The future of the democratic party

so after watching what happened yesterday one thought occurred to me. In 2000 Nader tried to get a third party going... on grounds that there was no difference between the parties ... and the greatest third party ever to rise in modern times (and die just as spectacularly) was in 1992... reaching for that damn hat as a historian... flash back to 1870 and the rise of the progressive party... we are at that moment. the country was not ready in 1992... and definitely it was not ready in 2000 (plus the coup operators took advantage of the confusion) But you can bet your sweet potatoes that one consequence of how the democrats are voting in the Senate and not presenting a true challenge as an opposition party. (Yes I understand all the procedural reasons but at this point those are excuses), you will see the rise of third party politics. Worst case scenario the Democratic party will be replaced as the Whigs were. Best case scenario, that third party will put incredible pressure and force the changes necessary within the party. What is a fact, is that I have heard far more people say that neither party represents them over the last six months than I have in years... and yesterday's vote was a watershed moment.

You just watch...

Oh and for yellow dog democrats I have one word to say... you are partly responsible for this state of affairs... me, after the Primaries (I want to vote for Cindy Sheehan if she decides to run against Feinstein) I am done with the Democratic party... and will change my registration to independent. If Diane Feinsein is on the ballot in November, I will NOT be voting for her.

If Cindy is on the ballot, it is a given who I will be voting for. But for me now the choise is between the green candidate and the democrat. If the democrat is somebody like Diane Feinstein, well no thank you.

And this is why you will seee a third party rise... the discontent is deep...

I would be surprised if it was even close between her and Feinstein and definitely not close between her and any republican opponent.

I'm tired of the status quo democrats who go along with the power brokers. I am thrilled that something good will come of her personal ordeal.....Go Cindy!!!

I can't wait to donate money to her campaign.

desilusiioned with the party... what about we let her run?

Or maybe I should just fall in line and follow the beat of the DLC drum...

We take over, first city by city, then state by state. It took them decades to take it all. It'll take at least that much for us. Third party...it's a dream.

The Republicans replaced the whigs and the New Deal comes from the Progresive movement of the late 19th century... no they are not a dream just not something that has happened in recent US History.. effectively that is.

You watch... the sumer of the discontent of the Democratic party has just started

previously, the "conventional wisdom" (there's an oxymoron if ever there was one) continues to spout the same old shit. The Democratic party has been neither for decades and it will be replaced.

PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.

retire out.

either a democrat or a republican win the election. It's conveniently set up that way so that it will always be one or the other.
Edit - speaking only of presidential elections of course but the party incumbents in all races get the big party bucks. Watch how quick and viciously the democrats turn on Cindy Sheehan if she is no longer an asset to them and becomes an enemy.

Throw the bums out and remake your party from the ground up. That's what I'm busy doing.

and you know what? I am just stating a fact... you WILL see the rise of a third party. Mark my words. I am not saying I will lead it, just stating a fact, an uncomfortable fact for many... but you will see one.

The New Party, various socialist parties, even some liberal elements in TM's Natural Law Party - to date, none of these parties have made any real headway with the sole exception of the Greens.

I am having a longer view of history....

The Republicans were a third party... and the Progresives of the 19th century were a third party. The Republicans replaced the Whigs, and the Progresives were in time absorbed by the Dems and provided some of the engine of change that led to the New Deal... I suspect we will see the latter, but we will see it, the ground is fertile, very fertile

After all, it took a long time for holdovers from the Third Reich and their American sympathizers to grow the modern neo-Nazi movement - it took at least 30 years for their efforts to show some real fruit. Not to mention delicate negotiations between Italian-born fascists and the KKK, which had a very strong anti-Italian bent due to their anti-immigration policies.

Wah wah wah...

I'm so tired of seeing all this defeatist nonsense.

If you hate the Democratic Party so much, then don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

and she voted against it after she got slammed with emails, calls et al... trust me, I haer this among Californians quite a bit. And no this is ot defeatist. STUDY the hisotry of the 1870s to the 1890s and you tell me that modern times don't have any parallel with the Guilded Age, and that includes the politis of the period.

Reconstruction was the aftermath of an actual war between the states. There are elements that are similar, but ultimately we are in a new paradigm. Comparing the past to the present is an easy way to miss important distinctions. As in the stock market, past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.

you do know that the US Communist Party polled the best in 1932 and the country was one step from revolution... look what I am stating is a fact.. YOU WILL SEE the rise of a third party... this is a fact... and it is time to open them damn eyes and realize it.

Though I do think your imploring me to read history like I'm some ignoramus is amusing, I am perfectly willing to accept that a third party may be in the cards.

You'll have to get started soon, though, in order to make any headway in the mid-term elections.

Watch that door on your way out.

I just said I am changing my registratin to Indepenedent. There are many raesons, one of them is to send a signal to both the state and national party. They tarck those things and enough people do it, they start asking questions... by the way, enjoy Lieberman and Feinstein and the rest of the DINOS... with friends like that, who needs enemies?

you are one of them... and it is people like you who stand in the way of history... and Iam sure you are a yellow dog democrat

But you won't, because you are so hopped up on self-righteous indignation that you can't even see what's obvious to anyone reading your posts.

You can't even spell Feinstein's name, and accuse her of being bad, and now you're going to walk out on the Party because of that.

Face it: You're ignorant.

