Unity08: A third party that could actually succeed, and why Democrats should avoid it

[Sparkly]

Unity08 is a centrist party designed to be shaped by its members -- a "people's movement." From what Sam Waterson said to Tweety yesterday, members ("delegates") would not only choose its ticket, but also shape the party's platform.

It sounds like Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, and Ralph Nader could all join hands with Joe Lieberman:

"Unity08 believes that neither of today’s major parties reflects the aspirations, fears or will of the majority of Americans. Both have polarized and alienated the people. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money."
http://www.unity08.com/

This is a third party that could actually succeed, because it aims to slice from the middle rather than either extreme of the left/right continuum. A first glance might make you think, "Uh oh, if this thing gains steam we'd better try to push it to the left!" But in fact, we'd better hope its platform looks more red than blue. Math is what it is, and a third party will still take votes that would otherwise go to Democrats or Republicans. Obviously, it behooves us to see this party attract disgruntled Republicans and split their vote, not ours.

The risk is its taking off and pulling in Democrats despite conservative policy positions. But I think it's a greater danger for such a party to rival the Democratic platform by resemblance. In other words, I think it should be avoided like the plague.

What do you think?

[WCGreen]

1. It also tells us what Sam thinks of Thompson....

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. They have the right to exist, but I don't want anything to do with them. Not if

Ron Paul will have an influence on it.

Gimme good ol' socialism any day.

[Sparkly]

3. No, Ron Paul is a Republican...

I was just giving an example of people who have similar rants against the two major parties.

[mrcheerful]

4. Libratarians repackaged and with a new platform?

From what I see this is just like the Libratarian party, long on promise but short on context. Unity? In america? Thats almost funny. Who it appeals to are the dunder heads out there that think america needs leaders instead of seeing political parties and members elected as public servents who were elected to do what we the people want done. I'm so sick and tired of this leader type thinking. Besides the fact that reguardless of who gets to be elected they still have to contend with people who are not of their party who will block the leaders every move. America, land of the stupid, fix lifes problems by running away from the problem they face and try to fix someone elses life.

[Sparkly]

7. Right now, there's not enough actual policy or philosophy to know what they are

I agree that they have some similarities with Libertarians and other third parties, though. It's like that sophomore year syndrome when people suddenly, temporarily believe they're superior to mere mortals; the notion that by putting things down, we are automatically above them. Things like this just appeal to that way of thinking, seems to me.

It's so far, seems to me, more about what it isn't than what it is.

[lazer47]

5. Just another "con job" to pull votes away from Democrats and

let the Repugs win again, they can't possibly win on merits, but they can win if they divide the Democrats.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. are you sure they won't split the repubs? no candidates there

[Sparkly]

9. That's what I'm hoping. nt

[lazer47]

11. Yea right!!!! Repugs voting for liberal causes,, thats really going to happen

[Sparkly]

12. What "liberal causes?" nt

[lazer47]

14. Most of the Green Party or Nader party platform is considered by

the right wing neocon Repubs to be liberal

[Sparkly]

15. Yes, but this is a "centrist" party. nt

[lazer47]

16. Try to get a Repug to believe that one and you have my vote

anything left of the extreme right is liberal to them.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Well, the Reform Party is the only...

national centrist party attempt I can think of, and we see how that ended. John Anderson didn't really have a party when he ran, so that doesn't really count. Most other parties have had a pretty narrow set of issues they were concerned with, or a very definite leaning right or left, and none of them have made much of a lasting impact.

Here's a list of parties currently registered in New York:

Communist Party
Conservative Party
Constitution Party
Democratic Party
Green Party
Independence Party
Liberal Party
Libertarian Party
Marijuana Reform Party
Natural Law Party
New Party
New York State Right to Life Party
New York State Taxpayers Party
Republican Party
Socialist Party
Working Families Party

So, ummm... where's this new Unity08 party going to fit into this mess? Just the name implies it's only for next year's Presidential election and then will fold its tent.

An "independant" President with no party affiliation or ties to any Congress members-- what a thought! It would really be fascinating to see how that would work.

