The UK under Labour avoided few of the indignities that America suffered under Bush and Cheney, so it doesn’t surprise me at all to see they have slipped into third-place in the polls. The Tories will be the main beneficiaries but it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to punish Labour for poor financial regulation and senseless warmongering by moving to the right. Therefore, we can expect to see the Liberal Democrats get a major boost.
We don’t have a three-party system here. With the Democrats ascendent, the left in this country is a very broad coalition stretching far into the middle. Unhappy lefties have nowhere to go and are unlikely to rally around an independent candidate. But the right is another story. Without a single Republican representative from New England, there is a huge need for an alternative ideology to the southern-driven contemporary GOP. However, I don’t think a Ron Paul independent candidacy fits the bill. A more likely model is John B. Anderson, who launched a very credible independent candidacy in 1980.
There isn’t much of a bench in the GOP for such a candidate today. But imagine what would happen if Olympia Snowe decided to run for president as an independent. A business-friendly, pro-environment, pro-choice, Republican in the Nelson Rockefeller mode (and a woman from New England, as well) would certainly attract an interesting bisection of the national electorate.
One interesting thing to watch for would be whether Republican candidates for office in New England and northern/coastal suburbs would endorse Snowe or whomever (Huckabee, Romney, Jindal, Pawlenty) the Republicans nominate.
I think such a candidacy would do a lot more to divide the Republican Party than a Ron Paul campaign. It would put some cleavages in the Democrats’ coalition, too, with a not-insignificant number of women and tax-averse moderates lining up to make a statement. I think the overall effect would be positive.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, would have the potential for a bit of Perot-effect, where, for example, states like Montana suddenly become ripe-fruit for the Obama reelection campaign. It’s likely that Paul’s campaign would become a repository for some of the crazier fringe that has infected the GOP, but that would probably benefit Republicans down-ticket who would get a boost in turnout.
However you slice it, I’d be surprised if we don’t see a major third-party candidacy from the right (maybe more than one) in the 2012 election. The Republicans in Washington are making no moves to the center, and they cannot wage a serious run at the Electoral College with the cast of misfits they have now battling each other to be the most ideologically pure. The last time we had a truly lost cause presidential race was 1996, when Bob Dole never got any traction whatsoever. That was still the era of Perot’s Reform Party. I expect to see a new iteration in 2012. It will be different, but I can’t imagine that no one will step up to make a run at changing the nature of the Republican Party by splintering their shrinking coalition.
¡jezeus! you must be bored out of your mind…or seriously jaded…engaging in fantasies such as this.
snowe’s got about as much chance, let alone brio, of mounting a third party challenge to the lunatic fringe that controlls the RATpublican party as l do of winning the PowerBall lotto.
l think you forgot the <snark> tag on this one.
Heh.
To be clear, I don’t remotely think Snowe is running for president. But someone like her might. Someone with Bloomberg-coin.
hence the <snark> reference.
it gave me a good laugh though, and those are few and far between these days.
so thanks for that.
Look at her performance though, she’s not very centrist anyway. She’s just conservative.
.
(The Telegraph) – Tony Blair believes Gordon Brown is a political “quitter” who could step down before the general election, a new book has claimed.
The former prime minister has allegedly told friends that his successor does not have the political courage for tough contests, according to Adam Boulton, the husband of one of Mr Blair’s closest aides.
Mr Boulton is married to Anji Hunter, a schoolfriend of Mr Blair who was his “gatekeeper” during a decade in Downing Street.
His book, Tony’s Ten Years, claims to describe the view of Mr Brown taken by Mr Blair and his close associates.
Most significantly, Mr Boulton, who is also a Sky News broadcaster, claims that Mr Blair does not believe Mr Brown has the stomach for the coming fight with the Conservatives.
“In private, Mr Blair commented to several friends that history showed Mr Brown to be a quitter, not a fighter,” Mr Boulton wrote.
Brown loses his cool: PM’s fightback backfires as he tries to storm out of TV interview
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I don’t see a right wing challenger to the GOP candidate. The GOP is skewing very right (has been for 30 years don’tcha know) and so while the Wingnuts will be baying for blood and fascism they will be placated with the standard GOP stooge, a la McCain. I think the front runners now are Guilliani and Petreus. Sure, the religous folks might be attracted to Huckabee or Santorum but they will ultimately support the GOP candidate.
Snowe is a Rockefeller Republican and therefore she would run as a Democrat. That is the Democratic party now. She just hasn’t changed her colors yet. Incidentally, I used to think that the only viable 3rd party would come from the center, a la Perot or Anderson. Like a Snowe or Lieberman. Not any more. The Democrats have become THE center party so there is no more room for a new one.
Ron Paul would run to the left and attract voters like me (I would prefer other candidates but would prefer Paul over Obama or McCain). He would probably only be able to do well in a coalition with liberals.
I of course would prefer a liberal candidate but I can’t disagree with your assessment that it is unlikely.
