Time for a new third party? What's your breaking point?

Crossposted from Daily Kos

Third Party Dreaming
by My Philosophy (Tamyrlin79)

The title of this diary is devoted to the Mamas and the Papas, and in loving memory of Mama Cass.

Hat tip to this diary for my inspiration.

Senator Obama's recent Daily Kos diary has me dismayed. I had hoped that finally, after 30 years of right-ward drift, after 5 years of Republican misrule, after the election of Dean as DNC Chairman, that the Democratic Party leadership might finally be "getting it". However, Obama's diary has demonstrated, for me at least, that even those of our leaders who agree with us on most issues (as Obama generally does), just don't understand what it takes to lead, what it takes to fight, and what it takes to win. Rather, Obama's diary has caused me to believe that the tactics of the past, despite failure in 2000, 2002, and 2004, will continue to be Standard Operating Procedure for the Democratic Party from now until at least 2006, and very possibly beyond.

The key paragraph:

"They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country."

Indeed, the American public has come to these opinions in spite of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party "leadership", not because of them. Obama tells us "what the people think" but fails to accept responsibility for his party's duty to help shape "what the people think", ie. they refuse to lead public opinion in the direction they wish to go. Thus, they have no strategy, no direction. Rather, the views he refers to, Bush's incompetence, big business taking advantage, and views about lies in Iraq have been shaped by two things: 1. Events (Katrina, Enron, daily Iraqi bombings) and 2. The Netroots Community (ie, US), which has written and forwarded the basic narrative on these issues.

Thus, I come to the point that Mary Scott O'Connor alluded to in her diary:

"What I CAN'T live with -- and I'm talking to YOU, Senator Obama, and your fellow Democrats -- is a Democratic Party that is so weak, so ineffectual in standing up for its CENTRIST values, let alone any inclinations toward the left... that the Republicans and the nutjobs in charge of their party have been allowed -- ALLOWED, goddamnit -- to move the fucking centre into the furthest reaches of the goddamned RIGHT WING."

Thus, if Bush deserves ouster for his and his administration's incompetence, at what point do the Democrats, and the Democratic Party generally, deserve ouster for their ineffectiveness and weakness as an opposition party in a two-party system? Thus, the question is, at what point do they deserve to go the way of the Whigs for their part in supporting an unjust system and for their part in appeasing an evil, out-of-control regime?

After Dean was elected Chairman of the DNC I set this question aside for a time, to take a "wait and see" attitude. But, it seems that old habits die hard and Obama's missive has renewed my fears that the Democrats, even newly-elected progressive Democrats, will continue the same failed, appeasing strategies of the past in the face of a revolutionary Republican power that only seeks to concentrate all power unto itself.

But, the question has now re-emerged: Are we better off sticking with an obviously unchanged Democratic Party (whose Chamberlain-esque tactics have been proven in no less than three election cycles to fail in the face of the new Republican fascism) or are we better off starting a new, third party movement that is built around a more aggressive opposition strategy? Indeed, I agree reforming the Democratic Party is the easiest strategy. But, in the face of an entrenched party establishment that, as Obama has shown, refuses to change its tactics and goals in the face of the current political climate, what if it is ultimately to our advantage to take the harder road of building a new political party? What if the easy way is not the best way? What if come 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012, we only find ourselves in the same (or worse...) position? And by "worse" I mean, continuing Democratic ineffectiveness, continuing concentration of power in the Republican party, continued domination of our politics and branches of government by neocons and neofascists, one party rule (perhaps even filibuster-proof margins). What if starting over is the only way to prevent that outcome?

With Dean as DNC chair, I had hopes. But after reading Obama's diary, I am no longer sure that my hopes for change are well-placed in leaders whose ineffectiveness has been more than demonstrated and that Dean's influence in shaping this outcome is about like a glass of water on a forest fire. We castigate the Right for trusting Bush after he's been proven a liar. What shall we then say of ourselves for continuing to follow "leaders" who have shown that they cannot and will not lead, who have shown that they don't have the fortitude, backbone, and willingness to take risks that is required of them in our current political crisis? Not all of them, certainly, but I speak of the majority of elected party officials who in one way or another support the status quo.

