Canthook

Newt Gingrich has been making noises about running for President in 2012, and when he indicated that GOP party members might start a third party, other top Republicans say that Newt is champing at the bit to lead that third party movement.

I'm not sure which we need less: Newt, or a third party.

A Third Party?

Right now, the Republican party is in shambles, and all the pundits are talking about that.

The Democratic Party, though, isn't in much better shape. The support is one man wide. Other than for Obama, who is getting record-high approval numbers, Democrats are not seeing a lot of support from the population.

What's more, even the politicians within the Democratic Party aren't showing much support for the Democratic Party. It's a coalition without a consensus.

An Analogy

Let's suppose you had two cars - a 1974 Chevy Vega, and a 1978 Dodge Aspen, each with 300,000 miles on them (although it's hard to imagine either of those cars lasting for even 100,000 miles.)

Wouldn't it make more sense to trade in one of those cars towards something decent than to buy a 1963 Galaxy 500, also with 300,000 miles?

We don't need a third political party. It'd be nice to have two functional political parties; there is considerable value in a loyal opposition, as opposed to foot-dragging and screaming bloody murder for the sake of foot-dragging and screaming . But we don't even have one functional political party right now.

Neither "the party of Obama" nor "the party of No!" makes sense. Political parties should be groups of people banded together with a common philosophy of governance. Both parties need to figure out what they want to stand for - because if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Other Bloggers On Related Topics:
Consensus - Democratic Party - GOP - Newt Gingrich - Obama - Third Party