The talk of the day is about a third political party. Oddly enough, it seems to be driven by disaffected Republicans hoping for a purer or better Republican party. Parties are odd things - since to be one of the two major parties you have to be pretty inclusive. What actually defines them? The Democrats think of themselves as the party of the little guy and the Republicans think of themselves as the party of mainstreet America, but are they really? And even when you say the Democrats are the party of urban and rural America while the Republicans are the party of Suburbia, that is a tendency, not a uniformity. Same thing goes for the whole Red/Blue state dichotomy - we're really just shifting pattern of purple.
I would have thought the Democratic coalition of disparate groups would be the first to crack because the members seem to be in actual opposition over positions, where the Republican coalition between fiscal conservatives and moral conservatives could better tolerate different areas of interest. For instance, the working class Catholic part of the Democratic coalition has to clash with both the anti-religous and pro-abortion wings of the coalition. The interests of Black parents and the teacher's union leadership are also in opposition. The amazing thing to me about the Democratic party is that it hasn't torn itself apart, but maybe the ability to unite around hating Republican presidents is enough of a glue to keep itself together. And perhaps that's why the Republicans do better at electing Presidents - the strain shows up the worst on a national scale.
Of course, what people when they talk about a new third party is a third major party, because there are more third parties already out there than you can shake a stick at. In my life we've had a couple of third party candidates -- John Anderson (who's policies for 1980 are amazingly relevant for today) and Ross Perot who might have actually won the election if he hadn't vacillated because of what he thought was a Republican dirty tricks campaign -- but they didn't leave a major third party behind.
The last third party to emerge was the Republicans themselves - and it wasn't driven by leadership but by principle - the fight over slavery. That sort of galvanizing principle is what's needed to form a new major party, not some isolated man on a white horse riding in to our rescue. And the party that fell apart during the relignment was the Whigs, kind of old school Libertarians, who weren't as old, organized, or successful as the Democrats. I'm not sure that a new party built along the lines of what commentators think the Republican party should be would actually spawn a brand new third party when it's more likely that it would simply reenergize and transform the existing Republican party. If the problem is that the party faithful feel their party leadership is out of touch, wouldn't it be more likely that a lot of incumbants lose primaries and a new party leadership be installed than a whole new party be formed?
For a new major party to form, you have to have significant numbers of voters leave both current major parties, so you have to have a principle that divides both parties. Otherwise you wind up with one major party, two minor parties, and that same host of insignificant parties. Is (more/less) immigration that principle? It sure seems to provoke enough emotional reaction; but I'm not clear that it would split both parties or that a third party could grow by planting that banner. The fight over slavery festered and blazed over decades before it forged a new party - I don't think we are there yet on immigration. I don't think it's enough for people to climb up out of their ruts.
Quite frankly, I see the Democrats in far more danger of an actual crack up than the Republicans. I don't want to underestimate the power of habit and hatred, but that is all I can see holding the Democrats together. And a crack up of either party would mean a realignment as different interest groups migrated between the parties. If one or the other were to break apart, the other one would be changed as well as an influx of new voters and an outflow of old voters would change the party whatever it's name is.
