Is a third party forming right under our noses?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by atszyman, Feb 2, 2005.

  1. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #1
    Most of us here were complaining about the lack of a viable third party during the election, some of us are still complaining about it. But has a third party already made it's way into our political system? I've seen multiple interviews with Christine Todd Whitman about her new book It's My Party, Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America. She's a former republican Governor of New Jersey and former cabinet secretary of GWB. It almost looks like the moderate Republicans (McCain, Powell, Giulianni, etc) might almost be fed up enough to start breaking from the neocons.

    Just a thought.
     
  2. jadam macrumors 6502a

    jadam

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    #2
    That would be good, they would be getting my vote!
     
  3. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #3
    Wow, it's so cool to hear you say that...because more and more, I've come to realize that we really have three major de facto parties in this country: the Democrats, the Republicans, and the Neo-Cons.

    And the more I realize that, the more I think, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

    The more I've pondered the election and the devastating influence the neo-cons have in this country, the more I think that the Republicans and Democrats should team up to marginalize the neo-cons in the same way they've been doing it to us. We need an all-out propaganda counter-assault on the neo-cons...not starting 18 months before the 2008 election, but now. And when I say "propaganda", I don't mean lies, I mean we need to expose their lies. Kerry's campaign people did a lousy job of that, and that's a big part of why he isn't president now.

    I know that many "old school" GOP members are appalled at what's happening to their party. So yeah, let's all root for a split. Having the Republican party disavow their neanderthal branch is the first step towards returning them to the swamp from which they came.
     
  4. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #4
    I've been saying it but nobody's been taking it seriously:

    The best approach for any group hoping to defeat the mutant GOP/NeoCon hybrid is to become Republicans themselves.

    I said it a year ago about the Dems: If they're to have a shot in hell of defeating the agenda they must cross the aisle and be absorbed, this would leave the GOP spin-machine with nothing to push against.
     
  5. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #5
    As a former Republican party supporter i agree. They have gone extreme. We need a Party to represent our interests at the moment the other two seem to be off on their own extreme agenda's. Neither party as far as i can tell represents the American worker nor America. Just look at everything moving to China. Even the Mac. All you have to do is look at the Patriot Act and then the Mexico border to see the lie's. Our elected officials from Both partys refuse to address it both were eager to let the Patriot Act go in effect so they can build another branch of Govt around false security.
    On a side note both of these guys have put all kinds of stumbling blocks in place to prevent the formation of a real 3rd party. Wouldnt it be refreshing to have a Party who is looking out for the welfare of the United States and its citizens instead of Special Interest and foreign govts. Until we remove special Interests from the halls of Washington we will never have a Govt working for the people of the United States.
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    Until your campaign financing is reformed, the Special Interests will own your candidates before they even get elected.
     
  7. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #7
    It's true that even if you were to defeat and marginalize the neo-cons, you'd still be left with two (admittedly more moderate) parties who have sold their souls to the corporations.

    IMO, the next task after getting rid of the neo-cons would be to rescue the Democratic party from the moneyed special interests. That's actually a much harder task.

    But, first things first. It'll be interesting to see how the new chairman of the Democratic party (? Howard Dean ?) handles the assault of the far right.
     
  8. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #8
    There are tactics to accomplish both of these goals. All of us who are not satisfied can use them and there's no significant downside.

    1: Change your declared Party. Either register Undeclared or register Republican. This accomplishes 2 things:

    a: It takes you off the Republican's statistical radar and makes you part of a non-quantifiable force in terms of the neocon spin machine. If they have nothing to push against they'll starve for strategy. The entire neocon machine is built around making their constituents afraid of outsiders. If there are no outsiders with a coherently defined identity they cannot use Xenophobia effectively without resorting to more traditional racist, classist, religious, etc. slurs.

    b: Those that willingly register Republican without changing who they are as Greens, Social Democrats, Independants, etc. can work against the neocon agenda from within the Republican party.

    With enough pressure from within and the effective dissolution of the Democratic and other parties the Neocons would be forced to form their own party or get out of politics.

    If the Republicans were left effectively alone on the stage of partisan politics and the rest of the nation were effectively Undeclared they'd have to be civilized or show themselves to be motivated by fear/greed/etc.

    Without significant parties other than the Republicans to lobby the Washington Special Interest machine would latch on to the remaining party like some sort of giant leech.

    Endgame: Our turncoat conspirators within the Rebs go Undeclared, taking the other moderates with them. Voila... grassroots coup at it's finest.
     
  9. kuyu macrumors 6502a

    kuyu

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    Louisville
    #9
    Exactly!!! What this country needs is a party that pulls the best parts from the left and the right.

    I want a politician that supports the republicans' economic policies and the democrats' social policies. FWIW, almost everyone I know who voted for Bush voted against banning gay marraige, wants soft drugs legal, and thinks that the best government is one that ensures our saftey, liberty, and ability to make our own choices.

