“Is it time to create a new political party in America,” Elon Musk asks in a Twitte … er, “X” … poll, “that actually represents the 80% in the middle?” As of this writing, 80.4% of respondents say “yes,” which seems to track well with whatever his definition of “the middle” might be.

He’s far from the first to suggest, or even try to organize, a “third” party, but the idea as he frames it is likely doomed.

America’s historical byways are strewn with the wreckage of “third” parties. Darcy G. Richardson’s book series on the phenomenon, “Others,” ably and engagingly documents that history, but there’s just so much of it that he’s only reached the era of the Great Depression after multiple volumes.

Why the long history of failure — the last “third” party to rise to power in the United States was the Republican Party, which replaced the Whigs in the 1850s, mostly over the issue of slavery?

Part of it is about how American elections work. They’re “first past the post plurality” elections, for single-representative districts. Whoever gets the most votes wins the seat, everyone else loses.

Duverger’s Law tells us that in such a situation, a maximum of two parties will win substantial power as fear of “vote-splitting” keeps voters stuck to perceived “lesser evils” that “can win.” Some parliamentary systems allow small parties to gain a few seats and hopefully grow; ours locks those small parties completely out.

But wait! What about “the 80% “in the middle?” Why don’t they just rise up and throw the Republican and Democratic bums out?

Because “the 80% in the middle” don’t really exist as a  coalition or constituency with shared interests and positions, that’s why.

The large percentages of voters who describe themselves as “moderates” or “centrists” mean different things by those words.

One “moderate” or “centrist” supports robust Medicaid funding AND opposes subsidies for electrical vehicles.

Two doors down, another “moderate” or “centrist” wants Medicaid cuts AND wants that tax credit for his Tesla (looking at you, Elon).

Two MORE doors down, third and fourth “moderates” or “centrists” in the same household love, or hate, both Medicaid AND EV subsidies.

Keep going down the street and adding issues to the mix. There’s no especially large group that both feels the same way on all the issues and places the same level of importance on all the issues.

Those “moderates” and “centrists” end up picking the “major” parties that offer them the most, disagree with them the least, and might actually win.

The most “successful” third parties are 1) small and 2) ideological. Their supporters agree on a few principles, fight hard, lose almost every election, and occasionally move the needle on an issue with the public and the “major” parties (if you support same-sex marriage and/or legal marijuana, thank a Libertarian).

Always a bridesmaid, never a bride. That’s the story of “third parties” in America. Politics, for us, is the occasional new dress and unlimited drinks at the wedding reception. Elon won’t catch the bouquet either.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signs the National Labor Relations Act on July 5, 1935. Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins (right) looks on. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Sixteen million workers were represented by unions in 2024,” Jim Miller writes in the San Diego Union-Tribune . “However, there were millions more who would have joined a union but couldn’t.”

Miller goes on to lament the failure of “pro-union” legislation in Congress, as well as the Trump administration’s attacks on unions in general and  government employee unions in particular. But, unfortunately, his op-ed goes of the rails with that very first sentence.

There’s nothing to stop you from joining a union, whether you’re employed in a unionized workplace or not. There’s no law against it, and although some unions have their own exclusionary rules — the American Federation of Teachers (Miller’s organization) only offers “associate” membership for students, workers whose employers don’t contract with AFT, etc. —  if a particular union won’t accept your membership application, chances are good that another (for example, Industrial Workers of the World) will.

You’re also never required to join a union. Don’t want to be a union member? Don’t take a job in a union workplace. “Problem” solved.

As to getting your employer to enter into a labor contract with the union of your choice, that’s a different matter.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, the government controls the process. A certain number of workers have to  request an election. If a majority of employees vote yes, all of the employees HAVE to join the union, or find somewhere else to work, and the employer HAS to “negotiate in good faith” toward a contract.

The NLRA wasn’t written to benefit union workers. They were doing just fine already. The NLRA benefits two groups:

First, union bosses. If you can require 100 people to pay dues because 51 of  them said yes, the money rolls in … and under the NLRA, you only have to worry that the workers will go on strike (and draw down the union’s relief funds) between contracts.

Second, employers. The NLRA forbids “wildcat” strikes (that is, striking while a contract is in effect), as well as boycotts and “sympathy strikes” (Workplace A going on strike and workers at Workplace B refusing, in solidarity, to unload trucks from Workplace A).

Union bosses got a more reliable source of revenue; employers got workplaces that wouldn’t shut down over labor disputes other than at contract expirations.

Workers? Well, they got screwed.

From the late 19th century until the 1930s, union membership and  workplace unionization increased organically and unions fought hard for their members.

Once the NLRA went into effect, the numbers went up, plateaued, then began shrinking. And no wonder. Why would union officials fight hard for workers if that might result in strikes costing them dues revenues? Better to invest their time into “organizing” new workplaces with new dues-payers.

The Taft-Hartley “right to work” amendments only made things worse, allowing states to forbid both employers and unions from entering into “exclusive” labor contracts.

Can unions make a comeback? Sure — but only if the NLRA, including Taft-Hartley, is repealed and government gets its nose out of labor matters.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“The AUTOPEN,” US president Donald Trump wrote on his “Truth Social” platform on June 2 (referring to Joe Biden), “should have stopped Iran a long time ago from ‘enriching.’ Under our potential Agreement — WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!”

Trump’s absolutely right, but only in three ways that don’t reflect the pomposity of his post:

Firstly, the Iranian regime has made clear that there is no “potential agreement” under which it will give up its ability and prerogative to enrich uranium.

Secondly, the US regime never has been, and is not now, in any position to “allow” or “not allow” the Iranian regime to enrich uranium. Nor could it put itself in any such position short of winning a major war against a much bigger and more powerful opponent  than it faced — and lost to — in Afghanistan.

And thirdly, there’s already an agreement. Not a “potential” agreement, an actual one.

It’s called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, aka the “Iran nuclear deal,” and although Trump claims to have “withdrawn” the US from it since 2018, he hasn’t.

The JCPOA is codified as a United Nations Security Council Resolution and is binding on all member states.  The only ways for Trump to “withdraw” the US from it are to “withdraw” the US from its UN membership entirely, or get the Security Council to repeal it (that’s not gonna happen). The US regime hasn’t left the JCPOA. The US is just in continuous violation of the JCPOA. There’s a difference.

Iran began enriching uranium to higher levels of purity — slowly moving toward “weapons grade” — after the US started violating that agreement and pressuring its allies to do likewise.

The Iranians have also been clear and consistent: They’ll be happy to stop enriching to those higher levels of purity, and mix the more highly enriched uranium into less pure uranium, when and if the US starts holding up its end of the agreement, which happens to be binding international law.

The JCPOA represented the culmination of a decade of negotiations consisting of US demands, Iranian acceptances, more US demands, more Iranian acceptances, rinse and repeat ad nauseam, until the US finally took “yes” for an answer.

After which, under Trump, the US defaulted on its own obligations while demanding even MORE from the Iranians. All this, it should be mentioned, in the absence of evidence that the Iranians were interested in developing, or attempting to develop, a nuclear weapon in the first place.

To which the Iranian response was, understandably, “OK, we’ll start enriching to higher levels than we were attempting even before we agreed to the deal — but we’ll stop if you’ll start holding up YOUR end.”

Trump’s powerless to “allow” or “not allow” the Iranians to do anything. Rage-posting on Truth Social won’t change that. He should instead offer them a “new” deal that’s just a freshly printed copy of the JCPOA, then declare “victory” when they accept. His supporters are probably gullible enough to consider that a Trump masterstroke.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY