Comments on: Monday’s reading assignment: “What Were They Thinking?”

By: Z

Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:55:45 +0000

Group like Tea Party to pressure Dems to left?

By: Adam Stephanides

Adam Stephanides — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:54:05 +0000

The analogy between your progressive third party and the 1850s Republicans isn’t all that close. For one thing, as Erik Loomis points out at LGM, the Republicans came along after the Whig Party had disintegrated. More pertinently, the Republican Party didn’t consist just of anti-slavery Whigs and those whose anti-slavery was too radical for the Whigs. It also included a big chunk of Northern Democrats who were disgusted at the extreme pro-slavery positions the Democratic Party had come to espouse. Many of these ex-Democrats would have been perfectly happy just restoring the Missouri Compromise (which outlawed slavery in the territories north of a certain line, but permitted it in territories below that line), which had been repealed in 1854. So would some of the ex-Whigs.

A closer contemporary analogy would be an “anti-Crazy party” combining Democrats with Republicans who were disgusted with the Tea Party’s antics. (Unfortunately, if the latter are present in large numbers, they haven’t done a very good job of speaking up.) Such a party would be far from what progressives want, just as the Republican Party was far from what abolitionists desired.

“I think a new party will have to consume the old Democratic party”

I’m curious. Why would a party which had “consumed” the Democratic Party behave any differently from the Democratic Party? It would have exactly the same incentives to compromise as the Democrats do.

By: scott

scott — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:14:22 +0000

Who knows? Abe Lincoln was an old Whig who revered the old party but went beyond, so perhaps we can hope (and work) for something similar.

By: Historiann

Historiann — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:36:45 +0000

Everyone’s got an opinion, right?

I guess I felt like the 2000s were about reforming the Dem party and taking it over from within, but it’s clear that Dem social networking (blogs and FaceBook) have been more powerfully used by the old party hacks to their own ends more effectively than grassroots progressives have used them. So I don’t recommend a third party strategy as an end in itself, and I think Erik Loomis gets that anyway (even if his readers don’t.)

I think a new party will have to consume the old Democratic party to become one of two parties, not one of three parties.

By: scott

scott — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:33:27 +0000

I see that A-listers at LGM linked this piece, but Loomis and his commenters spent their time pooh-poohing the 3rd party idea and sang the praises of reforming the DEms (how?) from within. Yeah, right.

By: Third Parties in American History: Not Usually Effective Agents of Change : Lawyers, Guns & Money

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:33:16 +0000

[...] throw elections to Republicans. The only reasonable possibility is along the lines of something Historiann suggests, that the Democratic Party no longer remains a functioning entity and that a new party rises from [...]

By: Feminist Avatar

Feminist Avatar — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:06:58 +0000

I think the real problem here is not ‘the constitution’ or even ‘the political system’ per se, but the fact that capitalism is no longer working (or rather it’s working fine, we just don’t like the results), but we are holding on for dear life. I think the nature of the current economy and financial crisis has led people to ask why some people get to be rich and other’s don’t, especially when the mechanics of how this works are unveiled and it is no longer through ‘hardwork’, but bailouts and old boy’s networks. As a result, the wealth of the few looks a lot less fair- but, we are not quite at the stage where we want to acknowledge this, so instead talk about ‘crisis’ and ‘emergencies’and ‘political systems’ instead.

By: Indyanna

Indyanna — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:10:48 +0000

We probably do need a whole new party and party system, but I’m not betting on it. We might be as likely to find a comparable continent on a similarly-situated planet and do an “our population for your population” swap. This one has had too much reality t.v., too much dancing with the stars, too many X-Games, too much NASCAR, etc. to have any real political sinews left.

Re the Update: Oliver Cromwell was on the shlubby side except when he needed not to be. The NYT is talking about the “constitutional option” again. If it were me, in addition to the previously announced TVA closure, I’d be inclined to raise the debt ceiling by executive order, surround the Capitol with… about three hundred popcorn trucks borrowed from some circus museum… and prepare for Act III. I agree with H’ann that the guy wouldn’t do it, but it would be interesting.

By: koshembos

koshembos — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:59:39 +0000

The Democratic Party is not the Democratic members of congress. It is us, FDR, JFK, LBJ and, yes, Big Dawg. Obama, as Marshall Aurback says, is a Tea Bagger. (It’s a projection.) The Party’s congress members have drifted towards the center, in large part, due to the lack of a true progressive wing. We do have social progressives; many of them are very rich and financially and labor wise are Republicans. They brought us Obama. Of the 50 richest county in the US, 47 voted Democratic. Obama got 70% of the votes in Aspen and In Wyoming, the land of the arch enemy of the non rich Alan Simpson, Jackson Hole voted Democratic. Democrats in congress represent these Democrats.

A dramatic indication for the lack of hard core progressives is the Roosevelt Institute acceptance of anti poor and anti middle class Peterson money.

It will take at least a generation to cultivate a progressive wing.

By: Jesse Lemisch

Jesse Lemisch — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:40:07 +0000

well said, HistoriAnn. In US history, parties come and go. I would welcome the relegation of the Democratic Party to the dustbin. As for “the perfect is the enemy of the good,” Medicare for all is “off the table,” etc — these are just Daniel Bell’s end of ideology reborn.