Let me see, Dianne has voted for CAFTA... she also voted for the give away to the credit card industry... oh yes she voted for the war, then again all of them did... she is in favor of the USPA, and would love to vote the USPA II in as well... what else is in there? Oh yes if memory serves she is a member of the armed services committee, and her husband is on the board of National Defense, a Carlyle group company... need I go on? And am I that ignorant now? She IS a DINO, and a DLCer... have fun.

know that she voted to sustain the filibuster.

I hate the DLC with a passion, and am fully cognizant of what they have done to the Democratic Party.

But leaving to go start a liberal reform party will get us a minority-elected nutcase right-winger in '08.

Cooler heads will prevail, and we will mount primary challenges in the coming elections and eventually activists will make the difference in dragging this party kicking and screaming to the left where it belongs.

If you don't want to be a part of that, then get on with it already. But don't go trying to convince me that this country is going with you. This ain't 1870. We have a 24-hour news cycle, and a third party is going to sneak up on no one. Not only that, but the two major parties are hundreds of times more firmly entrenched than they were back then.

Your comparisons don't hold water. If they did, people would be with the Socialists and the Greens. They aren't, and won't be.

Don't try to say I didn't warn you in two years, when you are still posting here and I remind you of this.

it is her damn voting record. I know why she changed her vote... for she came first against the fillibuster. You also said I was not familiar with her record, you thiink that her vote yesterday was the final straw? Far from it, it is her WHOLE voting record since she had my vote in 2000.

And I will remind you, I am not the one leading the rise of a third party, just pointing that one is coming.... to again quote Paine


PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.

It is you who cannot see what is comming, for yuo are blinded.... people are tired, people are in need of a leader, and so far the Dems have not provided it... if the Dems shoudl correct the problems internal to the party and start acting like a damn oposition party then you might have that delayed, but a third party is coming... and I also smell a reform in how we vote... proportional representation. Now you care to continue to call me ignorant? I made my decision against Feinstein a while back... and have let the party know...

when you are still threatening to leave the party because of the way the primaries are going.

my state registration is CHANGING after the primaries from Democrat to Independent. the only reason why it is not happening sooner is... I will gladly put in my vote for one Cindy Sheehan... and hells bells will even work in her campaign.

On the bright side all the useless polls the Dems send about the direction of the party will no longer come to this address...

What is eating you is that people are saying it, long term democrats, malloy has said it, hells bells even Rhandi Rhodes has expressed similar sentiments about this party.

You accused me of being a yellow dog, but that couldn't be further from the truth. And I don't listen to progressive radio, so the opinions of Malloy and Randi, whom I respect, don't really affect my thinking.

I just don't like being called a DLC'er just because I disagree with you. Like all real Democrats are now quitting the Party, everyone who is left is a DLC'er.

I'll be protesting at the Capitol tonight. The fight continues.

and used a spelling flame... like I said, you may not but what you are readying right now is an increasingly common sentimment... but you see I am an American first, and a partisan second. I will bring my reps down to the carpet when they're hurting the country and my future, whether they are Left, Right, Dems or Pugs does not matter. Does that mean I will not continue to protest? What being an INDEPENDENT thinking voter preclude me from protesting? WOW what a stretch!

And what Malloy and Randhi are saying now on the radio is what I am hearing in the streets. Randhi is a late comer to the party... Malloy has been ahead of the power curve a usual...

that is another reason why the democratic party is alienating people. Thanks for the salient example

you are a poster on line, I know you from shinola. You are not that important in the scheme of things. You have no idea what I have done in the past, or whose ears I have had... and I will give you a very free hint, some of those people are currently serving in positions of power. If I go independent, that relationship with them will NOT change ok.

Now continue to emphasize why the party is loosing membership, and why independents across the country are growing like gang busters. That has been a trend that has been out there and just accelerating.

what I think of you than I care what you think of me. You're still trying to convince me of your righteousness. That ain't happening. Have you convinced yourself yet?

I posted a historical fact, third parties rise in situations like this. The ground is fertile... live with it, or not, I don't care. What I see from you is the resistance to facts... that Paine also dealt with... re-read what I posted from Thomas Paine... he said it better than I could. Now have a good life. I personally don't care about you. On the other hand, your knee jerk reaction tells me that you are having a problem with the analysis given.

other people not worth listening to here that prompted me to respond as I did. It's so predictable...Dems fight and lose, DU'ers whine and complain and threaten to leave. You are not special. Just another DU'er who'd rather bitch about Dems than beat Republicans. We won't miss you.

are you mssing and just holding for the primaries to do that? So is that knee jerk? Sorry if you do not get the term knee jerk. Wake up and smell the coffee, for increasing numbers of AMERICANS feel that NEITHER party represents them

(Looking at my husband who has been an independent voter for almost all his life and gee golly has yet to miss an election)

What does that tell you?

they pass your purity test.

you want to vote for a D just becuase they have a D behind their names, go for it... no better than the ones who vote for anybody with an R... by the way, care to adress the issue, why are people NOT voting?

By the way, being Independent does not preclude you from voting Dem, Green or Republican (would not do that) in the General Election... so what are you smoking and care to share it? I mean, I am sure you knew this... and only reason why I had remained registered as a Dem over the last two years is the primaries, hoping a challenge to the DLCer called Dianne Feinstein, that does not come... oh well...

wilderness of American politics. The Democratic Party has a lot of problems, but not anywhere near as many as the Green, Socialist, Libertarian, et al.

The vast majority of people don't believe that either party represents them. Most of them don't vote. The rest just don't care. The few that remain belong to third parties or belong in that "undecided" box come election time.

Being undecided is not a virtue. The Democratic Party has been on the right side of most of the issues for the past sixty years. I'm going to ensure that trend continues, with or without you.

the way it historically has done that, when its role is threateened. The ground is fertile and a third party is coming... and people will flock to it, when it comes, because it is coming... and that political wilderness is not a wilderness.. that wilderness is where some of our leaders will come from. This bipolar thinking is part of the problem and every so often it is challenged... guess what now it is getting challenged by many activists who have been around just as long or longer than you.

I'm skeptical. I think Nader mounted about as credible a third party campaign as one can get away with these days.

Without a major celebrity with serious charisma, no third party is going to get anywhere worth going. I don't see it happening, regardless of the obvious gaping hole in American political representation. I don't think it's possible to credibly fill that hole. The two major parties have too strong of a hold on the process. Instant Run-off voting would change that. They will never let it happen.

it is called civil war or revolution and i don't mean the peaceful revolutions we get every thirty years or so. In that case, the country will not survive intact. To quote Kennedy, those who prevent peaceful revolutions ensure the violent kind.

I have a question.... what difference does having a person with a D behind their name to represent us if that person votes exactly the same as the person with an R behind their name? How is that winning? This has always confused me, maybe you can explain.

But for the sake of answering your question, I am not going to attack your straw man. The D in question didn't vote like an R this time. I think that should be encouraged. The ones with voting records we don't like deserve primary challenges.

But leaving the party to go sulk on the sideline of American politics? Have fun with that.

not when there is where people are going what part of... people don't feel either party represents them right now are you missing connected wiht third parties? I am pointing to a trend, you are trying to stop it... nice try.

By the way the one in question has a record that is piss poor for the most part. If I voted for the repuke six years ago, well that voting record would be expected. If she is challenged by a Dem, I will vote in the primaries for that dem. If she is not, I will vote for the green candidate in November. IT IS her voting record, clear enough for you? This is a problem for Americans not partisans.

I wasn't thinking about anyone in particular. And I do agree that not siding with R's is a good thing that should be encouraged. I am not sulking either, I am ignorant about a great many things and have some questions. A lot of people say a lot of stuff on this board. I am sorry I was foolishly trying to make some kind of sense of it.

Nadin over here is convinced that the Democratic Party is dead and needs a third party challenge to shake it out of its stupor.

I think it needs a good solid kick in the ass from its grass roots, which it has been getting repeatedly for the past two years, and I think they are slowly but surely getting the message.

by the way... what I said is that historically when we have situations like we have right now THIRD PARTIES rise. historically one replaced another, while two more pressured the second party to change its ways. Sometimes it is people who bring the wake up call, but you continue to read what you want... have fun... for me, for the moment I am done with the party... and will go the independent route. It does not prevent me for voting for ANYONE in the General Election or for hells bells WORKING for an individual candidate that I happen to like either... but you continue to read what you wish to read. By the way, if Cindy decides not to challenge DiFi in the primaries, or there is no challenge, (which is part of the damn problem) that means my switch to Independent voter will happen that much faster.

Unlike partisans like you I can see the elephant in the room... no pun.

Yeah, that's it. You alone see the truth. Everyone else is blind to it. Good luck with that.

I am partisan. This party has to be fixed, because you and your third party aren't going to amount to anything.

Txasleftist was right. Go post on loser third party Underground.

who will vote for anybody with an R, and then defend them regardless of what they do...

I am an American first, and you know what? I am also your ideal base, immigrant, first generation. Keep spiting on the wind, for you are loosing that base too.

At least you recognize that you are a partisan... I put my country before my party.

I'm spitting at you for being a cowardly quitter. Run along now and find your third party.

But why is it not ok for people to work from outside the party, especially since "purists", as you called them, aren't welcome? I agree the party needs a good kick in the rear, but why does it have to come from inside the party? The argument the party comes back with is, "Its us (D's) or them (R's) so shut up, we know what we're doing". I agree third parties aren't likely to win; that isn't the point. The point (IMO) is to force the Dems to stop taking the grassroots for granted and ignoring 'purists' in hopes of peeling a few votes away from the R's. There are millions of people out there not in either party who would love something to vote for. I can think of at least 10-15 people I know right off the top of my head who pay attention, but don't bother getting involved or even voting because no one speaks for them, or even pretends to. I guess my issue is that I don't understand why change can only be made from inside the party. The examples NB cites from history had a huge impact on the standing parties, and maybe I misunderstood, but I thought she was saying that the Dems will die if they don't pay attention to those among us who are fed up with the status quo. I won't presume to speak for her though, that is just what I got out of it. I admit though I have not read every post in this thread.

Clearly, that is not the case. But someone needs to make sure they figure out what they are doing. I think they are more likely to take notes from someone in, say, Howard Dean's position than they are from a Ralph Nader or a Cindy Sheehan.

People from the outside who set their sights on both parties say a lot of toxic things that ultimately are not politically viable. That's why pure third party candidates lose. That's nothing against them, because they are usually telling the truth. But politics is controlled by 'politicians' for a reason.