Indeed, an argument can be made that we are better off starting to lay the groundwork for a new party now. It took the Republicans 10 years to bring down the Whigs and win the presidency (Lincoln). What of now, in the age of the Internet? It is entirely possible to do the same kind of political organizing in a much shorter timespan. Thus, starting now, we could field some candidates by 2006. We could field a presidential candidate in 2008. By 2010 or 2012, if played right, the Democrats could be replaced entirely.

Consider the current political situation: Congress and the presidency have low marks. Republicans are grumbling and dissatisfied but the "Democrat" brand has been vilified to the point that they will still vote Republican because they believe they have no other options. We are generally dissatisfied with our leadership but follow because they are better than the Republicans and are the only thing stopping the Republicans from achieving absolute power. But what if the dissatisfaction that exists now for both major parties can be welded together to form a new, third way, much as the Republicans did to the Whigs and Democrats of their day in 1850? What if that third party could also (temporarily, at least) get the support of all other existing third parties by promising reforms like proportional representation in lower houses of state legislatures that would help third parties get established and get a leg up to challenge the status quo and increase political diversity? By doing so, future Americans would never have to face the two-party lesser-of-two-evils conundrum in which we now find ourselves. Indeed, dealing with that conundrum is what this whole post is essentially about, and it is in no way in the Democrats interest, even should the Republicans be defeated, to enact such democratic reforms.

A new, mainstream political party can be created. Indeed, doing so would help those of us on the left escape some of the labels and bad branding done to Democrats by the Republicans and allow dissatisfied conservatives to find a new home. It would also change the entire political calculus. A revived, aggressive opposition party could knock the neocon Republicans back on their heels. By instituting structural reforms, it could also lead to a rebirth of democracy in this country that could prevent accretions of power and entrenched interests like we now see. If there is anything I'd like to leave to future generations, if there is anything that I'd like for today's progressives to accomplish, that would be it.

So, the question remains: at what point do we come to this break with the status quo? Now? If we lose again in 2006 (Thanks, Diebold!!!)? If we lose yet again in 2008? If the Democrats vote against us on some key future vote (like say, O'Connor's replacement)? At what point do we collectively say "Enough!" and do what is necessary to create lasting change and raise up leaders rather than poll-watchers? What is the straw that will break your camel's back?

See my avatar.

....hell, there are hundreds of them floating around.

As a (L)ibertarian, I would welcome the "taking down a notch" of either of the "major parties". As a (l)ibertarian, I disapprove of the de-facto establishment of a two-party system.

The problem is that both parties are incredibly and undeniably powerful. Sure, there's an ebb and flow between them, and even the momentary rise of a "competitive third party" (read: Ross Perot...), but in all, the two biggies have the political scene pretty much under wraps.

Hell, in North Carolina the Libertarian party can not even get on to the ballot, due to slanted election procedures.

Once power is obtained, it is defended utterly.

because would be hard/difficult to accomplish?

Really, it is only hard if the party is fringe. Mass defections from either of the major parties (as occurred when the Whigs fell from their prominence) would result in an easier time getting established anywhere.

Plus, I think that the internet shifts the equation somewhat.

Certainly, I am NOT saying that we shouldn't even try.
Remember my party registration......

I'm simply piling-on all the crititcism I can of the two-party aristocracy.

I oppose those of the movement that calls itself conservative, whatever party they belong to, however my dissent voting is limited to primaries.

Come general election time I vote for the candidates of the Democratic Party.

We've stand together best against the so called "conservatives" and the party they promote by doing the opposite of what they would have us do.

Please to promote supporting third parties on someone else's bandwidth.

Go tell the Fweepers they should vote for some right wing nut third party.

