Do you want to know what political issue crosses the party lines? It is Support for a Third U.S. Political Party. The numbers vary, but it has hovered between 55% and 63% of Americans, who think another political choice is beneficial and essential for a healthy Federal government and political discourse. Like many Americans, I look at the current state of American politics and see a giant bureaucracy that is gridlocked, straining at the seams, and controlled by both special interest groups and billionaires. More depressingly, there is no motivation from either Democrats or Republicans to push for needed change as both parties benefit from a system in which there are only two options.

First, let me preface this by saying, “I am no supporter of Donald Trump.” I hold almost all opposing viewpoints. However, there was a slim chance that I could have decided to vote for him. I know what you must be thinking, “How could you have, even possibly, contemplated sacrificing your integrity and beliefs for a man who you think is vile?” Simple, I thought of Donald Trump, who as a third-party candidate, would have been more beneficial to the long-term health of this country than either another Democrat or Republican, if elected as such.

Let us step back for a second. In 2016, Donald Trump stood no chance of winning as an independent. If he had lost the primaries, the Republican Party would have fallen behind the Primary winner, and they would have, in turn, gone head-to-head with Hillary Clinton. Running as an independent that year, Donald Trump would have split the Republican vote, and the resulting election would have been a Hillary Clinton victory.

However, the 2024 election was a different beast entirely. The Democratic Party was in disarray and the top of the ticket was suspect. Donald Trump’s popularity was at a peak. His favorability ratings surpassed even those of his Presidency. For years, Donald Trump campaigned about “draining the swamp.” If Trump had run for President as a third-party candidate in 2024, he would have had a realistic chance at winning the election outright.

The MAGA movement had become so strong that not only could he have won against competitors of both major parties, but some Representatives and Senators may have even been elected riding his tailcoats as part of some MAGA party. He had 30 to 35% of the electorate supporting him and any candidate he would have propped up, no matter how crazy they or their positions might have been.

This stranglehold that Republicans and Democrats have held in this country since 1860 could have been broken — finally.

Most Americans see what I see - a system in which party politics takes precedence over the good of the country. Despite any rhetoric, the first goal of any political party is to win elections. It is why both parties have opposing viewpoints on almost every major issue facing the country.

However, the reality is that the country has never fallen neatly into just two political ideologies. Each party has two simple divisions. Democrats have Progressives (left-leaning socially and fiscally) and Blue Dogs (left-leaning socially, and moderate fiscally). Republicans have the Tea Party (right-leaning socially and fiscally) and Libertarians (right-leaning fiscally and moderate socially). While these are over-simplifications, the divides go much deeper and are much more pronounced, but their voices become drowned out. Most Americans would love to elect officials whose views corresponded to their personal beliefs; however, the reality is that you are essentially stuck with either of the two major party candidates.

Both parties develop platforms and then focus on those issues they believe will give them the best chance for victory in the coming election. While officially, the national platforms are selected every four years, it is no secret that they change very little from election to election. Candidates, even if they do not agree with every platform issue, ultimately fall in line with all the party’s stances once elected to office. They do so for one reason — the full backing of the party apparatus and the obscene amounts of money that come with that backing.

Still on the fence about whether parties are the will of the people? Let us look at Ohio as an example. Ohio has become a solidly Republican state over the past 15 years. Almost all major offices go to Republicans. The Ohio State House and Senate each have Republican majorities. Unsurprisingly, almost all the state Republicans are against abortion and legalized marijuana. Yet, in 2023 the Ohio electorate, codified through ballot initiatives, the right to an abortion and legalized marijuana. Almost immediately, Ohio Republicans tried to undermine the majority consensus and create roadblocks to their implementations. While Ohio might be Republican, the Republicans they elect are not representative of the type of Republicans that Ohioans evidently want. Likely, they would choose to elect Republicans who are more moderate socially but are left with little choice come elections.

Donald Trump could have changed the equation by creating and winning with a new third party. While most MAGA candidates would still vote right on most issues, they could have forced a power-sharing structure in Congress. I have always believed that one of the most damaging rules of Congress is the cowardice of the majority. It should only take 40% support for any particular issue, in either branch of Congress, to force a vote on a bill. It would still take over 50% to pass, but at least the members would be on record through a vote. Too often, legislation that is good for the country is denied an opportunity for debate because the ruling party fears the results.

2024 could have been Trump’s opportunity to make good on his promise and “drain the swamp.” He could have picked people for positions he held, instead of individuals, whose positions, corresponded with the national, Republican platform. Now, like any other President for the past 75+ years, he is beholden to special interest groups and billionaires. At the time of this writing, he had nominated at least 12 billionaires to important government posts. Businessmen, like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have become unelected government officials.

This will always be a “What If?” concept. It is scary to think that a seriously flawed Donald Trump was the one man who had a realistic opportunity to break the system. Sadly, he let America down in this mythical scenario as well. His election to the Presidency, as a Republican, shows that the two-party system is thriving and in no danger of ending anytime soon.

