# What are the chances for a broad party of American leftists and progressives? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 21, 2004, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146 "2004-07-21T05:12:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/1 "2004-07-21T05:12:45Z")
I consider myself a left-progressive (I usually call myself a socialist, even though I’m not a Marxist and I’m really more of a social democrat by European standards). Consequently, I think about politics a lot, and I get frustrated whenever I think about it. I supported Dennis Kucinich during the Democratic primary season, but that was just to help get out his view; I never thought he could win the nomination, let alone the election. And the Nader candidacy just makes me mad, considering what’s at stake this year. One problem is that the American electoral systems are structured to freeze out minority viewpoints (left and right). I’ve started several GD threads supporting instant-runoff voting, proportional representation, and other voting reforms that would make it possible for minor parties to compete in elections without “spoiling” things for the major-party candidates, and to win at least some representation in government without winning local majorities. But another problem is that the American left (even cpmpared to leftist movements in other countries) has always been too prone to fragmentation, faction fights, and fierce disagreements over even minor differences of doctrine and tactics. A bunch of fucking splitters. And the less actual public influence we have, the more we split and squabble. I recently read a book, forget its title, by a Canadian journalist taking a look at American culture. He visited a socialist convention in New York, and noted that in the U.S. – unlike practically every other industrialized nation – the socialist movement is like an army of generals (intellectuals) with no foot soldiers, who have nothing to do but get together and talk and expound theories. At its 2003 Convention, the Socialist Party USA approved a resolution calling for the formation of a “United Left Front”: > [@](#): > > To this end, the Socialist Party calls for and proposes: > a) The formation of a Socialist “roundtable” where representatives of all groups and tendencies will come together to discuss possible avenues of mutual effort. > b) Included can be seminars and conferences to discuss and debate political questions, although this is, by far, not the most important area of interaction. > c) The formation of a permanent united caucus of left and revolutionary socialist, set up to facilitate intervention into existing and upcoming movements, union and strike struggles, peoples’ organizations. > d) The eventual building of a united electoral entity (something like, but not limited to the nature of the Peace and Freedom Party of California) where all socialist groups would have proportional representation in the selection of candidates for public office, all groups agreeing on a basic set of principles, but also free to run and campaign on the basis of their own program. This tactical concession to reality would allow us to pool our efforts and labors for going through the arduous task of petitioning to get on the ballot under an actual party label rather than each group struggling to do so on their own, something none of us are able to do at the present. Some socialist groups will, of course, reject this approach and opt for other or no electoral action. > 3. It is understood that in individual cases and certain states where the SPUSA has ballot access, the electoral part of the United Left Front proposal might not apply or might not be the wisest tactical or strategic path to follow, especially on the presidential level of a campaign (or it might be the best path) > > We are not locked into any narrow interpretation or any set of tactics, but the United Left Front idea (including the electoral part) is indeed a serious proposal to be implemented in a serious way wherever possible and practical. I say, why stop there? If we really want to make a difference, how about a broader party or multipartisan alliance, encompassing **all** American leftists and progressives, socialist and non-socialist? A party that might eventually shave off the left and center-left wings of the Democratic party – say, the Deaniacs and everybody to their left? Is that a plan or what? Here’s a fairly complete list of all the leftist and progressive parties that still have some life left in them (descriptions in quote boxes are from [www.politics1.com](http://www.politics1.com)): The Communist Party USA – [http://www.cpusa.org/](http://www.cpusa.org/) > [@](#): > > Founded in 1924, the CPUSA reached its peak vote total in 1932 with nominee William Z. Foster (102,000 votes - 4th place). The last national CPUSA ticket – featuring the team of Gus Hall and Angela Davis – was fielded back in 1984 (36,000 votes - 8th place). While the party has not directly fielded any of its own candidates for over a decade, the CPUSA has backed some candidates in various local elections (often in industrial communities) and engaged in grassroots political and labor union organizing. In the 1998 elections, longtime CPUSA leader Hall actually urged party members to vote for all of the Democratic candidates for Congress – arguing that voting for any progressive third party candidates would undermine the efforts to oust the “reactionary” Republicans from control of Congress. As for issues, the CPUSA calls for free universal health care, elimination of the federal income tax on people earning under $60,000 a year, free college education, drastic cuts in military