I don't think it's so much that we've had working "third" parties, but the fact that sometimes those "third" parties becomes one of the two parties because one of the older two parties died out.
Duffel on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
Considering the way that the Tea Party is gutting the GOP, I could see them becoming a viable third party. I mean, they almost already are anyway.
The Progressive Party is the one that was most successful in US history. Was the driving force behind I believe four constitutional amendments, elected many Congressmen/Senators, and nearly got a Presidential election.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Since third parties are doomed to fail (seriously. Lets not bullshit ourselves),
Sorry, but this is the real bullshit, as a reading of American history shows that third parties can, in fact, be wildly successful.
It's not bullshit, it's honest fact. Maybe 50 years ago you could get a strong grass roots movement turning into a party that might have a modest influence in DC, but in the present? Not a chance.
In order to form a third party, you need to present a platform that is distinct from the republicans and the democrats, but still still presenting a sane platform. Second, you need shit loads of money, which most organizations will not blow on a dark horse with three legs. 3rd, you need to be able to run candidates in a lot of ridings, which means getting people to support your vision. 4th, you need to deal with the media, which is probably going to grind your bones to make it's bread.
3rd parties are throw away votes. I wish it weren't the case since in the states it's a choice between the feeble and the insane, but that's the honest lay of the land.
Fuck it, it's time for Hedgie's Third Party Rant.
The problem with third parties today is that they're not willing to do the fucking yeoman work to be successful. They want to grab the brass ring, instead of working to build their party. You want to build a third party in the US? You're going to have to start small. That means winning local races, and building up local reputations. You then use that to springboard to the next tier, and the next, and so on. Is it slow? Yes. But it can fucking work.
The Progressive Party is the one that was most successful in US history. Was the driving force behind I believe four constitutional amendments, elected many Congressmen/Senators, and nearly got a Presidential election.
Um...most successful third party would be the Republicans (supplanted one of the two major parties).
Since third parties are doomed to fail (seriously. Lets not bullshit ourselves),
Sorry, but this is the real bullshit, as a reading of American history shows that third parties can, in fact, be wildly successful.
Could you elaborate? This sounds like an interesting tangent.
As I've said in past threads, the goal of a political party is not to get people elected. That's just a (very effective) means to an end. No, a political party's goal is to get its platform instituted as law and policy. Thus, success is best defined as how well a party gets its platform out into the law books, not how many people they have seated. When you consider this, it's been shown time and time again that third parties can be very effective in the US political arena.
Modern third parties tend to be handicapped by two things - extreme planks and an inability to build a solid party structure.
The Progressive Party is the one that was most successful in US history. Was the driving force behind I believe four constitutional amendments, elected many Congressmen/Senators, and nearly got a Presidential election.
Um...most successful third party would be the Republicans (supplanted one of the two major parties).
No, it didn't. The Whigs ceased to exist because of the problem of slavery, not because the Republicans kicked their asses; a lot of Republicans were former Whigs, actually. Republicans were never a third party; in 1856, they presented Buchanan with serious opposition, and in 1860, they won.
Considering the way that the Tea Party is gutting the GOP, I could see them becoming a viable third party. I mean, they almost already are anyway.
3 things.
First, Come election time, people will vote R because third parties have a long standing problem with achieving victory and folks would rather support the big fancy party then the no name brand.
Second, The Tea party may be a political entity of sorts, but it's not a political party. Plenty of politicians are happy to hop into bed with them because they know it's a good way to score cheap points, but I'm not aware of any that have scrapped there membership with the republicans to go swim in the shallow end of the gene pool.
Third, on the off chance that the Tea party did run, it would be competing directly with the republicans for members, and ultimatley one would wind up canabilizing the others base, thus eliminating one party and restoring the 2 party system
The problem with third parties today is that they're not willing to do the fucking yeoman work to be successful. They want to grab the brass ring, instead of working to build their party. You want to build a third party in the US? You're going to have to start small. That means winning local races, and building up local reputations. You then use that to springboard to the next tier, and the next, and so on. Is it slow? Yes. But it can fucking work.
Except no one has the patience or the money for that kind of a protracted approach hedgie, nor the base of followers to run in multiple races.
Hence what I said on the last page:
third parties are doomed to fail (seriously. Lets not bullshit ourselves)
Is it possible that one could pull it off? Hypotheticly, sure!
Is it possible that Glen beck will describe how he enjoyed raping and murdering little girls in 1990 using his chalk board? Hypotheticly, sure!
The problem with third parties today is that they're not willing to do the fucking yeoman work to be successful. They want to grab the brass ring, instead of working to build their party. You want to build a third party in the US? You're going to have to start small. That means winning local races, and building up local reputations. You then use that to springboard to the next tier, and the next, and so on. Is it slow? Yes. But it can fucking work.
Except no one has the patience or the money for that kind of a protracted approach hedgie, nor the base of followers to run in multiple races.
Hence what I said on the last page:
third parties are doomed to fail (seriously. Lets not bullshit ourselves)
Is it possible that one could pull it off? Hypotheticly, sure!
Is it possible that Glen beck will describe how he enjoyed raping and murdering little girls in 1990 using his chalk board? Hypotheticly, sure!
Which, again, is not "third parties are doomed to fail" but "people looking to create third parties are lazy". Just because people want to jump off and grab the brass ring at the start doesn't mean that third parties are not viable. After all, we have three national minor parties in the US.
Since third parties are doomed to fail (seriously. Lets not bullshit ourselves),
Sorry, but this is the real bullshit, as a reading of American history shows that third parties can, in fact, be wildly successful.
Could you elaborate? This sounds like an interesting tangent.
As I've said in past threads, the goal of a political party is not to get people elected. That's just a (very effective) means to an end. No, a political party's goal is to get its platform instituted as law and policy. Thus, success is best defined as how well a party gets its platform out into the law books, not how many people they have seated. When you consider this, it's been shown time and time again that third parties can be very effective in the US political arena.
Modern third parties tend to be handicapped by two things - extreme planks and an inability to build a solid party structure.
By that definition there's no difference between a third party and a lobby.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Since third parties are doomed to fail (seriously. Lets not bullshit ourselves),
Sorry, but this is the real bullshit, as a reading of American history shows that third parties can, in fact, be wildly successful.
Could you elaborate? This sounds like an interesting tangent.
As I've said in past threads, the goal of a political party is not to get people elected. That's just a (very effective) means to an end. No, a political party's goal is to get its platform instituted as law and policy. Thus, success is best defined as how well a party gets its platform out into the law books, not how many people they have seated. When you consider this, it's been shown time and time again that third parties can be very effective in the US political arena.
Modern third parties tend to be handicapped by two things - extreme planks and an inability to build a solid party structure.
By that definition there's no difference between a third party and a lobby.
Except people in a lobby probably actually worked in government before.
The problem with third parties today is that they're not willing to do the fucking yeoman work to be successful. They want to grab the brass ring, instead of working to build their party. You want to build a third party in the US? You're going to have to start small. That means winning local races, and building up local reputations. You then use that to springboard to the next tier, and the next, and so on. Is it slow? Yes. But it can fucking work.
Except no one has the patience or the money for that kind of a protracted approach hedgie, nor the base of followers to run in multiple races.
Hence what I said on the last page:
third parties are doomed to fail (seriously. Lets not bullshit ourselves)
Is it possible that one could pull it off? Hypotheticly, sure!
Is it possible that Glen beck will describe how he enjoyed raping and murdering little girls in 1990 using his chalk board? Hypotheticly, sure!
Which, again, is not "third parties are doomed to fail" but "people looking to create third parties are lazy". Just because people want to jump off and grab the brass ring at the start doesn't mean that third parties are not viable. After all, we have three national minor parties in the US.
So it's humanity that is flawed and not your arguement?
Okay, I'm going to have to ask you to start citing examples of explicit limitations on the type of work women could do in the 1880s, or they benefit they could obtain from said work. And atop that, to demonstrate that the magnitude of such explicit limitations approach anything like the magnitude of Jim Crow.
Okay, I'm going to have to ask you why you're playing the Internet game of "I can pull facts out of my ass, but if you disagree with me PROVE IT." Did you bother to check your facts on there being absolutely no explicit limitations on what women could do? Did you also happen to notice that whole 19th Amendment thing, which again Caplan thinks was meaningless?
Also, really, "Jim Crow was probably worse" is evidence of exactly nothing.
That said, here's a couple of starter links for you. You might also wish to consider whether 'explicit legal prohibitions' are the only measure of diminished legal status. For example, poll tax laws did not explicitly prevent black people from voting, although that's sure as fuck what they were designed to do, and only a silly goose would say that they don't count. Similarly, if it's perfectly legal to refuse to hire someone, to pay them less, or to abuse them at work because they're black, only a silly goose would say "Yeah but that's not EXPLICIT."
Fair enough, that deals with my criticisms supposing the survey is done right and is nuanced rather than basic. (for some reason it always seems to me that economists systemically report stronger pro-market views than they actually hold, as if they feel a need to correct for real or perceived anti-market bias in the uninformed).
Okay, I'm going to have to ask you to start citing examples of explicit limitations on the type of work women could do in the 1880s, or they benefit they could obtain from said work. And atop that, to demonstrate that the magnitude of such explicit limitations approach anything like the magnitude of Jim Crow.
Okay, I'm going to have to ask you why you're playing the Internet game of "I can pull facts out of my ass, but if you disagree with me PROVE IT." Did you bother to check your facts on there being absolutely no explicit limitations on what women could do? Did you also happen to notice that whole 19th Amendment thing, which again Caplan thinks was meaningless?
Also, really, "Jim Crow was probably worse" is evidence of exactly nothing.
That said, here's a couple of starter links for you. You might also wish to consider whether 'explicit legal prohibitions' are the only measure of diminished legal status. For example, poll tax laws did not explicitly prevent black people from voting, although that's sure as fuck what they were designed to do, and only a silly goose would say that they don't count. Similarly, if it's perfectly legal to refuse to hire someone, to pay them less, or to abuse them at work because they're black, only a silly goose would say "Yeah but that's not EXPLICIT."
No, see, you're the one claiming such and such facts; I'm merely claiming that Caplan is wrong rather than being intellectually dishonest. You need to stack up the facts to make the case that his argument is really ridiculous, so ridiculous that its ridiculousness infects everything else Caplan writes, which you haven't. I, on the other hand, only need to show his interpretation is vaguely consistent, even if wrong, which I already did earlier.
Did you even read what he wrote about coverture, or did you take a glimpse of his opening paragraph and go WHAAAA THE LIBERTARIANISM and then cast its heresy away from you? Because he pointed out the problems in going from "married women need their husband's permission to work" to "these legal limitations explain the types of discrimination we observed in 1880s" pretty clearly.
Since third parties are doomed to fail (seriously. Lets not bullshit ourselves),
Sorry, but this is the real bullshit, as a reading of American history shows that third parties can, in fact, be wildly successful.
Could you elaborate? This sounds like an interesting tangent.
As I've said in past threads, the goal of a political party is not to get people elected. That's just a (very effective) means to an end. No, a political party's goal is to get its platform instituted as law and policy. Thus, success is best defined as how well a party gets its platform out into the law books, not how many people they have seated. When you consider this, it's been shown time and time again that third parties can be very effective in the US political arena.
Modern third parties tend to be handicapped by two things - extreme planks and an inability to build a solid party structure.
Sounds like internal party revolution is easier than ever becoming a formal third party, then. As HamHamJ points out, by this definition a third party may be just a well-organized lobby group.
I mean, I get the gist of the idea of a third party doing so well that the main parties have to adopt its planks to co-opt its rise, thus creating a level of policy success even if the third party then falls apart. This would be necessary if the main parties are so resistant to change that one must use the crowbar of possible electoral defeat to pry open minds. But this doesn't seem true presently; parties seem amenable to money and support from lobbying organizations.
Since third parties are doomed to fail (seriously. Lets not bullshit ourselves),
Sorry, but this is the real bullshit, as a reading of American history shows that third parties can, in fact, be wildly successful.
Could you elaborate? This sounds like an interesting tangent.
As I've said in past threads, the goal of a political party is not to get people elected. That's just a (very effective) means to an end. No, a political party's goal is to get its platform instituted as law and policy. Thus, success is best defined as how well a party gets its platform out into the law books, not how many people they have seated. When you consider this, it's been shown time and time again that third parties can be very effective in the US political arena.
Modern third parties tend to be handicapped by two things - extreme planks and an inability to build a solid party structure.
Sounds like internal party revolution is easier than ever becoming a formal third party, then. As HamHamJ points out, by this definition a third party may be just a well-organized lobby group.
I mean, I get the gist of the idea of a third party doing so well that the main parties have to adopt its planks to co-opt its rise, thus creating a level of policy success even if the third party then falls apart. This would be necessary if the main parties are so resistant to change that one must use the crowbar of possible electoral defeat to pry open minds. But this doesn't seem true presently; parties seem amenable to money and support from lobbying organizations.
Honestly I get the feeling that we're probably sitting on the cusp of a pretty dramatic political revolution in the US. The Republicans are already dealing with this in the tea party demographic beginning to fracture their party. Now obviously the tea party thing is complex and has many different hands in the pot, but it still represents a serious problem for establishment republicans and the main platform. The democrats.....well, what can you really say except that no one, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, seems to be very happy with them.
Now whether that results in the creation of an actual viable 3rd party, or a re-aligning of the two established ones, who knows, but it definitely feels like we're in an environment ripe for change, good or bad.
Honestly I get the feeling that we're probably sitting on the cusp of a pretty dramatic political revolution in the US. The Republicans are already dealing with this in the tea party demographic beginning to fracture their party. Now obviously the tea party thing is complex and has many different hands in the pot, but it still represents a serious problem for establishment republicans and the main platform. The democrats.....well, what can you really say except that no one, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, seems to be very happy with them.
Now whether that results in the creation of an actual viable 3rd party, or a re-aligning of the two established ones, who knows, but it definitely feels like we're in an environment ripe for change, good or bad.
I'm not convinced that the situation today is radically different from the one in years past. The TEA party is just anti-tax frothing dressed up in an astroturf hula skirt. Republican party veterans are the ones who bankrolled and promoted the movement, so I have a hard time seeing it as distinct from the party proper.
The Democrats are just the same incompetents they've been since Mondale got Mondale'd. The only change I see possible is that they hit a wall with being Republican-lite and go back to being center left instead of center right.
Do you really think there is a significant change going on?
I can see a critical mass being reached in the future, but its not now. Throw in a double dip recession and a couple more terms of terrible governance and shit could hit the fan.
No, see, you're the one claiming such and such facts; I'm merely claiming that Caplan is wrong rather than being intellectually dishonest. You need to stack up the facts to make the case that his argument is really ridiculous, so ridiculous that its ridiculousness infects everything else Caplan writes, which you haven't.
Sorry, what? Several people already did that. Unless you think there is a better term than "ridiculous" for the argument that coverture, marital rape and legal and social restrictions don't count because, dudes, the nagging bitches have us wrapped around their fingers anyway. Or the argument that the fictional characters in Sex in the City would have been more free if they'd been magically transported back to 1880.
Your argument that he's internally consistent because of free market ftaghn, as I already explained, confuses the market-karma argument (discrimination can't exist!) with what Caplan said (discrimination existed, but it didn't count because nagging bitches, plus the only standard for 'freedom' is 'did you pay income taxes').
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
All right, Alaska, the gauntlet has been thrown (technically, it was thrown...yesterday?).
When this country collapses, you are expected to repulse the combined military might of Russia, China...and hell, let's throw Japan in there too, seeing how they're not white.
So, get to it. Start digging those anti-tank trenches and whatnot, because we're talking a lot of tanks. Probably more than there are adult, healthy Alaskans.
Since third parties are doomed to fail (seriously. Lets not bullshit ourselves),
Sorry, but this is the real bullshit, as a reading of American history shows that third parties can, in fact, be wildly successful.
It's not bullshit, it's honest fact. Maybe 50 years ago you could get a strong grass roots movement turning into a party that might have a modest influence in DC, but in the present? Not a chance.
In order to form a third party, you need to present a platform that is distinct from the republicans and the democrats, but still still presenting a sane platform. Second, you need shit loads of money, which most organizations will not blow on a dark horse with three legs. 3rd, you need to be able to run candidates in a lot of ridings, which means getting people to support your vision. 4th, you need to deal with the media, which is probably going to grind your bones to make it's bread.
3rd parties are throw away votes. I wish it weren't the case since in the states it's a choice between the feeble and the insane, but that's the honest lay of the land.
Fuck it, it's time for Hedgie's Third Party Rant.
The problem with third parties today is that they're not willing to do the fucking yeoman work to be successful. They want to grab the brass ring, instead of working to build their party. You want to build a third party in the US? You're going to have to start small. That means winning local races, and building up local reputations. You then use that to springboard to the next tier, and the next, and so on. Is it slow? Yes. But it can fucking work.
If there were more lime, I'd lime that part twice.
Since third parties are doomed to fail (seriously. Lets not bullshit ourselves),
Sorry, but this is the real bullshit, as a reading of American history shows that third parties can, in fact, be wildly successful.
Could you elaborate? This sounds like an interesting tangent.
As I've said in past threads, the goal of a political party is not to get people elected. That's just a (very effective) means to an end. No, a political party's goal is to get its platform instituted as law and policy. Thus, success is best defined as how well a party gets its platform out into the law books, not how many people they have seated. When you consider this, it's been shown time and time again that third parties can be very effective in the US political arena.
Modern third parties tend to be handicapped by two things - extreme planks and an inability to build a solid party structure.
By that definition there's no difference between a third party and a lobby.
It isn't a bad comparison. The third party vote seems most effective when used to slap your party on the wrist. The average joe can't afford to hire a lobbyist to persuade a major party to adopt his views. He can vote for a third party to agitate a major party and (hopefully) compel them to adopt that parties views if they want to reunify their base. This far less effective than a lobbyist, and may leave you swinging in the breeze for an election cycle or two, but it is a far more accessible means of having your voice heard.
Sounds like internal party revolution is easier than ever becoming a formal third party, then.
Indeed. The Teabaggers seem to be making pretty good headway doing just that; but they have the advantage of having some pretty active mouth pieces for their cause (Bachmann, Palin, Beck). If Ralph Nader and Jello Biafra had that kind of presence and face time they probably could have started an insurgency in the Dems with far more impact than the Greens had.
This implies there is really any sort of political ideology in the tea party beyond knee jerk reactionism. They're not a political force, they're a political tool for enforcing Republican party unity.
This implies there is really any sort of political ideology in the tea party beyond knee jerk reactionism. They're not a political force, they're a political tool for enforcing Republican party unity.
Is irrational jingoism not a political stance? My mistake. Seriously though, I was under the impression* they actually had 'Tea party' candidates competing within the party. Is that not happening?
*[Sum of my research: skimmed wikipedia entry on on Tea Party movement an hour ago]
This implies there is really any sort of political ideology in the tea party beyond knee jerk reactionism. They're not a political force, they're a political tool for enforcing Republican party unity.
Is irrational jingoism not a political stance? My mistake. Seriously though, I was under the impression* they actually had 'Tea party' candidates competing within the party. Is that not happening?
*[Sum of my research: skimmed wikipedia entry on on Tea Party movement an hour ago]
That just means they got the WharbleGharble Endorsement. Once they get elected its not like they ever leave the party line, or that they even deviated from the far right version of their party line.
This implies there is really any sort of political ideology in the tea party beyond knee jerk reactionism. They're not a political force, they're a political tool for enforcing Republican party unity.
Actually, the Tea Party is a mainstreaming of one of the third parties - the Constitution Party. (In fact, Tancredo is running on the CP's ticket for CO governor.)
It isn't a bad comparison. The third party vote seems most effective when used to slap your party on the wrist. The average joe can't afford to hire a lobbyist to persuade a major party to adopt his views. He can vote for a third party to agitate a major party and (hopefully) compel them to adopt that parties views if they want to reunify their base. This far less effective than a lobbyist, and may leave you swinging in the breeze for an election cycle or two, but it is a far more accessible means of having your voice heard.
It is also argued that this is the exact opposite of what a third party does, since third parties are not viable options to actually win anything, they strip the need to the major parties to actually endorse their positions.
Posts
Could you elaborate? This sounds like an interesting tangent.
When have we ever had a stable arrangement of three parties that lasted more than one or two election cycles?
Fuck it, it's time for Hedgie's Third Party Rant.
The problem with third parties today is that they're not willing to do the fucking yeoman work to be successful. They want to grab the brass ring, instead of working to build their party. You want to build a third party in the US? You're going to have to start small. That means winning local races, and building up local reputations. You then use that to springboard to the next tier, and the next, and so on. Is it slow? Yes. But it can fucking work.
Um...most successful third party would be the Republicans (supplanted one of the two major parties).
When is a party's success defined by election cycles?
As I've said in past threads, the goal of a political party is not to get people elected. That's just a (very effective) means to an end. No, a political party's goal is to get its platform instituted as law and policy. Thus, success is best defined as how well a party gets its platform out into the law books, not how many people they have seated. When you consider this, it's been shown time and time again that third parties can be very effective in the US political arena.
Modern third parties tend to be handicapped by two things - extreme planks and an inability to build a solid party structure.
No, it didn't. The Whigs ceased to exist because of the problem of slavery, not because the Republicans kicked their asses; a lot of Republicans were former Whigs, actually. Republicans were never a third party; in 1856, they presented Buchanan with serious opposition, and in 1860, they won.
3 things.
First, Come election time, people will vote R because third parties have a long standing problem with achieving victory and folks would rather support the big fancy party then the no name brand.
Second, The Tea party may be a political entity of sorts, but it's not a political party. Plenty of politicians are happy to hop into bed with them because they know it's a good way to score cheap points, but I'm not aware of any that have scrapped there membership with the republicans to go swim in the shallow end of the gene pool.
Third, on the off chance that the Tea party did run, it would be competing directly with the republicans for members, and ultimatley one would wind up canabilizing the others base, thus eliminating one party and restoring the 2 party system
Except no one has the patience or the money for that kind of a protracted approach hedgie, nor the base of followers to run in multiple races.
Hence what I said on the last page:
Is it possible that one could pull it off? Hypotheticly, sure!
Is it possible that Glen beck will describe how he enjoyed raping and murdering little girls in 1990 using his chalk board? Hypotheticly, sure!
Which, again, is not "third parties are doomed to fail" but "people looking to create third parties are lazy". Just because people want to jump off and grab the brass ring at the start doesn't mean that third parties are not viable. After all, we have three national minor parties in the US.
By that definition there's no difference between a third party and a lobby.
Except people in a lobby probably actually worked in government before.
At one point (in June, I believe), he was beating both Bush and Clinton. If that's not doing well, what is?
So it's humanity that is flawed and not your arguement?
Okay, I'm going to have to ask you why you're playing the Internet game of "I can pull facts out of my ass, but if you disagree with me PROVE IT." Did you bother to check your facts on there being absolutely no explicit limitations on what women could do? Did you also happen to notice that whole 19th Amendment thing, which again Caplan thinks was meaningless?
Also, really, "Jim Crow was probably worse" is evidence of exactly nothing.
That said, here's a couple of starter links for you. You might also wish to consider whether 'explicit legal prohibitions' are the only measure of diminished legal status. For example, poll tax laws did not explicitly prevent black people from voting, although that's sure as fuck what they were designed to do, and only a silly goose would say that they don't count. Similarly, if it's perfectly legal to refuse to hire someone, to pay them less, or to abuse them at work because they're black, only a silly goose would say "Yeah but that's not EXPLICIT."
A description of coverture
A contemporaneous article describing limitations
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
No, see, you're the one claiming such and such facts; I'm merely claiming that Caplan is wrong rather than being intellectually dishonest. You need to stack up the facts to make the case that his argument is really ridiculous, so ridiculous that its ridiculousness infects everything else Caplan writes, which you haven't. I, on the other hand, only need to show his interpretation is vaguely consistent, even if wrong, which I already did earlier.
Did you even read what he wrote about coverture, or did you take a glimpse of his opening paragraph and go WHAAAA THE LIBERTARIANISM and then cast its heresy away from you? Because he pointed out the problems in going from "married women need their husband's permission to work" to "these legal limitations explain the types of discrimination we observed in 1880s" pretty clearly.