Someone like Howard Dean is in a position to criticize Dems for what they've done wrong. No one is going to listen to outsiders though until they mount a real challenge. And I don't see how a real challenge gets mounted with the rules as they currently are.

I appreciate your time answering my questions. I understand a little better now. I have a couple more questions/observations...

Is see your point about people taking notice of what Dean says vs someone like me, a nobody. However, at what point do you say enough is enough. Dean himself has been criticized by dems for "being too hard on the GOP", among other things.... if he keeps having the nerve to say such uncomfortable things, how long before the Party decides they need a more 'managable' chairman?

<<People from the outside who set their sights on both parties say a lot of toxic things that ultimately are not politically viable. That's why pure third party candidates lose. That's nothing against them, because they are usually telling the truth. But politics is controlled by 'politicians' for a reason.>>

I am not worried about winning right now. I am very worried about the voices of millions being silenced because apparently the truth is inconvenient and uncomfortable. Are you really meaning to say that the truth is not our ally? That folks can't handle the truth? You appear to be saying that "winners" know how to lie with style. That is sure what I am reading in this paragraph and I don't want any part of a party with that as its mission or strategy for winning. If I have misunderstood, please correct me.

I think the Democratic Party has the potential to be a party that is truthful and rightfully critical of the Republicans in office right now. There are quite a few Democrats who are squeamish about criticising the President and outright challenging his authority. Many of them speak out at the risk of losing their seats later this year and ensuring that the Republican Party further dominates the process. So it's understandable, if not laudable, that they mute their criticism.

And some of them genuinely support the President.

These people need to be challenged from within the Party. They are not getting it done. Paul Hackett showed that you don't have to play nice to get results. He made an outstanding showing in his congressional race that no one expected because he spoke truth forcefully and refused to be defined by Republican spin. There's a lesson in that for us all.

I believe this Party can be the vehicle for change, but if we abandon it, we ensure that it won't be, and there isn't another vehicle suited to the task at hand. Besides, we already have half the party, and most of the donors. We need to continue to encourage an aggressive stance against the Republicans and find people who aren't afraid to speak uncomfortable truths.

I watched Nader's campaign and went to his rallies because I believed in what he was trying to do. He got 3 percent of the vote, after bringing thousands into basketball arenas at $10 a head. With the rules as they currently are, I don't think anyone is going to beat that. They'd have to be incredibly well-financed and a lot less pure than Ralph Nader, who is not a saint.

If you read the whole thread, you'll see that I made the point that the third parties did not rise in the age of the 24-hour news cycle. The major parties learned from Perot. That is not likely to happen again.

the Whig party died because it ran out of ideas and a new party emerged to take its place. By the way, I am far from a purist, but there is enough information emerging regarding the relationship between the DLC and the Neo Cons... and I will not vote for a DLCer it is not purity, just I don't happen to like fascists, even lite fascists. I guess our friend has not looked at who has singed the statements of principles for PNAC.. yes Joe Biden has...

Anyhow the point on this whole thread is that the ground is very ripe for a third party. Do third parties usually replace established parties? Once one did. Do third parties offer a swift kick in the pants to the so called establishment? Every time... so the ground is ripe... and yes many folks I know are FED UP... and have had it.

What I see is the typical resistance to change that usually acommpanies moments of transition and we are at one those moments. Don't worry, even in its moment of greatest power the GOP is starting to have similar problems for other reasons... the truly best case scenarion BOTH parties are replaced and we have the chances necessary in the political system to break the historical logjam of two party politics. (Proportional Representation comes to mind)

I have been called "too radical" because I believe in things like the framework as outlined in the Constitution... separation of powers, separation of church/state, the sanctity of the Bill of Rights, and the end of corporate personhood/domination... :shrug: I guess I really am a purist, just not in the sense that that term is usually used. I don't want much really. I want my government back. It is basic common sense stuff to me.... I don't see why that is a problem?

NB - I agree wholeheartedly. I agree with you about the transition resistance and also about the time being ripe for new parties. I starting thinking about 2 years ago or so that there were ever-growing rifts in both the established parties and that those rifts would soon be permanent.... what we have now is unsustainable. I think over the next several years we are going to witness MAJOR changes. I'm not going to hold my breath for proportional representation, but IRV would go a long way to giving more people more voice in what happens.

I can't write all I want to say because I am too busy today, but thank you.

insofar as wanting my govment back, repsect of the constitution, yep silly things like that... and just like you I have been called all kinds of names.

proposing his radical ideas, the Democrats would've remained the do-nothings and this country would've gone communist. FDR, seeing the threat to the party, took on most of the social positions that the people were clamoring for and saved the party the nation and our system of governance.
The election of '32 was the turning point that, ironically, saved the stock exchange, the banking and insurance industries too. Without his efforts to reassure the citizens that it wouldn't be allowed to fail again, we'd still be saving our money in the mattress.

Go post on "Loser third party underground".

Is it better to be a loser associated with the second party rather
than a loser associated with a third party? It certinly doesn't
feel much different to me!

Tesha

between her legs. She will never get my vote again.

There's nothing more irritating than people who keep threatening to leave unless their demands are met by every single Democrat. You cannot hold this party hostage to your personal agenda.