[mrcheerful]

10. Or not work, lol.

[earthside]

13. Well, Nominate Hillary ...

... and I think you will indeed find out "how that would work."

I think Unity '08 is probably the vehicle for the Bloomberg-Hagel independent presidential candidacy. If Clinton is the Dem nominee, I see a close race (Bloomberg could win) ... with the Republican ticket actually coming in third place.

Folks here at DU should probably not be so dismissive of Unity '08. First, I think it demonstrates the genuine implosion of the Bushite-Republican Party -- really, they got nothin'! Secondly, perhaps Unity '08 with the prospect of a centerist candidate might start to stiffen the backbone of the establishment Democrats -- if they don't stop funding for the occupation of Iraq, they may be challenged seriously by a credible, well-financed independent political movement that will take action.

In other words, more and more Americans are finally growing impatient with cautious Washington insider politicians ... out here in the 'heartland' the feeling is if the Dems and Repugs cannot get the job done, then maybe it really is time to try a different approach. The Democratic Party should take Unity '08 as a reason to get tough on Bush/Cheney.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. Makes sense that...

Hagel and Bloomberg are out in front of a pack that smells blood in weak candidates next year.

Curiously, a lot of the interesting independant progressive runs have been by moderate or liberal Republicans-- T. Roosevelt, LaFollette, and Anderson. Henry Wallace the only left-leaning Democrat, but he was doomed with Communist support as the Cold War was starting. Dunno what Nader considered himself, and Perot was a political one-hit wonder. And there's that other Wallace that few seem to remember was the spirit of half the Dmocratic Party for years (but we shouldn't talk of the Party of Slavery and Segregation-- that's changed).

Anyway, if these serious players could never get a third party off the ground, I can't see anyone doing it now, even in a Mitt/Hillary race.

But, it will be fun to watch.

[TwilightGardener]

19. I agree with your assessment--

I think Unity '08 will end up being Bloomberg/Hagel, and I think it will hurt the Repubs far more than they realize right now. I think Dems will mostly stay with Hillary, if she's the nominee, and the Repub party might actually come in third. That would be a joy to behold.

[LWolf]

17. I don't disagree with the idea.

They are correct about some things:

... "neither of today’s major parties reflects the aspirations, fears or will of the majority of Americans. Both have polarized and alienated the people. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money."

I do not advocate for the current 2-party system. I think the political process, and the nation, would be healthier if we had a thriving multi-party system. I'm not worried about the Democratic Party losing power. Frankly, if Unity '08 is going to "cut from the middle," it might take some of those centrists and right centrists, and I'm still trying to figure out why that's a bad thing. :shrug:

If I were to choose a 3rd party, I wouldn't choose Unity '08, but whether or not I agree with their platform, I agree with the stated goals of ending polarity, ending the stranglehold big money donors hold on our politics.

The Democratic Party is better, and stronger, when she can hold her own in a healthy system of many thriving parties. In my opinion, of course.

[polichick]

20. I don't want to unite with Republicans...

I want someone to beam them up!

[Hawkowl]

21. Visions of Ross Perot redux

I don't want to see a third party pulling away rethuglican votes, because the rethugs will then use this as an excuse to denigrate our next president a la Bill Clinton. If our next democratic president wins with less than 50% of the popular vote he will be politically weaker because the MSM corporate media will be howling non-stop how dems just don't represent Amerika. And how dems never can seem to get a majority (and when they do, the rethugs just steal it anyway).

You can see how this argument would be a very potent strategy against Hilary herself; she being the current front runner with very high negatives. This third party has the potential to garner a lot of anti-Hilary sentiment. I'm not a big Hilary fan, but if she is elected I don't want her de-legitimized for the first four years. Dems have their biggest chance since FDR to really sweep the country clean of neo-fascism and we need a good, clean, uncluttered, decisive victory with no scape-goats. We need a nominee with as little baggage as possible. With as few people as possible hating her. This will make for the strongest Dem president since FDR.

So yes avoid the third party like the plague AND encourage everyone else, (including rethuglicans) to avoid it as well.