Centerfield

I wouldn't confuse diiversity with weakness in leadership and monolithic party politics with strength. While such monocratic structures like the GOP may appear strong, we're already seeing how fragile it is with the coming midterm elections. If you have any questions about that I suggest reading through the Mason-Dixon website. Also note that the GOP is spending about 4 million dollars in what is considered a SAFE House seat in San Diego. The Democratiic party has some pretty strong leaders in a number of people including both Clintons, Pelosi and Dean, the latter in the process of totally reshaping how Democrats look at and run elections and pretty much borrowing from the GOP model.

Like the man said about leading Democrats, it's like herding cats.

Posted by: Marcus at June 4, 2006 08:17 PM

Jon,
It bears noting that the Federalist party had effectively been finished since the election of 1800, having cut its own throat with the alien and sedition acts. It may well have been the peace party in the war of 1812, but it had never regained control of the Presidency or Congress since 1800 (and never would); in the Seventh House of Representatives, elected in that year, 38 Federalists were swamped by 68 Jeffersonian Republicans. In the eighth House, 103 Jeffersonian Republicans dominated 39 Federalists, the Ninth House split 114 Jeffersonian Republicans to 28 Federalists, and in the Tenth House, that number dwindled to 26 Federalists. The Twelfth Congress, which declared war on Britain in 1812, was packed with 107 Jeffersonian Republicans to only 36 Federalists, and although the Thirteenth House saw the Federalists rack up 68 seats, 114 Jeffersonian Republicans came with them to Washington, and thereafter dwindled as thecountry headed towards Jackson's administration, from 64 (14th) to 39 (15th) to 26 (16th).

It bears noting that the Federalists withered on the vine because they were radically out of step with the mood of the times. Their defeat in 1800 ushered in an era of complete isolation in the wilderness for the party, one that actually never ended (the party sunk further and further until it eventually split). So I would think that Democrats would certainly hope that history does not repeat itself.

Posted by: Simon at June 5, 2006 12:36 AM

My, how simplistic the War of 1812 has become.

The "blue states" of 1812 were the New England states that either bordered Canada or were dependent on international port trade--mostly with Britain. The British Navy had the capacity to shut down that trade (and pretty much did).

The Hartford Convention was held purportedly to discuss constitutional amendments to protect the "blue states" interests. The real agenda was to discuss secession from the Union. Peace came too quickly for that plan to progress much farther (the Convention delegates who went to Washington to negotiate secession were met with the news of the Treaty of Ghent) and when the real reason for the Convention came to light, the Federalists were completely finished as a political force. The secession plan was widely regarded as near-treason.

Posted by: Tully at June 5, 2006 06:59 AM

Not to downplay the self-serving nature of the Hartford Amendment proposals, which were indeed quite self-serving on the part of Massachussets, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. They were never intended to pass Congress, but to embarrass Madison and the Democratic Republicans, and provide leverage for negotiations of increased state sovereignty.

The allegations that the British were arming the Indians on the northwestern frontier and actively violating the Treaty of Paris as regarded the border forts were true. What wasn't true was the allegation that the British were actively planning to invade through Canada to seize new England, or that their arms trade with the Indians was for the purpose of establishing a native force to fight the Americans. The Brit traders were just after the money and furs.

Both the British and the French were preying on American trade, as the Americans were dealing with both sides in the Napoleonic Wars. The big winner was Napoleon, who after Macon's Bill #2 was passed managed to sucker the Americans into believing he would leave American shipping alone, resulting in a new American embargo against Britain. (Napoleon was lying, of course...French privateers continued to take any American ships not destined for French forces, and the back-door alliance of France and America soon evaporated.)

Posted by: Tully at June 5, 2006 10:15 AM

The only reason that more than two parties have never maintained broad support for very long is because it has never been provided for.

At first we only had one round elections. Then we went to party conventions and now we have party primaries.

If a new party were to establish all-candidate primaries where ballot access were the same for all parties, the new ones and the old, Libertarians, Greens, Independents as well as Republican and Democrats, and have the same threashhold for a run-off, then third parties would become a greater part of the system.

The truth is no major party has ever provided for it.

There are at least three good reasons for this to become a reality. 1)It would allow politicians and voters to know exactly where the Center is at instead of assuming that it simply lies at the mid-point between whatever it is the Republicans and Democrats capriciously "stand" (or don't stand) for at any given moment. 2)It would allow voters to pass judgement on the system as a whole rather than just the choices or lack thereof between the two parties. And 3)It increases the likelihood that when the major parties fail to objectively represent the whole country that they will fail to win a majority, again passing judgement upon the major parties as insufficiently broad to represent the American people. I.e. no illusion of majority support as created under the existing party primary system.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 5, 2006 12:39 PM

We have had serious 3rd parties emerge in this country without the demise of the major two since the Civil War: Greenback, Populist, Progressive, and Independence (different parties of differing stripes.)

It isn't whether a 3rd party can form without the previous collapse of a major party, but whether both major parties can withstand the creation of a new 3rd party.

Ballot access laws are difficult to challenge but movement for a serious 3rd party could still overcome it.

It's absolutely true that it took over 70 years for this country to develop a stable 2-Party system and that made it easier for 3rd parties to emerge before the Civil War and it will have taken twice as many years to replace it, but there is a serious block of voters in this country that is simply tired of being perpetually **ssed off!

The only questions remaining is whether these PO's voters agree on enough to make a go of it anytime soon, whether they still care.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 5, 2006 12:52 PM

there is a serious block of voters in this country that is simply tired of being perpetually **ssed off!

I am at a loss to understand why you would think that this will change whether there are three parties or three hundred parties. The Democrats have been pissed off since 2000, not because the Democratic party isn't adequately representing them, but because they're out of power. They're not perpetually **ssed off because of the two party system, they're perpetually **ssed off because a party they disagree with is calling the shots! Posted by: Simon at June 5, 2006 03:07 PM

Simon,

I'm rather shocked at you making such a comment. There are alot of people in the country today who are ssed-off and quite alot of them aren't Democrats.

The Republican Party has been masquerading as a limited government party for years and the Bush years have proved that to be a farse. Alot of self-described limited government conservatives have been given excuse after excuse after excuse.

In the Reagan years it was because the Democrats ran the House.

After 1994 it was because Clinton was President. After 2000 it was because we were at war and the Democrats have the filibuster.

They're always the victim of some Democrat.

What does your comment mean??? Are you opposed to alternatives?

If the government became more limited in scope and more accountable I think you WOULD find that people in general were less upset with their government. Except from time to time.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at June 5, 2006 07:39 PM

I'm opposed to any alternative that involves a third party in the general election, yes. The time to deal with the problems in the GOP is primary elections; that is, after all, what they are there for. This is not Europe; the party's candidates are not selected in smoky back rooms. Primary elections exist precisely for the party's membership to exercise control over who the candidate is, and that is the time to deal with such matters.

Posted by: Simon at June 6, 2006 02:07 PM