Nelson Hultberg has just published a book, “The Conservative Revolution: Why We Must Form a 3rd Political Party To Win.” The paperback version is 189 pages and sells for $14.95. Hultberg is interviewed about his book in this post at The Daily Bell. Hultberg lives in Texas and has already founded the group Americans for a Free Republic. He advocates the creation of a new party, to be called the Conservative American Party, which would stand for: (1) the federal reserve could not increase the money supply more than 4% per year; (2) a 10% personal income tax for all brackets; (3) a “mind-your-own-business” foreign policy; (4) more aggressive enforcement of laws against illegal immigration.
The book has received praise from certain figures who have been associated with the Libertarian Party, including John Hospers and Tibor Machan.
sounds like a party brewing for natural born citizens
This is what baffles me. Here is yet another Conservative calling for yet another “conservative” 3rd party! Hello! Where have these folks been the last 40 years?
In 1968 the American Independent Party with its many successor parties was organized. You’ve also had the American First Party, the Constitution Party, and recently, America’s Independent Party.
This is not to even mention the dozens of attempts to organize similar parties – none of which got off the ground.
I’m not suggesting that Mr. Hultberg falls into this category, but many of these new 3rd party efforts were because certain people had to be “big frog in little pond.” The “if I can’t run it, I ain’t gonna have anything to do with it” mentality.
Just think, if these kinds of competing petty groups had existed in 1854 when the GOP was first organized, the Republican Party would hever had gotten off the ground, the Whigs would still be hanging on, and sadly, slavery may have still been the law of the land.
#2 WOW, did you take the words out of my mouth.
EGO EGO EGO drives some of these parties launches.
Also, some parties (Reform in the past) were parties of a personality and not of principles.
Are some of these folks in for a “reality awakening” when they come up on ballot access challenges and FEC filings.
Don’t forget the IRS will open their e-filing system to individuals wanting to file 2009 income tax returns on Friday, January 15th. If you have your necessary tax documents by then, you can get an early jump on filing your taxes.
He may want to check out the Constitution Party platform to see if this party already exists. Although not the same ideas, similar enough that the wheel may not need to be reinvented. One of the third parties will need to break into the 15-20% range in the next 2 years or we may be facing a Democrat majority and a go-along-to-get-along Republican mentality for years to come….
#5 The party hack Donkey and Elephant *leaders* will do WHATEVER it takes to STOP any *major* third party from getting going.
Nothing new since 1865 – the end of Civil War I — noting that the 1860 split of the Donkeys permitted the minority rule election of Prez Lincoln in 1860 — with the following about 620,000 DEAD Americans in such horrific Civil War in 1861-1865.
P.R. and A.V.
P.R. note — around since 1821 and certainly by 1844 — might have prevented the horror of the Civil War.
The U.S.A. is a mere 150 plus years behind the times — in the DARK AGE of gerrymander minority rule regimes.
Craig M.,
In the linked interview Hultberg explains why he thinks the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party have failed. Basically, he argues that the positions taken by those parties (e.g., abolishing the income tax) seem too extreme to the average voter. Although Hultberg thinks that many of those positions might make good very-long-term goals, he proposes a party that takes more realistic, less idealistic positions on those issues. For example, he supports a 10% personal income tax for all brackets, rather than abolition of the income tax.
#5: The America First Party is also conservative, although it seems to have an aversion to running candidates. The AFP has yet to nominate its own presidential candidate; in 2008, it advised its members to back either Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr.
I believe the Republicans have an excellent chance of re-taking the US House this year. Dick Morris predicts that the GOP will also re-take the Senate this year, but that looks to me like a really tough task.
Demo-Rep: I often enjoy your quips and believe you often remind the attorneys that view this site to remember that “Separate is NOT equal”, which is a simple yet very profound point. Why should ballot access be different for different parties? Although I have been reading for a while and have seen you write P.R. and A.V., I need a reminder of what those initials stand. Randal T Hayes: I did not read the link, so I apologize for being ignorant that the author already commented on those parties. I think using the word “abolish” should be vacated for a “transition” to “a constitutional form of taxation”. Yes, it sounds meely-mouthed and politically correct, but John and Susan Subdivision will be more likely to talk to friends about a candidate who wants to “transition away from the income tax” than a candidate who wants to “abolish” the income tax, even if the income tax is immoral, unethical, and goes against the unwritten laws of common sense. Steve Rankin: Thanks for the update on the AFP. I was not sure if they split between the CST and the American Heritage Party. The GOP’s numbers, according to recent WSJ/NBC polls, shows that GOP favoribility rating around 25-28% (I heard last night on C-SPAN during commercials of the Fiesta Bowl.) Yes, many will turn back to the party that failed to seal the borders when it was in power from 1/3/2003 to 1/3/2007. Recent polls show that a vast majority of the US wants the borders shut off to illegal immigration but unfortunately good old Congress is not the American people. (Thanks for letting me vent about my hot button.)
#9: The AFP has been qualified in Mississippi for several years and has yet to run the first candidate. You’d think the AFP and the Constitution Party would merge, but I guess there are egos involved.
Actually, the Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress from 01/2001 to 01/2007.
P. R.= proportional representation
A. V.= approval voting
#10: Does A.V. work in that if 7 people are running for President, the voter selects “approve” or “disapprove” next to each candidate, then the person who has the most people approving wins? I have read lengthy papers on this site that try to argue that it is more fair than IRV, which I was a huge proponent until I read those articles…….As fas as control of both houses, I thought Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the GOP in January of 2001 to make the Senate 50/50 (thus putting into play one of the very few Constitutionally-authorized roles for the VP to perform, namely break ties in the Senate).
I know some states have approval voting to determine whether judges get to keep their positions. Someone else will have to give you the details of A. V.
Yes, I had forgotten about the Jeffords switch. As I recall, that resulted in a change in the Senate.
Pingback: Conservative Theorist Nelson Hultberg Publishes New Book, “The Conservative Revolution: Why We Must Form a 3rd Political Party to Win†| Independent Political Report