« Hyping the gerrymandering/polarization link | Main | Twitter roundup »

February 22, 2010


Alas, without a third party there is no hope of change. The democrats and republicans are both owned by the same people. There is no hope with either of those parties. They are what I refer to as a two headed monster.

Bayh doesn't disagree in any important way with today's leading Democrats; instead he marches pretty much in lockstep with them. The reason Bayh is complaining about DC partisanship and talking about a third party is because he wants to be President and can't come up with a realistic plan to win the Dem nomination in 2012.

George Will talked about Bayh yesterday with ABC News host Terry Moran. Will observed:

"Well, it's hard to take a lecture on bipartisanship from a man [Evan Bayh] who voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts, the confirmation of Justice Alito, the confirmation of Attorney General Ashcroft, and the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.

"Far from being a rebel against his Party's lockstep movement, Mr. Bayh voted for the Detroit bailout, for the stimulus, for the public option in the healthcare bill.

"I don't know quite what his complaint is, but, Terry, with metronomic regularity, we go through these moments in Washington where we complain about the government being broken. These moments have one thing in common: The Left is having trouble enacting its agenda.

"No one, when George W. Bush had trouble reforming Social Security, said 'Oh, that's terrible! The government's broken'."

We already have a multiparty system in the US. Each party (Republican/Democratic) has its conservative/moderate or liberal/moderate wings, thus creating factions within factions.

It's no different in parliamentary democracies where smaller parties often pledge their support to the major parties who don't win absolute majorities.

But as far as a presidential candidate making an impact as a third party or independent - see Ross Perot. Had he not dropped out of the race in 1992, he could've possibly won.

But I think he more likely wouldn't have gotten a majority in the Electoral College and would've thrown the vote to the House and Senate.

Current situation of a struggling govt and an opposition widely seen as discredited and extremist does create a vacuum that a cashed-up political entrepreneur a la Perot could fill. Platform of cuts in entitlement programs and middle of the road social policy perhaps symbolized by ending DADT. Debt/deficits anxiety could mobilize many voters.Any such candidate would take more votes from the Republicans.

The only wasted vote, in any election, is a vote for Democrats or Republicans.

The comments to this entry are closed.