You'd be doing some good that way.

I hope this thread gets locked.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'll promote whatever cause I want to. And if questioning the status quo makes me unsuited for this board, then so be it.

If it's still here in the morning I'll try a more strongly worded alert message.

I intend to do this on every third party promoting thread I see.

This is not the place for promoting third parties, at least not those that would take votes and energy away from us.

Dissent is not a problem. But this is the DEMOCRATIC Underground for a reason. They don't cotton to folks saying we should all go Green.

You probably could say the Dem Party sucks all you want, esp. if you cough up an articulate reason why. However, campaigning against Dems, and suggesting folks leave the Dems, probably ain't gonna fly.

"We've stand together best against the so called "conservatives" and the party they promote by doing the opposite of what they would have us do."

That's pretty funny, considering that the Republican party is bending over itself backward to assume the most liberal positions that it can (selectively, admittedly) so as to "take issues away from the Democrats". Interesting that their opposition (at least, you) doesn't see the world that way.

And those talking points are what you should do the opposite of.

Are you implying that the Republican party is not moving further in the populist direction?

What are you talking about?

"moving further in the populist direction" how?

Please to provide examples.

Note first that I said "populist" and not "Democrat". One is a broad, general term for how Government behaves, the other is a specific term for a party with particular ideals about how Government should behave.

--Prescripton drug plan: Certainly a populist idea. Regardless of form, certainly NOT an idea that true conservative Republicans of the past would have proposed. It's poll-driven. To go the extra step in discussion, this is an attempt, however effective, to table the issue of prescription drug coverage and thus take ammo out of the Democrat gun.

--Billions upon billions of dollars to be spent on rebuilding the homes of people in New Orleans who had no insurance. Again, a populist expenditure, and, again, not something that the Republican party of the past would have suggested.

--Federal funding and regulation of education (NCLB and such): NCLB itself was an idea of Mr. Kennedy. Federal funding of education is certainly not something that the Republicans of the past would have proposed or supported. The populist position, though, is for less separation of Powers between the Federal Government and the States, and thus, Federal involvement in education (a traditionally local issue) falls in to that category.

I can cite further examples, but I'll keep my post(s) short.

The basic concept is that the Republican party, in action, is certainly more of a populist party than it was in the past, and that it is becoming so in an (perhaps futile) attempt to take issues and votes away from the Democrat party.

The Republican Party may have stolen the populist lexicon, but there's no way that you can sincerely believe that Republicans in ANY way are becoming Populist. No way.

that are well connected is the movement that calls itself conservative's highest priority.

Their prescription drug plan could've been written by the drug companies, who are glad to be able to use the force of law to thrust their hands ever deeper into taxpayers' pockets, while at the same time having consumers prevented from buying their prescriptions reimported from other countries.

Oh, and at the same time they make their prescription drug plan so annoyingly complex and inferior to other alternatives that many would rather not bother with it.

It's a slush fund for the drug companies to support them in charging more than consumers can afford.

What's so populist about this?

The rebuilding will be done like the rebuilding in Iraq, with the taxpayer's money being transfered to well connected companies getting the no bid contracts, and not likely to be held accountable by those in public office they are connected to.

I'm sure you've heard so much propaganda about how so much is going to be spent rebuilding poor people's homes.

That's because they don't really want to spend money rebuilding poor people's homes, and are hoping that their Flavor Aid drinkers will cover for them on this.

I'm also sure you've heard not a bit from those same right wing media whores about all the wealthier peoples' properties that are going to be rebuilt at taxpayer's expense.

That's because the want to spend a lot of money on wealthier properties and expensive developments.

The last thing they want to do is give taxpayer's money to poorer individuals to rebuild.

The first thing they want to do is give taxpayer's money to the largest developers that they have a personal interest in.

What's so populist about that?

Tax breaks and deregulation, is their battle cry.

They don't want to be taxed or regulated.

Just like in Iraq, where they can't be tried, sued, or taxed at anything higher than a flat tax.

