For some time I have been claiming that the Democratic Party is further to the right today than was the Republican Party in the 1960s. Cenk Uygur, filling in for Dylan Ratigan, illustrated my position beautifully.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Many of my progressive friends feel frustrated with my continued support for the Democratic Party, given the above. However, today’s political reality is that third party support on a national level frustrates progressive goals. The deck is stacked against third parties. Even the great Teddy Roosevelt could not win as a Bull Moose. For now, the Democratic party remains the better choice, while national third party support only facilitates Republican power.
I want to throw my support behind a new party, a party to the left of the Democrats. But the time to do that is after the demise of the Republican Party, and that is my goal. To be successful, a progressive party must be one of the two main parties.
16 Responses to “The Slippery Slope Slid Right”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You know, the counter to your argument is that the Dems don’t seem to be getting it done. Maybe, the time has come for a new party to counter the GOP. The GOP is having its own 3rd party issues. Now may be the time.
Otis, I might agree with you, but your argument has a flaw, The teabaggers are not an authentic third party. They may fight the GOP in some primaries, but in thed general they will goose-step Republican.
Yeah, well.
Ralph Nader, recently publiocized on Canadian TV.
But he’s become something of a dweeb. …Might take away my cigarettes. Now there’s a quest.
The Canadian Cancer Society. Unsafe at any creed.
Ralph Nadar is a perfect example. Had he not split the vote in Florida with his third party effort, GW Bush would never have become President.
Out of curiosity, if the Republican party meets its “demise”, whom do you think all the people who currently vote Republican will vote for? Presumably they don’t like the Democratic party or they’d already be voting for it, and a party further to the left would suit them even less.
I would hope that they will gravitate to the many insignificant third parties that specialize in wing-nuts.
“today’s political reality is that third party support on a national level frustrates progressive goals.”
LOL. Ironically, today’s political reality is such that support for the Democratic Party on any level also frustrates progressive goals.
Political freedom and independence today begins with freedom from the Democratic and Republican parties. The only way to defeat the Republicans is to defeat the Democrats too.
Welcome, D. Eris. I think it tantamount to impossible to take on the two major parties simultaneously. The only group of any significance even pretending to do so is the tea party. The problem with that is that the tea party are Republicans pretending not to be. They are the brown shirts of today’s GOP, sometimes troublesome, and often embarrassing. Sadly, those that are well intended will be ground under the heel of the GOP, when no longer needed, just as the brown shirts were in the thirties.
That’s a good point Infidel – we need the Teabaggers to be stronger in order to split the Repub vote. Then the progressives could do the same thing. And once again, I agree with Otis. I think after this next election is the time.
Lisa, the only election of significance so far in which the Teabaggers will split the right wing vote is in Florida. And the Teabagger, Rubio, is the Republicab nominee. The only reason that vote will be split is that the traditionbal Republican is running as an Independent. Had Crist won the GOP nomination, the teabaggers would gavce voted for him in the general.
I think after Scalia or Thomas is replaced would be better.
Where is the 2nd party? All I see are corporatists.
Welcome High5. You’re argument has some truth to it, but it has two problems.
First, you’re painting with to broad a brush. While there are far too many corporatist DINOs, the majority of the Democrats are not.
Second, it’s a matter of degree. Democrats give big corporations a seat at the table, perhaps too big a seat. But Republicans work consistently against the common people to transfer their wealth to rich shareholders. Considering what Democrats have accomplished and would have accomplished were it not for extreme GOP obstruction, to equate the two parties is patently absurd.
Not to mention there just isn’t a viable third party option out there right now.
True, Bee. While the Socialist and Green Parties, both have good points, neither is a threat to take power. And the Teabaggers are just Republicans.
I think we’re seeing early onset of a multiple-party system. The cracks on both sides are beginning to show. Frankly, I’m in favor of that, as it will force coalitions and consensus and dampen this ridiculous push-and-pull across the aisle.
A third party, regardless of where it falls on the L-R spectrum, runs the risk of dying out quickly as a passing fad, much like TR’s Bull Moose party did. If the GOP splits, the Dems will need to follow suit quickly or else, as you say, Tom, the Tea-Baggers will be what they are now–basically a new tool the GOP can use to welcome new recruits back into its fold when the furor du jour dies down, or wherever it’s not blazing.
Of course, none of this speculation would be necessary if we set term limits on Congress to pluck its members out of the pockets of special interests and propagandists.
SF, I also favor a multi-party system, but before it can become a reality, we would need to completely restructure the manner in which we elect leaders.
Term limitations were tried out by Solon in ancient Athens. It failed then for the dame reasons it will fail now. Instead of selling-out for campaign ca$h, they will instead sell out for cu$hy jobs after their terms expire. We need 100% public financing for all federal elections.