Max, I have an alternative hypothesis - the level of bullshit remains constant in all of the above.
That hypothesis is informed by the theory of organizational isomorphism (cf. DiMaggio, Paul and Walter Powell, 1983, The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organization Fields, American Sociological Review, 48(2):147-160.). In short this theory says that organizations tend to become more alike to each other because of isomorphic (or homogenizing) forces; on of such key homogenizing forces is the professionalization of the organizational cadres, as th eprofessional tend to mimick each other to implement what they perceive a "successful model" as well as to implement standard models they learn through professional training.
That hypothesis received substantial empirical support. A good example is hospital industry where standards of professionalism override any potential difference that may come from the legal status (public, nonprofit, forprofit) or denominational character of the institution.
Political parties are organizations - and the level of bullshit depends on the level of professionalization of their cadres. As political parties become more and more professionalized, their level of bullshit becomes the same - regardless of their explicit ideologies. This is so, because profesional activists have been processed through that meat grinder aka educational system that forces the same pulp fiction into the minds of the subjects, forces them into the same mold of thinking considered 'standard' (cf. policy analysis, giving 'equal weight' and 'balancing' of diverging points of views, quantitative jargon, etc.), kills originality and imagination. At the same time, college and later professional organizations offer a peer bonding experience aka 'networking' - not just fraternities, but the fact of attending the same institution. As a result, professional cadres have much more in common with each other (regardless which party they work for) than with the constituencies they are supposed to represent.
Professionalization of cadres can explain the isomorphism, and the same level of bullshit, among Soviet-style communist parties. I think the Soviets pioneered international professional political organizing (they probably learned that from the Catholic Church) by sending cadres of formally trained professional organizers to their satellite countries. That explains the monoculture of communist parties that many educated Westerners so much resented.
The point is, however, that Ivy-League, law-school, policy-analysis processed professional cadres instill the same monoculture to various organizations they staff or lead - only that their monoculture, schmoozing style, shibboleths and jargon are diffrenet from those developed by communist party cadres. Same principle - different style.
>From that perspective - all political parties become more and more alike,
regardless of their ideologies and constituencies. Just as Blairs,
Schroeders and Jospins are carbon copies of each other and their boss
Clinton, so are their professional cadres, and their respective
organizations. I am pretty sure that profesional cadres of, say, the
Republican party in the US and, say, Labour Party in the UK or Social
Democrats in Germany are much closer to each other than their
constituencies. In the same vein, a union bureaucrat has more in common
with a corporate bureaucrat than with the rank and file. I would venture
as far as saying that professional organizers of, say the Green Party in
the US would not have any major problems switching to, say, Republicans -
if offered a chance (meaning: professional networks).
To summarize, professionalism is killing political discourse and driving a wedge before "old style" party politics and constituencies. Professionalism is transforming political parties into political machines full of professional jargon and newspeak aka "bullshit" and "spin." And as all political parties become professionalized, their level of bullshit and spin is more or less the same - regardless of the political ideology (window-dressing) or constituency (milking cow).
BTW, that supports you original claim that both Doug and Louis would make poor cadres of the communist, or any other, party.
best
wojtek