There are four factions that matter in American politics now

[politruk]

For some time, the GOP has been going through an intra-party war, between the Old Guard Republicans -- in the Reagan tradition, mainly concerned with protecting business interests, and who are intellectually guided, if at all, by The National Review and the editorial page of the WSJ -- and a white-working-class right-populist-nationalist insurgency, which manifested first as the Perot campaign and Reform Party; then as the grassroots Republican backlash against W's immigration-reform plan; then as the Tea Party; and most recently as the Trump movement. The latter current, in addition to its electoral power, also includes more frightening aspects such as the "Patriot" movement -- the militias, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, QAnon, etc. White nationalism is also a significant subcurrent of the populist-nationalists, although not all people committed to this faction are NECESSARILY racists. The pro-biz variant of libertarianism known as "vulgar libertarianism" is also a subcurrent, although whether it is a subcurrent of the Old Guard or the populists is debatable.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are going through their own intra-party war, somewhat less acrimonious for the moment, between the Old Guard Democrats, your basic love-me-I'm-a-liberals and centrists, including many liberal/centrist Rockefeller Republicans who fled the GOP when it lurched hard-right; and a grassroots left-populist-progressive insurgency, many of whom are not afraid to call themselves "socialist," most recently manifested in the Sanders campaign (the last one, I expect, given his age). This last faction is the only one of the four that (1) still regularly produces any new ideas worth listening to, and (2) appears to be at all growing. It is part of a leftist American tradition that has been mostly dormant since the Socialist Party of America broke up in 1972, but now appears to be re-emerging.

Which side are you on?

[Arthur_Frain]

1. I'd argue your second point that the progressive insurgency is the only one growing.

You’re very wrong about that. They’re “growing” conservatives of the worst kind all across the west and Midwest, and they have been for awhile.

People have been telling me the Republican Party is going to eventually shrink itself to death for 40 years now, and it just isn’t happening.

I’m not attacking your post in general, I’m just telling you, from someone who’s spent a lot of time in the conservative heartland in the last few decades, if you assume that their numbers are dwindling, you’re not going to succeed.

[politruk]

2. What I'm assuming

is that the social-liberal nature of the Millennial generation will have its effects in the Heartland as well, at least to some extent. Studies show Millennials are less racist than any elder generation, less xenophobic, less sexist and homophobic -- and less religious, with at least 25% of them being self-ID'd atheists, agnostics or "nones."

Now, Millennials are not necessarily socialists, and an economic-libertarian message might well appeal to a lot of them; but the GOP is eventually going to have to drop the religious right from any publicly admitted influence on its platforms if it wants to remain relevant. Of course, I'm talking on a generational timescale here.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. None of the above

And I disagree that there is an 'intra party' war in the Democratic Party.

Do we have interlopers? Sure we do.

But I'm the 'base' - black pragmatic woman. We always show up - IF you are reasonable enough and pragmatic enough.

We aren't 'radical' - we've been here for 50 years and are demanding reward for our loyalty.

The Democratic Party cannot win without us.

I also think your theory lets' white supremacists and their benefactors off the hook. The TEA Party came into being because a black man became the President. He made fun of DJT. DJT took it out on all of us. Then brainwashed his cult into violence.

The GOP isn't in an internal fight - they have conceded to the White Supremacists and nut jobs.

[betsuni]

9. +1

[Hortensis]

4. Nonsense. Democrats are the most united since the emergencies of the 1930s.

Our problem is that the right, now concentrated in the Republican Party, has gone crazy but so far has remained fairly united also. We need more to break away.

Back in the 1930s, liberals and conservatives were found in both parties. Today's "divided and conquered chasm" in the electorate didn't exist, and moderate conservatives worked with liberals to create the New Deal.

[politruk]

5. I recall reading

that one of the Kennedys, I think it was a woman, remarked, in the early 1960s, "I would hate to have to explain to a foreigner the difference between Democrats and Republicans." In those days each party had its liberal and conservative wings. But then the Dems decided to get behind the civil rights movement, Nixon hit on the Southern Strategy, and white conservative/racist Southerners started to migrate over to the GOP (some by way of George Wallace's American Independent Party), to the point where the Solid South is now solidly Republican; and the liberal Republicans migrated over to the Dems; and now, for the first time in American history, we have a clear partisan divide on political ideology in general. But, there is a definite subdivide on each side of it.

[Hortensis]

7. :) Many could have for her. There's always been an enormous difference

between liberal and conservative values and goals, after all. Equality and civil rights have always been liberal goals, opposing them conservative.

BUT, to the OP, different viewpoints among reps sent by over 80 million voters to congress are not war. They're reps arguing their viewpoint, but when it's time to vote they vote Democratic. That's what united means.

Inevitably, a few people who call themselves Democrats will always splinter away or not bother to vote, but an unhappy minor faction is not war.

But here's the real point: most of the left's "warring" dissidents are outside the party. And all their noise and demands about what Democrats should be doing shouldn't confusing anyone into believing they vote Democratic. They don't, even though vast Democratic mainstream already represents most of what they claim to want.

[Crunchy Frog]

6. I'm against the NAZIs, and the entire Democratic Party better be against them too.

Our side can't afford that level of division right now. Just work together to get important shit done.

[politruk]

8. I think you all are underestimating

the depth and power of challenges from Indivisible, Our Revolution, etc. It amounts to a coordinated left-progressive attempt to take over the Democrats the way the Tea Party has very nearly taken over the GOP.

[Irish_Dem]

10. What is the outcome?

Do you think the progressives can move the Dem party to the left in a significant way?
At any rate, over time the younger generation will do this anyway?

Or are you suggesting that the Dems will end up like the GOP?
A party broken into pieces?

[betsuni]

11. That will never happen because the "take over" is based on incorrect ideas.

The Our Revolution/Justice Democrats assumption: the working class is united by economic ideology and when true progressive leaders finally come along, the 99% will unite against the 1%, rise up, and the revolution begin. People vote Republican (or don't vote) because of economic insecurity and because Democratic policies aren't progressive enough. Racism and white identity have nothing to do with it. Identity politics are a distraction. If it's explained to The People why they shouldn't vote against their own economic interests, they won't. Solidarity. That since 1972 the Democratic Party has had the same economic policies as Republicans and ignored working/middle classes because all "corporate Democrats" care about is Wall Street/corporate/donor class/billionaire money. That "corporate Democrats" have stopped at nothing to prevent progressive legislation to keep those sweet bribes coming in (Republicans are sort of innocent bystanders, not the real enemy). The corrupt and immoral Democratic Party must be taken over for The People's Revolution to begin.

Well, obviously this is wrong, ridiculous. A fantasy. Who would believe that nonsense? That's why it's a failure.

[politruk]

12. And who would have believed, in 2008,

that it was possible for the Old Guard Republicans, backed with a bottomless well of corporate money and the numinous heritage of Reagan, to be elbowed aside by a bunch of ridiculous ignorant ragtag Tea Partiers?

[JI7]

13. Tea party was the base of the Republican Party

those so called progressive groups you mention have only done well in solid blue distrcts.

[betsuni]

14. They chose that path long ago: Southern Strategy, politicizing Christian evangelicals,

culture wars over policy. Nobody liked their policies, the Republican establishment knew that. Frankenstein created his monster and it ran away. The monster is the base. The party has no policy except lower taxes and voter suppression. There is no "both sides" on this.