How many would support the formation of a new Party!

[floridaguy]

Here, Here :toast: No, not that kind, a political party.

One part of Clark's platform was the slogan:
New American Patriotism

I like the idea of a party of New American Patriots (NAP)

Now I thought the Dems ran a pretty good race. In fact, I was employed by them during the election. However, I feel the Dems are too entrenched in the political process. So since we have 4 years, we have time to start from scratch.

We could even start working on a platform and priorities now.
What do you think?

Call me idealistic, but we really have to do something.

[Teaser]

1. There are plenty of new parties formed every day.

Why would this one succeed where all others have failed?

[floridaguy]

3. Perhap enough people are disillusioned with the 2 party system

Besides, with that attitude the Wright brothers would have never tried to fly.

[Teaser]

12. Using that analogy...

The Wright brothers had some knowledge of aerodynamics and knew that flight was possible.

Those of us who study politicodynamics know that our system is designed to be a 2 party system. There will only ever be two simultaneously successful parties here.
And it takes a war to kill a party. Last time it was a civil war and the conflict over slavery that killed the Whigs.

So I propose you foment a civil war, at which point a third party capable of replacing the Democrats will be viable.

[Kolesar]

2. Ohio election laws are so much designed around the two party system...

...that I think it would be difficult to start a third party and get anywhere.

[floridaguy]

5. Probably all the state's laws are designed that way

so it certainly wouldn't be easy. Nothing that means anything ever is.

[hippiechick]

4. Are you aware of the other parties already out there ?

:shrug:

Libertarian
Green
Socialist Worker's
Natural Law
Constitution
Communist

... to name a few ...

Forming yet another isn't the solution. Bringing the already existing parties into legitimacy and evening the playing field by introducing proportional representation, IMO, is.


:hippie:

[floridaguy]

6. Proportional or coaltion type governments would better represent

our country. Look how many people supported Kucinich.
His supporters deserve a voice.

[hippiechick]

8. Exactly n/t

:hi:



:hippie:

[floridaguy]

9. Where I live almost one-third of registered voters are NPA's

That is, no party affiliations.
So these people don't care to join any of the existing parties, so perhaps they're looking for a new alternative.

[Zynx]

7. Bad idea.

The Republicans are unified and we are splintering. That's a great idea. We can't win an election when we are divided. Sure, you may have your wet dream of a third party, but you won't win any elections.

[w4rma]

10. I would under no circumstances support *anything* spliting the Democratic

Party. Period.

In fact I would begin to ignore the Republicans and fight any attempts to split the Democratic Party. And, I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who would would redivert resources away from exposing Republicans to do that.

[Catch22Dem]

11. Agree 100%

And I think any DUer who comes to DEMOCRATICunderground to suggest a split should FUCK OFF!!!

[Sperk]

13. I'm ready to go with any party who TELLS THE TRUTH and FIGHTS!

I'm sick and tired of all these intellegent, worldly and experience people in the Democratic party rolling over! What good is having the better ideas and the more successful policies if your going to roll over and let elections be stolen?!?!?!?!?!?

[Old and In the Way]

14. Sure....

When the Republicans cleave 1st. It is absolutely a dumb idea given the political realities today.

Why not do this instead. Identify yourself as a "Green Democrat" or a "Peak Oil Democrat" or a "Dean Democrat" or whatever label you need to identify your political priority. They really aren't mutually exclusive concepts. And may actually be quite helpful for the Party to identify the value priorities of their constituents.

[robbedvoter]

15. My party is already formed: the Common sense party

All you have to do is send me your daily dues of $100 and accept the platform: talking parties in a no-elections system is NUTZ!
make check payable to: Robbedvoter.....

[Old and In the Way]

16. Why not organize disaffected/disenfranchised Republicans?

That would be helpful.

[The Flaming Red Head]

17. Let's just take back this one

[THUNDER HANDS]

18. here's a novel idea, how about a conservative, religious 3rd party

to split the Republicans in two.

