Why is there no American Populist Party?

[Sava]

Personally, I'd like to see the market work things out. And during downturns, the government should skip the middleman (corporate America) and provide jobs directly to the people rather than feeding a terribly wasteful system.

[Odin]

I consider most americans as leaning slightly towards Libertariansism

[Al B. Sure!]

Odin:

really? the religiousness of Americans kind of contradicts that though...

[Odin]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
really? the religiousness of Americans kind of contradicts that though...

Only in the Bible Belt. Most people I know are fairly apathetic toward religion or are religious liberals or religious socialists (that is NOT an OXYMORON, BTW ).

[chequita guevara]

There is a Populist Party. It's a white supremacy group founded by scam artist Bo Gritz.

[Az]

Death Penalty.

[Az]

There also was this racist guy from Alabama, was it?, in the 60s. He was governor, and then he was governor again through his wife.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Azazel
There also was this racist guy from Alabama, was it?, in the 60s. He was governor, and then he was governor again through his wife.

George Wallace?

[Az]

Yep. I think you could describe him as a populist.

[Maniac]

Why is there no American Populist Party?

Gangerolf has it correct. The electoral system supports a two-party system.

[Al B. Sure!]

Odin:

Why is it that philly is littered with Baptists, Jahovah's witnesses, and muslims? i think it's a fair assessment to say that Americans are very religious...

if not, they are definently socially conservative

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think this is in dispute (if it is, say why you don't believe this).

Disagree. It is in dispute, because Americans are socially moderate and fiscally conservative... an almost, but not quite libertarian bent. The difference is that some areas are very religious. This is why America's center is more to the right than Europe's.

The electoral system supports a two-party system.

That doesn't mean much in this debate. If Populism (left economically and right socially) was popular, it'd take over one or the other party. Such as in the 1890s, the Populists took over the Democratic party agenda.

If Libertarians had a much more moderate platform (still social left and fiscal right, but less extreme... ie, like cutting government while granting civil freedoms), I think there would be a better chance of them becoming a very powerful faction in whatever party they choose to infiltrate.

The thing about the two parties is that they are basically huge coalitions of the left and right respectively... a movement can lead it either way. For example, the Republican party of the 60s was much more left leaning than today. Reaganism, and it's faction, took hold and wrenched the party to the right.

[Al B. Sure!]

Imran:

Disagree. It is in dispute, because Americans are socially moderate and fiscally conservative... an almost, but not quite libertarian bent.

Yet the majority of Americans are against gay marriage, in favour of school prayer, against abortion on demand (though in favour of the gov't paying for abortions [hence economic leftism]), etc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yet the majority of Americans are against gay marriage, in favour of school prayer, against abortion on demand

Prove it . I'd argue that the majority are for gay marriages and against school prayer, and also for the right to abortion (in fact I KNOW that about 60% of Americans believe in at least the first trimester should be open for abortion).

[Al B. Sure!]

damn times like these I wished I had a subscription to Gallup Polls...