What they call privatization is just the handing over of taxpayer money to well connected private companies that won't be held accountable by those they give contributions to, let alone by those still getting deferred compensation from them.

Their's is a perversion of the idea of smaller government, they want a government too weak to tax or regulate them, while at the same time increasing it's power to tax and regulate the majority, in order to better steal the public's money to give to themselves.

I thought that's what you might be talking about.

Yeah, real "populist" those republican prescription drug, and rebuilding plans.

LOL!

rather Corporate power and influence.IF we had PUBLICALLY funded National elections this would solve the problem. Whe EVERY adult over 18 contributed $5/year to National elections we could elect out Congress and the President without a problem and Corporate Cronyism would not exist, Lobbyists would not exist and pay back for election favors would not exist

That would be an excellent move. But getting it past the king makers in power that corporations are is very hard to do.

The entire system reeks. I was a Democrat a long time before quiting the party, and I will never come back. Democratic Party candidates are more attractive to Greens like myself, but they are still part of the greater Republicrat party.

People should also be given a two tiered vote. They should be able to vote for the person of their choice, and if the percentage that candidate is too low, have their vote be changed to their second choice.

I caught a whole lot of nasty flack for voting for Nader rather then the jerk called Bill Clinton whom I have never, ever trusted, and still find odious to the extreme.

I supported Kerry, and am even the whistle blower who sparked the end of Nader's last chance to get on the ballot with Republican money paying petition gatherers to get him there to split the vote to either deny Kerry Oregon and/or have to allocate moneys to my state to insure it stays in the blue column that is needed elsewhere.

That was not fun, as I still like Ralph allot. But I uncovered the fraud of the petitioners, and got the SEIU union and Kerry's Oregon attorneys into the game.

And because Bush is the agent of infection of a virulent fascism that is destroying the United States, I will support almost anyone against a Republican next time around.

But I will never return to the Democratic fold, and I want they system to be made healthier by removing those tricks and maneuvers in rules and laws propping up the latter day Whig parties in the U.S., the Democratic and Republican parties.

Proud to be a pacific green. Salute! :toast:

...To liberty, something that cannot be guaranteed by law. Nor by any thing else except the resolution of free citizens to defend their liberties against the corporate power elite that would harness it solely it for their betterment.

Only a fool is astonished by the foolishness of mankind when it tries the same thing over and over again to try to get different results.

It does my heart good to meet you. Thanks for your post.

and it is getting worse every election. Don't forget about HAVA...It will be the law of the land in 2006. We will never see another honest election with TT voting machines
http://www.fec.gov/hava/timeline.htm

...in the voting process. I wouldn't be so damn sure that the disease of fascism has taken root without being sure the people with power had removed the capriciousness and uncertainty of the voting process.

They have worked the plausible denial of this very clumsily with much circumstantial evidence of this and with each election they hope to reduce the dangerous variables that could make the game explode in their face.

The important thing I want to impress is one should never give up hope that the thieves and ends justifies the means sorts doing this cannot be taken down.

Thieves get over confident and make mistakes. Each criminal act increases the evidence and reveals more of the sort of things people who have not lost their spirit, courage and confidence can ferret out and use against the criminals.

Keep informed, and keep on caring never loosing heart. I hear your frustrating and anger and I speak to that. Never give them those self inflicted wounds to use as tools against you.

We can beat the bastards. We must. The stakes are just too high, and the prize is an entire world worth defending and fighting for.

http://www.hermes-press.com/nazification_step4.htm Link comparing German and American Nazification

3rd parties. All splintering progressives will do is to make the job of the Christo-facists that much easier.

But what about the longterm? what is best for America might not be what the Dems are selling. I mean, if the corruption of the Republicans is just replaced with the pre-1994 corruption of Democrats, what have we gained in so far as corruption goes?