    The only way this is going to happen is if the two-party loyalists do as follows.
    1) Stop thinking that the other party is evil.
    2) Stop rejecting everything the other party says because they have the wrong letter by their names.
    3) Stop believing that everyone with views unlike your own is automatically stupid and wrong.
    4) Start making decisions on an issue by issue basis. Just because you like one parties stance on one issue does not mean that you must support everything they stand for.

    For instance, it's OK to think that abortion should be legal and that SS is unsustainable (and visa versa). The two are not mutually exclusive. :)
     
  10. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #10
    Almost....

    My point was that the party system is an anachronism too well suited to abuse by lobbyists and insular thinking. With a party system, (particularly one in a country that will take any excuse to polarize) it's far too easy to get lazy and just use the "us and them" model.

    This country would be better off with a "Ghost-third" party if any. A group defined by their mutual refusal to remove their officially recorded affiliation with any party. This group would answer the question:

    " Are you a Democrat or a Republican?" (See also: Liberal vs conservative, etc.)

    with: " I am an American, a Patriot and I will vote my conscience."

    Further questioning would be answered with silence.


    Deny the existing system intelligence on it's opposition.

    Spread facts whenever you can find them, truth will sort itself out.

    Post your views and observations here or on your own 'blog.

    Link to other sites by Undeclared citizens doing the same.

    Find and link in good debunks of anything and everything.

    Link in anything you can verify independantly about politicians, policies and lobby interests.

    It is possible to end this idiocy. It must be ended the way Vietnam was ended: The combined power of good data flow and pointed nonparticipation in the war. In this case the war is between political parties and the draft happens when you register. Both sides rely on raw numbers of inductees. Starve the war of warm bodies for the forces on either side and the conflict grinds to a halt. QED.
     
  11. aloofman macrumors 68020

    aloofman

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Location:
    Socal
    #11
    As an independent, undeclared voter, I'm in favor of anything that weakens the two-party stranglehold on American voters. Individual politicians I can like or dislike, but as institutions I hold both parties in contempt. Both care more about getting their people elected than helping their constituents; if the two things happen together, that's just a bonus. Both are in the grip of rabble-rousing activists that don't represent most Americans. And both avoid accountability and blame the other for all the nation's problems. This might stop if Americans demanded it, but they don't. We get the leaders we deserve.

    As for this old-school Republican book, I don't think it will yield much more than quaint nostalgia. If the Iraq war disaster didn't get the neocons thrown out by other Republicans, then nothing will. And by re-electing them, Americans have basically sent the message that we like what they're doing. So why would they stop?
     
  12. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #12
    Ugh. What an utterly depressing thought. :(:(:(:mad:
     
  13. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #13
    Why do you think people were talking about seceding or moving to Canada? :(
     
  14. chanoc macrumors 6502

    chanoc

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage, Alaska USA
    #14
    I have an idea for a duo party Republicans. One will be the Liberal Republicans (Yeah I know this sounds oxymoronish, but hear me out.) with the right-wing gays, atheists, and other non-bigots.

    And now for the second Republican party: Neocon Fundamentalist Xian Republicans!

    For the Democratic party, maybe have a far left and a moderate Democrat.
     
  15. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #15
    It'll take a while, but I don't see why not. My Poli Sci teacher liked to remind us that when one party gets too powerful it splits, historically speaking.

    That could mean new names for the parties. The Bush wing should bring back the "Know nothings" name. I would perfectly summarize the current policy of ignoring anything they don't want to hear.
     
  16. aloofman macrumors 68020

    aloofman

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Location:
    Socal
    #16
    Historically speaking, the parties tend to change over time, even if the names don't. A hundred years ago it was the Republicans that were the working man's party and the Democrats that strongly opposed civil rights. They have the same names, but they are not the same parties in that they don't stand for the same things. In the early decades of the United States, parties came and went after a couple decades. Now they change platforms and keep the names the same.

    It's worth pointing out that the GOP didn't use to be strongly associated with evangelical Christians. Between Eisenhower and Reagan, Republicans were mostly associated with business and small government. Some Republicans consider these the "good old days", but in those days the GOP also never controlled the House and rarely held the Senate. From this point of view, it's hard to argue with results. They found ways to get elected, and religion was one of them.

    Often lost in the discussion is the fact that only really big change that's occurred politically in the last 25 years is that white southerners finally started voting Republican like the conservatives they've always been. After the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the Democrats steadily lost traction in the South, first in the presidential elections of Nixon, then in the legislatures. Almost all of the congressional seats that have swung to the right (and stayed there) in the last 20 years have been in the South. There was about a generation-long lag after the civil rights movement because both voters and politicians in the South were conditioned to call themselves Democrats. It wasn't until all the grandchildren of Confederates had all died off that they could stomach the idea of voting for the party that won the Civil War.

    Southern conservatives (the Dixiecrats) were a major component of FDR's New Deal coalition. Now that coalition is gone and the Democrats have to find votes elsewhere. It's not some kind of disaster. It's the same sort of political evolution that has always been happening in American politics.
     
