The Czar intends to annoy a hell of a lot of people with this post, but conservatives need to stop sucking at the teat of fantasy about a third party. Unless, of course, they want to suck at the teat of government dependence.

Let us explain. There has been a bit of a hue and cry lately about forming a third party, which has not been helped by the continuing unhingement of Sarah Palin and Mark Levin. Third parties are disasters. Look through all of American history and find proof otherwise.

Sure, the more libertarian among us—the Czar includes himself as fairly libertarian—like to point at the original Republican party in 1860. But historically, that isn’t correct: the Whigs transformed into the Republicans thanks to the Democrats splitting into a third party—the Free Soil party, which joined the Whigs to form the Republicans. The Democrats’ third party was so successful for the other side that Republicans took control of politics for decades.

Look, the math is simple: third parties cost votes. And maybe some of us haven’t noticed, but parties care about winning elections, not losing votes. This fantasy that leaving a party will cause that party to acquiesce to demands has zero historical precedent. What inevitably happens is that the unprotested party wins the election by default.

Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 largely because Ross Perot convinced Americans that the Republicans were not serious about winning. Ross Perot performed horribly in 1992, getting 0 electoral votes. However, he took 20 million votes away from George Bush; had Perot not run, Bush would have beat Clinton 59 million to 45 million. In 1996, Perot did even worse—he barely got 8 million votes. However, add those votes to Bob Dole, and Dole could have defeated Clinton (albeit close, and Clinton might have won in a recount).

The same is true on the other side: Nader hurt Gore, and Anderson hurt Carter. In fact, Gore might have been President in 2000 had Nader not peeled votes away.

The point is that a third party that leans in one direction invariably helps the party that leans the other way.

But we get it—Republicans are so pissed over 2012—an election that Romney should have swept—that clearly the fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves. Folks are so upset they want a whole new party. Specifically:

1. People who were squishy Republicans. Probably a lot of these folks voted for Obama in 2008 simply because they bought into the whole GOP-badness myth. They cannot get over their betrayal by the Democrats, but are ticked the Republicans blew it in 2012; hence, a third-party will be better.
2. Libertarians (capital-L Libertarians) who are sick of getting 0.001% of the vote, and think that a new Republican party will be popular enough to get them 51% of the vote. These folks, who love them some Ron Paul!!!1!!, are the loudest proponents for this.
3. Democrats, who think this is delightfully funny.
4. People who know very little about politics, and just want to start winning some elections. This is most of them.

Let us make it clear: until further notice, the battles will be won by either Democrats or Republicans. Third parties stand little chance of winning, and splitting up the GOP will take the Republican party from 47% of the vote to 45% of the vote, with this new third party getting maybe 2% of the vote. Conservatives might be 67% of the country, but they aren’t stupid in equal numbers.

Instead, take a look at what the Tea Party is doing. Instead of whining like a bunch of loser-quitters, they are winning elections, proving their candidates for the most part are sensible and determined.

More importantly, they are not forming a third party: they are instead rebranding the Republicans from within. Take a look at what Brad Thor has been saying recently: start taking out billboards in black communities that show how little Democrats have ever helped those communities. Start reminding Americans which was the pro-slavery party, which was the anti-civil rights party, and which party sponsored the Ku Klux Klan. Stop being quiet, happy little homeowners and start taking the fight back.

Most importantly, get these people to vote. Numbers show that the majority of people fed up with Obama, his policies, politics, and economics elected to show their displeasure by not voting at all. America handed him the election and then complained when he won.

Many of these people claim they saw no practical difference between the parties. While there is corruption on the Republican side, while there is stupidity, foolishness, and big spending on the GOP, the inability to see a difference between Republicans and Democrats overall is completely embarrassing.

And this returns us to our point: if you don’t like the Republicans, do something. Vote in the next election for politicians who are closer to your point of view. Yes, they might not win—but we have seen enough of politicians who won because people wanted to vote for a winner. You want to send a message? Do it by voting for candidates who represent you, rather than forming imaginary third parties who guarantee you no spot at the table.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.