I fear a third party would be more likely to rise from Bush supporters disenchanted by his pandering to the religious right. Such a move would be disastrous and practically insure a victory for Hillary in 2008.

They're called libertarians and they get 1%. They also reside in Blue States which Democrats already win. The bigger threat is the nativists, but the Labor-dominated Democratic party is probably sufficiently anti-immigration for them.

Pray tell, what is the substantive evidence that the Bush administration has "pandered to the religious right?" Babies are slaughtered, perverts are recruiting in public schools, aZnd all we are getting is talk, talk, talk.

A third party is not the issue. The two-party syetem is structural to American government. What we will see after the end of the Democrat party is a new two-party system, with the new party made up of peices of both of the old parties. The future of Republican supremacy depends upon the maturity of its factions, which thus far seems solid.

If our perverts and baby-killers flake off to the new second party, and we pick up the good former Democrats, what's the problem?

This 3rd party nonsense is the mindless blabbering of political junkies who have lost their grip on reality. Winner-takes-all elections don't much accommodate more than 2 parties. The Nader/Green/MoveOn lefties aren't going to start their own party because they've nearly completed their takeover of the Dems. Religious conservatives are happy with the Republicans. As oj said, the hard-core libertarians are too small to matter. The average person will drift to the Republicans since the average American is center-right and always has been. All that's going on is a realignment, with the numbers for Dem-Rep affiliation settling into the reverse of what it was for 60 years, with a several point advantage for Republicans.

oj wrote: "They're called libertarians and they get 1%."

Not really. The official Libertarian party doesn't get any votes (

But I'm glad to see that y'all are complacent Republicans. Please keep your blinders on. We appreciate that.

Because he's a right wing movie star. They usually win.

Bret: Define "we".

What happened to my last comment? The middle got severely truncated, though oj apparently got the whole thing because his response referred to the governor of California.

In my comment above, after the dangling left parenthesis, was something to the effect that though the Libertarian party doesn't get votes, there is a substantial block of pro-capitalism, hawkish, but socially liberal voters, for example those that voted for Ahnold, who might possibly switch from voting republican under certain circumstances.

oj, Ahnold may be right-wing relative to most actors, but is miles left of, well, you, for example. He isn't particularly religiousand has no great aversion to casual sex or drugs.

David, "we" (or "you") is anyone who thinks there is no possibility of a political realignment in the next couple of decades where the religious republicans lose power.

By the way, David, I really liked your L'shanah haba'ah biyerushalayim post (I liked it last year too), and wanted to comment on that but comments seem to be closed for that particular post.

He always plays cops.

>David, "we" (or "you") is anyone who thinks there is no possibility of a political realignment in the next couple of decades where the religious republicans lose power.

Bret, I doubt that you'll find anyone unwilling to concede this possibility, but it is certainly nice to know your hopes aren't too high... And when the "religious Republicans" do lose power, it will be to religious Democrats, not the current crop of loons.

Why would libertarians fear 'religious republicans'? The primary concern of both is official adherence to the constitution as well as the devolution of power to the states and localities. That is somewhat "liberatrian". no?

No. Libertarianism is just about the self.

Tom C. wrote: "Why would libertarians fear 'religious republicans'?"

Currently, they don't. That's why they voted Republican during the last two elections. Indeed, my Libertarian friends (I'm not Libertarian) are quick to point out that it is the Left that they feel is more intolerant and frightening at this point.

oj wrote: "Libertarianism is just about the self."

Yeah, yeah, you've made it clear that every belief and political system except your own is "just about the self". It's very impressive that there are no selfish conservatives.

Selfish conservatives are called libertarian. No one married with children is a libertarian.

oj wrote: "No one married with children is a libertarian."

Since "Mr. Libertarian" himself, Robert Nozick, was married with two children, I'd say we can put that conjecture to bed immediately.

Christ was single and childless.

Was he?

Mr. Gots;

Mostly correct. Third parties do arise in our system, but they are unstable. They either replace one of the previous two major parties (Republics vs. Whigs) or they fade off (Ross Perot's Reform party). But a three party system can persist for a Presidential election or two.

What I think could happen is a vaguely libertarian party could arise in the near future. This would b e an amalgem of the "leave me alone!" crowd, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, limited government types (what Andrew Sullivan tried to called "eagles" in his typically self-aggrandizing way, but I prefer to call "coots"). Such a party could split off big chunks of the Democratic and Republican Parties. The GOP would go on, if somewhat smaller but this would be the end of the Donkeys with most of the them going over to the coots and leaving behind the fringe.

However, OJ is correct in one thing here -- you won't see any significant bolting from the GOP unless there's some place far more attractive (in terms of both plank and probably success) than the current Democratic Party.

P.S. As a libertarian, let me say that the one thing that by far infuriates me most about President Bush is the fact that he signed the Campaign Finance "Reform" bill. If there's one thing libertarians should fear from Bush's political actions, it's that.

Here's a phrase you never hear in political reporting-- "Libertarian caucus" (or conversely, "Green caucus").

As long as these so-called Third Parties limit themselves to running some Perotian narcissist or Wallacite reactionary for President and do nothing about challenging the incumbent Congresscritters and Senators, then they are irrelevant in being any long-term threat to anyone.

At least in Canada the Bloc even managed to become the official opposition for a while.

Every libertarian is a caucus of one.

There have always been just two major parties in the US: the Ins and the Outs. All else is positioning, repositioning and background noise. That Madison was one smart guy.

Just think of Ross Perot under the hood of a laptop.