, at least it prevents a few from dominating the many.

But why should voting locally and voting nationally for different parties be mutually exclusive? Andy in Kentucky doesn’t see it that way:

Does my Green vote matter? It does to me. I don’t care about the two-party system. I care about whether or not my beliefs and values are represented. Within my state, I can vote Green for president and then vote Republican or Democrat for other offices. I know who to vote for down ticket; I contact those running and pay attention to what they do and say.

Andy’s voting would infuriate this next reader, Doug:

It is incredibly disappointing that everyone doesn’t learn this in high school civics class, but we have a majoritarian, winner-take-all political system, not proportional representation. That means that third parties by their inherent nature split voters with the major party that is ideologically closer, while allowing the “further” more ideologically opposed camp to vote as a unanimous block. What happened with Gore and Nader wasn’t bad luck; it was the predictable outcome of the structure of our electoral system, in exactly the same way that running an establishment Republican third party candidate alongside Trump would guarantee Hillary’s election.

Want to elect someone with a Green platform? You have two options: One, a constitutional amendment to change our system to proportional representation. Then you will have more, smaller parties and can vote for one more closely matching the details of your preferences. Maybe it will get enough votes to join a coalition government. But guess what, even when it does, politics is always about compromise. Take a look at the experience of the Green party in Germany.

Or, more realistically, compete and win in the primary process of one of the two major parties. Bernie wasn’t even a registered Democrat and came remarkably close to doing so. He and Trump offer pretty compelling evidence that the system is open if you can get enough popular support behind you.

But as Bernie also shows, it isn’t enough to have fervent support; you still need to win majorities; that is the operative principle of democracy. If you can’t win a majority of those most ideologically sympathetic to your positions, why should anyone believe you’re going to do better among those more opposed?

Ultimately, the name of the game isn’t even about winning elections; it is moving the ideological center. The right wing (falsely labelled “conservatives”) have since 1980 had 30 years of success at this, such that Nixon and even Reagan would never be nominated in today’s Republican party.

But that demographic and ideological wave has long since crested and is quite obviously receding, and it is entirely possible that the Bernie-vs-Hillary primary may be the template for many elections to come, with Republicans an angry and increasingly irrelevant sideshow.

One more reader, S. Olson in Maine, warns against a third party preference:

You want something better than the Democrats? I sympathize, but voting for a third party is likely to help the Republicans win. As long as we have first-past-the-post voting, a third party increases the chances that one’s least preferred candidate will win. It would be far more effective to work within the Democratic party, as Bernie did.

Nader helped elect Bush; Perot helped elect Clinton. In 2010, in Maine, an independent split the Democratic vote, with the result that the the Tea-Party candidate, LePage, won with 38% of the vote.   

Anyone thinking about voting Green should study the 2000 election and think about the fact that Gore only needed a few more votes to win Florida, and thus, the election. Instead, we got Bush, the financial crisis and a decade of war in the Middle East. Think long and hard about that before voting Green and handing the presidency to Trump.  

We vote, in theory, to get outcomes. It’s a way of resolving conflicting ideas about laws and policies. In this primary season we have heard an endless amount of talk about a rigged system, or how this process or that is unfair or undemocratic without any discussion at all about what the outcome should be. Don’t we want good candidates? Have the McGovern Rules produced better candidates and better presidents than the “smoke filled rooms” did? The almost theological assumption in all of this is that the fairest process—whatever that is—will produce the best candidates (defined either as the most able to further your agenda or as most successful overall). What’s the evidence for that? There is none.

Similarly, empowering the Green Party is mostly about process. How many people out there genuinely support 100% of their platform? Don’t tell me that if they were on a level playing field that suddenly the majority of the people would support everything they do? I doubt even most liberals would vote Green if they saw it on its own terms and instead of merely as a “more left wing” party. The Green Party is anti-science and supports what amounts to eco-faith healing to be paid for by socialized medicine, is anti-vax [CB note: That claim seems dubious*], and basically calls for the dismantling of the U.S. economy. Yet we’re to believe there is a wide constituency here that the rigged system is preventing from unleashing?

By comparison, Bernie Sanders’ proposals are within the mainstream of European politics, if not American. Even in Europe there is virtually nowhere that has enacted a substantial portion of the Greens’ platform.

Barring major amendments to our Constitutional system, having more than two parties winning electoral votes would simply render presidential elections meaningless and throw them to Congress, where the vote is by state delegation not population, which will almost always favor Republicans. And even in Congress, the evidence from countries with many parties is that coalitions are unstable and often impotent.

So, are pro-Greens willing to create a permanent Republican presidency coupled with a Congress incapable of moving a single bill simply to have a “fair” electoral process? Bless their little hearts. They are so radical they are willing to do anything except be patient and wait for change to come incrementally.

This next reader, Sandeep, is sympathetic to Gary’s argument but, like Jon, is very doubtful that the Green Party is the way to go, especially given its dissonance with California’s Green Party when it comes to immigration:

My great fear, as a Democrat, is that we will wind up with a party where the elites can invoke social issues relating to identity politics come election time to produce a victorious presidential mandate that allows them to push pro-corporate policies that undermine their own electorate. And that they will be able to get away with this again and again because there’s only two choices in our democracy, which means they will always be able to point a finger at the Trumps of the world to justify themselves as the lesser evil.

