That’s my thinking too. But that’s a tough sell since the Duopoly and Oligarchy won’t stand for it
Progressives Push Back After Congressional Black Caucus Attacks Justice Democrats Over Primary Challenges
“We really need another Option on the left.”
No, what we actually need is a legitimately left option. The leadership of the Democratic Party is nowhere near left and actually leans right in its preferred economics and even in the framing and decision making regarding its social policies and operational mechanics. Certainly nothing ground-up/grassroots in how the party operates and is managed.
“I prefer using ‘un’ because of its previous usage as the unCola and the ungame.”
I would think successful marketing relabeling techniques would be preferable to hackneyed marketing failures? or am I missing something?
" We have other options, most notably the Green Party…"
The green party would have to shed a lot of their fringe, particularly in their “leadership” and platform before they will ever gain any serious and significant following. Not many are willing to associate with the “bat shite craziness” that flows through the green party “mainstream” like red-eye gravy through a country ham and grits breakfast plate.
now, I admit that both the mainstream parties have their share of the crazy, but that is a tacked on crazy for the most part that evolved and accumulated after they had become major parties, more of a bug than a feature.
See @gandolf reply (above). I think he’s correct. Any 2 party system will be a problem. Instant run off voting and more parties on both sides sounds more ‘representative’ to me
You are missing a lot.
Maybe you’re confusing the unCola with New Coke? The unCola was a succesful marketing technique in the 70s for 7Up. The unGame was a big deal for years, a real fad for young adults in the late 70s and early 80s.
Sounds like a way to turn the horrendous legislative logjams of today into a permanent structural bureaucratic feature rendering public policy in general, dysfunctional at best, and most likely completely inoperable.
UnCola was not a marketing success, it was a hackneyed gimmick which persisted for maybe 2-4 years but never secured 7up market share, yet alone boosting sales (which is the primary goal). As for the unGame, never heard of it, but then the time frame you mention is a time when I spent a lot of time overseas in the military, so it is quite possible I missed the unGame fame you allude to.
What we have now isn’t working any more so maybe dictatorship would be easier
…“so long as I’m the dictator”
Seriously, I think in a political multiverse coalitions would pop up between factions on like-minded issues
I’m not so sure, look at the neolibs and the Progressives for instance. While many of them promote some similar social programs the point where many such issues become divisive isn’t in the end goal, but in the mechanics of achieving such goals. Neolibs want pay-go funding, one-size fits all, top-down management from DC. Progressives want compensatory disbursement, flexible implementation with local and regional adjustments to tune such programs for the needs of the users, and local control with feedback and resources from federal advisors and support teams. These only seem like minor differences to those focused on the results, but these differences abort most policy (and this isn’t even getting into perils of adding conservative economic considerations into the mix) long before policy legislation ever makes it much beyond conception.
This is not true. First, the UnCola ads started in 1967 and ran for nearly two decades. Secondly, making an anti-establishment pitch in the late 60’s won them a huge gain in market share - after losing market share before the campaign started. The successful effect of the campaign only dissipated seven or eight years later in the mid 70s when the anti-establishment fever was lessened after Nixon’s resignation.