Why isn't there a Progressive Party? Or is there?

[riseabove]

Sorry, I'm new here so take it easy on me!

But why isn't there a national Progressive Party? Or is there one? Looks to me that the Progressive movement is more localized and is sort of the sidekick platform of the Democrats? I'm fairly new to politics and I find my self agreeing more with what I'd consider Progressive principles.

Like for example I'm, I guess I was looking forward to Hillary running. Then I saw all the debating on here back and forth and people pointing out how she backs GMO's, how much money she has, how much she charges for speeches, how connected to Wall St. she is. So I started looking things up on the internet and realized she's not what I want to vote for at all. I think I rather vote for someone like Elizabeth Warren. I didn't even know who she was until I came here!

So joining here really opened my eyes to how complex politics really is. But it also showed me that there seems to be two different sides to the Democratic Party... a middle to left leaning group and a left to far left group and really from my short time here, neither group seems to mesh except for the fact that collectively we want to trounce the Republicants... so that got me thinking as to why there isn't national Progressive Party... or is there one?

[geek tragedy]

1. Starting a viable national party

would require decades of thankless effort organizing, first on the local, then state level etc.

[leftstreet]

2. Because there are no progressive politicians?

I'm not sure you want to use the term 'progressive' here, but no matter

If you're referring to more left-leaning ideology, you tend to find that in activists, groups, etc, but not in a US political party

[Orsino]

3. We meet over in the secret Nader forum.

Password is Cl1nt0nv0t3d4w4r2. Welcome, Comrade!

[Chathamization]

4. It's a faction of the Democratic Party, for the most part

Though not terribly organized nationally. There are some good groups like DFA that have been trying to organize progressives more nationally, though (Working Families Party has also been trying to do this, but they've been disappointing me lately).

Most of the time it makes more sense to work from within the Democratic Party, though sometimes it makes sense to work outside of it as well (ballot initiatives, particular situations where an independent or third party candidate makes sense).

[polichick]

5. In short, because politicians are bought...

and corporations and the 1% aren't interested in buying liberals.

The people have to find a way to fund politicians who actually intend to represent them - and then have their elected reps get money out of the game through legislation.

[brooklynite]

6. Because there aren't enough progressive voters...

We have two national, broad-based parties. The Democrats are center-left, the Republicans are center-right. Over time, the boundaries of both have shifted (the Republicans most notably in the past 20-30 years). However both parties recognize that most voters are clustered in a broad center. When Democrats have gone too far left (McGovern) they've lost badly; when Republicans have gone too far right (Goldwater) ditto.

Bottom line, there aren't enough ultra-progressives to stock a progressive party that would be anything more than a minority influence on the Democrats, just as there aren't enough Tea Party/conservatives on the right.

[PowerToThePeople]

8. ftfy

We have two national, broad-based parties. The Democrats are center-left, the Republicans are center-right.

We have two national, broad-based parties. The Democrats are right-center, the Republicans are extreme-right. ftfy

[msongs]

9. repubs, repub-lite and a few fringe elements either way nt

[brooklynite]

12. ...says the person posting on a liberal-left blog

One thing I've learned from 35 years of involvement with politics is not to allow my personal beliefs to cloud my view of reality. The Democrats may be more center-right economically than in the 60s, but the Democrats in the 60s were more center-right socially. Like I said, the lines move.

[Armstead]

14. Which is why those labels are basically meaningless

In terms of the modern establishment of the Democratic Party my views on economics and distribution of wealth and power are branded "far left fringe." But they're really just what was once considered Mainstream Liberal, including Moderates wit Conscience and lunch-bucket populism.

But the Democratic Party -- in collusion with Big Media and Big Corporations -- have helped the GOP pull the spectrum so far to the right, that anyone who believes in, say a minimum wage that actually reflects the cost of living, is branded as "the unreasonable left." Which is really sad and ironic, because in several states that have voted Red for national politicians have simultaneously voted to raise their state's minimum wage.

[leftstreet]

18. You don't know that. Half the people don't vote n/t

[pinboy3niner]

7. What do YOU think?

Any ideas?

[riseabove]

17. Seems like money to me, but Progressives are seemingly gaining in numbers

So I was just surprised to not see a national party/platform. I've even heard of I think the Green party? Not sure where they stand, but if they could have one, just would of thought Progressives would have one as well. Again more because the deeper I delve into politics the more the establishment democrats I guess is what they are called, are much different from people that I think I think I resonate with.

[hobbit709]

10. The Democratic Party used to be Progressive, since 1980 or so they made a right turn.

[KamaAina]

11. Progressive Democrats of America

http://www.pdamerica.org

In our electoral system, third parties can lead to disaster (cf. Nader, Ralph).

[riseabove]

16. Thanks for the link.

I was thinking about it the other day... 300 million people and just two parties to represent such diversity?

We need a third, fourth, and fifth party. Even thought I'd be happy with a Progressive Party, it would be nice to see more then even just three! If you ask me.

[TheKentuckian]

13. There is a smattering of small parties but the two majors are conservative and radical regressive

[TreasonousBastard]

15. You really should watch your PBS...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/tr-progressive/

There have been at least two national Progressive parties over the years, but they never lasted. If someone like Teddy Roosevelt couldn't make it stick, there's really not much hope. Other fairly large third parties fizzled out, too, often because they were functionally just an extension of one big personality.

We are, for various reasons I don't fully understand, a two-party nation.

[riseabove]

19. Thanks for all the replies, poltical history to me is so confusing.

I don't know why lol. Just more complex and convoluted then I thought. I'm going to have to read up so I can get a better grasp of things....

Thanks again.