US POLITICS SPRING 2011: Let's just call off this country.

also in case it isn't clear I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF A TWO PARTY SYSTEM IN THIS COUNTRY FYI

Whigs predated the GOP.

Whigs formed to oppose Jacksonian Democrats.

The GOP of 1856 and 1860 comprised of disgruntled Northern Dems, Free Soil people, and Whigs.

yeah but wasn't around that time also like the Federalist party and the Republican-Democratic party as well...?

or was that a little bit earlier...?

Federalist Party was one of the first parties - gone by 1816.

I agree with nearly all of you that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of breaking the duopoly as long as 90% of Americans maintain their indifference to politics (the real shit, not the sport).

I think the last 2 years have convinced many of you that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of reforming the Democratic Party from within, as long as corporations are persons and there's no campaign finance reform.

Join me. Give up.

When was the last time the US had more than 2 viable, powerful political parties? Isn't the big problem that whenever another party rises enough in prominence to become considered a mainstream party, it accompanies the death of a previous party, thereby holding up the 2-party status quo?

look, the "there can only be two" people are probably right for all I know - a third party could probably really only replace one of the major two. this is why some Democrats think "working to change the party from the inside" is a great strategy. (it isn't; the rot is in the wood.) what can happen, conceivably, is for a third party to become competitive enough with one of the other parties: competitive in public appeal fundraising, etc., and then replace the party it resembles ideologically. (why do you think Republicans you thought were more moderate are offering birther sop on camera?) what would have to happen before that would be for a lot of Democrats to start supporting a party which they knew wasn't going to be viable this year, or four years from now, or even eight years from now. over the past fifty years Democrats have gotten pretty good at persuading disenfranchised lefties that it really is This Democratic Party Or Nothing. When enough people say "you know what, I'll take 'nothing,' then," and hold to that position for a few election cycles, change would then be possible. partisan Dems like to point out that a lot of people will have to be afflicted by totally toxic public policy in the interim. they are right when they say this. it will have to get worse before it gets better. but it will not get incrementally better under Democrats. the pace of "worse" will just be, occasionally, slowed.

my co-ideologue speaks the truth (whatever that is)

actually the Soviets being cited is maybe a funnier/better example than Morbz would care to admit - if things get so bad/extreme/desperate that there is a serious, national fight over the institutional changes necessary to switch from a two-party to a multi-party system, the most likely result is probably the complete dissolution of the US as a functioning body. which might not be bad. but on the other hand I don't really look forward to living through/fighting secessionist wars, I dunno about you guys

partisan Dems like to point out that a lot of people will have to be afflicted by totally toxic public policy in the interim. they are right when they say this

great sales pitch btw

might need to work on your marketing angle

we'd been going w/"a hundred years after your grandchildren are dead you'll have to concede we were partially right" but there was dissent among the ranks over that one

Join me. Give up.

I mean this really just is not catchy enough

what are you even talking about, when I see "join me. give up" I start looking for the donation box

The question that only you guys can answer is whether you can endure more Reagans and Bushes for the sake of keeping the DNC from settling on blue dog types. I am.

I don't really look forward to living through/fighting secessionist wars, I dunno about you guys

and happy birthday to both of us, then. *starts smoking*

and Soto's fond of sunbathing, so he's working on a pre-secession exit as well!

GG is otm here:

“The Republicans,” he says, “have long lived by what they call the Buckley Rule: always support the furthest-right candidate who can plausibly win. That’s because they believe conservatism will work and want to advocate for it. Democrats [by contrast] prop up the most centrist or conservative candidates -- i.e., corporatists -- on the ground that it’s always better, more politically astute, to move to the right.”

"it is hope, not despair, which breeds revolution. Give the people hope - show them what might be possible, what they can look forward to - then they might try to achieve something"

xp

...is for a third party to become competitive enough with one of the other parties: competitive in public appeal fundraising, etc., and then replace the party it resembles ideologically. (why do you think Republicans you thought were more moderate are offering birther sop on camera?)

the part in the parentheses contradicts the rest!

and Soto's fond of sunbathing, so he's working on a pre-secession exit as well!

how do you and aerosmith feel about sunbathing

we've been trying to appease the Blue Dog types since Reagan ... Reagan got reelected, we still got Dubya and we will get more of the same possibly as soon as 2012.

goole the birther sop is to keep the rather useful to Republicans tea partiers from voting third party - the tea party is exactly the sort of genuine threat to party power that has to be co-opted; astroturfing it helps but isn't really a sure bet; there are too many attracted to it who will get disenchanted with the GOP if they don't get some srs dogwhistle action imo

"it is hope, not despair, which breeds revolution. Give the people hope - show them what might be possible, what they can look forward to - then they might try to achieve something"

was that written before or after science gave us Call of Duty: Black Ops

i'm Irish, dude: aloe vera

xxp

moving to the right only pisses off the non-right and makes the right rally behind the mega-right

I actually wonder if deomgraphics might create a new party in the next twenty or thrity years; the authoritarianly socially conservative part of the Republicans is likely to become more shrill but represent fewer and fewer ppl at some point and some free-market centrist party might start to beat them. Conceivably that might also mean that ppl further on the left might get left w/a Liberal Democratic rump, too.

it is hope, not despair, which breeds revolution

1971

re a Soviet-stylee breakup of the USA. i might've been open to such a thing (if it could be done w/t bloodshed -- e.g., it coulda been done the way the Czechs and the Slovaks effected their political divorce) in the not-too-distant past and would've been willing to waive "see ya wouldn't wanna be ya" to the more backwards parts of this country (to wit: the South, Texas and large portions of the Southwest). i've changed my mind mainly b/c the real problem is concentrated economic wealth -- Wall Street would still be located in the Social-Democratic Republic of the Northeast Corridor, not in Atlanta or Cheyenne.

anyway, i'm not so sure i'd be keen on politically becoming like Italy or Israel -- having a political system at the mercy of fanatical microparties that will collapse a government if you look at them funny.

i've changed my mind mainly b/c the real problem is concentrated economic wealth -- Wall Street would still be located in the Social-Democratic Republic of the Northeast Corridor, not in Atlanta or Cheyenne.

