Could a Third Party Succeed in American Politics?

For nearly its entire 250-year history, the United States has been a nation of two major political parties. Elon Musk’s suggestion that he might found a new “America Party” has been met with skepticism. But voter, party, and fiscal circumstances have shifted in ways that make third-party success more plausible than in the past. To gain traction, such a party would need a clearly differentiated platform.

It’s easy to dismiss the America Party as another billionaire’s vanity project. But Musk is tapping into something real: deep dissatisfaction with both major parties and a hunger for alternatives. He has criticized Democrats and Republicans alike as a “mono-party,” more interested in pandering to their bases and securing pork-barrel wins than in addressing structural problems like the ballooning federal debt. Democrats are riven by socialist, anti-Semitic partisans—still a minority, but representing the party’s younger, more energetic wing. Republicans have drifted from their free-market, small-government roots, alienating many traditional conservatives.

A third party, well-conceived and well-led, could draw disaffected Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Even without winning the presidency, it could improve America’s political future simply by promoting better policy ideas.

Winner-take-all elections and the major parties’ ability to absorb third-party issues have historically kept the two-party structure intact. Disrupters like Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive “Bull Moose” Party influenced national politics but failed to take the White House.

Skeptics underestimate three new twenty-first-century factors: intraparty conflict pushing both parties toward extremes; declining “brand” loyalty and rising allegiance to personalities and influencers; both parties’ role in creating a debt-to-GDP ratio over 100 percent, leaving them less able to co-opt credible fiscal solutions and with less pork to buy unity. These pressures make the political environment more receptive to new parties.

The Democrats may be closer to a split. Centrist leaders kept Bernie Sanders’s wing in check for years, but the barriers are weakening. Ironically, Republicans, with a more open primary process, elevated a nontraditional candidate like Donald Trump, while Democrats used party machinery to limit Sanders in 2016 and block serious 2024 challenges to Joe Biden. The party’s old guard has lost credibility, while the socialist wing—though still a minority—is younger, energetic, and ascendant. The party’s fixation on racialist ideologies and DEI quotas has hindered its flexibility and competence. Dysfunction could allow progressives with a platform beyond “defy Trump” to dominate Congress and the presidential primary.

The Biden administration previewed this direction with open borders, the attempted erasure of biological sex, and massive public-sector growth. Unity was maintained only through unsustainable spending, temporary support for Israel, and regulatory overreach rather than outright nationalization. But regulatory excess drove fissures, pushing parts of Silicon Valley rightward.

A progressive takeover, especially with rising anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric, would push moderate Democrats away. Conditioned to despise Republicans, these voters might welcome a non-Republican alternative. Many are high-earning college graduates who would be among the first harmed by socialist policies. Some now support DSA politicians like New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, but experience may teach them what their education didn’t: socialism impoverishes society and erodes liberties. A third party could offer them a political home without requiring reconciliation with Republicans.

A socialist platform would be weak nationally, but in a two-party system, dysfunction in one party encourages lack of restraint in the other. Today, with Democrats at their lowest voter rating in 35 years, Trump feels free to pocket billions in meme-coin profits and pursue erratic tariffs. If socialists led the Democrats, Republicans might see corruption and incompetence as cost-free.

Circumstances heading toward 2028 could be volatile: high federal debt triggering a financial crisis, trade conflicts seeding a major recession, or other crises shifting voters toward “change.” In such moments, a credible third party could break through.

A new party offers advantages the incumbents can’t match. First would be freedom from tarnished brands. Brand value has been falling for years; consumers increasingly trust influencers over institutions. Mr. Beast’s low-quality chocolate may top $500 million in sales this year, illustrating the power of personality over tradition.

Both party brands are damaged. In the 2020 election, up to a third of voters said they voted “against” rather than “for” a candidate. A new party could start without such baggage. Social media have allowed new politicians and parties to achieve rapid recognition worldwide—Argentina’s Javier Milei created a party in 2021 and won the presidency within 18 months.

A second advantage would be the possibility of developing a clear, disciplined platform.

Starting a faction within an existing party—like the DSA on the left or the Tea Party on the right—won’t work for those serious about fiscal discipline. Under the current banners, such commitments lack credibility. Republicans largely supported the Big Beautiful Bill, with only five voting against it, and the House Freedom Caucus failed to impose meaningful deficit cuts.

A new party could define itself with specific, even symbolic policies—self-imposed term limits, real Doge-style spending cuts—without fear of losing narrow majorities. Milei had his chainsaw; a U.S. equivalent could rally disaffected voters. Failed efforts like No Labels and Andrew Yang’s Forward Party show that novelty alone isn’t enough, however. Substance matters.

Dollars spent inside existing parties don’t guarantee influence. Musk’s $250 million in 2024 and Mike Bloomberg’s $1 billion in 2020 yielded little return. A new party offers a cleaner slate.

A third plus would be the possibility of gaining influence even without winning. Political success isn’t limited to winning seats. A strong third party could shape the major parties’ platforms simply by competing. Most Americans are independents; a credible alternative could shift campaigns toward positive policy rather than relentless attack.

Choice improves performance—in markets, schools, and politics. A third party could reduce the number of “safe” districts, curbing extremism and gerontocracy. Creative solutions are missing from the current parties. One imaginative example: let voters choose to pay a tax surcharge or forfeit entitlement benefits for a year, reducing federal outlays.

True, if post-Trump Republicans returned to a Reagan-style neoliberalism, they might become a big tent for disaffected centrist Democrats. But the culture wars and Trump’s legacy will likely shadow the GOP for the foreseeable future. On the Democratic side, only a forceful centrist—someone like Rahm Emanuel—could curb the DSA, and betting markets put his odds below those of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.

One concern is that a pro-capitalist third party could split votes with Republicans, enabling a far-left president. But last-minute coalition building, as with Trump’s outreach to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., could mitigate that risk.

Another objection is that starting a party is daunting. It demands money, character, competence, and determination, with no guarantee of financial return—and potential harm to one’s business interests. Just because a third party could succeed doesn’t mean that it will. It requires an extraordinary figure to drive things.

Just as geoengineering Mars could provide a backup planet, a viable third party could serve as a backup in case both major parties veer into destructive policies or field unacceptable candidates. The future is uncertain; right now, our two-party system doesn’t ensure even one good choice. A competitive three-party system could improve the odds of better governance—and that would be an unalloyed good for American voters.

Photo by Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post via Getty Images