Quit talking about leaving and do it. Your one vote lost will equal five votes gained from people with common sense.

I am sure the Whigs thought the same way...

That would bring our country back together.

wet dream and the most divisive candidate since George Dubya Bush

(OMFG... #42) :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I'm not a big fan of Hillary but a Hillary/Clark ticket would bring more unity and would get my willing support. My preference would be a Dean/Edwards or vice versa ticket.

That would be a better balance.

I want no part of Hillary Clinton in this next national election. I'm totally against another Bush/Clinton election. Jebbie is testing the waters. If those would be the choices we would be faced with, I have no use for her. I also don't relish being confronted with the media's wet dream--the Catfight--Hillary vs. Condi.

We need a break and some real leadership, not the installation of a dynasty.

we really do not need another CONSERVATIVE in the White House and Hillary is one.

why is it so hard to understand that a Clinton candidacy is what the neo-cons have wet dreams about? She is their candidate.

shit sandwich. They want a real choice with a real difference.

Right on, South Park!

understand news/current events even better then we do. With that being said they understand the Democrats better than the Democrats do. Ironic but true if you ask me.

Otherwise what you get is what happened with the Reform Party and the Green Party, they end up voting against their own interests by taking votes from the very party that is supposed to represent their interests.

I think a better solution is to identify all the different factions in our party from left to center. Let them form "clubs" of like minded participants and put up their candidates in the primaries. The candidate that gets the most votes, even if it's one we personally disagree with, then will be the one to run in the Presidential race against the opposition party or the Republicans.

I believe the last election was too scattershot among the eleven candidates whom we often were very confused about what they stood for. So if we had a candidate for each faction, let's say commie, green environmental, socialist, liberal, liberal progressive and DLC. At least we would know who is backing them.

I think in this environment, putting Ralph Nader as the candidate for the Green/environmental "club" would have had him running in the primaries against other candidates, but included in our tent. If he were a strong enough candidate, there is a possibility, he would have beat the others and been the candidate for the Democratic Party to run against Bush.

Instant Run Off, and proportional representation will break the logjam of two party politics in the United States. Too bad John Stuart Mill was not born until seventy had pased.

And of course, no Diebold...

foremost. The good news is that elections are run by the states, so we need to make sure that clean and transparent elections are held in our back yard. The only way the feds can tamper with elections is if they have an insider in the states to help them do it, like Katherine Harris in Florida and the fellow in Ohio, whose name escapes me.

In California, we are keeping really close tabs on the Arnold appointee who replaced Kevin Shelley in our state. It looks like it's paying off because Arnold lost on all his propositions in the forced special election he held. I do believe they were setting our state up for a red state status.

72 electoral college votes, that is why

If you care to find out what popular opinion was on the subject, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal polling published yesterday had 44% supporting confirmation of Alito, 25% opposing, and 30% without a firm opinion. Sounds like a 74-25 split to me if you force people to side up.

http://www.pollingreport.com/Court.htm

If you want dwelve into the reasons, remember that Republicans really didn't offer much, if any, of a rational justification for the Alito nomination anywhere along the line. He was an unabashed Right winger, really, and that was Enough. The reason he passed emanates from the 2004 elections, plain and simple. You can look at the overall result as offensive and aggressive, as Republicans are spinning it. In the longer run and in a realistic assessment of the Court's power, in view of trends in the electorate during the next decade or two, it's a defensive move.

I know the realities, I am also a fact, people are tired and yesterday was a watershed moment

I might add, apart of the shall we say political animals here and free republic, now many other people (ok the news media too), watched C-SPAN and the hearings? And after they were done... was there any discussion on this nomination, real discussion on what he told the Committee, in the press? No... so if you ask any Joe Six Pack what unitary presidency is, they will look at you with a lonesome look. I am just what I am increasingly hearing... people are tired, and the summer of the discontent of the Democratic party has just begun, and the ground is damn fertile for what is about to happen... will it happen by the mid terns? no, will it happen by 2008? the possibility is there, will it happen by the midterms of 2010... if this goes the way history says it should... chances are it will... so the party has a very narrow importunity to close that door. and for the sake of the country I hope it does not happen... why the Democratic party is no longer that progressive, not do they want that many progressives... again 1870 comes to mind.

True, there is a lot of burnout. This is a war of attrition, after all, now ~15 years in duration and both sides are for the most part teetering with mental exhaustion, losing measure of things, flaking out with weak little cries of rage and helplessness. (If you look at the Christian Right organizations, they're quietly shrinking and barely holding together at this point.) Average, nonactivist, people burned out on it all years ago and have no serious positive ideas about what to do or why or how. The Big Issues are no longer primary in even partisan peoples' minds, it's just about survival and getting through and hoping the other side is weakening faster than your own.

I find the Civil War the most accurate analogy for our present fight. It consisted of five cycles of initiatives and combat, each roughly a year in length. There's an intriguing correlation of power balance, struggles for it, and psychological similarity between each of the first four cycles of the Civil War and the past four national political power exertion cycles, aka Presidential terms. I like to think the present Presidential term has so far had rather intriguing similarity to the first parts of the final cycle of the Civil War, of January to August 1865.