spending, “massive” public works programs, the outlawing of “scabs and union busting,” abolition of corporate monopolies, public ownership of energy and basic industries, huge tax hikes for corporations and the wealthy, and various other programs designed to “beat the power of the capitalist class … [and promote] anti-imperialist freedom struggles around the world.” The CPUSA’s underlying communist ideology hasn’t changed much over the years, but the party’s tactics have undergone a major shift (somewhat reminiscent of those used by the CPUSA in the late 1930s). After the death of hardline communist leader Hall in 2000, Gorbachev-style “reform communist” activist Sam Webb assumed leadership of the CPUSA. The Democratic Socialists of America – [http://www.dsausa.org/](http://www.dsausa.org/) > [@](#): > > ote:The DSA is the official US full member party of the Socialist International (which includes Tony Blair’s UK Labour Party, the French Parti Socialiste and nearly 140 other political parties around the globe). Unlike most other members of the Socialist International, the DSA has never fielded candidates for office. The DSA explains their mission as follows: “building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics.” Thus, the DSA is less like a traditional US political party and much more like a political education and grassroots activism organization. The other US full member of the Socialist International is the Social Democrats USA (linked below). Both DSA and SD-USA each claim to be the one true heir to the ideological legacy of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas – and neither one ever fields any candidates. The DSA – then named the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) – split from the SDUSA in 1972 in a rift over the Vietnam War (SDUSA supported the war and opposed McGovern for President; DSOC supported McGovern and opposed the war). The Green Party of the United States – [http://www.gp.org/](http://www.gp.org/) > [@](#): > > The Green Party – the informal US-affiliate of the left-wing, environmentalist European Greens movement – scored a major achievement when it convinced prominent consumer advocate Ralph Nader to run as their first Presidential nominee in 1996. Spending just over $5,000, Nader was on the ballot in 22 states and carried over 700,000 votes (4th place - 0.8%). In 2000, Nader raised millions of dollars, mobilized leftist activists and grabbed national headlines with his anti-corporate campaign message. Nader ignored pleas from liberal Democrats that he abandon the race because he was siphoning essential votes away from Al Gore’s campaign – answering that Gore was not substantially different than Bush and that his own campaign was about building a permanent third party. In the end, Nader was on the ballot in 44 states and finished third with 2,878,000 votes (2.7%) – seemingly depriving Gore of wins in some key states. More significantly, Nader missed the important 5% mark for the national vote, meaning that the party will still be ineligible for federal matching funds in 2004. . . Until 2001, the Greens were largely a collection of fairly autonomous state/local based political entities with only a weak (and sometimes splintered) national leadership structure that largely served to coordinate electoral activities. This faction – formerly named the Association of State Green Parties (ASGP) – is the larger and more moderate of the two unrelated Green parties. The Greens/Green Party USA – [http://www.greenparty.org/](http://www.greenparty.org/) > [@](#): > > The G/GPUSA is the older, smaller and more stridently leftist of the two Green parties. . . . While the Green Party and the rival G/GPUSA appear to be very similar – they advocate tactical (and some ideological) differences and somewhat compete with claims to the titular leadership of the national Green movement. The G/GPUSA largely emphasizes direct action tactics over traditional electoral politics. A majority of the G/GPUSA delegates voted that the party’s 2001 convention to merge into the Green Party of the US – but the motion ultimately failed for lack of the required 2/3 majority. That outcome prompted many of the G/GPUSA activists to independently jump to the Green Party of the US – forming a new leftist caucus within the Green Party of the US – and leaving the G/GPUSA as a sizably diminished and more dogmatically Marxist party. The Labor Party – [http://www.thelaborparty.org/](http://www.thelaborparty.org/) > [@](#): > > The Labor Party is a liberal entity created in 1996 by a sizable group of labor unions including the United Mine Workers, the Longshoremen, American Federation of Government Employees, California Nurses Association and many labor union locals. The party says it was formed because “on issues most important to working people -– trade, health care, and the rights to organize, bargain and strike -– both the Democrats and Republicans have failed working people.” Ideologically, they seem close to the style of the late, labor-friendly Vice President Hubert Humphrey and US Senator Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party circa 1960s. A new party, they endorsed their first state and federal candidates in 1998 in Wyoming (“Green/Labor Alliance”) – and two more candidates in local races in California and Ohio in 2001 – but none since then. This group seems closely aligned ideologically with the New Party. The Labor Party has adopted a policy of “running candidates for positions where they can help enact and enforce laws and policies to benefit the working class and where we can best advance the goals and priorities of the Labor Party.” The party also gets involved