Can you foresee an Independent Progressive Party in the future?

[kentuck]

Could you ever foresee the progressive base breaking loose from the present Democratic Party to form their own coalition? And what would be the impetus to start such a Party? How effective could it be? Would it be a grassroots movement? Or would it just be a stalking horse for the Republican victories? Or is it just an illusion with nothing of substance behind it? Any opinions on this matter?

[Warpy]

1. I can see the Progressive Caucus in the Democratic Party

finally getting enough muscle to challenge the hidebound, predictable and consistently wrong Blue Dogs.

It's been a long time coming, but the one thing nobody can seem to stop is an idea whose time has come. The pendulum is overdue for a swing back to the left.

[Clovis Sangrail]

2. yes

though I think it will either be after or a part of significant electoral reform which will eliminate the 2 party system.

If we move to IRV voting( or Condorcet or something along those lines) I think it will be the death knell of the 2 party system. I think that's also why the Democratic and Republican party leaders will fight it tooth and nail until they are forced to support it.

[Gman]

3. Political parties are coalitions of groups of varying interests

in order to win, they all must work together, regardless of how much one group dislikes another. If progressives want to split off it would be an act of futility. Progressives would be able to make noise but they'll win no significant majorities where it counts. America is too diverse.

The problem with progressives is they are convinced they are right, there are no other acceptable opinions and everyone else is a republican that doesn't see it their way. That's not exactly a good way to make friends, influence people and win elections. Then again, forming a new progressive party concedes not wanting to make friends, influence people and winning elections.

[Iris]

14. welll, mostly they are right.

take the environment, for instance...

[Gman]

18. They are right on many issues

but what do you do in a situation where a group, a part of a progressive coalition (which it would have to be) would want to outlaw slaughtering cattle and they just won't support the ticket if that's not in the platform. It's not like that would play well in Iowa or other corn producing states where corn is used for cattle feed. Or another group that would severely restrict free trade by slapping high tariffs on imported goods? That doesn't play well with people who's jobs depend on their goods being exported and who would be victims of retaliatory tariffs (assuming there is manufacturing left in the US anywhere).

These are just examples and I'm not saying any group is demanding these things now. Nor am I saying these issues are without merit. But these are the kinds of issues that would have to be pulled together and presented as a "mainstream" package that mid-America would buy into along with what would likely be unpopular positions on national defense, corporations in general, etc.

It won't happen in my lifetime or anyone else's lifetime here on DU. Progressives' best plan is to continue to occupy their niche in the Democratic Party and try to expand on it as they've done with Obama. Anything else casts progressives out into oblivion in their own little lifeboat.

[NeedleCast]

4. Yes

It would never win anything, but yest.

[ColbertWatcher]

5. Ralph? Ralph Nader? Is that you!? n/t

[bowens43]

6. yes

an they will be as successful as those we've had in the past......

[kentuck]

7. Does that mean that this is a "conservative" country ??

That will not vote for anything progressive?

[Hydra]

8. I would have said yes

But we're watching our party help shred the constitution, and talking about "party solidarity" of the GE.

There are enough people to have a third party that can win- The repubs only win though election fraud, and the blue dogs would just go over to them without our support(Like Lieberman).

That said, the myth that America is a conservative christian nation keeps us from seeing just how small a group the enemies of freedom are.

[Justpat]

9. Hell yes

And the sooner it gets started, the better.

This pile of wimps and sell outs in the Democratic Party has completely lost me
and I have been a loyal Dem since '68.

I think Dems almost need to remake themselves, including renaming themselves after
the last eight years of inaction, fear and paralysis on the part of our so called
leaders.

I'd start by kicking Pelosi and Reed to the curb. They govern like they are still
in the minority and operate out of fear instead of out of a sense of fighting for the
constitution and the truth.

I detest them both. That would be my start. Kick them the hell out and find someone
who believes that impeachment is necessary to stop the lawlessness of Dubya and dick
right now.

After the election, finish cleaning house of all the Dem traitors.

[whistle]

10. Something must happen to bring justice and happiness to the many

"America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defense of vested interests. She now stands for what Rome stood for. Rome consistently supported the rich against the poor in all foreign communities that fell under her sway; and, since the poor, so far, have always and everywhere been far more numerous than the rich, Rome's policy made for inequality, for injustice, and for the least happiness of the greatest number."
Arnold Toynbee, historian, 1961

[anonymous171]

11. Until things change, they would only be a spoiler. nt

[kentuck]

12. Nothing will change...

until the progressives are feared and respected. They will not be respected until they are feared. They are taken for granted. Unfortunately...

[dysfunctional press]

13. not a viable one.

the parties we have are pretty well entrenched.

[truebrit71]

15. I would love to see one....unfortunately I fear it would be an even bigger circular firing squad...

...than the current bunch of buffoons on the Hill....

[CanonRay]

16. Not unless we change to a parliament

[Winterblues]

17. I thought the Green Party was going to be that Party but the let Nader

be their candidate and that pretty much shot them out of the saddle. I will still pay attention to what they say and follow their actions but they got way off track with Nader. I can only hope something happens because what we have now simply is not acceptable to me..

[Fumesucker]

19. Obama will make the decision..

Sadly, I think he will make the decision that a third party is needed.

I was cautiously optimistic but my optimism is fading fast.

[Two Americas]

20. very likely to happen, maybe inevitable

I think it highly likely, but I don't think it will be "progressives" who form a new party as a group. The "progressives" are split as badly as any segment of the party. The word is pretty poorly defined, since it is used by people all across the political spectrum in the party and within modern liberalism.

I think that both parties are highly unstable now and in danger of collapsing, splitting, or being radically overhauled. I can't see how things can stay the way they are.


A few more comments, on edit... "fools rush in..."

What we have right now are two parties each of which represents a different group of "haves" with the have nots - at least 50% and maybe 70% - left out of the picture altogether. We also have to parties largely under the control of corporations and Wall Street - the upper 1%, the wealthy and powerful few. That is unstable and cannot last indefinitely. There will either be more poverty and more tyranny (the same thing really) or there will be a major shake up.

So long as progressives are advocating for the haves, the "liberal" or "progressive" haves, this will leave the field open for the right wingers to falsely pose as the champion of the common people, which they have been doing successfully for 30 years or so now.

There are many examples of how the progressives actually represent the haves. One white doctoral candidate from Scandinavia goes through a pretty mild episode of harassment from Homeland Security, and there is universal uproar and outrage from progressives. 800,000 poor brown people are terrorized and detained, drugged and abused, denied due process, and there is no consensus about that among progressives. A handful of well-off and successful people dress up in costumes and disrupt Congressional hearings, and there is universal applause and admiration. Millions of poor brown people take to the streets demanding justice and equality, and there is no consensus about that. The most stunning thing to me was that simultaneous with the immigrant rights marches, I saw people posting things such as "when oh when will the stupid ignorant people ever take to the streets?" The people were in the streets, but they were not "our kind of people."