I repeat the answer I gave you, substituting "third force" for "third party" as appropriate, to suit your view that there is some practical distinction with merit between the two.
You can organize a "force" or whatever term you want to use all you want. You would still end up having to work through the two-party system.
Moreover, there already exists this so-called "force" within the two political parties. This "force" is otherwise called the party's "base."
The bases of each of the two political parties have been organized, and have been trying to further organize, within the parties since time immemorial. Yet here we are. Why?
Because the deeper you drive into individuals' personal views, the deeper disunity becomes. There is a natural point beyond which "organization" cannot occur because there is no agreement on an organizing principle.
This is a natural fact and it's the reason why, today, the "force"---i.e., the more-or-less organized base in the Republican Party---cannot become more powerfully organized. It has reached its natural limit. At the micro level, there are too many nuanced differences in "principles" and approaches.
This is demonstrated right here on FR, where the "force" has not agreed on which candidate is conservative "enough" to deserve whole-hearted support.
But if you want to go for it, as I said, knock yourself out and more power to you. Regardless, to have any efficacy at all---unless you only want to be a homewrecker---you will end up having to work through the larger organization, meaning one of the two major political parties in America.
"third force" or "third party", six in one hand, half a dozen in the other.
The reason conservatives should not bother with Viguerie's call to organize is that they can't organize on any level smaller than the GOP. Don't think I agree with you on that point. What of the Main Street Republicans? What of the Club for Growth? The Moral Majority? The Minutemen?
"But if you want to go for it, as I said, knock yourself out and more power to you. Regardless, to have any efficacy at all---unless you only want to be a homewrecker---you will end up having to work through the larger organization, meaning one of the two major political parties in America."
That may well be true, but having to channel candidates through one party's structure might be more easily done if the fundraising and campaigning for the candidates were not controlled by the party itself. Think of the Clinton/DLC machine, and the way it managed to turn itself into the party prior to Dean. After Dean began a separate structure independent of the DNC, the DNC realized it needed him to keep the party together, and since his 'rejoining' the Rat crowd, the DNC has hewed pretty largely to the public line of the far left, though it has had some difficulty putting up because those who will vote for far left officeholders are fewer in number than those who'll vote for a DLC type. And liberal contributions have stayed put in large amounts in the coffers of non-party organizations like Moveon, not to the DNC, a fact which Hillary has tried to use to move Dean out.
I think your arguments don't ring convincingly against organizing a conservative wing at all. They only really effectively demonstrate that you miss something important. You think that "The bases of each of the two political parties have been organized, and have been trying to further organize, within the parties since time immemorial." But you miss that the bases for each party have changed radically over the years. Even thirty years ago, the GOP was not entirely a conservative party, as it did not command (as it does not now command) the Jacksonian conservative political wing. The GOP had to actively court it and commit to it to win its votes even through the Nixon years, and Watergate's obvious corruption flipped that crowd away into voting for Carter.
Mead defines that wing as "Suspicious of untrammeled federal power (Waco), skeptical about the prospects for domestic and foreign do-gooding (welfare at home, foreign aid abroad), opposed to federal taxes but obstinately fond of federal programs seen as primarily helping the middle class (Social Security and Medicare, mortgage interest subsidies)..." This sounds significantly like the disenchanted 'whiners' here, with the obvious exception that most of these folks have gone off federal middle class spending (except perhaps as a method of somewhat evening the score for corporate and other welfare). Organizing that group separately from the rest of the GOP, making it into an independent power base to be wooed, would likely produce a recognizable rise in party influence. If that is homewrecking, perhaps the house needs more remodeling than you are willing to admit.