“Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom,” Elon Musk declared on his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter).
Another billionaire quickly replied on his social media platform, “I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely ‘off the rails,’ essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks,” President Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday night. “He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States.”
If I had to guess, Elon Musk’s America Party will go nowhere. I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t even file the required paperwork — the amount is so large it could probably be seen from space. And that’s just one of the daunting challenges facing third parties.
Still, Trump is wrong. He is, after all, the head of the most successful third party in American history. The Republican Party was born in Ripon, Wis., in 1854. Two years later, the Republican candidate for president, John Frémont, carried 11 (out of 31) states. Four years after that, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican president, and the Whigs soon went the way of the dinosaurs. But other than that, lasting success — if measured by capturing the White House or being a major force beyond an election cycle or two — the record of third parties is not great. The primary reason for this is structural. Our first-past-the-post system for declaring a winner makes voting third party seem like a wasted vote.
But that doesn’t mean third parties don’t matter. Teddy Roosevelt’s 1912 Bull Moose Party split the Republicans and put Woodrow Wilson (the worst president of the 20th century) in office. People still debate whether Ross Perot’s Reform Party doomed George H.W. Bush’s 1992 reelection; Ralph Nader’s 2000 Green Party run almost certainly cost Al Gore Florida, and hence the electoral college and the presidency.
That’s why political historian Richard Hofstadter’s famous verdict on third parties is so enduring: “Third parties are like bees: Once they have stung, they die.”
Musk is ill-suited to replay the role of Perot, although both fit the description “erratic billionaire.” As an immigrant, Musk can’t run for president himself, as Perot did. This matters because if Musk is serious about the America Party, he’ll have to find quality candidates to carry its banner. Given his toxicity among Democrats, and Trump’s ongoing effort to anathematize him, that might prove difficult.
The mid-19th century success of what was then a Grand New Party stemmed from the split among the Whigs over slavery, and slavery was the defining issue of the times. The country needed an anti-slavery party. The Republican Party was created to meet market demand.
You could say the same in 2025; the demand is there. A majority of Americans have wanted a third party for decades. But desire is not enough. A third party’s success will be defined by specific issues. Is it for or against abortion rights? Does it see debt and deficits as Musk does (and I do too) or as Bernie Sanders does? We don’t know the specifics yet, or if the America Party will even get that far.
Musk appears to believe that the country is much less divided on issues than the parties and media would have us believe. I think there’s something to that. The intense partisan polarization of the last quarter-century is driven less by ideological commitment than by tribalized hatred of Republicans and Democrats for the other party. When presidents change their party’s policy stances, most partisans change with them. For instance, Trump changed the GOP’s position on trade, and formerly pro-trade Republicans moved with him. And in a sense so have Democrats, although in the opposite direction. When Trump is for something, many Democrats suddenly oppose it.
Hyperpartisans want hyperpartisanship. But Musk’s theory is that there is a middle 60% or 70% sufficiently sick of hyperpartisanship to stick their thumbs in the eyes of both parties.
That’s where I’m skeptical. Still, Musk’s strategy to test the proposition seems like the right one. He says the America Party will concentrate “on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts.” Given the incredibly narrow margins in Congress, if those contests break for Musk it could be enough to profoundly change the political dynamics in both houses.
If decisive votes for legislation were held by America Party members, that translates to enormous power to shape legislation. Forcing Congress to get back into the business of crossing party lines to form factional coalitions would be a very healthy improvement.
Again, the actual issues would matter enormously, as does Musk’s ability to harness his outrage into organizing a party structure. But popular dissatisfaction with Democrats and Republicans is so great, stinging each might actually work for just enough candidates to matter.
The post Column: Elon Musk’s America Party is a long shot appeared first on Los Angeles Times.