I think a coalition of liberals and libertarians has the best shot.
The far-right has some intersection with the far left, which is why Paulites are hard to define on the ideological spectrum. But their xenophobia and cultural libertarianism definitely put them in the right category, and that is where they’d get most of their support.
You are correct that there is no room in the middle for a left-wing candidate. But there is wide-open road for a right-wing candidate.
And, success doesn’t mean much. Anderson got about 7% of the vote and Perot Part Deux got 8%. That’s close to a high-water mark for a third-party candidate unless you get a spike like in 1992. I’d consider a center-right candidate who pulled down close to 10% of the vote to be a success.
Yes, one would not be optimistic about 3rd parties looking at that past.
But things can change in a hurry. We are facing unprecedented challenges and the people’s anger can coalesce in a way that may surprise you. Both good and bad.
Just look at the public support for a public option–despite the Kubuki both parties engage in.
Our government is broken and the oligarghs have taken over and some people have noticed. Not everyone has identified the problem yet, what with all the lies and obfuscation by the government and the media who can blame them for being confused. But millions are out of work and are slowing getting eaten by the economic grinder. Regular people have been for decades now. People aren’t buying the same bullshit anymore. I bet even the tried and true military adventurism won’t work the same as it has in the past.
And on Paul . . . I wouldn’t call some of his supporters ‘far right’ unless you consider libertarians to be far right.
Well, some of his supporters are as far-right as it gets, Nazis and Skinheads and the Arizona militia for example. And ordinarily I do think of libertarians as the far right. I might agree with them about police and government surveillance, the war on drugs, and other basic privacy issues, but on economics they are on the far right. Think Dick Armey.
Dick Armey is interested in corporate cronyism. He’s for an oligarchy while CLAIMING that he is for small government like Ron Paul is.
I too disagree with Paul about many of his small government beliefs, as I do with many libertarians, but he is much different than the Armey Republicans. A true small government person would advocate cutting our insane war budget and stop trying to take over the World. Paul puts his money where his mouth is on that–the rest of the GOP doesn’t. Even Democrats are petrified to advocate less war spending.
We Americans don’t have a vocabulary to describe economic beliefs anymore. Socialism. Capitalism. Blah. Blah. Blah. They have been rendered useless from abuse. And the libertarians have had a role to play in this–and have also been taken for a ride by the GOP all these years–it’s a complicated history and the standard Dem disdain for them is misplaced.
For e.g., when Paul identifies the Fed as the main economic problem he is not expressing a “fringe” belief. Check the history of this in American politics. Look how many blame Greenspan for the recession.
Often, the Dems that seem to hate Paul are the centrists that supported Bush and Obama’s Wall Street Bailouts and continue to support Summers and Geitner and the Corporate ownership of our government.
Ron Paul is attacked so ferociously because he goes right at this fragile truth that both major parties support; our government is owned by Wall Street (and no David Neiwert, that is not an antisemitic belief).
Right, but it’s just not possible to build a third party like that. The only way it happens is if a size-able number of organizers and insiders defect from one of the major parties and take their contacts with them.
Right. Which is why I think the most viable possibility for a 3rd party is a coalition consisting mostly of disillusioned lefties from the Democratic party.
Look around. Real liberals are not happy with the Democrats.
Imagine a Bill Maher-type platform, delivered with his honesty. This is what so many people are craving right now. Bill Maher would be a step to the left from Ron Paul but would still attract many independents and libertarians (or people to the right).
that is simply wishful thinking. A party becomes weak before it is replaced. The left’s party is strong. Very strong by historic measures. Disaffected lefties make up less than 15% of the electorate. Somewhere around 50% of the electorate voted for Bush just five years ago. They are the disaffected people.
Wishful thinking is characterizing the Democratic party as the left’s party.
Look, the Democratic party represents its corporate interests and not the interests it has traditionally served. It’s been a gradual change but the transformation is complete. It will just take a while for the average voter to fully comprehend this (but has already begun).
The Democratic party has been very effective at PRETENDING it still fighting for liberals, or working class Americans, or other traditional supporters of the party. And they have a cute game where conservatives pretend along and call them Socialists.
But the emperor has no clothes and I really think you underestimate the intelligence of the people if you think they are going to continue to be abused without a fight. Americans are getting steamrolled while corporate America solidifies its pernicious hold on our government.
Look at how hated people in government are now. And their corporate bosses and media enablers. They are more hated than Roman Polanski. The public just hasn’t sorted it all out yet because the entrenched powers need to confuse the public.
But you’re right that the Democrats will pull the same tricks again, i.e. say they tried to give the people health care, to stop the wars, etc., but were impotent to do so and did their best anyway and who are you going to support anyway and they promise to try really, really, hard this time and . . . .
I think you have to imagine a different future . . . there is lots changing right now . . . and the anger is palatable.
But you may be right that Obama will successfully continue to string liberals along. I think Obama is a very effective politician but I think you may be belieiving the hype to much.