Because thats what cost them the house. That and the fact that every subset of the congressional party refused to cooperate with either Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton in any significant way. The arrogance of the congressional Democratic party was enormous but it certainly doesn't come close of rising to the level of Republican corruption.

For two hundred plus years of American history there have been two major serious parties. Various 3rd parties have arisen, crested, and vanished. Very few had any influence beyond a couple of elections.

I've observed politics first hand since 1969. That doesn't make me any more qualified than anyone else but please, trust me on this. At no point in my lifetime have Democrats ever approached the level of arrogance, deception, corruption and sanctimony that the current Republican party occupies. The Democrats were never saints, and often unlikeable, but they were heads above anything the Republicans had to offer.

One hundred years? 150 years? In the last 150 years, various third parties have come and gone. Some had much more popular support than the green party, which has not proven to be successful in any meaningful way beyond the local level. There is nothing wrong with that, but that is the truth. The green party can and is effective in those places. But I'm sorry, it really has limited appeal on a larger scale.

The only party that is a vehicle for any possible change is the Democratic party (atleast on the federal level).

On the state and local level, greens and other parties can certainly be effective and I would definetely consider voting for a green at this level.

I just have to look at my 80 yo grandmother and her friends to see why the democrats have failed in the South. They all have voted Dem their whole lives. With the MSM portraying dems as anti-religion, pro-abortion, anti-gun, and in favor of welfare it has really turned many of the "old" democrats off. They might not vote republican but the real problem is some of them simply don't vote anymore because as much as they were brought up to vote against repugs they have realized that the dems have forgot about them as well.

100%

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Lyndon_Baines_Johnson.htm

Not sure I've ever voted Green, and like the Greens, I put principals above party.

Not really sure what I think of the whole process. It was much clearer and easier to be a Dem.

On the other hand, when the Dems are slitting their throats, I have an option. When they're going for the real deal, I happily support them.

Maybe I'm just not a party person. I put issues first it seems.

A 3rd party that takes away votes from the Democratic candidate and makes sure the Republican wins is NOT the answer.

If a 4th party that takes away from the GP arises, it woud be "more fair", yet whoever owns the election boxes wins anyway.

I will look at 3rd party candidates locally though, Being a former Green, I ten to vote that way locally depending on the other candidates.

INSTEAD of the Democrat.

I'm certain that such a mainstream coaltion can be created. but, apparently there is little will (here anyway) for doing so.

to call for the abolition of the Electoral College system and implement Proportional Representation or at least IRV.

That way there are no "spoilers" if a Libertarian or Green Party (or "other") candidate runs - and will be able to run and states like North Carolina will not be able to prevent 3rd and 4th parties from entering the race and being placed on the ballot.

I think I will disagree with you on one point: paraphrasing, you said that it's easier to reform or rebuild the Democratic Party rather than build a new party. Or rather I should say, that the jury is still out on which is "easier" to accomplish. As a progressive that re-registered with the Democratic Party in 2004, (after having been registered and voting Green in 2000) and being involved with the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) and formed our own PAC, recruiting and endorcing candidatesfor local offices, we continue to be frustrated and betrayed by Senator Feinstein's complete disregard for the concerns, (Iraq War) and her complete lack of accountability, obfuscations in avoiding addressing these concerns.

Last week the PDA went around with Cindy Sheehan to visit and speak with many many Senators in Washington, and when Feinstein learned of PDA's visit to deal with the question on Iraq, she ducked out - the PDA talked to the press (Los Angeles Times reporter) and the story was in the paper apparently. Only then did PDA get a call from her office making a deal that she'll be willing to talk with us (PDA delegates) if we promised not to talk to the press about the conversation - to which PDA agreed.

This is no way to approach rebuilding the DP, in my opinion. Nor is it any way to "hold the candidates feet to the fire"

what the PDA needs to do in cases like this, is to ignore Feinstein and recruit a real candidate who is a real Progressive to challenge Feinstein's seat and to hell with pretense of civility and compromise with someone who has time after time after time, demonstrated, arrogance and contempt for anyone who disagrees with her. Kind of like Bush et al.