[The Flaming Red Head]

24. I thought that was what the Democrats were becoming

[ozymandius]

19. I am considering a master's degree on a similar issue.

I ponder that a new party is not entirely necessary if you have the force of one candidate's personality (ex: Howard Dean) with the necessary monetary infrastructure. Dean, under the Joe Trippi fundraising model, raised millions of dollars through the Internet. This new fundraising medium makes me wonder if the established party system is outdating itself. On one side, you have the old model exemplified by the Bush campaign (raising $10 million via the Internet in the last campaign cycle). On the other side - you have the Democratic party that raised substatially more money than the Republicans via the Internet through the Joe Trippi model. Then you have the candidate who could tear the traditional models apart. (Do you remember when Dean practically begged his supporters to swing behind Kerry?)

Bloggers, Internet-connectivity, 527s and PACs have this new moneymaking tool at their disposal. I expect to see it used with even greater effect in two years - and more in four. This will give voice and vehicle for the more marginalized elements of the political spectrum. To my point: political party affiliation may become a subtext to the candidate with the most powerful message flush with funds.

[madfloridian]

20. Please don't use the word "patriotism".

I get chills now when I hear that word. It evokes images of flag-waving now. It reminds me we have become an even more militaristic country than we were before.

The ideas that I once associated with patriotism are gone now, just the war-mongering ones remain.

[Fla Dem]

31. Sorry you feel that way about patriotism.

Maybe because I grew up in New England and the 1st patriots were the Minute Men, I won't allow hypocritical politicians, campaign strategists and cable pundits hijack my feelings of patriotism. I am still proud of my country, swell with pride when I hear the Star Spangled Banner, and thank my lucky stars I was born in this land of opportunity.

My patriotism does not ebb and flow with the current political climate. That doesn't mean I don't get angry, and yes downright ashamed at the actions of elected officials. Whether they are local council members, or the POTUS. I am willing to stand up and say when I think my country has overstepped it covenant with the rest of the world, such as the war in Iraq. I am disgusted that our political leaders have condoned the brutal killing of thousands of innocent women and children in Iraq and sent 1200 of our servicemen and women to their deaths for a wrongful war. I freely admit when we have not been on the right side of justice and humanity.

America also does much good around the world. Americans do many good deeds and give millions hope.

My patriotism runs deeper. I think of my Mom and Dad who both served in WWII, my grandfather in WWI, and my brother in Vietnam. I think of the 100s of thousands who died in the American Revolution and the Civil War.

These people were not fighting for a person, they were fighting for a country and a way of life. Governments change, maybe not soon enough for some of us, but they do eventually change. My patriotism isn't wedded to who is the current occupier of the WH, it's to what America has been and what it can be in the future. I'd rather be part of the solution to our problems than turn my back on the greatest country on earth.

[madfloridian]

32. Wow, you read a lot into my statement.

I was called unpatriotic by my church because we opposed the Iraq invasion. I have always been a good American, but what my country is doing now is wrong.

It is called nationalism when a country is so obsessed with being a patriot.

I opposed the war, I am unpatriotic...I will never forget that.

I refuse to be approving of this invasion. I think if we keep appealing to patriotism we will become more militaristic.

Bur then what do I know? :shrug:

[jwirr]

21. Here we go again!

If a third party cannot win the house and the senate then they will never win the presidency. There is nothing the repugs like more than our fighting between ourselves. Their motto is divide and conquer. A third party in order to be meaningful would need to start at the grassroots by winning the county, state and federal congressional offices. Only then will it make any difference who is setting in the white house. Without power in the other legistative branches the president is all put powerless. I think we would see that to a great extent if Kerry should be able to prove fraud and win the election now. His hands would be tied except in four areas: he could administer the CIA and pentagon differently, he could deal with regulation changes in already existing laws and he could save the supreme court. He would also be able to work better with other leaders of the world. He would not be able to institute new laws or reinstate old ones without congressional help. It would take years to build a strong enough third party to accomplish this. I suggest we start making noise in our own party and that we demand that our elected Democrat leaders hear us. I have watched elections since D.D Eisenhower won his first election and I have never even seen a third party come close to winning. More often than not they merely pushed the election one way or the other (i. e. George Wallace). I think what we really need is election reform. The Democrat Party did just fine until the cost of campaigning became so costly (TV ads) that they were forced to take money from the corporations to compete. They have a hard time speaking for the people when they have to work with corps. There will be little we can do if we cannot do something about corps and that does not seem to be a repug priority.