Liberals have shown an amazing capacity for self-abuse and quivering suckertude. I’m embarrassed to be associated with such fools that continually run away from fights and put their faith in conservative sellouts like Obama. But hey, I’m only one guy–but I’m done being a sucker. Fuck Obama. Trusting in him is a mug’s game. Maybe I am engaging in wishful thinking when I HOPE that others wake the fuck up and drop these traitorous whores known as Democrats but I think I am being objective when I say I see a lot of people that are just as pissed of as me.
It must be exhausting to come up with these fantasies.
Anyday now the Kucinich revolution will rise up and sweep the electorate away from the two majors. And Kucinich will come to power and find out that the Finance Committee is exactly the same obstacle to him that it was for Obama and all his populist hot-fire rhetoric about sticking it to the Man will come crashing down and all his followers will call him a sell-out and snake-oil salesman who is really just a conservative.
The country is pissed off. But they aren’t out there clamoring for heads on pikes. They’re watching Dancing with the Stars.
Hey now!
I knew you would drag Kucinich into this.
But I disagree that people would be disillusioned with him if he failed to get his Medicare for All bill through Congress. First of all I doubt he would have repeated Obama’s mistake of empowering the Senate Finance committee.
Second, he would be making an effective case for real health care reform in a way that Obama has never even come close to making.
I’m disillusioned with Kucinich because in his executive experience he governed far FAR too much in the Bush style for my liking.
it’s sad that Ron Paul isn’t taken seriously (and please spare me the brickbats). I disagree with a bunch of his platform, including his opposition to abortion and bringing back the gold standard, but the man was dead right about Iraq, marijuana legalization, and warrantless wiretapping.
Where is Norman Thomas when you need him?
To believe Ron Paul is some sort of centrist shows how far we have fallen as a country.
He is a racist that uses dog whistles to fool people who don’t know any better.
Does nobody here read David Neiwert or his blog Orcinus? ? He has repeatedly tied Paul to right wing racist groups. Pauls’ main funding has come from people who adhere to those beliefs, because they know he is ‘one of theirs’. For gods sake, Paul was an owner/editor of a hate rag for years.
If Paul runs an independent campaign it will be to appeal to the racists that don’t feel they are getting ‘the truth’ from the Republican candidate. Think Pat Buchanan types.
nalbar
But you’re talking about what you think he “really” is. That’s not his image, so I think he’s attract a ragtag “3rd way” following of anti-taxers, anti-nationbuilders, pro-pot, nativist, pro-gun, pro-net neutrality, drawing from the right and the left. But since the Reps will nominate somebody who makes McCain look like Norman Thomas, he’ll be positioned more at center-right by the standards of our failing society.
What interests me more is, would a right-right GOP split make room for a challenge from the left to the Dems? Unfortunately our criminally insane electoral system makes it pretty much impossible for the answer to matter in the real world.
Dave, I think these things are kind of basic if you look at them in a detached manner. When parties are in the ascendency, they tend not to breed schisms. What can happen, though, is that the party’s more committed ideological members get complacent and think they can make a run on the party leader without doing any lasting damage (see Kennedy vs. Carter and Nader vs. Gore). So, yeah, if Obama really runs the rest of first-term like Clinton ran his second, we’ll see some momentum for a challenge. But Obama doesn’t have a Republican Congress, so I see that possibility as highly remote. The fact of the matter is that with Gore in 2000, the party was not really in the ascendency, but locked in a stalemate death match where it could not afford to be weakened in any way. And despite the Democrats’ dominance during the Carter years, they were on the decline after the 1978 midterms.
Our position right now is more analogous to 1935 or 1965. We’re riding high on the backs of two straight solid election seasons and have a popular president with large margins in Congress. This is not time for a left-wing challenge. Whether you like that idea or not, there is just not enough fuel to make it happen.
On the other hand, when a party gets its ass kicked (see Dems, 1984 and 1988) there is a movement to reach back for the center (see emergence of the DLC).
That’s where the Republicans need to go to get back their footing as a national party. The base hates it, but it allows the party to sort out all its pathologies over time.
I don’t see a left split from Obama unless he does end up looking like a sellout, which I don’t think he will. I was thinking more at the congressional level now and maybe at the presidential level post-Obama. Something more along the lines of Farmer-Labor in the Midwest, enhanced with the spectacular fundraising and communication tools brought to us by techology. That’s the best one can hope for until we somehow put our current contemptible electoral system to sleep.
If we could get progressives to run as Progressive-Democrats in the Democratic primaries, using their own platform, we might succeed in getting a more populist group of pols out of the upper Midwest and other ripe areas. But that is not a third-party.
While its possible that some prominent Republican will decide to run as a third party candidate I doubt that there will be any momentum past 2012. None of them will want to lose access to the GOP job tree.
I think what we need to do on our side is to support fusion laws and efforts like that of the Working Families Party. While I don’t think progressives can successfully break away from the Dems any time soon, I do think we can better promote a progressive platform this way.