More militant Democrats warned that Tilden would be inaugurated as president or there would be blood in the streets. Henry Watterson, congressman and editor of the Louisville Courier-Journal, threatened that 100,000 men would march on Washington if Tilden was not installed. The headlines in other Democratic newspapers screamed, “Tilden or War!” For all of their bellicose rhetoric, Democrats were restrained in their actions by the presence in the White House of the Union war hero, General Grant, whom many political opponents could envision establishing a military dictatorship if provoked.

Ad Hominem characterizations of “defeatist sentiment” being a self-fullfilling propecy is nonsense. The reason why 3rd parties fail is because there are not enough votes to support them. Full stop. The American electorate breaks down into roughly 1/3 hard core Republicans, 1/3 hard core Democrats, and 1/3 that call themselves independent. Of the 1/3 in the middle that claim to be independent, most actually identify more closely with R or D, and when they are in privacy of the voting booth, will always vote in their comfort zone. The actual base of independent voter that will switch parties from one election to the next is probably in the range of no more than 10% to 20%. Enough to be spoilers, not enough to elect a third party candidate. That is not “self-fullfilling defeatism.” That is reality. Sorry it does not fit your world view. Not my problem.

I actually consider myself an optimist. I believe that that 10% of truly independent voters can become a viable political force by coordinating their votes around an organizing principle. A principle that is proven to provide greater fiscal responsibility, restrain the growth of the state, provide more oversight, better legislation, fewer wars and overall better governance. If you are interested, there is more in my post here.

And your arg. against 3rd parties is the same old defeatist sentiment, which self-fulfills.

Historically not true. This interesting factoid is from the HarpWeek website:

“The period from 1840 to 1890 has been labeled “the party period” and “the golden age of parties” because the major political parties (Democrats and Whigs until the mid-1850s, then Democrats and Republicans) were the strongest they have been in American history. Party leaders used patronage and campaign practices that aroused partisan enthusiasm to gain wide membership and keep them loyal and active. It worked. Voter turnout during this period was the highest in American history: between 70 and 80 percent for presidential elections and sometimes higher in state and local contests.”

But, I don’t think that is your main point anyway. It seems you are actually arguing for 3rd parties. While sympathetic, I don’t think a 3rd party is a viable solution in our system, unless it actually supplants on of the major parties (As Republicans replaced Whigs). The practical reality is that a successful 3rd party will only have the effect of electing the “greater of two evils” for the 3rd party supporters (Perot supporters elected Clinton, Nader supporters elected Bush).

The more partisan, the more people turn off and don’t give a damn. The internal wars mean nothing outside the Beltway. It’s only a real outer crisis that gets voters turned on.

This is very predictable in a stable democracy- there’s simply too much else going on to care over county judgeships, and the like.

I say, more apathy is needed. If only 2% or less vote, then someone may actually think there’s a need for change, and third parties can fill the void. Right now, with things neither too hot nor cold, it’s just RIGHT for the mediocrity that the Coke D’s and Pepsi R’s provide.

Permit me to try to turn up the volume on Rich’s theme.
I have also wondered about the periodic gnashing of teeth and rending of garments one regularly sees regarding the uncivil state of blogospheric discourse. Rather than Rich’s philosophical path, I took a look at the history of political discourse in America but arrive at a similar conclusion.

Even a cursory historical look at our electoral history leads to an understanding that unified, civil, non-partisan debate is, well, downright un-american. More in my post on the subject, conclusion excerpted here:

It seems pretty obvious to me, that if we want more participation by the American voting populace, we want more, not less, political polarization. And conversely, a unified, politically correct, socially acceptable and boring form of partisan discourse, will inevitably result in less participation in the political process.

What to do ? I suggest we just don’t pay attention to those Un-American unifiers. I submit for your consideration –

Divided We Stand United We Fall Rule #1: Polarized Partisan Politics Promotes Popular Participation