In my current story I'm writing, I have a situation where a third party candidate is elected into the presidency and then basically takes over the government, like a Junta. It's even called the American Junta. This guy and his "posse" decide that everything old about the United States wasn't working for them and got rid of it all. They ditched the Constitution, set up a new Capital and demolished all the old government buildings, like the Capitol and the White House and the monuments. This is all before the actual story begins, but I just need to know if any of this is plausible? Is it all believable? Would believe that a dictator-like ruler in America would destroy all of this premade stuff?
It would be very difficult for a third-party candidate to make major changes to the United States, providing the two current parties (whether they are the Democrats and Republicans, Whigs and Democratic-Republicans, Bull Moose and Natural Law or what have you) are in decent shape. By "decent shape" I mean existing without any major schisms and retaining the support of a sufficiently large swath of the American public. The demise of the Whig party was brought about (in part) by splits between the Northern and Southern wings of the party, which lead to a breakup of the party itself and the birth of the Republican party. A president from a true "third party" would face bipartisan opposition in Congress. (S)he'd be able to pass no laws and make no major policy initiatives. To "ditch" the Constitution would require either amendments, which would be unlikely. From Wikipedia: To accomplish that would mean that the mass of the citizenry had become so dissatisfied with the current two parties that they both had become irrelevant. I can't imagine a situation in which something like that would come to pass, you might have an easier time with one of the major parties (mod caution: this is for the purpose of the OP's story, let's not go Debate Room here with specific views on US politics in the 21st century) gaining sufficient support for a time which would enable them to "adjust" the system in such a way as to ensure that elections would come out "correctly," regardless of the overall vote totals. That support might come about as a result of a national emergency such as the attack on Pearl Harbor, the assassination of a popular president, or anything else that would blow the lid off politics as usual for a while. For instructional purposes only, take a look at this chart detailing former President George W. Bush's approval rating: That sharp upwards spike was 9/11. Your "junta" might be able to establish itself during a similar upward spike.
I could see it happening if the country is terrified and afraid to vote.....if the American Junta was to intimidate voters who were again them from voting.....if only certain people voted, ie seniors, then the things they supported might not be the best for younger people - which would older people vote for? Schools/universities or hospitals/senior residences? Assuming it's an "either/or" choice. I'm sure there are more examples. The current crisis with the c-virus has seniors being quarantined in the U.K. apparently so the younger people will probably be more vocal, more visible for a while....
I have looked into all of these things. I know that third parties are irrelevant in United States politics, but I can't see it happening with a Democrat or Republican. I want this candidate to be a new type of representative, with a new approach to American politics. Something a lot of people could rally behind. I do have an "upward spike" moment per say, a World War Three of sorts, or maybe just a very large, impactful war, is happening in Europe and Asia and this candidate has a stance on it unlike his major-party competitors. I still need to figure out the public's stance on the war and then the candidates' stances, but I feel like that could get him elected. Is this also plausible?
I did it the background to the dusty miller novels... basically I had a series of dirty bombs go off in washington DC taking out congress, senate and the president... these were blamed on extremists and in the election that followed the 'protect and defend' party (who are basically Nazi's) came to power on a popular knee jerk mandate... once in power after another 'terrorist' outrage they called for a state of emergency, and used those emergency powers to start locking up their oponents, and to take control of the armed forces You couldn't do it under conditions of normal government because congress and the senate wouldnt let you... but with no congress or senate to worry about you could do more or less anything if the people could be convinced that you were the one true hope until it was too late
I think that it's plausible, as long as a new popular party is set up to contest seats in Congress too. As an example, the UK has had two major parties (Conservatives and Labour) for about a century (when Labour displaced the Liberals, which was previously one of the major parties). Although their vote share had been slipping, and the Conservatives were forced into a coalition with the Liberals not so long ago, I don't think anybody really doubted that one of those parties would always come out on top in any election. The choice between the two was essentially left versus right wing. However, a new cross-cutting concern raised its head (Brexit). At the 2019 European elections, the Brexit party, founded just two months earlier, got over 30% of the vote, more than Labour and the Conservatives combined, much of its vote share coming from former Labour and Conservative voters. So I think that shows a way that a new party could come to power.
