Re: I believe an Independent party would be good for this country,
I cannot agree. Not until Bush is out of office. The stakes are too high for the left to splinter right now. In almost every instance when third party candidates have come into contention, the result has been a disaster for the side that splinters.
In 1992, Perot's 15% of the popular vote came mostly from moderate Republicans and independents and did in George H.W. Bush. Who more than likely was the Perot voters second choice.
In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt's run as a third party "Bull Moose" candidate eliminated his Republican Party's candidate, William Howard Taft, and brought the Democrats back into power.
In 1948, in a rare instance, the Democratic Party splintered with Henry Wallace taking the progessive wing of the party, Strom Thurmond leading the Dixiecrats and Harry Truman left with the rump. But enough of one to barely carry the day.
No, I believe that we ought to bite the bullet and keep our ranks together. The time for organizing a third party is after this upcoming election. Once the immediate threat of a George Bush second term has been eliminated, we will have some breathing room to try to regain a more progressive politics in the country. For now, the cost of losing to a Bush Crime Family is just too great a risk in my opinion.
Of course, if there were to be a split in the conservatives, I'd be absolutely delighted. I know that there are many libertarian/conservative commentators who are hopping mad at Bush over his policies on civil liberties and militarism. I'd strongly encourage any on the Right who wanted to campaign in opposition to Bush to do so.
I just would hate to see it on the Left between now and November. |