Now is imho roughly equivalent to early March 1865- the material Confederate breakdown of January and February 1865 (i.e. 2005) continues apace everywhere else, but the grassroots psychological breakdown of their armies reverses in their major stronghold of Virginia (i.e. holds on majority federal power) despite all the leaders realizing that strategically Union victory is already achieved. This was a time of flaring up of a last, fervent and optimistic, determined resistance and hope in the survival of the CSA and blind assertion of logistical and tactical and battlefield inadequacy of the Union armies and leadership. Confederate leaders tapped all of their last resources, tried and failed in a counteroffensive at Petersburg, and bad seasonal weather prevented effective Union offensives in March 1865 (i.e. the first half of 2006). Union troops were generally demoralized or agnostic most of March 1865, thinking they were looking at another year of war without victories adequate to the cost in blood and frustration and a still tactically superior foe. But it's the Confederate armies that proved hollowed out and badly led, which collapsed and disintegrated abruptly, at the showdowns, the highly risk-taking Union offensives of early April 1865.

your analogy to a civil war is correct... and that is another thing that I see coming. The analogy though is not for 1865, bur rather the hot summer of 1860... all nations who undergo a HOT civil war, first go through a period of anywhere from 10 years (in the 20th century) to 20 years (the American Civil War) where language was the first place where combat was joined. I sighted relief when it did not go hot during the Shiavo events, but if there is going to be a hot civil war, it is not that far off... and at that point, I will be even more pesimisitic... I don't think this country will survive a hot civil war intact. Yes, you can conclude that the country will break apart anywhere form two to five separate and distinct nations.

to keep right wing views in the Federal Government. The country is moving leftward and that will damn the GOP in the coming years.

but you said it much better than I could have. I agree with your best case scenario and I think that is the best way to try to reform the party. I have been listening to all the people who say they want to change it from inside. More power to 'em, I wish them all the luck in the world, but I do not think it is possible without pressure outside the party because it is too easy for people to say, "where are you gonna go? we are your only choice so shut up". Listen to everyone say third parties only hurt________. Third parties can't win. Blah blah blah.... at this point it is not about winning, at least not for me... It is about change and reform. What good is winning if the dems vote just like republicans and are afraid of their own shadows? I want to get all those people who are sick and tired of choice between the lesser of two evils (and those who have given up all together) an option... get them engaged. All I hear is that we have to fight for those people in the middle.... Bullshit. What about the people who have given up because NO ONE speaks for them? I am talking about the people who are so disgusted that they think "what's the use?" There are millions of them.

that is why the Progressives of the 1870s comes to mind... and yes the folks going third paries don't work... only ignore history at their peril... if the Perot Movement had not imploded as hard as it did, we might have avoided CAFTA...

I think of, but we are definitely thinking along the same lines. :)

I will blame my teachers, some of them unabashed progressives, for teaching me how to think...

I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusions. As this entire episode played out, I couldn't help but to visualize the parallels to the Canadian political system and to the power of the minority. Even as the left leaning NDP cannot reasonably be expected to be elected as the majority anytime soon, they hold the power to make or break a government without having to compromise on their principles completely. In the not too distant future I forsee a political structure where you have the Republicans (far right), Democrats and DLCers (center right) Progressive Democrats (center left) and Greens and Socialist(left leaning). Based on research conducted after the 2004 elections the percentages would play out as such; Reps 38%, DLC 34%, Progressives 22%, Greens 4%, Other 2%. While the system would not immediately give us control of the nations direction, it would however give a solid place at the table where we could have our positions addressed, put forth, and implemented as policy, which is a much better place than we currently enjoy. Call it a Coalition of the Common Man. No, it is not perfect, as some would argue that anything short of a complete Progressive agenda is unacceptable, but as yesterday showed clearly, we have been marginalized and taken for granted by those that we considered allies. This year, the DNC will get neither my money, my time, nor my vote, until they are honest and willing to address my issues. While I admire Nader for his career of service in the cause, I believe that we need someone more dynamic, able to accurately portray our philosophies, ideas, and proposals without causing our natural contituency to lose their focus (Al Gore and John Kerry may have had the message, but the wrong approach to delivering it). Besides Howard Dean, who do we see as the potential leaders of our movement?

and that will take a change in the electoral process for proportional representation, which mind you every advanced democracy save the US has implemented.

There are states and disticts at this very moment that would elect a progressive over a DLC candidate in a heartbeat. How many districts in 2004 (especially urban areas) didn't even have a Rep. candidate due to the overwhelming demographics of the populace. I'd start in like that, and run a true liberal candidate versus a careers rubber stamp for the DLC agenda. Then I'd work in the the coastal and upper midwestern areas that culturally are far more in tune with what we are trying to accomplish, but have always voted for the Democrat on the ballot because the recognize that the right wing agenda is counter to their personal beliefs. Again, it's incremental in it's nature, but my Democratic party has been sold to the highest bidder like the Repubs that we despise, and I don't see it ever coming back to actually give my priorities the time of day.

while we can support the Dems when necessary, I think we should be looking beyond. It's not going to be possible for Liberals to recover the Dem party anytime soon. All we can ever hope for in the foreseeable future is to be "not as bad as the Repugs' -- but that's pretty bad. That is not a forward-looking agenda.

Once that happens, there'll be no more 'but we have no power' excuses.

We'll see how the next couple years go.

If there's no significant change, I trust you're spot on.