  17. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #17
    He specifically meant that once a part becomes too dominant, it tends to split into opposing factions.

    The Democrats did this to themselves with the civil rights issue, which lost them the south.

    Once living standards tank again, it should bring about some change. Eventually, a new civil rights push. Just a guess.

    The author is talking about the same kind of diversion of ideals within the Republican Party based on religious lines. The church will eventually go too far and ruin their progress. And there are those within the Republican Party who are actually pretty moderate but can't be happy with the current incarnation of republicans politics which has little to do with any of the tradtitional ideals.
     
  18. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #18
    if you look at mccain, he's actually a conservative, but he is not always in lockstep with the president

    but in a strange way, moderates worship mccain

    2008 is ripe for a charismatic moderate to take it all (clinton was america's moderate answer in 1992 and 1996, as was reagan in 1980 and 1984...remember clinton had a lot of republican votes and reagan had a lot of democratic voters...both presidents captured the moderate majority in america)...there was no way america was going to go for a traditional, liberal, big government democrat in 1992, so they went for clinton who had aspects of both the democrats and republicans

    look for mccain, condi rice, joe lieberman, rudy giuliani, and schwartzeneggar to be looking at 2008...moderates like them very much

    george w bush did not seem to start out as a right wing christian conservative, but knowing that he could get elected using this platform, he morphed himself and beat out genuine christian conservatives like pat robertson and pat buchanan

    don't get me wrong, if america were ripe for an ultra liberal in 1992, clinton would have morphed himself into jesse jackson ;)
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    John McCain is only a moderate when judged within the greater scheme of the Republican party, which has become deeply and often radically right-wing.
     
  20. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #20
    So funny that I mentioned in the Dean thread that there is a demand or need for a third party based on the moderates from both the DNC and RNC.

    It may be the only time that I would contribute my hard earned cash towards a party if the "moderate" party came about.
     
  21. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #21
    with gonzalez as attorney general and rice as secretary of state, even the bush administration is moving to the middle

    rudy giuliani is on the short list of presidential hopefuls and arnold is a popular governor in the most powerful state

    the moderates are taking back the gop in a big way

    in one way it's good for america since radicals on the left or right don't have the good of the country in mind, for the majority

    it's bad in the way, if you are a democrat, that they will take a lot of swing voters who would have easily gone for the democrats in the past

    a moderate, mostly pro-choice gop can potentially be an unbeatable entity which can get a political stranglehold the way that roosevelt-truman did for 20 years, but it's unlikely one party will hold the executive and legislative branches for such a long stretch

    reagan had the white house, but much of what he wanted to achieve was tempered by the democrat's power in the senate and house

    clinton had two terms but he faced strong opposition from gingrich and company

    bush is a weak president who will be unable to work with a deeply divided america...his poor performance in his first term pretty much disqualifies him for presidential greatness in the category of a reagan or clinton

    here's what i can envision for a 20 year strong strong gop (i am a democrat btw)

    condi rice as president
    rudy giuliani as vp, or vice versa, with arnold and a couple of moderate republicans down the pipeline to ensure 20 years of power

    arlen spector as senate majority leader
    some "moderate" republican as speaker of the house

    ...and a moderate supreme court

    heck, i could even vote for them once or twice ;)
     
  22. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #22
    ...and my recipe for a strong democratic party

    he he...i have got to be fair

    2008...presidential hopefuls...a double southern ticket with warner of virginia and edwards for president and vp, or vice versa...first, the democrats have to recapture at least 25 percent of the red states

    but over the next 20 years, the democrats have to be careful not to alienate the west coast, the great lakes states, and the northeast

    ...moderate supreme court

    a remaking of hilary clinton, nancy pelosi, and barbara boxer as moderates to strengthen the democrat's middle power base

    take back the evangelicals who voted democrat for most of america's history...as a top evangelical once said, who thought christians would vote pro war, pro business, and pro republican?

    if there were an equal representation of pro lifers and pro prayer in school issue democrats, then the gop would not stand a chance and be marginalized as a pro-rich voting minority
     
  23. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #23
    Speaking as a Virginian Democrat (is there really such a thing any more?), Warner is a worse than GWB! At least GWB believes in his own lies! And holds true to them. Warner on the other hand will bow to who ever has the power and/or money. To be fair Warner has been held up by the "born-again" right on many of the issues, but in the end has no backbone.
     
  24. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    Such a fantasy! Since when are any of these people moderates? Giuliani is dead meat within his own party, and it isn't even clear whether Schwartzenegger will play in California for much longer, having reversed himself on at least two of his major campaign promises.
     
  25. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #25
    the press seem to put him on the list of hopefuls

    maybe you know him in virginia, like us anti-reagan and anti-nixon californians disliked those two, but america in general, not just virginia, will place the votes

    ...and the bad mistakes people made as governor or senator in their states are often forgiven

    some liberals in arkansas were angry with clinton over his over friendly relationship with some arkansas based polluters, but the issue hardly raised an eyebrow on the national arena
     

Share This Page