On 2012-02-15, at 11:28 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
> I am not a big advocate of the "third party" approach - is has
> consistently be anything but a dismal failure in the past - but I am
> increasingly convinced that this is the only way of changing the
> status quo. If organizing a third party at the state and local level
> gets enough momentum, it will probably cause enough defections from
> the current parties to become a viable alternative to Democrats.
Yes, quite possibly. What is different this time, as opposed to the Nader candidacies, is the degree of dissatisfaction within the DP and the readiness of some of its liberal public intellectuals to contemplate the possibility of a third party. Nader's forces for the most part were drawn from outside the DP, and his bids were mainly greeted with derision and hostility by left liberals within it. But the Obama administration's broken promises and failure to resolve the economic crisis, as expected, has left them disillusioned and more open to alternatives.
The problem is that the disaffected DP intellectuals and activists are not organized. Frankly, I don't particularly care whether they organize themselves as an anti-leadership tendency inside the party, or go straightaway to form the nucleus of a credible third party outside and to the left of the DP, just so long as they advance from grousing to action. Things would start to happen if someone like Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold, who they much admire, were to issue a call for a new party, but I'm not holding my breath, and I'm not confident Roseanne Barr or Rocky Anderson would attract anywhere near the same attention and interest. But things are more up in the air than they have been for some time, so who can really say.
Also, I agree a third party would have to be built patiently from the ground up, where there is the possibility of electing local, state, and congressional officials. The presidential bids are more visible, but still only ephemeral propaganda exercises which leave nothing behind.