I am saying that what you are espousing is an ideology, a statement of intent by which this theoretical party would abide. There's no such thing as a non-ideological party because that's what parties do, espouse ideology.
Yes, and I explained in my earlier response to
@The Flash that I spoke incorrectly on that point. “Broad based” or “Not policy purist” or something along those lines would have been more accurate. The ideology would be one of representing American interests in an honest, constitutional, and forthright way, without getting bogged down in socioeconomic litmus tests. Things have gone so far to the uncooperative extremes that honesty and cooperation vs. lying and power hoarding is a more important distinction to make than policy differences on any particular social or economic issue.
Very, very few other countries have this two-party system. Off the top of the head, I cannot think of one. Most countries have at least four, usually two centre parties and two parties on the more left and more right edge. Canada has six major parties right now, only one of which is currently a centre party.
And parliamentary systems that require coalitions have a certain appeal to them, though they are ultimately weaker than the U.S. Congress was intended to be.
It does seem that the U.S. tends to self-select for two parties, and whenever a third party truly rises, it causes the collapse of another. I can only hope the Trumpist mockery of the Republican Party is the one setting itself up for the chopping block this time.
I still remember the days before Newt Gingrich came to power when Democrats and Republicans covered a broad range of positions on issues and the differences were primarily on economic policy. If you were a Republican running in the northeast, you were probably pretty liberal on social issues. If you were a Democrat running in the south, you were probably pretty conservative. This helped to foster bipartisanship and tolerance, and it’s something we’ve almost completely lost with today’s polarization.
I am not sure the people in the Republican party are willing to split to the centre - which is to say, I believe it would retain a strong rump, and you would end up with a party that is more functionally 30-40% of current Democrats + 10% of current Republicans.
The question is how it would split. The post-Gingrich Republican Party used to be a bizarre alliance of evangelicals, free traders, anti-taxers, and gun activists that were too weak on their own to win, but could get majorities as a bloc. The Trump version of the party lost or silenced the free traders and the intellectuals and brought in a bunch of populists and isolationists. I think the displaced classic Republicans are looking for a new home, as are non-rabid social conservatives who aren’t comfortable with the hypocrisy of supporting someone like Trump just to achieve policy goals. You’re probably right that it would be a small percentage of
current Republicans who would consider breaking off, but there are a lot of right-leaning people who count themselves as unaffiliated yhrse
Meanwhile on the left you’re seeing a rift between the hardcore woke progressives and the pragmatist classic liberals, and if the rise of the anti-intellectual, cancel culture far left continues, then you’re going to see a lot of old-school liberals open to new options as well. But something would have to instill the political courage for some big names to step out and take a chance.
