Caught Between Syphilis and Chlamydia – Enabling the Corporate State

[Donnachaidh]

http://my.firedoglake.com/dianew/2011/04/03/caught-between-syphilis-and-chlamydia-enabling-the-corporate-state/

I have never seen so many people up in arms, or as knee-jerkingly rigid as in the great debate around the so-called Liberal blogosphere than the discussion of third party politics and the potential fall out of the coming elections.

I find it patently absurd, especially the FDL debacle that has sprouted as of late. Polarizing!!!

The two camps divide neatly into “more and better dems” and “the Uniparty is Kabuki – never again” groups, with a few “lets make a protest vote in the primaries then vote for the Corporate Sponsored One” claiming pragmatism, thrown into the fray.

This is not the Scylla and Charybdis, and I won’t be wrapped around their finger, my friend Sting. Hell I won’t even sail into the region to chance it, myself.

More at the link --

[aquart]

1. Bleh. You think this is new?

[freshwest]

2. okay

[DemocratAholic]

3. third parties

of course i understand the evil two party, corporate controlled, etc., argument. there is validity to it and legitimate concerns.

the problem is these (Democrat and Republican) are the parties that most people already belong to. there has never been a 3rd party (in my lifetime) that was anything but focused on one personality, or very narrow interests...basically an "anti two party" party. what were alternatives? ross perot...and his "party" that was supposedly going to take over the USA, and has now disappeared? green party led by ralph nader?

you can't complain about the two party system when there are no alternatives. i understand and feel the frustration. but this kind of argument boils down to pure cynicism unless someone can point to a viable alternative. of course, starting a viable third party would be an almost unbelievable accomplishment...one that wasn't driven by one candidate's personality like perot or nader.

the party is ultimately driven by those people who make the effort to get involved. the only way that a long-term third-party is going to emerge is if it comes from some kind of very inspired grassroots effort. let's say people started a "progressive party." they would probably have to start out by using their power by endorsing mainstream party candidates. perhaps get very involved on the primary side of elections. eventually perhaps their endorsement would be the deciding factor in the elections...then they are a viable third party.

if the tea party was more appealing to "normal" people, you might even say it had the possibility to become a viable third party. but it won't ever be that, because it is seen by too many as being a bunch of crazy people. but it does currently hold a lot of sway with Republicans. we should keep that in mind.

i think that ultimately the mainstream left is so loyal to the Democratic party, most are going to stay with within the party, and would shy away from any third party effort. giving them dual membership in a third party that ultimately supports the Democratic party would be the only way I could see a left-leaning third party to emerge.