But the Green Party has always seemed a bit dissonant to me, like the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand’s doing. I live in California, and right now the state Green Party’s platform supports open borders with Mexico. When Jill Stein ran for President in 2012, she supported border passes for all of Mexico and Canada. [CB note: The national Green Party’s plank on immigration still calls for “permanent border passes to all citizens of Mexico and Canada whose identity can be traced and verified.”] I share reader Gary’s concern that illegal immigration guts the working class (and quite frankly the anger of the Trump base is understandable when you consider that the coast-based liberal elites have mocked their concerns for years with memes like “Dey took er jerbs!”). But you get different sources insisting that the Green Party has a sensible stance on immigration and others claiming the Green Party is alright with everyone in Mexico moving into the States if they want to.

Want to join the debate? Drop us an email. * Update from Jon, responding to my parenthetical doubting his claim that the Green Party is anti-vaccination (since I couldn’t find any good examples online):

That’s fair enough, and some of it boils down to how much you want to hold them to their international associations and the lower levels of those associations. Does using the same name as the parties in other countries mean anything or not? They are apparently at least savvy enough to not make this explicit, but they are verifiably pro-homeopathy and so I ask what’s the difference between drinking herbal tea to cure a disease and avoiding vaccines? Not much.

The best I could come up with is an article that cites a Green Party Councilor in the UK (kind of like a county supervisor in England). So, fair enough that’s not an explicit plank of the U.S. party, but to ask taxpayers to fund homeopathy is probably on the whole worse than just being against vaccination since the latter can sometimes be made unnecessary due to herd immunity, but no one who is diagnosed with cancer is going to go into remission because they are drinking some magic potion.

The homeopathy thing still seems like a small part of the Green Party’s platform; here’s an exchange with Jill Stein on the issue from four years ago, and Stein—a physician, it should be noted—agreed with the moderator that “the Green Party platform here takes an admittedly simple position on a complex issue, and should be improved.”

Recently 60 Minutes aired a story revealing that congressmen spend up to four hours a day on the phone fundraising for their party’s Super PAC. The Republican interviewed said his fundraising goal was $18k a day. (The Democrats provided no figure.) Apparently all of this money goes to political advertising convincing voters the other party is some kind of demonic entity. They’re both right. Imagine that money actually being spent on something useful. When Hillary Clinton insists on staying the course and proceeding as usual, continuing this waste is what she’s talking about.

I thought labor was the political left’s major concern, but that’s not the case if we’re talking about today’s media coverage. The left’s priority is identity politics, whereas property rights is the priority of their opponents. Nobody gives a fuck about labor.

That’s too bad, because recent technological innovations have not been labor saving devices; they’re ways to monitor, control and manage human activities. Scientific management aims to increase productivity and profitability. That means fewer laborers, and those who remain are micromanaged to produce more for less for longer. The future that current technology promises is not freedom.

If you’re reading The Atlantic, I’m sure you’ve seen the story about The National Academy of Science releasing statistics reporting the death rates for middle-aged whites has risen sharply over the past 15 years. [CB: Coverage from Olga here and here.] This applies only to those who went no further than high school; their college educated peers are doing fine. The causes of death in many cases were reported to be things people take to self medicate for pain. This is no mystery. The uneducated are more likely to settle in manual labor jobs; there’s a drive in every workplace for increased productivity, continuous production, and shorter lead times; adopting new technologies in the workplace is an added cost.

What does this mean? New and increasing production targets, erratic shift work, lower wages, and fewer benefits. Workers can’t afford to miss work if injured. Their salary can’t support even a modest lifestyle while more is being constantly demanded from them. It’s easy to fall into debt and almost impossible to extricate yourself from it, meanwhile the cost of property and real estate is skyrocketing. All life’s necessities are getting more expensive. Is it really any surprise those who are being worked to death are dropping dead and those who benefit from their exploitation are doing great?

Luckily, Donald Trump has a plan to benefit the American worker: cancel labor and environmental regulations. Yes, because America would be a lot better off with the kind of environmental catastrophes China lives with.

Trump is right about one thing that the electorate has grasped: illegal immigration is a labor issue. If you’re against immigration for undermining labor conditions, pundits insist you’re a racist. I fully support everyone’s right not to live in a shit hole, but it is possible to improve the quality of life in foreign countries to a standard they find in America and to do so without invading them. Making the adoption of Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations and an Environmental Protection Act international law with strict enforcement a requirement for free trade agreements might do quite a lot to raise quality of life globally. It would also go some distance to make Free Trade Fair Trade.

Real change won’t come from an old system. I ask readers of The Atlantic to consider a genuine vision for the future. Consider The Green Party in 2016.

If you agree and want to elaborate on the case for Jill Stein—the Green Party candidate for president, featured in the above clip—email hello@theatlantic.com. Also drop us a line if you’d like to push back on the Green platform or reader Gary in particular.

And speaking of third parties this election cycle, Nora has a new piece this morning on the Libertarian Party’s prospects.