[Congressman Billybob]

I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that the historically successful way to do that is how the Republicans succeeded between 1854 and 1860.

John / Billybob

[Shaka]

Gotcha!! it can be done and is being done!! I am liking our chances more and more these days.

[Terabitten]

Excellent article, Congressman. It must be frustrating as hell that nobody apparently bothered to read it before posting their "third parties never win!!!!11!!1" rants. The Republic has always been focused around two parties. However, those parties are not static. Parties fracture and reform every 50-75 years or so, so we're actually overdue. There is room for the two parties to fracture and be put back together in ways that we don't see now.

I've long maintained that part of the reason that the Republican party was successful in the 80s and 90s was because we purged the wackos (the Klan, the neo-Nazis, et al) from the party in the 70s and early 80s. The Democrats embraced their wackos (the communists, the hard greens, etc) and now it shows. Most of the country disagrees, violently, with what the hard left wing of the Democrat party believes. If they fail to purge their extremists, a good chunk of the middle will move to the Republican party, not because the middle suddenly became conservative, but because the Republican party would offer the only voice of sanity.

I can see three de facto parties emerging thusly: A hard left seriously wacko party (10-20%), a moderate party (40-50%) and a conservative party (30-40%). They may still be under the names "Democrat" and "Republican," but it'll be three parties nonetheless. We're already seeing the seeds of that, with the Blue Dog Democrats and the Tea Party movements.