[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore

Right, but it all depends on how you perceive electoral politics and its purpose. If a "popular front" will get your ideas into the public sphere, even a tiny bit, isn't that worth it? Ideological conservatives spent a lot of time in the 20th Century frustrated, being relegated to ideological think tanks and small organizations of intellectuals. The Goldwater and even the Wallace 3rd party campaigns were seen as popular fronts, a mixture of frustrated conservatives and and southern moralistic populist types. It was Reagan who first used this front, with the Republican Party as its conduit, and made it work. So I guess the question you have to ask is, did it work? Did the Reagan administration push the economic values you cherish enough...?

The problem here is that while Reagan was probably as free market as he could be if he ever wanted to gain support, he also had the more moralistic aspects of the Right in his presidency. In addtion, his policy on the Soviet Union was very different from what I would have supported, and he spent too much via the budget deficit for my liking.

This hasn't always been the case, and I tend to agree with Schlesinger, who viewed politics as cyclical. The Republicans were once divided ideological, between liberals and conservatives. Both parties polarized after the New Deal, but that increased competition, and clarified the stances the parties would take.

I think your comment about the Dems. as an interest group based party-- it's slightly true, but not entirely. That is more a result of the 60s and New Left 70s, when the lower-class/blue collar types that traditionally voted Democrat sort of turned away for good. I'm Irish Catholic, and my family has a long Democratic tradition, but they haven't actually voted Democratic in years. They are, for all intensive purposes, "National Liberals," of the FDR/Truman/LBJ ilk.

I think you're right, if both parties are "big tent" parties as it's popularly put, then the Republicans are more cohesive than the Democrats. But, IMO, the Right has ALWAYS been better at that. It was Pat Robertson's and Newt Gingrich's "no enemies to the Right" policy in the early 90's that led to the Congressional take over. The Dems. are a big tent with a lot of pissed off clowns and lion tamers (to keep with the circus analogy), all pulling back and forth for power. I personally prefer that party model, and find two large, stagnant, overly-bureacratic parties to be dull and even dangerous for civic health. The Left is too divisive, too full of intellectuals and know-it-alls who all have the solutions to everything. That makes a popular front difficult.

Yes, it does, but in more recent years we have seen a comeback by the Dems. largely due to the rise of large, multinational corporations - something that many feel threatened by in the Information Age. The Dems. diversity has also helped them, since it has granted them the opportunity to cherry-pick popular issues for, for lack of a better term, the greater good.

I'm fully aware that the Dems. used to be the party for the South, but during modern times, that has been the Reps. territory. At least until Viva el Dean :/.

I wouldn't mind seeing it, I just don't know that we ever will. Keep your eye on the Illinois state legislature. Years ago, they had something that essentially resembled a parliamentary/proportional voting system. Multiple parties had power, and that was the problem. Communists began getting seats on the legislature, so the then Republican governor did away with the system somehow. Now, Republicans are kicking themselves, because they are the political minority in Illinois, and there's actually a big push to get that system back. If it happens, it could be a "trend starter" for multi-paty representation. Who knows.....

There are three main things I see preventing it:

1) The way our system is set-up favors a two party system. Example: the electorial college. One fear I have is that if the two party system were ever threatened, massive changes to the campaign finance would ensue, resulting in the death of small parties before they had a chance to really have an impact.

2) The need to increase awareness. I'm banking that most people don't even know where they truly lie on the political spectrum. Not only that, how many know about third parties outside of the Green and Reform Party, anyway?

3) The need to convince the public that their vote will count. A good way would be to give outrageous examples to defy that type of logic - say something like "if there were two candidates, but you knew that the one you wanted was going to lose, would you vote for the other one?"

Anyway, we have gotten way off my original statement, which said that if people voted intelligently, they would vote for third parties. Granted, I don't know how much of that is really true, but I'll bet we would see a substantial increase in votes going towards them.