in local and state ballot initiatives. The Labor Party held a national convention in 2002 and seems to be making some efforts to revive itself as a forum for the debate of issues. The New Party – [http://www.newparty.org/](http://www.newparty.org/) > [@](#): > > This leftist party advocates a “democratic revolution” to advance the cause of “social, economic, & political progress” in America. Their agenda is much in the style of the Western European socialist and labor movement – and somewhat similar to that of the late-1990s formed Labor Party (but the NP has more of a controlled growth outlook on environmental issues). Rather than fielding their own national slate or local candidates, the New Party has taken to largely endorsing like-minded candidates from other parties (mainly pro-labor Democrats like Chicago Congressman Danny K. Davis) and focusing on grassroots organizing. An amusing question: if the New Party lasts for 50 years, will they rename themselves the Old Party (or the “Fifty-Something” Party)? The New Party, to date, has endorsed candidates in about 400 local races around the country, and has active affiliate chapters in some communities. The NP site details the party’s long-term strategy. **NOTE:** The New Party banked all its hopes on the strategy of “ballot fusion” or “cross-endorsement” – nominating one person as the candidate of more than one party. (I started a GD thread on fusion recently – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...ad.php?t=262650.)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...ad.php?t=262650.)) Unfortunately, this kind of “combination ticket” was outlawed in most states in the late 19th Century for the express purpose of shutting down third parties; at present, it is legal in only ten states. The New Party filed a lawsuit in Minnesota to force the state to allow fusion based on the “freedom of association” clause of the First Amendment. It went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected the argument in _Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party,_ April 28, 1997. After the Timmons decision, the New Party gradually faded away as a national organization. (There’s still a New Party website, at [http://www.newparty.org/](http://www.newparty.org/), but it hasn’t been updated in years.) But some state-level branches of it survived: The Working Families Party of New York – [http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/](http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/) The Connecticut Working Families Party – [http://www.ctworkingfamilies.org/main.htm](http://www.ctworkingfamilies.org/main.htm) Progressive Minnesota – [http://www.progressivemn.org/](http://www.progressivemn.org/). The national-level leadership of the NP decided to channel their energies into creating a new organization dedicated to fighting for fusion as an electoral reform: The New Majority Education Fund: [http://www.nmef.org/](http://www.nmef.org/) Peace and Freedom Party – [http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/](http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/) > [@](#): > > Founded in the 1960s as a left-wing party opposed to the Vietnam War, the party reached its peak of support in 1968 when it nominated Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver for President. Although a convicted felon, Cleaver carried nearly 37,000 votes (ironically, Cleaver ultimately became a Reagan Republican in the early 1980s – then a crack addict in the late 1980s – before emerging as an environmental activist in the late 1990s). Famed “baby doctor” Benjamin Spock – a leftist and staunch opponent of the Vietnam War – was the PFP Presidential nominee in 1972. Since then, the small party has largely been dominated by battling factions of Marxist-Leninists (aligned with the Workers World Party), Trotskyists and non-communist left-wing activists. The PFP today is small, with activities largely centered in California. In 1996, the PFP successfully blocked an attempt by the WWP to capture the PFP’s Presidential nomination (and a California ballot spot) for their party’s nominee. In a sign of the party’s serious decline in support, the PFP’s poor showing in the 1998 statewide elections caused the party to lose its California ballot status. Likewise, they were unable to regain official ballot status by successive failed petition attempts for the 2000 and 2002 elections. However, the PFP finally regained its ballot status in 2003 – and is already fielding candidates in 2004 for Congress and other offices. The Progressive Party of Vermont – [http://www.progressiveparty.org/](http://www.progressiveparty.org/) This is the party of Bernie Sanders – the only independent in the U.S. House of Representatives. Its policies are similar to those of the New Party organizations mentioned above. The Social Democrats, USA – [http://www.socialdemocrats.org/](http://www.socialdemocrats.org/) > [@](#): > > Like the Democratic Socialists of America (above), the SD-USA is the other official US full member party of the Socialist International. Like the DSA, the SD-USA has never fielded candidates for office. The SD-USA is a group more ideologically centrist, more staunchly anti-communist and more directly aligned with the Democratic Party than the more traditionally leftist DSA. In fact, the views of the SDUSA in 1972 caused the DSA (then named the DSOC) to splinter away in a ideological rift. The SDUSA refused to support George McGovern for President that year because of his opposition to the Vietnam War – versus the DSOC, which supported McGovern and an immediate end to the war. While both DSA and SDUSA claim to be the one true heir