The whigs, the federalists, the democratic republicans... It just hasn't happened for a while.
And I believe, if our apparently shared perception is correct, that the aggregate of both parties is to the right of America as a whole.
With a polarization that seems to increase every day and the shifting racial composition of America, I think the GOP is seriously in danger of becoming a permanent white, minority party. The tent can only be so big, and this creates an opening for a farther left, third party.
I do believe that the third party will come from within the democratic party, and it will take a generation or more. Sadly, our system doesn't favor building party infrastructure from scratch.
I also believe all this frustration is for naught unless we remove money from politics and end corporate personhood.
We all like to project positive values onto those who share our values. But I would find it very hard to believe that a green party candidate or socialist candidate, in an environment so dependent upon money, wouldn't remain beholden to special interests at a certain point, albeit perhaps to a lesser extent.
In other words, I don't believe creating a third party would come close to solving our problems.
But I have been claiming for a long time now that voting is just one part of the solution. It also requires the least amount of effort, right after giving money online (#2) and blogging* (#1).
Where is the large scale social activism? I am hard pressed to think of one period of profound change in this country that wasn't accompanied by social activism. I think of integration the Civil Rights marchers and the firehoses and the dogs, the boycotts, beatings and the murder.
But social activism requires effort and courage. People are angry, but I get the impression they aren't there yet.
To nominate the more moderate, more pro-war primary candidate less favored by the netroots under the unwarranted assumption that such a move would somehow ensure greater opposition from the left once elected?
...all the while are a pure Obamabot in the face of Gibbs/Axlerod/Rahm and the non-transparent cynical politics this administration has come to represent.
So you are saying it is okay to "tactically" hack for a candidate you don't believe in as long as it is later transparent? And you accuse the Obama Administration of cynical politics?
My disappointment now is realizing how right I was about Obama
These politicians all have ego's, but Obama is in a whole different universe that's full of himself
Do you realize that your complaints about Obama are projections of your own actions?
I then looked at his record of voting, and realized he was no different than Clinton, whom I did not support until it was last resort and purely as tactical.
You see, that's your problem: either now or then, you were, or are, being intellectually dishonest with yourself.
And so I have to ask: who is the real Jerome Armstrong?
Is the real Jerome Armstrong the same author of the post above, making an impassioned plea against the war in Afghanistan? If so, I would respectfully disagree, but at least saulute your intellectual consistency and encourage you to keep up the fight.
Or is the real Jerome Armstrong the same blogger who hacked awfully hard for the unarguably more moderate, more pro-war alternative to Barack Obama two years ago (e.g., using the front page of his diary to count the delegates that didn't count and discount those that did)?
Claiming two weeks ago that a politician's position on the 2003 Iraq War vote was of such importance that they would be held accoutnable...
coulda shoulda woulda. There was a vote, and those who voted for it will be held accountable, in both parties. It's as big as an albatross as the vote to invade Iraq.
...and then turning around and excusing such a vote is a dance on the head of the pin you are not making succesfully. I know, you claim your partisan attitude was necessary for "tactical" reasons.
I'm not saying there would be one inch of daylight between the positions of a President Clinton and a President Obama. In my opinion, there wouldn't.
But I also have to wonder if your writing today is also for "tactical" reasons, or if it is really what you believe. After reviewing the record of the show you put on in 2007, it is impossible to tell the difference.
Take a picture of that Ras poll, because it's going to be as close as Linda "WWE Raw" McMahon is going to get.
I think it is the nature of the netroots to overreact.
I know I did.When I first heard the story, I felt it was pretty damning.
I think this is a lesson for all of us not to turn on our own so quickly and wait for the facts to come out. I fear there's a terribly volatile mixture in the netroots of a decimated, dangerous, and ineffective press plus general raw emotions.
I'm supporting Halter not only because he is a better Democrat, but also because he polls better against Republican John Boozman.
Same here. Also, there is very little risk and tremendous reward in unseating plantation blanche. Control of the Senate is not really in play, and you're losing one of the most egregious corporate dems pretty much either way.
I give Rand Paul credit here for holding an intellectually consistent position. It may be an abhorrent position, but he is simply making the libertarian argument against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
My question is: will white southern conservative voters connect with such an egg-headed approach.
When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, he was quoted as saying that democrats just lost the south for a decade. It turned out to be more like five.
First Goldwater, then Nixon's southern strategy. And Ronald Regan launched his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, with a stump speech on States Rights. Republicans have been winning with various slight modifications to the souther strategy for five decades now. Simply exploit opposition amongst the once segregationist south to the cultural upheaval of civil rights using implicit code words and the plentiplaint of substitutable threats and fears which can stand in for race.
Having grown up in the south, it is hard to describe how race is repressed to this basal and animalistic emotion in people. In a modern society, no one talks openly about their racial prejudice as they may have done 150 years ago. So they express these feelings with often silent actions. They vote Republican. They listen to Rush Limbaugh. And they're rewarded with a wink and a nod. No one dares talk about repealing the civil Rights Act of 1964, but they're sure pissed about the Federal Government imposing itself as it did back then.
The problem with Rand Paul's candidacy is that he is not only bringing racism out into the open, but he is making an intellectual argument for it. Never in the southern strategy has there been such transparency and intellectualism.
And that's what concerns me.
On one hand, as Jonathan notes, when confronted with their own ugly racism, southern whites may retreat, content to live in the perpetual angry fantasy of never meaning to undo what truly bothers them. On the other hand, libertarianism could finally provide the much needed intellectual backbone for emotions that have run deep for centuries.
But this far out, anyone can still win. Look at how Harry Reid has turned around his chances. It was a long shot, but I think she still had a better chance than Halter.
It is going to be tough for Halter... Not surprisingly, Arkansas is one of the places where Obama is the least popular.
I agree with your overall premise, though, that if there is a slightly smaller chance for victory for Halter, this effort is worth it because hse is one of our lousiest incumbants, and the increased risk is offset by the potential reward of a real democrat.