That's the only way I could see it: wartime powers. It might not even have to be a current crisis that grants him/her the power. The legislative branch might have granted massive executive power during the last war, setting precedents that allow for wacky executive orders during a crisis. At that point, all the POTUS needs is a hurricane or the like to start issuing demands right into law. A fractured legislature might be powerless to impede the process. I think, depending on popularity, a nutty dictator in the oval office would also have to have the military unquestioningly on his/her side regardless the will of the people. This is usually the case with unpopular orders from a normal president. Would the same be true for one who's rewriting the Constitution? I don't know. Iain, you were military, right? How far do you think a pres could push it before the generals noped? And would the average grunt go along? I have no idea.
Although in the 2019 general election a few months late the Brexit party got under 2% of the vote against conservatives 43.6 and Labour's 32.2... suggesting that it isnt easy for a new party to come to power when it actually matters
Hi, Yeah it's possible. In fact it sounds eerily similar to how Hitler rose to power - he was a third party leader. The difference is the political establishment. I'd say that the way to do it is, after reading your Machiavelli of course, create a single issue third party with a charismatic leader - eg UKIP and Brexit but not Farage, let him win the presidential election, and then have his cronies infiltrate / corrupt the members of the other two parties until they do what he says. Cheers, Greg.
The thing is Hitler was operating in a parliamentary system with at least five other political parties all jockeying for influence. As a result, he was able to parlay a plurality into a coalition that left the Nazis in charge (very long story short). One of his chief rivals, Fritz von Papen, is reported to have remarked "We've hired him," believing that he had co-opted Hitler and the Nazi movement. Each system has its advantages and flaws, but the US system makes it less likely that such maneuvering would be possible. The structure of the presidential election dictates that the winner of the majority of electoral votes wins the election; a simple plurality gets you a runoff with the second place winner in the Senate, with each senator getting one vote regardless of state size or party affiliation. I personally think that it's unlikely that a third-party candidate would succeed in an event like that unless one of the two major parties was in such bad shape that it was no longer really a "major" party, but merely a historical remnant much like the Whigs at the birth of the Republican party. So my point is that something like Ross Perot's United We Stand America party, or even Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party would face significant structural obstacles to fielding a successful presidential candidate or managing to push through any important legislation even if they were to capture the White House unless one of the other main parties was so moribund that the term "third party" didn't really apply.
Hi Iain, I don't really want to get into a debate on this. I'd just say that a lot of Germans including Hidenburg himself would have said exactly the same thing before it happened. Cheers, Greg.
By then the Conservatives had a change of leadership and the Brexit party chose not to stand in the constituencies where the Conservatives were likely to win. If Theresa May had still been in charge, I think that election would have gone very differently.
That's kind of impossible. I'd read your story if it acknowledged that the premise is a little bit ridiculous, but if that's a serious scenario, then it seems a little out there. To me, anyway. All that sci fi from the turn of the last century, the pulp fiction, managed that sort of thing pretty well, but it wasn't intended to be taken very seriously. Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is write it but you gotta laugh at yourself a little bit when you're writing it.
I mean yeah, it's far fetched, but if the Holocaust hadn't happend and I made a story about something like that, wouldn't you think that's far fetched? I'm not saying that anyhing I'm writing is gonna come true, but I'd like the reader to take the story seriously. Everything is far fetched until it actually happens.
The part I find unbelievable, specifically, is not the fact that there's a dictator, but the fact that he destroys all the symbols and monuments and buildings in the capital. That serves no purpose, and it's not going to be popular. The American people are going to be very angry about that. Also, blatantly and publicly renouncing the Constitution might not be very smart; it would be more clever to slowly subvert it, and use the old legitimate channels of power for his own ends. The biggest problem any new dictator has is establishing legitimacy and a consolidated power base. Also, politicians promise to "drain the swamp" all the time, but they never drain very much because of the massive Federal bureaucracy that resists encroachment. Bureaucratic organizations will fight for survival, they do not go gently into that good night. Besides, the whole point of a bureaucracy is it's efficiency and ability to perform certain tasks very well. Without that bureaucracy already in place, establishing control over the United State is not going to be easy. Also, consider the fact that the US is a federal system, with states holding a considerable amount of power. I wouldn't be surprised if certain states took it upon themselves to resist this new government. Idaho and Texas will probably secede And even if this dictator has the military or part of the military on his side, it will be very hard to establish control over 3.8 million square miles of unwilling territory. There will be AR-15 wielding guerilla fighters all over the place in certain regions, I'm quite sure.
With regards to destroying symbols, the Taliban blew up/destroyed a lot of cultural symbols in Afghanistan and the other countries they were in power. It *can* happen although it might be more plausible in a country other than the USA.