to the ideological legacy of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas. **NOTE:** Based on materials from their website, the SDs supported the Iraq War, and their foreign policy generally is not much different from the neoconservatives’. They appear to be hardly leftist at all any more, except in the sense of supporting organized labor. The Socialist Party USA – [http://www.sp-usa.org/](http://www.sp-usa.org/) > [@](#): > > The SPUSA are true democratic socialists – advocating left-wing electoral change versus militant revolutionary change. Many of the SP members could easily be members of the left-wing faction of the Democratic Party. Unlike most of the other political parties on this page with “Socialist” in their names, the SP has always been staunchly anti-communist. Founded by labor union leader, ex-Democratic elected official and pacifist Eugene V. Debs in 1900, the SP was once a mighty national third party. Debs himself was the SP nominee for president five times between 1900 and 1920. Debs received over 900,000 votes (6%) in 1912 – the SP’s best showing ever. Former minister and journalist Norman Thomas was the SP Presidential nominee 6 times between 1928 and 1948 – his best showing being 883,000 votes (2.2%) in 1932. The SP also elected congressmen, mayors and other officials throughout the 20th Century (largely during the 1910s through 1950s). The withered and splintered so much that, by the last 1972, it barely existed. The Democratic Socialists of American and the Social Democrats USA --both linked below – are the other splinter groups from the original Debs/Thomas SP. Activist from the old SP reconstituted the party in 1976 and began to again field SP national tickets for the first time in over two decades. Peace activist and former SP-USA National Chairman David McReynolds was the party’s 2000 Presidential nominee, earning ballot status in seven states (7,746 votes - 8th place - 0.01% …plus a bunch more write-in votes in New York and other states where election officials refused to tabulate individual write-in votes). The 2000 showing was a far cry from the SP glory days, but a major improvement over the party’s 1996 showing. For 2004, former Democratic State Senator Walt Brown of Oregon is the SPUSA Presidential nominee. The Socialist Workers Party – [http://www.themilitant.com/](http://www.themilitant.com/) > [@](#): > > Originally a pro-Trotsky faction within the Communist Party USA, the SWP was formed in 1938 after the CPUSA – acting on orders from Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin – expelled the American Trotskyites. The SWP was for many years the leading voice of Trotskyism in the USA. Since the 1980s, the SWP has drifted away from Trotskyism and moved towards the brand of authoritarian politics espoused by Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s style of Marxism (the SWP sites calls Castro’s Cuba “a shining example for all workers”). ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/2 "2004-07-21T11:58:22Z")
> [@](#): > > What are the chances for a broad party of American leftists and progressives? Zip. Zero. Go home. If the factional problems weren’t unresolvable, they would have been resolved _years ago_. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/3 "2004-07-21T13:02:16Z")
Not a chance in Hell. But don’t let me put a damper on your fantasies. ---
**Author:** ![akennett](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@akennett](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/akennett)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/4 "2004-07-21T13:17:44Z")
The likelihood of creating a viable party in the near future (say in the next twenty years) is rather low (as in, next to zero). However, it is a fight that is worth the effort. The views espoused by the left (as I see it) truly are not represented by either of the major parties, and therefore, are not considered in American politics at all - or at least not seriously. For you (being the plural you, as the OP has already self-identified with the left) to have your voice heard, you must continue to support leftist candidates. This means more than continuing in the lesser-of-two-evils voting strategy and actually putting forth and uniting behind a leftist candidate for all levels of offices. If you do this, even when you do not win, you will have an effect on the platforms and goals of the two parties, and you will, umltimately affect the policies of the government. The biggest historical example of this effect in American history is that of the Progressive movement of the late nineteenth - early twentieth centuries. The most likely outcome is that the Democrats, as the slightly more (but not even close to really being) leftist party will move its goals and platforms further toward the left. N.B. The preceeding comes from one who is a far cry from the poltical left as it is commonly defined. Not to worry, though, as I am just as far from the right…and the center for that matter. I’m in my own little world sometimes, so take my thoughts with the appropriately sized grain of salt. ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/5 "2004-07-21T13:51:11Z")
Any particular reason you omitted the Socialist Equality Party (Web site, [http://www.wsws.org](http://www.wsws.org) )? I like these guys alot but they are also among the fiercest “left-eat-left” hotheads. They just finished a seven-part series taking apart the “radical left” in France (and not putting it back together). They are pretty irreconcilable. Unfortunately, the subject of political tactics (alliances, compromise, opportunism), is precisely one of _the_ most contentious issues over which these groups disagree with each other. As opposed to their actual policies, which sometimes have many similarities. Would there a way to achieve what you’re proposing, but in the opposite way? I.e., have mainstream policy shift in a generally progressive direction without these groups having to form alliances or compromises? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/6 "2004-07-21T14:22:10Z")
> [@akennett](#): > > For you (being the plural you, as the OP has already self-identified with the left) to have your voice heard, you must continue to support leftist candidates. This means more than continuing in the lesser-of-two-evils voting strategy and actually putting forth and uniting behind a leftist candidate for all levels of offices. > > If you do this, even when you do not win, you will have an effect on the platforms and goals of the two parties, and you will, umltimately affect the policies of the government. The biggest historical example of this effect in American history is that of the Progressive movement of the late nineteenth - early twentieth centuries. The most likely outcome is that the Democrats, as the slightly more (but not even close to really being) leftist party will move its goals and platforms further toward the left. I wish I could believe that – but Ralph Nader’s campaigns in 1996 and 2000 haven’t pulled the Dems one degree to the left, and this year’s campaign appears unlikely to do so either. > [@Frankenstein Monster](#): > > Any particular reason you omitted the Socialist Equality Party (Web site, [http://www.wsws.org](http://www.wsws.org) )? Space. I originally included them but the program said my OP was too long by 1000 characters. I also omitted several other socialist parties listed on [www.politics1.com](http://www.politics1.com), on the grounds that they appear too small and marginal to merit discussion even in this thread. The Socialist Labor Party, for instance, was founded in 1877 and is the oldest socialist party in America; but it no longer runs any candidates outside New Jersey, and few there. Some other parties I mentioned also are limited to one state – e.g., the Progressive Party of Vermont – but they appear to be on the rise, not the decline. > [@Frankenstein Monster](#): > > Would there a way to achieve what you’re proposing, but in the opposite way? I.e., have mainstream policy shift in a generally progressive direction without these groups having to form alliances or compromises? The New Party’s strategy was to pull the Democrats leftwards by means of “ballot fusion” – i.e., the New Party would nominate any acceptably progressive Democrat (or even Republican) as its own NP candidate (and in races where no progressive major-party candidate was running, the NP might field its own NP-only candidate, but only if it appeared to have a fair chance of winning). But this ran up against a barrier: Ballot fusion, as explained above, is illegal in 40 states; and the NP lost its lawsuit trying to get the Supreme Court to declare anti-fusion laws unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/7 "2004-07-21T14:37:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I say, why stop there? If we really want to make a difference, how about a broader party or multipartisan alliance, encompassing **all** American leftists and progressives, socialist and non-socialist? A party that might eventually shave off the left and center-left wings of the Democratic party – say, the Deaniacs and everybody to their left? Is that a plan or what? By make a difference you mean completely guarantee Republican control of the presidency and Congress for the forseeable future? That sure would make a difference alright. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/8 "2004-07-21T15:15:58Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > By make a difference you mean completely guarantee Republican control of the presidency and Congress for the forseeable future? > > That sure would make a difference alright. By “make a difference” I mean establish a permanent and substantial left-progressive presence (albeit still a **minority** presence) in Congress and all the state legislatures. There are enough leftist and near-leftist and progressive voters to achieve that (look at the grassroots movement for Dean this year!), if only we could get it together. ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/9 "2004-07-21T17:13:39Z")
I won’t repeat the WSWS’s own answer to the issues you raise in your OP - I guess you know that type of reasoning already. [Here](http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/chom-a17.shtml) is one of their more recent articles arguing their case. In short, absolutely reject the current big political parties and build a new political movement from the ground up. [Here](http://billmon.org/archives/001169.html) is Billmon passionately arguing the opposite. Seeing the substantial political differences among groups, any significant alliance seems to be a bridge too far right now. I think the way to go is to work on the grass roots. Try to get people involved. Basically, what all these groups (e.g. MoveOn) are already doing. Part of it is education. But a more important part - one I think many “generals” are missing - is _listening_ to the foot soldiers and, in some cases, lightening up on the ideology. Just IMHO, of course. I do believe in democracy and I do believe that people’s opinions will always differ and that an eventual “progressive” society will need to accommodate a range of conservative opinion, too. This realization also seems sometimes underrepresented in progressive critiques. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/10 "2004-07-21T18:06:11Z")
The most likely outcome of a unified left wing would Nader on a grander scale. You’d basically be dooming the Democrat party by splitting its vote by maybe 60-70%. So, what you’d end up with would be an new unified party getting 60-70% of the current vote the Democrats can expect to haul, a shadow Democrat party getting maybe 30-40% of its former vote, and an intact Republican party getting pretty much what they get now…and perhaps even a bit more from the center. If you rallied ALL the left vote (with your cut left of Dean) you wouldn’t have anything close to a majority. So, unless you ALSO change our voting and election system to provide for coalition type governments, you’d be SOL in any election…you’d be giving the country to the Republicans basically. I won’t get into how likely (not very IMHO) it is that the various left wing factions could or would unify. Like it or not we are a two party system for the forseeable future, unless something radical changes in our election process. Of course, it doesn’t have to necessarily be the two parties we have right now…its always possible that one or both will so discredit themselves that a new dominant party emerges. Its happened before after all. Face it BG…the US isn’t oriented towards the left wing, nor is it ever likely to be. Neither is it oriented towards the right. The majority in the US hang out somewhere around the middle, perhaps slightly to the left on some issues, to the right on others. Of course, I’m talking about OUR center here, not with respect to Europe. -XT ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/11 "2004-07-21T18:19:54Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > The most likely outcome of a unified left wing would Nader on a grander scale. You’d basically be dooming the Democrat party by splitting its vote by maybe 60-70%. So, what you’d end up with would be an new unified party getting 60-70% of the current vote the Democrats can expect to haul, a shadow Democrat party getting maybe 30-40% of its former vote, and an intact Republican party getting pretty much what they get now…and perhaps even a bit more from the center. You are assuming the Republican Party will **remain** intact. I think there’s a chance that within the next decade, its internal fault-lines will become more evident and more important. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/12 "2004-07-21T18:38:33Z")
I’ve got to guess along with Bosda that the chances for success are slim. Plus, the worst thing that could happen now is to split the Left in two (with the democrats) and let the fascists (Bush and Co.) rule forever. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/13 "2004-07-21T18:43:47Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Face it BG…the US isn’t oriented towards the left wing, nor is it ever likely to be. Neither is it oriented towards the right. The majority in the US hang out somewhere around the middle, perhaps slightly to the left on some issues, to the right on others. Of course, I’m talking about OUR center here, not with respect to Europe. > > -XT Well put. You have to remember that there are Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. The only chance that the far left has to be heard at all under our system is to align itself with a major party as it has done with the Democrats. And even then, they are kept at arms length. Americans are too independent and capitalistic to be open to be any more open to Socialism than they already are. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/14 "2004-07-21T18:46:08Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You are assuming the Republican Party will remain intact. I think there’s a chance that within the next decade, its internal fault-lines will become more evident and more important. Actually, I don’t think the Republican party will remain intact…at least I don’t think its a sure thing. It will all depend on how things fall out in the next few years. The Republicans have walked out on thin ice here, and it remains to be seen whether they will walk back…or fall through. The Republicans (at least prior to Bush) were very successful at appealing to the center while still keeping much of their paleo-con faction in line…much more successful than the Democrats have been either appealing to the center OR keeping their own left wingnuts in line and voting for the party. However, the problem remains for your left-wing coalition super party. Say the 'pubs fall. Some new party will most certainly rise to fill the vaccum…and that party will again take the center (and perhaps the right) you are vacating by going left. Hell, it could work out that your coalition left wing would be competing against the Democrats if the Republicans folded…since you would be swiping their left wing support they would have no choice but to appeal to the center/right. And if they manage to capture the center, you are done in our current system…winner takes all. Again, in US politics a party oriented solely either left or right is always going to lose IMO. Successful races are won by those who appeal and get a response from the US center. -XT ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/15 "2004-07-21T20:35:52Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > Americans are too independent and capitalistic to be open to be any more open to Socialism than they already are. Perhaps, but the spectrum of left-progressive opinion in America is much broader than “socialism.” Howard Dean is no socialist, he is far to the left of the Clinton-DLC wing of the party, and look how much support he rallied this year. The Greens are not socialists (well, those of the larger Green Party of the United States aren’t) – in fact, they are arguably more individualistic and libertarian than most “conservatives.” The Labor Party is no socialist, it’s just pro-union and pro-labor. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/16 "2004-07-21T20:46:47Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Face it BG…the US isn’t oriented towards the left wing, nor is it ever likely to be. Neither is it oriented towards the right. The majority in the US hang out somewhere around the middle, perhaps slightly to the left on some issues, to the right on others. Not true, **x.** We get that impression because successful politicians are usually the “center-seeking” ones who can win the votes of the “swing voters” in the center – but that’s because, in our two-party system, the “swing voters” are the only ones who are really up for grabs; all the rest are (usually) pretty much in the bag for one party or the other. It is **not** because the range of American political opinions forms a kind of “bell curve” bulging up in the center. See this link for a pie-graph I made of the Political Typology of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: [http://helios.acomp.usf.edu/~jfbohren/floridairvcoalition/pew\_typology.htm](http://helios.acomp.usf.edu/~jfbohren/floridairvcoalition/pew_typology.htm) You will see that this pie is divided into ten slices of roughly equal size. There are about as many “Staunch Conservatives” as there are “Liberal Democrats.” ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/17 "2004-07-21T20:58:39Z")
The big problem you’re going to have is simply that there aren’t enough people out on the left. The kind of people who would find common cause with the Communists and the Socialist Worker’s party can’t be more than a few percent of the total electorate. Even widening that out to include a coalition of greens, social democrats, and other ‘progressives’ would almost certainly not get you to 20% of the electorate, and probably much less. Hell, Canada is quite a bit further to the left than the U.S., and even here our ‘progressives’ can’t manage to muster more than 20 seats out of 358. In North America, the vast preponderance of the electorate is firmly in the center. Those slightly to the right are Republican, and those slightly to the left are Democrats. The fringes are very small. The internet and message boards tend to be grossly skewed towards the fringes, giving you the perception that the fringes are much more popular than they really are. In the last election, Harry Browne of the Libertarians got a significant percentage of ‘votes’ in internet polling. In the real election, the libertarians got something like 1.5% of the vote. The same goes for the left. If the truly extreme left started having a say in party policy, the net effect would be to drive the indepenents and moderate Democrats into the Republican party. I don’t think you want that. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/18 "2004-07-21T21:13:15Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > In North America, the vast preponderance of the electorate is firmly in the center. Those slightly to the right are Republican, and those slightly to the left are Democrats. The fringes are very small. Check out my above link to the Pew Typology, **Sam.** Read the **descriptions,** not just the pie chart. You’ll see that the “Liberal Democrats” – a grouping that **includes** the socialists, Greens, etc., and a great many others – is larger than you might think; and the Libertarians could find a massive voter base in the “New Prosperity Independents.” Provided the artificial barriers to multi-party politics in America were brought down, but that’s for another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/19 "2004-07-21T21:49:48Z")
What the Left needs to do right now is communicate & build up the **idea** of what Liberalism is. And why it hasn’t tried to do this baffles me. Most young people have no concept of what Liberalism is ! They only know the word as a Boogeyman that Rush Limbaugh tosses up in the air every now and then. And Liberals sit back, and do not even try to communicate with young people who cannot connect to them at all. ---
**Author:** ![shelbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@shelbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shelbo)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2004, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146/20 "2004-07-21T22:25:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Not true, **x.** We get that impression because successful politicians are usually the “center-seeking” ones who can win the votes of the “swing voters” in the center – but that’s because, in our two-party system, the “swing voters” are the only ones who are really up for grabs; all the rest are (usually) pretty much in the bag for one party or the other. It is **not** because the range of American political opinions forms a kind of “bell curve” bulging up in the center. See this link for a pie-graph I made of the Political Typology of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press: > > [http://helios.acomp.usf.edu/~jfbohren/floridairvcoalition/pew\_typology.htm](http://helios.acomp.usf.edu/~jfbohren/floridairvcoalition/pew_typology.htm) > > You will see that this pie is divided into ten slices of roughly equal size. There are about as many “Staunch Conservatives” as there are “Liberal Democrats.” Nice link. So, I’m a “New Prosperity Independant”. Huh. Who’d a thunk it? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-chances-for-a-broad-party-of-american-leftists-and-progressives/256146.md?page=2)