http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/opinion/03friedman.html Third Party Rising By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: October 2, 2010 There is a revolution brewing in the country, and it is not just on the right wing but in the radical center. I know of at least two serious groups, one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast, developing “third parties” to challenge our stagnating two-party duopoly that has been presiding over our nation’s steady incremental decline. ... “We basically have two bankrupt parties bankrupting the country,” said the Stanford University political scientist Larry Diamond. Indeed, our two-party system is ossified; it lacks integrity and creativity and any sense of courage or high-aspiration in confronting our problems. We simply will not be able to do the things we need to do as a country to move forward “with all the vested interests that have accrued around these two parties,” added Diamond. “They cannot think about the overall public good and the longer term anymore because both parties are trapped in short-term, zero-sum calculations,” where each one’s gains are seen as the other’s losses. We have to rip open this two-party duopoly and have it challenged by a serious third party that will talk about education reform, without worrying about offending unions; financial reform, without worrying about losing donations from Wall Street; corporate tax reductions to stimulate jobs, without worrying about offending the far left; energy and climate reform, without worrying about offending the far right and coal-state Democrats; and proper health care reform, without worrying about offending insurers and drug companies. “If competition is good for our economy,” asks Diamond, “why isn’t it good for our politics?” We need a third party on the stage of the next presidential debate to look Americans in the eye and say: “These two parties are lying to you. They can’t tell you the truth because they are each trapped in decades of special interests. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. I am going to tell you what you need to hear if we want to be the world’s leaders, not the new Romans.”
But how many times have third parties been started only to fizzle. Now, due to how bad things really are, and will continue to probably get, at some point in time people are going to be so fed up I think a third party will arise and make some serious changes.
Well, maybe, but that's about the most dishonest piece I've ever seen, since it doesn't even mention the Tea Party. We already have a third part rising in this country, and Friedman somehow forgets to mention it in an article on Third Parties. How's that for bizarre?
Tea Party doesn't seem to be headed towards being a third party, as far as I can see. They seem to want to take over the Republican party instead. Should they succeed, we still have just 2 parties. barfo
The Libertarian Party spun off from the Republican Party during the Nixon years. The problem for the Tea Party is that they still have to deal with a lot of Republicans who aren't true believers. If they become disillusioned with trying to work within one of the two main parties, they might just split off or join an existing 3rd party. Thomas Friedman (author of the NYT piece) is no idiot, he's been doing good work for a long time. I think he's seeing the same anecdotal kinds of evidence that I see: 1) The two parties are polarized at opposite ends of the spectrum and there's a real need for some common ground. 2) The electorate seems open to a political movement that is outside the two parties. 3) The number of people registering as independents is growing. 4) The independents swing from one party to the other and aren't satisfied with either result. 5) Ross Perot might have won the presidency if he didn't turn into a loon; he was ahead of Clinton and Bush in his first try before he got out of the race. 6) People of all party affiliations and political leanings are unhappy with the direction of the country and neither party gives much hope. I mean, look at the sentiment right now. The Tea Party is a really massive groundswell of grass roots activism. Last election cycle there was a similar kind of activism. It's gone against BOTH parties, and both kinds were trying to get the two parties in line with the public.
Clearly, for a third party to be viable, it will have to be one with moderate views and leaders that aren't mean, ignorant or just plain stupid.
The only problem I have with a 3rd party is that it might allow Obummer to gain a 2nd term. First let's focus on getting him the hell out of office.
Obama's not the ultimate problem. It's that he's able to get his agenda done with not enough debate, resistance, or oversight. I am not a fan of Progressivism, but I'm not a fan of drowning out philosophies from the public discourse.
http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/ I think a third (and perhaps a fourth) party would be fantastic for our country. I think the Stewart/Colbert rally is really more of a PR stunt, but the concept is pretty spot on for the given moment. Anyway, I think a third party moderate movement would likely pull more from the Democratic party than Republicans. I suppose it depends on the candidate, though. If it's a billionaire financier along the lines of Ross Perot or a billionaire financier along the lines of Bill Gates.
Mook, do you think that with 4 viable parties our politics would be too watered down? Too difficult to build majorities and consensus?
Most democratic countries have more than two major parties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_by_country I don't see anything unique about our country to suggest we're incapable of doing it. Other than, of course, most of US history.
Then what is with all his babbling about a 3rd party when we already have 13 viable parties in this great democracy? You'd think he'd be aware of them. http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm
I am aware of them, though not the specific number. Off the top of my head, there's the Natural Law Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Socialist Party, the Nazi Part, and several others. Maybe even the party Perot started is still around. But you miss the point. A VIABLE 3rd party (as in one that can challenge for the presidency and get at least 33% of the vote).
But in talks here and elsewhere I continue to be astounded by the level of disgust with Washington, D.C., and our two-party system — so much so that I am ready to hazard a prediction: Barring a transformation of the Democratic and Republican Parties, there is going to be a serious third party candidate in 2012, with a serious political movement behind him or her — one definitely big enough to impact the election’s outcome. There is a revolution brewing in the country, and it is not just on the right wing but in the radical center. I know of at least two serious groups, one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast, developing “third parties” to challenge our stagnating two-party duopoly that has been presiding over our nation’s steady incremental decline.
I agree we're all disgusted by our "leaders". I disagree that it has any relation to the number of choices (parties) we have. It has more to do with the legality of accepting donations, favors, bribes, private sector "thank you" positions after government service...
People were unhappy with the republicans when they controlled congress and the white house. They didn't act like republicans. People are now unhappy with the democrats even after they controlled congress (filibuster proof, too) and the white house. Their agenda has been radically different from what the people want. There's only so many times we can try both parties before we give up on them both.