But the PDA is being guided by certain players like Tom Hayden who think that we have to play it like this and he couldn't be more wrong and he of all people should know that after 35 years of "working within the system".

So I believe strongly that we need to advocate for the abolishing the electoral college system, and we need to do that ASAP, (like NOW) and implement Proportional Representation or at least IRV.

For those on this board who oppose the notion of 3rd parties are ignorant of PR or in denial that the DP has been nothing less than a "status quo" party - and worse - furthermore, others who should know better but voice opposition the advocacy of 3rd party (or more) are simply anti-democratic if not leaning towards being fascistic.

Why deny or argue against those of us seeking representation in the election process, when clearly we do not have it and desperately seek it?

You go your way. I'll go mine. I'm a newly minted Democrat, not even a year old. So I'm not going anywhere. I'm not at the stage you are.

"We" aren't doing a thing. "You" can do what you think best.

Dreams of a massive exodus of Dems to a third party are probably just that. But I've been saying and continue to say, then folks state "I'm going Green", then please do go.

The key in my eyes is to work for positive action and/or change. If you don't think the place you can work positively is the Democratic Party then by all means go Green or Socialist or whatever other party you think will do the trick. Because I'm not sure the negativity is doing either of us any good.

Know what I mean?

Like it or not, we have a two-party system, and, if the fascists get their way, there will be only ONE party left in this country.

People wanting a third party are merely doing the fascists' work for them without even knowing it.

He called me a Communist, and said that if Bush won, I could go to N. Korea or Cuba or something, but that if Kerry won, he would have no place to go. Didn't make a whole lotta sense, considering there aren't a ton of Communist countries any more, but there are a ton of Democratic ones. But then again, he probably considers THOSE to be mostly Socialistic. Kennedy was a socialist, dontcha know.

Batshit crazy. And all I'd said, when he commented that he was going to spend election night having a shot for every red state, that I was going to be working to keep him stone cold sober.

Anyway, I asked if he wanted only one party. He said no, two would be okay: the Republicans and somebody to the right of them.

I think some of these folks listen to Savage. I have no other explanation.

to break apart into two parties. Wonderful.

That is more important to me than in-fighting among those left of center.

In my younger and somewhat less pragmatic days (late 70's early 80's) I put my hope in building a third party movement. In fact I was involved in not one--but three different efforts; the Citizens' Party (led by Barry Commoner), the California Peace and Freedom Party and the Socialist Party USA. Institutionally our system is simply not capable of including third-parties on a significant, lasting and national scale. All of these movement were hit by the same kind of in-fighting one finds in major parties. But when it happens in a third party they have too few members and supporters and too little history to ride out the storm.

The last time a new party emerged on a national scale and remained relevant was in the 1850's with the GOP when our country was on the verge of civil war. We are not at the stage yet. And I don't think hoping for something so cataclysmic would be either wise or good.

There have been local third party efforts which have had some success. The Green Party has of course elected many people at the local level. The Vermont Progressive Party has become a truly relevant and lasting institution within the state of Vermont. But the possibility of replicating this on a national scale simply is not there. First of all you need a constituency. Is there any realistic possibility of convincing the labor movement, minority communities, the environmental movement and other progressive communities to switch their long-term loyalties at this stage? I do not think so.

There is simply NO possibility WHATSOEVER that the U.S. Constitution is going to be so radically changed to a parliamentary system with proportional representation anytime in the foreseeable future. It might be fun to think of that possibility--but short of unimaginable circumstances IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. To push the idea at this point is engaging in pure make believe.

Working to build a genuinely progressive Democratic Party from the local level on up and supporting genuine progressives in the primaries IS THE ONLY REALISTIC ALTERNATIVE. It might not be easy. But it is possible. A lasting, relevant and national third party is not.

The rules of Democratic are very clear....

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic party or Democratic candidates.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html