We Need a Third Party For Centrists Like Me!!!

[Anonymous]

The battle cry of the low-information voter...

Calling for a third party is a quick and easy way to get yourself booked for a round of cable TV appearances. But many of those calling for a third party are refusing to reckon with an inconvenient fact: One of the two parties already occupies the approximate ideological space that these commentators themselves are describing as the dream middle ground that allegedly can only be staked out by a third party.

That party is known as the “Democratic Party,” and it alreadly holds many of the positions these commentators want a third party to espouse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-third-party-dodge/2011/03/03/gIQAX66BzK_blog.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/hidden-in-the-middle/

[TheManWithAUsername]

I think there are two different things going on. There will probably always be a bunch of uninformed people (or even informed people - say, Jon Stewart) with vague fantasies that all we need is compromise, i.e., policies somewhere between those espoused by the two major parties. Since both parties keep moving right, that position keeps moving right, and since the right's propaganda machine is so effective, people keep thinking that the Dems are much more aggressively left than they are.

The other issue is that the Dems in office aren't doing nearly enough to improve things - "improving things" now being nearly synonymous with "oppose Republicans." The WaPo guy suggests that that criticism is just a rhetorical ploy by those fantasizing about a third party, but I think even most Dems agree with the criticism since the debt ceiling bludgeoning.

There are at least as many Dems convincing themselves that their leaders are doing everything they can as there are uninformed people blindly wishing for compromise.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I think there are two different things going on. There will probably always be a bunch of uninformed people (or even informed people - say, Jon Stewart) with vague fantasies that all we need is compromise, i.e., policies somewhere between those espoused by the two major parties. Since both parties keep moving right, that position keeps moving right, and since the right's propaganda machine is so effective, people keep thinking that the Dems are much more aggressively left than they are.

The other issue is that the Dems in office aren't doing nearly enough to improve things - "improving things" now being nearly synonymous with "oppose Republicans." The WaPo guy suggests that that criticism is just a rhetorical ploy by those fantasizing about a third party, but I think even most Dems agree with the criticism since the debt ceiling bludgeoning.

There are at least as many Dems convincing themselves that their leaders are doing everything they can as there are uninformed people blindly wishing for compromise.

Hmm. I'm not sure this is exactly right. There's a difference between Dems "convincing themselves that their leaders are doing everything they can", and Dems (and others) believing that the sorts of centrist policy proposals that "everyone agrees on" are the ones the Dems are pursuing--successfully or unsuccessfully.

Obama and the (largely) centrist Dems may not be very effective at pushing the centrist agenda, but that's a different argument from saying they're not pursuing it at all. It could well be that the Broderesque dream of a "centrist third party" is not only infeasible from a electoral perspective, but from a governing one as well.

It's just too easy in our existing government for radical elements to shut down the process--especially with a Senate where miniscule rural minorities are allowed super-representation. (The Dakotas have *four* Senators with 1.2 million people. California, in contrast, has half that number of Senators with 37 million voters. Frankly, this holdover from the slave-states demands is a criminal disgrace, even without the filibuster.)

[Anonymous]

If you want evidence of our racist legacy and how it results in overrepresentation by whites, and underrepresentation by non-whites, you need only overlay a map of the United States with demographics, and Senatorial representation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want evidence of our racist legacy and how it results in overrepresentation by whites, and underrepresentation by non-whites, you need only overlay a map of the United States with demographics, and Senatorial representation.

Honest question here. Is there a website that allows this kind of overlays? I often have demographic questions and wish for just this type of tool -- does something like this actually exist?

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. I'm not sure this is exactly right. There's a difference between Dems "convincing themselves that their leaders are doing everything they can", and Dems (and others) believing that the sorts of centrist policy proposals that "everyone agrees on" are the ones the Dems are pursuing--successfully or unsuccessfully.

Obama and the (largely) centrist Dems may not be very effective at pushing the centrist agenda, but that's a different argument from saying they're not pursuing it at all.
I think we agree, but I didn't quite follow.

I thought that the WaPo piece unfairly lumped together two groups: 1) people who want basically what the Dem politicians support but for whatever reason are attached to the idea of a new centrist party; and 2) people who think the Dems aren't doing enough to fix things. I think those are actually very different groups.

Anonymous wrote:It could well be that the Broderesque dream of a "centrist third party" is not only infeasible from a electoral perspective, but from a governing one as well.

I think so, in a way. This is the problem of the Dems bargaining against themselves (generously assuming for sake of argument that the Dems want at least somewhat leftist policies). The Reps are so nuts that if you really want a 1% tax increase, you opening position has to be full communism. If you start by arguing for 2%, they'll say "10% decrease, eliminate the Dep't of Ed., put us back on the gold standard, and publicly execute one abortion doctor per month." The Dems failure to accept this reality after all of this time is why we have so much fool/knave speculation about Obama and Reid.

Anonymous wrote:It's just too easy in our existing government for radical elements to shut down the process--especially with a Senate where miniscule rural minorities are allowed super-representation. (The Dakotas have *four* Senators with 1.2 million people. California, in contrast, has half that number of Senators with 37 million voters. Frankly, this holdover from the slave-states demands is a criminal disgrace, even without the filibuster.)

Just about everything about the Senate is stupid. Since it's theoretically about respecting the individuality of states and the limited nature of our association, it only really makes sense if we could reorganize the union. California, NY, etc. could get get tired of being pushed around by these podunk states and go make their own country.