1

Over the past several years, a "Movement for a People's Party" has gained some traction in the US. As it seems to be a popular-front-type initiative, its attitude towards existing non-Republican-and-Democratic parties is problematic: If the MPP treats existing parties (say, the Green party) competitively, it is likely to distance members and supporters of those parties; but if it doesn't, it risks being "yet another third party" among the plethora of others.

What, therefore, has been the actual approach and the official position of the MPP regarding engagement with existing parties? More specifically, have they discussed the prospects of inter-party factions or caucuses so that existing parties can enter the MPP as organizations?

5
  • It looks like they used to have an FAQ on their website that addressed this question, but may have taken it down in just the last few days. web.archive.org/web/20200828183011/https://peoplesparty.org/faq This also looks relevant: sci-hub.tw/10.1111/socf.12604 – Brian Z Aug 31 '20 at 13:00
  • 1
    any time a 3rd party gather steam, one of the major parties will adapt it's central plank, largely eliminating the need for the third party. I don't see a unique central issue of the MPP, other than usurping power for themselves; an issue the 2 parties have covered in spades. – dandavis Aug 31 '20 at 19:41
  • @dandavis: 1. Even if that is what happens eventually, the question still stands. 2. That wasn't the case with the Republican Party nor with the Populist Party. 3. The MPP isn't a single-issue party. You could say the "single issue" is corporate influence over the federal government and the two existing parties, but that's kind of diffuse. – einpoklum Aug 31 '20 at 21:30
  • looking at their linked wiki page, i don't see a unique selling proposition, other than eschewing big money. How they would compete without their own big money is likely a more interesting question. To me, it seems like they are liberals who don't think the democrats try hard enough to capture progressive goals, but it's very hard to mount a campaign to riskily promise 100% of what one can get 80% of much more reliably... – dandavis Aug 31 '20 at 21:32
  • 1
    @dandavis: This is a big chunk of the Sanders following. They raised tens of Millions of USD for his primary bid. Also, they're heavy on volunteer-based work. As for the word "liberals", that can mean any number of things in the US so I try to avoid using it. "Democrats try hard enough" - as far as they are concerned, the democratic party is not trying at all; not sure what 80% you're referring to. – einpoklum Aug 31 '20 at 23:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .