Calling the Whigs a "national party" in 1856 and 1860 is sort of like calling the Constitution Party of today a "national party." Sure, in a technical sense it's true, since they do have a couple of schmoes who constitute the "state party organisation" in each state, run out of one guy's basement. But to actually try to apply this term credibly is simply laughable.
My original point stands, tho. The idea that there can be only two political parties, and that third parties never, ever amount to anything is disproven by the history of the GOP itself.
No it doesn't. Not by a long shot. The Whigs were not a second party after 1852. In fact, most of the Whigs became Republicans between 1852 and 1860, which is why the GOP rose so suddenly to national prominence. It was essentially filling the void left by the Whigs after their collapse. The idea that the GOP is in some similar state today, and that there's this vacuum just waiting to be filled by some rinky-dink third party that is guaranteed to appeal to only about 10% of the population is absolute balderdash. It's the same sort of childish wishful thinking that we so commonly see on the Left in places like Democratic Underground.
The GOP is increasingly heading down the road to irrelevancy by their own hand and the selection of a feckless, stupid and utterly incompetent leadership (eg, Steele) and at some point, the GOP will either be taken over by the people it purports to represent, or it will suffer defeat and become irrelevant and people will create another party to represent their issues.
Every agrees that the GOP "leadership" has big problems. The obvious answer is to replace the "leadership," not waste time, money, and energy on the quixotic quest to convince millions of grassroots level registered Republicans to leave their party and join some egomaniac's third party experiment. No thanks. The only things irrelvant are third partyist delusions.
And many of the people in the new “third party” will be disaffected Republicans, much as many of the original Republicans were disaffected Whigs (eg, Abraham Lincoln).
Yeah. Good luck with that. There's a reason that, despite the failures of the GOP leadership for decades, that no third party has appeared on the scene to present any credible competition. It's because these third parties are usually so abrasive in their approach or so irrelevant in their appeal that there's no hope of them ever being more than fringe spoilers that help the Dimocrats win in tight races.
Good luck replacing the leadership of the GOP.
I rather suspect that people will grow tired of the GOP long before they’ll be able to reform it.
The GOP continues to wander the landscape with their head firmly wedged betwixt their buttocks, with no economic policy worthy of the term. Should they win both houses of Congress in this election, the lack of any plan other than to “not do what the Democrats want to do” will become apparent, and pretty much seal the GOP’s fate. At this point in time, we have an Evil Party (the Democrats) and a Stupid Party (the Republicans). One is actively making the economic situation worse, the other has no plan on how to make the situation better.
Most of you party die-hards are utterly ignorant of the size and scope of the financial problem before us. I can spot the card-carrying “I am a Clueless Republican” types when they claim that tax cuts will get us out of the problems we are now in.
If the GOP takes control of Congress and does not produce results quickly, they will find out just how quickly these things can turn, just as the Whigs did. The problem was slavery when the Whigs were torn apart by internal divisions, now the issues are economic.
I also think that since our “Republican System” (No I don’t mean Republican party!)which was mandated by the Constitution is NOT a parliamentary system so it functionally penalizes 3rd parties. It’s essentially a “winner take all system”, executive offices are electorally distinct from legislative offices there is no polling of the legislature and the picking of a prime minister. Third parties in America are historically sources of ideas and political trends and not all of them good ! They are not sources of political power. It takes an extraordinary set of circumstances for a 3rd party to replace one of the major parties. Electorally all a 3rd party does is provide “dissenters” a place to go at the polls. Of this 3rd party is a “spin-off” of a major party this “dissent vote” hands the election to the opposition.