Does it matter if the Dems take back congress if our ideas continue to only get lip service?

they will have some power, and if they give us nothing but lip service... hello, nascent third-party.

but worries me is that EVEN if they DO, we will only have the kind of Repuglican Lite government that still shuts out the liberal base who put them in office. It is apparent that the current Democratic party only serves as a minor counterpoint to the conservative juggernaut(on a GOOD day). I would not really expect that to change were they actually in control again.

I am SO tired of all this vicious fighting between 'the best of two evils,' grubbing for crumbs, and general disenfranchisement that at LEAST a third of the country has been subjected to (I think it's actually more than that). I believe the burn-out factor you talk about is HUGE. If there was an alternative that really made sense people would flock to it. I want to see a transition to a proportional democracy. This yanking the whole country back and forth between 2 "parties" is so destructive and really primitive. (And in the case of our current administration the yanking is all in one direction...we know where that's going...over the cliff). If we have a chance to get back to Democracy at all--I want it to look a lot different than it does now.

Your post is timely.

You just watch...

OK. I will.

We need to split off the true conservatives on the right from the fascist NECONS - "The Republican Party"

A split cannot come from the left, it must come from the right.

However, many, like myself, and I presume the OP, are disgusted, beyond disgusted with what is supposed to be the opposition party.

And you can bet that the Republicans do. Look at the DLC, for example.

except by a few left-leaning Dems scattered around who are muzzled as often as possible. The left has very little voice anywhere now. You'd be adding a party, not splitting a party. The Dems can stay Republican Lite (or center or whatever they are trying to be).

for saying that? No challenge, just curious. mg :)

what the OP is saying, I'm not sure it's about winning, in the short term, anymore... is that right?

If a new, non corporatist, non bootlicking party arose, we might have to wander through the desert for decades to achieve change...

I for one would be willing to consider such a change if I thought the seeds of real government could be found there, even if I wouldn't live to see the day that party took power.

I'm not sure if that's what you are getting at, but I've felt this way during the past year.

it took the Progressive party over thirty years to get the pressure in. People forget, they achieved up to one third of Congress, but what they truly faced during the Glided Age is not very different from today... and the seeds of the New Deal are in that party... not in the democratic party.

whigs, GOP, democrats, Know Nothing, etc.
All of those started off at one point. Usually, there was a burning issue, or a recognition that an older party had lost all relevance. Just like now.

I suspect that a third party can succeed, despite the truly awesome task of organizing, getting on ballots and fighting the inertia of an entrenched two party monopoly.

Would I support a third party that dropped all the baggage (including 19 yellow bellies) in the process, and worked on progressive, important issues?
In a heart beat.

This is a watershed moment for the Democratic party. Yesterday's demonstration of spinelessness was probably the last straw for many many people, myself included. And we are going to see people leave in droves, mostly to go join the Greens. That will either force the Dems to straighten themselves out and regain their fighting form, or they will go the way of the Whigs. It is up to them, they have a clear choice before them. It will be interesting to watch.

other than the Greens.

The Greens have an 'environmentalist' slant and have been seriously injured by Ralph Nader.

I wish a new party could have a brand new (not so specific) name and a big umbrella approach. Maybe it could just be the Liberal Party. The party for the rest of us (and there are millions of us).

But if you actually go and check out the Greens, you will find that they're stands on various issues are pretty much in keeping with what the majority of Americans want, pro-choice, anti-war, clean, publicly funded elections, etc. etc.

It would be nice to start a party up from scratch, but that would take too long. Better to hook on with an existing party that shares most of your values.

...if the Greens were to function as a real solid third party, they'd need a new name because the name is limiting and does not have a big umbrella feel to it. "Greens" is so "third party" y'know.

I'm completely aware that the Greens have a general platform and could in fact, be the germ of this party. But if you want to attract newcomers, IMO you'd have to have a new, pan-American kind of name that does not hark to European origins. The new party would have to work to be APPEAR to be more inclusive than the Greens do now. The greens have an image of intellectuals and radicals. The Nader era was damaging. A new name would go far to erase the associations. Actually I think it would be about the same amount of effort to start a new party as to revamp the Greens.

I looked at the Greens and while I appreciate their views, especially about corporatism, I found them to be too rigid and narrow in focus. I would love to see a brand new party. I think the word Liberal has too much baggage associated with it now, like the problem you mentioned with Nader and the Greens. I like your slogan... the party for the rest of us... I would call that party The Populists, but that is just me. :)

'The Liberal Party' and 'The Populists' would both carry historical baggage.

But obviously we agree that the name is important and the mission needs to be broad in scope. We would expect such a party to work for our common progressive goals, but there would not be any specific viewpoint or excessive dependency on charismatic leaders. Pie-in-the sky? Well one thing, I know--we DO have the numbers to support it. I'm not just a dreamer--I like to see the ideas materialize in reality. There are large numbers dreaming this same dream.

also about the numbers of people to support a party like this. I think the greatest thing about a party like you described and that I believe in is that it stands on its own, with no dependence on a white knight, as you pointed out. I don't believe it is pie in the sky... the OP is correct that people are ready for something like this. I have no idea how to *make* it happen, but I do believe it can happen.

in the US... the engine of history is leading in that direction... (Yes a little marxist line here, but one that is apropriate here) The trend is there and if history is a teacher all the nay sayers about a third party are going to be surprsied, because it will come. Now populist, that is a good idea, and think where the new deal came from.. the populist.

system is set up simply does not allow room for a third party without throwing a solid majority to the completely CRAZY Republicans.

