From Politics Talk at Washington Post: Third Parties

From:
chinshihtang
Apr-20 10:43 pm
To:
haiduk
(10 of 75)

4916.10 in reply to 4916.9
The only way a new party could arise and challenge as a major party would be on the collapse of one of the existing major parties. There have never been three major, national parties in U.S. history. The rules of the game basically discriminate in favor of the two major parties.
Yet, there is a real purpose to third parties, as has been proven time and again in American history. That is to challenge the major parties on a single issue or range of issues when the major parties do not adequately reflect the views of large portions of the American electorate.
Ultimately, most of the supporters of these new parties are likely to be re-absorbed by the major party which can recognize the opportunity and modify its positions sufficiently to co-opt the third parties' supporters.
This is where we stand today with the Libertarian party and with the Green party. The former has supporters who have been abandoned by the Bushite Republicans', who have supported additional centralization and reduction of Americans' liberties frequently. The latter--only a significant third party in a few states--retains a modicum of distance from the Democrats in order to apply more leverage. Both of these groups are opportunity areas for Democrats looking to find the "0.5% Ohio Solution" equivalent for 2008.


4934.252 in reply to 4934.219

I actually wanted to reply to the excellent posting by JALEXSON on third parties, but that discussion seems defunct. Anyway, his points are very pertinent to this discussion and I want to respond (his post reprinted below):


From: Jalexson Apr-23 3:49 am To: chinshihtang (36 of 75) 4916.36 in reply to 4916.10

You (I) said: "The only way a new party could arise and challenge as a major party would be on the collapse of one of the existing major parties. There have never been three major, national parties in U.S. history. The rules of the game basically discriminate in favor of the two major parties."
Actually one of the two parties, the Democrats has been on the verge of collapse for years. Unfortunately, the press has placed it on life support to prevent either development of a new party to replace it or a split in the GOP - probably with the business oriented Republicans forming one party which would adopt many of the Democrat positions on issues like abortion and the social group forming the other party and taking a more working class approach to economic issues. the social group would also be more interested in environmental issues than the business group.
Consider that the Democrats have won only one presidential election(1964) with a significant majority of the popular vote and over 400 electoral votes since FDR was easily elected to four terms. Republicans have done so six times.
The last two Democrats who have won presidential elections have subsequently lost one or both houses of Congress. Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to ever lose four House elections while he was in the White House. And the Democrats are seriously considering nominating the wife of this disaster for their next presidential candidate.
As Friedrich Nietzsche observed, "Liberal institutions straightway cease from being liberal the moment they are soundly established: once this is attained no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions." (end)

I like the quote from Nietzsche and largely agree with it (that's why "liberal" has become such a dirty word), but I don't think it's too relevant to the discussion of parties, frankly: the Democrats=Liberals: Republicans=Conservatives polarization is an ideological oversimplification which has little to do with reality. Both parties are tools used by elite groupings to grab power, and the meanings of both the words "liberal" and "conservative" in what passes for today's political dialogue are totally distorted and incoherent.
I would agree that Democrats are at an all-time low (since the 1920's, anyway) in political power, but that does not necessarily mean that party will be the first to collapse. The party is having trouble in national elections, particularly, but is very strong in about 20 states. The fact that the Presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 were so close, with mediocre candidates fielded by the Democrats in both cases (from a vote-getting point of view), suggests the trend is not really as negative as it might appear.
And, there are major fractures in both parties which could cause collapse. The Republicans have three groups very dissatisfied with the Bushite regime--Libertarians (including fiscal conservatives), Isolationists, and that strange political animal, the Liberal Republicans. Only the attraction of total control of the federal government keeps them together. The Democrats have major problems uniting their moderates and their progressives: only a flamer like Bush could get them to work together.
I would conclude with a couple points:1) It is a certainty that one of the two parties will eventually collapse, and that a major new party will arise, but not a certainty which will be the first to collapse.2) The partisan bickering is probably holding the Democrats together unnaturally. If the Republicans could actually tone down the triumphalist, unilateralist tone (Bush's most recent Social Security gambit is probably a good example of what they need), the Democrats' unity could fall apart, probably around the nomination of the inevitable moderate (even if not Hillary) in 2008, opening the way for a Progressive third party. It will be very tough to unite once again in opposition to the Bushites, unless Jeb is the candidate.

From Politics Talk at Washington Post

From:
CurbHegemony
Apr-26 10:52 am
To:
chinshihtang unread
(299 of 326)

4919.299 in reply to 4919.18
"Bolton is a blunt tool when a sharp one is needed. I oppose him because his views are odious, but I welcome the opposition of those who oppose him because his manner is odious, and those who oppose him because he will be ineffective in representing Bushite policies in the United Nations.
Nevertheless, I have no illusions: if Bolton is rejected or withdraws, someone marginally more acceptable (in manner, probably) will be nominated and confirmed.
Bolton and the U.N. critics have something like a point: the U.N. has an outmoded charter, it is undemocratic, it is bureaucratic, it has no power base or source of funds other than member governments. The U.N. charter badly needs to be reformed--in the interests of international democracy, which Bush in his second-term inauguration speech made boasts of championing. However, the Bushites are not the ones to lead these reforms. Bolton's nomination is the proof. Let us squander the remaining 3+ years of the Bushite administration, or as much of it as possible, rather than actually taking unsound actions."
___
I find quite a bit of wisdom here.

http://forums.washingtonpost.com/wppolitics/messages?msg=4919.299