DING DING. This is what I throw back to those stupid Daily Kos types who after 2004 wanted red states to secede or some shit.

I was having a conversation with a friend yesterday about how many technological breakthroughs/advances involve figuring out how to help people achieve an easier orgasm; how can this be translated into exploitable political theory?

the evangelicals and reaganites and all the rest didn't threaten to leave the GOP until it pleased them, they sucked it up as foot soldiers through the 70s and didn't stop until they owned the whole circus. taken as a strategy that emerged over time, you could call it, Show Up.

leaving aside whether a similar activity is even possible, numbers wise, on the left -- i don't think the numbers equate or that the two parties are really the same creature -- i really don't see how Don't Show Up is supposed to work. parties are short term amoeba and if they don't get votes from x they'll shrug and move on to y.

the tea party is exactly the sort of genuine threat to party power that has to be co-opted; astroturfing it helps but isn't really a sure bet; there are too many attracted to it who will get disenchanted with the GOP if they don't get some srs dogwhistle action imo

bull fucking shit, these people have always been republican voters, are republican voters, and will remain republican voters. the only people who don't know this are the media, for some reason (click click click click).

aero please explain what the 'rot in the wood is' - the democratic party is just a name and some buildings. there is no person/ideology/source of funding/whatever that is tied to the words 'democratic party' and restricts the democrats from one day blooming into your dream party if the voters and campaign money existed. both parties today have pretty much nothing in common with their earlier incarnations.

oh good iatee's here, it's about to pop off

Tea Party is not an "insurgent" group -- it's always been Republicans who in the last election (mostly) kept their traps shut about "social issues."

The only value of Jill Lepore's recent slim reed of a book about the Tea Party is revealing how all that separates this group of angry whites from their predecessors is Samuel Adams drag.

I'm sure if George Wallace (v. 1968) returned from the dead the TP would embrace him

ty for the v. 1968 nb

This is what I throw back to those stupid Daily Kos types who after 2004 wanted red states to secede or some shit.

Also what I throw back to idiot red-staters who start going on about all the communists in NYC. "You've heard of Wall Street, right? You do realize it's an actual place?"

iatee long experience has taught me better than to engage you on this thread - I am confident you are an awesome cat & I wish you long life & health, and I won't be clarifying anything critical I say of Democrats for you ever again during my current physical incarnation

the tea party is exactly the sort of genuine threat to party power that has to be co-opted; astroturfing it helps but isn't really a sure bet; there are too many attracted to it who will get disenchanted with the GOP if they don't get some srs dogwhistle action imo

Others already beat me to this, but this is crazy talk. These people are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans and always have been. They might primary some incumbent Republicans -- which is exactly what they did in the last election cycle -- but they are not going to run third party, and if they do, they're going to get their asses handed to them.

re a Soviet-stylee breakup of the USA. i might've been open to such a thing (if it could be done w/t bloodshed -- e.g., it coulda been done the way the Czechs and the Slovaks effected their political divorce)

Thr problem w/150 years ago was that the secessionist South didn't even bother with trying to legally secede from within the Constitution; they stayed with a nullification-related fiction that thir 'sovereign' states had the right.

What if both NY and Texas are respectively right about what kind of economies they want? What if Texas should be a less regulated and NY a more regulated economy?

They might primary some incumbent Republicans -- which is exactly what they did in the last election cycle -- but they are not going to run third party, and if they do, they're going to get their asses handed to them.

Of course they are, that's conceded - the goal is to seize control of the extant party, not to establish a valid 3rd, nobody has any illusions about a third party winning anything

The Tea Party reminded the GOP apparatchiks that a "base" exists. Imagine if liberals were so bold.

Teapartiers are merely the latest incarnation of an increasingly xtianist, racist, and absolutist wing in the Republican party - they're making a lot of noise 'cause their Pres was a failure, their party betrayed them and the country voted for a friggin' black Democrat w/a furrin name! Where are all the liberal Republicans? Where are all the moderate Republicans? We used to have them here in CA. Now they're all killed off in the primaries.

was that written before or after science gave us Call of Duty: Black Ops

lol it is from a Michael Moorcock book from 1973, it's a fake "quote" attributed to noted Ukrainian anarchist Nestor Makhno

really, to revivify the youthful enthusiasm for Obama 08, all the Dems have to do is run Kanye. One star for a faded one.

would love to watch the Texas Department of Defense in action btw

jesus christ you're an asshole

would love to watch the Texas Department of Defense in action btw

All I'm saying is that there are real different interests in different states in the Union.

xp to shakes: was it from one of the Jerry Cornelius books?

probably goole, just like the Obama Is My Rock Star shirt wearers are fucking idiots