So apparently, no one close to President-elect Trump has yet mentioned that after World War II, the United States administered Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia before granting their independence in the late 1970s. Or that those Pacific islands likely have great wealth in their Exclusive Economic Zones that will result from undersea mining and fishing. We can be certain that Trump is unaware of these facts, because there has been no late-night tweet or any off-hand comment at a press conference that second-guesses the decisions of Presidential administrations from over 40+ years ago, but it is probably coming.

For those Americans not tuned in to daily Trump news, the President-elect has recently threatened to use the American military to intervene in Greenland and the Panama Canal Zone, forcing Canada into American statehood, and renaming the geographic features of Denali and the Gulf of Mexico. None of that is going to happen in the next 4 years. So why does Donald Trump keep bringing it up? It is because he knows how well populism works.

Successful populists understand that an issue, no matter how ridiculous, has value if the masses embrace the idea. In this age of Facebook, X, TikTok, and all the others, Populists can thrive, and Donald Trump excels at it. It does not even take all that many people to affect public discourse as it is now more often determined by social media algorithms. Modern social media amplifies the voices of those who support and oppose the message until it is the top result in everyone’s news feed.

Unsurprisingly, many of President Trump’s supporters believe that the United States has the right to use its hulking military and outsized economy to make demands of other countries — even its allies. It does not mean that all Americans or even all Trump supporters embrace such ideas themselves, but that’s irrelevant. Until two weeks ago, I never heard of anyone broaching the notion that the Gulf of Mexico should be renamed the “Gulf of America.” However, now the idea has been embraced by a small, vocal percentage of his MAGA supporters because they believe Donald Trump can do no wrong. To them, “America First” actually means “America can do whatever it wants without consequences.” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of Donald Trump’s biggest cheerleaders, even promised to bring a bill before the United States House of Representatives, making such a name change official on United States maps. Strange, how only three months ago, Trump supporters claimed the 2024 election was the most important in history, and for “the soul of America,” but now they are laser-focused on cartographic labels.

Populism has always been a successful way to win elections. It rallies the support of partisans and drives voter turnout, all while distracting electors from the important issues. Populism is not a new idea, or even exclusive to the Republican party. Democrats have historically also told the American people what they wanted to hear on numerous occasions, however, Donald Trump excels at it.

The irony of Trump’s recent comments is that he had campaigned on a more isolationist agenda, such as withdrawing from NATO, refusing to defend allies, and closing the border. One of the few things I liked about Trump was his complaint that the United States too often got involved in costly wars and stayed indefinitely without any real plan or exit strategy. He spoke about letting other countries self-handle their internal affairs, and for the United States to not waste its money and resources in costly military interventions. This is a populist position with an isolationist lean that attracts from both sides of the political spectrum.

Therein lies the scary “genius” of Trump’s brand of populism, because even if he does not truly believe or care for such issues, he has realized that many in his base embrace an imperialistic vision of America’s superiority. Additionally, so many in the MAGA movement believe in Trump’s infallibility, that holding two contradictory positions holds no political repercussions. He, simultaneously, can speak about pulling back from the international stage while giving political rallies that suggest the United States has the militaristic right to create what are essentially buffer zones. Trump’s rhetoric is permeated with parallels to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s justifications for the invasion of Ukraine and the constant meddling in the internal affairs of countries like Moldavia and Georgia. Creating a series of buffer zones and satellite states is one of the motivations for recent Russian aggression.

Also, it is important to remember the culture war that so many Conservatives believe they are engaged in— The War Against the ‘Woke’ Mind. War on Christmas, War on Life, War on Police, there is always a great war that needs to be fought “to save America.” Strangely, for many, that involves changing names to something pro-American from something they identify as un-American. If you don’t believe the Gulf of Mexico should be renamed to the Gulf of America, then obviously you hate America. It is irrelevant that such name changes have no economic value. This manufactured outrage is the end goal of most name changes. Anyone alive in the early 2000s will remember the movement to change the name of ‘French Fries’ to ‘Freedom Fries.’

All this brings us back to why these ridiculous ideas are dangerous. Most Americans roll their eyes and assume Trump is speaking off the cuff. However, populist ideas have the unfortunate habit of spreading, eventually seeping into the mainstream consciousness. While today it may be silly and laughable to think of Canada and Greenland being incorporated as states, Trump’s playbook will likely be co-opted by some unknown heir who will inject their unique populism into American politics. Whomever, this individual eventually turns out to be, they may decide that these are the important issues in 2028, 2032, and beyond. This is why prime ministers and presidents of these countries respond to it as a threat even if it is not taken seriously now. Many of Trump’s supporters cite his unpredictability as a positive trait not realizing that it is more of a destabilizing force within international politics. In twenty years, we may live in an America where our allies are not democracies and capitalist countries, but dictatorial regimes. Maybe America decides to reengage in its past imperialistic tendencies and invoke a 21st Century version of Manifest Destiny, as justification to conquer our neighbors. Again, it is unlikely, but not impossible.