Sounds like internal party revolution is easier than ever becoming a formal third party, then. As HamHamJ points out, by this definition a third party may be just a well-organized lobby group.
I mean, I get the gist of the idea of a third party doing so well that the main parties have to adopt its planks to co-opt its rise, thus creating a level of policy success even if the third party then falls apart. This would be necessary if the main parties are so resistant to change that one must use the crowbar of possible electoral defeat to pry open minds. But this doesn't seem true presently; parties seem amenable to money and support from lobbying organizations.
Honestly I get the feeling that we're probably sitting on the cusp of a pretty dramatic political revolution in the US. The Republicans are already dealing with this in the tea party demographic beginning to fracture their party. Now obviously the tea party thing is complex and has many different hands in the pot, but it still represents a serious problem for establishment republicans and the main platform. The democrats.....well, what can you really say except that no one, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, seems to be very happy with them.
Now whether that results in the creation of an actual viable 3rd party, or a re-aligning of the two established ones, who knows, but it definitely feels like we're in an environment ripe for change, good or bad.
I'm not convinced that the situation today is radically different from the one in years past. The TEA party is just anti-tax frothing dressed up in an astroturf hula skirt. Republican party veterans are the ones who bankrolled and promoted the movement, so I have a hard time seeing it as distinct from the party proper.
The Democrats are just the same incompetents they've been since Mondale got Mondale'd. The only change I see possible is that they hit a wall with being Republican-lite and go back to being center left instead of center right.
Do you really think there is a significant change going on?
Sorry, what? Several people already did that. Unless you think there is a better term than "ridiculous" for the argument that coverture, marital rape and legal and social restrictions don't count because, dudes, the nagging bitches have us wrapped around their fingers anyway. Or the argument that the fictional characters in Sex in the City would have been more free if they'd been magically transported back to 1880.
Your argument that he's internally consistent because of free market ftaghn, as I already explained, confuses the market-karma argument (discrimination can't exist!) with what Caplan said (discrimination existed, but it didn't count because nagging bitches, plus the only standard for 'freedom' is 'did you pay income taxes').
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
When this country collapses, you are expected to repulse the combined military might of Russia, China...and hell, let's throw Japan in there too, seeing how they're not white.
So, get to it. Start digging those anti-tank trenches and whatnot, because we're talking a lot of tanks. Probably more than there are adult, healthy Alaskans.
If there were more lime, I'd lime that part twice.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
It isn't a bad comparison. The third party vote seems most effective when used to slap your party on the wrist. The average joe can't afford to hire a lobbyist to persuade a major party to adopt his views. He can vote for a third party to agitate a major party and (hopefully) compel them to adopt that parties views if they want to reunify their base. This far less effective than a lobbyist, and may leave you swinging in the breeze for an election cycle or two, but it is a far more accessible means of having your voice heard.
Indeed. The Teabaggers seem to be making pretty good headway doing just that; but they have the advantage of having some pretty active mouth pieces for their cause (Bachmann, Palin, Beck). If Ralph Nader and Jello Biafra had that kind of presence and face time they probably could have started an insurgency in the Dems with far more impact than the Greens had.
Is irrational jingoism not a political stance? My mistake. Seriously though, I was under the impression* they actually had 'Tea party' candidates competing within the party. Is that not happening?
*[Sum of my research: skimmed wikipedia entry on on Tea Party movement an hour ago]
That just means they got the WharbleGharble Endorsement. Once they get elected its not like they ever leave the party line, or that they even deviated from the far right version of their party line.
Actually, the Tea Party is a mainstreaming of one of the third parties - the Constitution Party. (In fact, Tancredo is running on the CP's ticket for CO governor.)
wasn't that a satirical news site at one point?
The Onion and reality are in a contest to see who can outdo who.
Beck bet The Onion that they couldn't write a story that he couldn't convince his listeners was true.
Well played, The Onion. Well played.
It is also argued that this is the exact opposite of what a third party does, since third parties are not viable options to actually win anything, they strip the need to the major parties to actually endorse their positions.