[floridaguy]

22. Perhaps an intelligent discussion about this isn't possible now, or ever!

I simply asked "how many" people would support another party. In fact, a lot of people here, DO support other parties.

I wouldn't go on an official message board of THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY and ask the same question, nor did I do it during the election. In fact, I worked my ass off for the Democratic Party.

Now,unless I'm mistaken as to the intent of DU, I thought theoretical or thought-provoking questions about all progressive or liberal ideas would be welcomed.

Perhaps I'm wrong. :wtf:

It's interesting that a few of the comics here are similar to the insults and other stuff I got for wearing my "Anyone But Bush" and "Kerry" shirts.

[bush_is_wacko]

23. Four years is not long enough!

It seems to me there are too many people with this type of idealistic veiw. The reality is that this country is not ready to accept a third party yet. Change comes slowly. And this type of change would only occur as a result of a revolutionary change. If you want to fight the system, change it from within. It is far easier to accomplish that than to create a new system!

[whistle]

25. New American Patriots sounds like a militia group . . .

. . . not a political party. It also smacks of loyalty oaths, signed agreements of who we should follow and so forth. I would like to see representatives begin to base their platforms on truth, integrity and what is best for American people. If that means politics based on coalitions rather than political party machines, then so be it. But, if it is necessary to form a new party to reach that point, how about the New Progressive Democratic Party (NPD)? The NPD platform would be, "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

[floridaguy]

27. Interesting, but don't say it too loud, because

dissension appears to only be an acceptable thing, if it's directed in the RIGHT direction.

Lighten up folks, it's just a discussion. :silly:

[JPJones]

26. 59,000,000 Republicans would support that n/t

[bemildred]

28. I'd rather take control of the Democratic Party.

Third parties get marginalized. The ballot is already littered
with them. That is no accident.

[lthuedk]

29. If the U.S. survives 2005, gut the Democratic Party and restock.

But, there's not enough time.

I think a radicalism will return overnight that is one hundred times the magnitude of that in the sixties. We now have no discernible Democratic Party. To challenge the tyrannical Bushists will require more than mollifiers, compromisers, and moderates. The Party would require having the military and intelligence on it's side. Fascists are powerless without their military.

We would need to recruit every expunged CIA and FBI agent-patriot, every disgruntled military commander, every willing police commander, every professional willing to draw a line and stand collectively behind it. The current military needs to be flash-educated about the nature and goal of their commander in chief.

Realistically, secession could happen before the current Party make up changes enough to lead us in such a struggle. A third party is too little, to late.

[QC]

30. Karl Rove would support us forming a new party.

Then, with the progressive vote split even further, he would never again have to worry about the GOP losing power.

[liberalpragmatist]

33. What's wrong with the Democratic Party and how?

How exactly would we start a new one? We're in a bad situation, but it's not dire. There's plenty of talent within the Democratic Party, we have some good leaders, we need better strategists and clearly there is work to be done, but to say that we're so out of touch that we need to be destroyed? Come on.

The only time in the last half-century, where I think the window was open for the formation of a new party was in the '60s, with the society torn apart over Vietnam and civil rights. Had the Republicans been led by someone like Rockefeller, a Liberal, and the Democratic Party still led by Kennedy and Humphrey liberals, then conservatives would likely have walked out of both parties to form a new Conservative Party, while the rump factions of the Republican and Democratic parties would've merged - perhaps retaining either the democratic-party label or the Republican-party label or something new like a new "Progressive Party."

As it was, it never happened, b/c Nixon used the Southern strategy to trigger a realignment, rather than the breakdown of the old party system. Actually, he did try to change the party system - he and John Connally wanted to create a new Conservative Party out of the conservative factions of both the Republicans and the Democrats, but it didn't happen.

We already have plenty of infrastructure, the support of half the country, and a lot of good ideas - now we need to do some work and rebranding and we should be fine.

The idea that we can simply form a new party to take over the Democratic Party is ridiculous. More likely would be a name change - but there's no point in that b/c the Democratic Party has a pretty long history.