I look how the far right working from the aftermath of the Goldwater landslide defeat of 1964 changed the big tent Republicans into a distinctly right wing party; so right wing that poor old Barry wasn't even welcome anymore. But, to do this the right wing did back in general elections candidates and Presidents who were clearly not their ideological soul-mates. Richard Nixon would be a socialist wacko by current Republican Party standards. But, it was the Nixon era that gave real rise to the long-term agenda of the right-wing.

Since we do not have a system such as exist in much of Europe which is accommodating to third parties and there is realistically no possibility whatsoever that will change anytime prior to the collapse of the current order which I do not anticipate will happen anytime soon--we have no choice in my opinion but to work with what we do have.

Furthermore any survey of actual congressional voting records will demonstrate that with the exception of the likes of Zell Miller almost any Democrat including Lieberman and definitely Clinton are still much more progressive than any "moderate" Republican.

Still the very fact that the Democratic Party leadership still supports neo-liberal economics and the same system of international hegemony-although in modified form-it makes me wish deeply that I could vote for a stronger voice of opposition.

But the reality is that we are stuck with what we do have and have to strive to make the best of the Democratic Party and to change it into a true voice of opposition.

Sure, we can continue to support the Democrats as the only realistic stopgap for the immediate future...but at some point we must admit (face, confront, accept) that the Dems do NOT get it--that they are NOT trending in our favor. I don't think the DLCers are going to move over easily and allow a 'reform' of the party anytime soon (though we must not give up on the possibility of some improvement). I guess I'm afraid of putting all our eggs in the Dem basket anymore. This really hasn't panned out. I feel more UNrepresented than ever. When it is YOUR party that screws you...well it's time to be thinking outside the box. Accepting anything less for an extended period is what I call The Downtrodden Mentality. It keeps you down. "We are stuck" and "must make the best of"....I think there are large numbers of people that are very tired of that prophecy, since it's been going on for 30 years and is seriously worse now. The neo-cons have shown us what we are--we are pathetically afraid to rock any boats. Americans are good at putting up. But there comes a time not to put up.

So what I'm suggesting is that at the same time that of course we have no choice but to vote for the Dems (and watch them do very little for us), we should also be evolving some kind of Plan B organization--call it political party, or receptacle for the disenfranchised--I don't care. But WE need a place to go, a place to put our efforts, a place to feel we truly belong. Rather than simply protesting against all the odds, I'm talking about positive ACTION. This does not have to be an either/or thing--not dump Democrats and go whole hog with this fledgling thing. I'm talking about marshalling our significant forces into a constructive strategy. I'm talking about realizing our own power. We need an umbrella organization though. Yes such a new organization would take time to grow, but in the meantime it could put pressure on the current situation of political paralysis and autocratic rule.

Think beyond "it can't happen."

is that Monday was a watershed moment for US History and the Dems, when historians look back they will see that moment as what truly changed a nation. What the change will be and how will it happen, it remains to be written, but it was a watershed moment.

Monday was a watershed moment...when delusions were wiped from many eyes. This (05-06) has been a year for that.

Thanks for your efforts here OP. After Monday I am ready to think big. And I know there are many feeling the same way.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

(and the ground is fertile)

Why Third Parties?
From Robert Longley,
Your Guide to U.S. Gov Info / Resources.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
They rarely win, but 3rd party candidates are essential
While their presidential candidates stand little chance of being elected, members of America's third parties have historically promoted concepts and policies that have been incorporated as important parts of our social and political lives. Here are some major examples:

Women's Right to Vote
Both the Prohibition and Socialist Parties promoted women's suffrage during the late 1800's. By 1916, both Republicans and Democrats supported it and by 1920, the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote had been ratified.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/politicalsystem/a/thirdparties.htm

As I have stated, those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. The Establishment in the party, just like it has done in the past, is using the usual mantra... well where is the base truly going to go? Fact is, the ground is ripe, people are fed up and people are looking for an alternative. Monday's vote was a watershed moment not only for the Democratic party (there will be consequences) but US History...

Now you think that coming to a board and stating the fact, the ground is ripe, is whining, now I know why the Dems don't really win. All you care is us or them... by the way, I know you like the DLC... did you know the DLC most likely came from the same intellectual group as the Neo Cons? That is food for thought and actually explains quite a bit.

now once again the ground is ripe for a third party. Why? Look at the statistics of the number of Americans who identify themselves as Independent... it has been growing, by leaps and bound. Moreover, an increasing number of people, again statistics, don't feel EITHER party represents them. Now if you care for some history, instead of the us versus them mentality, you'd know that something very similar developed in the Gilded Age... you'd also know that both the Populist and Land and Freedom parties emerged at that point, and you'd even realize that the Populist party controlled one third of Congress at its high point. You would also know that the Populist were slowly absorb into the Democratic fold over thirty years, (thought one of its most notorious members Hugh Long did not shut up) and after 1932 its policy goal of a New Deal was implemented. Now you tell me that Third parties are ineffective. Now I gave you a link. I am stating a fact, IT WILL HAPPEN. Whether you like it or not.

Oh and by the way, one third party actually replaced a long established party, but I am sure you knew that.