we've never really had pure democracy here, but the complexities are beyond average folk, so this is pretty much ignored. and i'm still trying to figure out what they did in iraq - people elect an assembly, which in turn selects a president and two vice presidents, who finally pick a prime minister and cabinet, who do the actual governing. say what ? and the primary task this time around is to create a final constitution. so when the sunnis boycotted this election, they left themselves without a voice in a one-time-only process, not like some news commentators are reporting, "oh well, next time they'll vote". this can leave permanent scars in the process.
and look how long it took for the us constitution to be "finalized". one false start and significant last minute amendments to the next version. and this was in simpler times when brighter minds were around.
me, i'm not even sure what we have now. i need to re-study forms of government. browsing through wikipedia seems pretty efficient these days.
so, the reality is that we are still muddling through systems of ever increasing complexity, with some popular illusions of what we have, motivated by our "leaders" to preserve those illusions. i've said for years, and heard it echoed recently in one or more of those programs i downloaded, that what separated the us from its communist counterparts was that it was far better at propaganda.
which, really, is all that most people want or need, apparently. and that "better propaganda" process doesn't waste its time interfering in non-essentials, for the most part. so, in many senses, the result is "better" for the average person. i guess one could argue that the neo-cons and religious conservatives are making their big mistake in that their agenda is too recognizable. actually, that's pretty much a given.
are there "liberal" causes with a similar degree of far left leanings ? using those labels is problematic, since liberals are much harder to pin down in many ways. problems with the label itself, and maybe with the reality... so this indicates, maybe, that either the "liberals" are doing a good job at keeping their agenda under the radar, or that they truly have organizational difficulties. i'd say it was clearly the latter.
but the problem is with the labels on all sides. for example, extreme free market reforms are formally known as a "liberal" cause (liberty = freedom). however, this is part of the conservative agenda. and the conservatives also have a tradition, at least lip-service, of wanting less government involvement in individual lives - eg, reduction of government size, reduction of taxes, reduction of entitlement programs, etc. yet, in a seeming contradiction, conservatives also tend to enact laws which attempt to impose "morality" driven limits on behavior, and to subordinate civil liberties to nationalistic and corporate interests.
the labels are basically useless; we need to focus on line item agendas. this could solve problems ranging from the intentional confusion of the relgious right and neo-con agendas, the lack of liberal identity, and the creation of new parties that are free of these baggage issues.
but see, this perennially gets democrats smacked down. "intellectual elitism", and the like. the popular vote _likes_ dumb politicians - or, more accurately, those that can put on that act most effectively. so this phenomena - right or wrong - disqualifies the likes of kerry or carter from party leadership, presidency, etc..
dean, on the other hand, is just the kind of dumb politician that people identify with (? odd thing to say, but there it is). however, the democratic agenda doesn't mesh well with that type of presence. in other words, there is an inherent conflict between the message and the delivery. you can't make them fit without fatally compromising either or both.
in this sense, the republicans seem to have forced democrats into a corner. i think you were trying to express this in terms of the inherent instability of the liberal cause, in that individualism tends to tear apart its own system, for whatever reason.
i don't know that another political party is really the answer. libertarian causes will always result in the same dilemma.
but dilemmas are usually an indication of a problem that needs reframing. dilemmas are opportunity smacking you in the face.
what's the opportunity here ? well, identify the underlying conflict: individualism vs. government, right ? it seems that the former is developing so far as to evolve into a non-governed form, or at least far enough that the still significant population that clings to government can cause it damage. not my conclusions - these are being played out in society right now. interestingly, socialism and the like are also strong governmental forms that would counteract such liberalism as well. see ? liberal is not leftist. (of course, the "liberal" label will probably never be sufficiently disambiguated to make it useful again).
in some senses these are good events, this conflict of evolution and stasis. the idea is to become conscious of them so as to make the best choices, for the right reasons, and not fall into the confusing illusions and associations. then one can determine and enact a practical course of action based on these decisions.
as in, the world is probably not ready for complete individualism yet, but it clearly is _not_ inherently unstable once the context is set (look at how strong it has been at self-organizing in the face of opposition). but that context does not yet exist, so this must be dealt with. i think freeing the natural evolution of human society is a good cause. as if we had much choice, or that much control. which is why government should give way to self-organizing individualism.
yet the pitfalls are always there. interestingly, we may have put in place sufficient mechanisms to prevent those pitfalls from materializing enough to destabilize the overall structure. ie, no more hitlers - and no more bushes.
the struggle right now might be considered a last stand of strong central government (note the republican hypocrisy here) against a new form of emerging individual-based organization. it's not anarchy, it's not socialsm, and far from communism. it's something new.
scares the hell out of many. we are still in the midst of the fight, of course. and there is still a practical need for many forms of centralism (maybe we need to shit-can the term "government" as well). this is due to the varying state of human evolution across the planet, among other forces.
so, how to get there from here ? well, you can't really direct self-organization. this is still a focus of research. so let us then merely _participate_ in it. what practically needs to be done ? how best to do it ?
for one, how can we get the best fit among people and systems for the jobs at hand ? to date we have been in this oversimplified mindset of "one size fits all". for example, why in hell should a conservative administration be appointing people to head up what are clearly liberal departments ? or vice versa ? let's get the liberals in where they should be, and the conservatives in their favorite posts. they can fight over the budget, etc. a congressional / presidential split can help some, yet in other ways blocks needed progress (and regress). if we're going to continue with a two party system that seems entrenched, then we need additional constitutional safeguards. or, one may also conclude, that there are current consitutional objections to the current operating form of government and politics. in any case, there's a clear disconnect.
so, let's recast the discussion in terms of centrism vs. individualism. the agendas are much clearer along those lines.
and then we need to knock down the structures that support corporate entities as autocratic extra-governmental fiefdoms where the bill of rights stops at their doors. since when ? this seems to be the biggest current danger to continuing social evolution. businesses are good, it's just that some of the conflicts between corporate and individual need revised resolutions. unfortunately, the rest of the world needs to evolve somewhat first to prevent corporate escapism - which is represented now by offshoring and globalization in ways that are abusive here and abroad. probably an inevitable transition effect. but the transition needs to be kept in hand. not prevented, not let loose - managed. i think this is one area in which protective mechanisms fall short, and where pure "free" market economics is not valid due to the global imbalances in things like human rights, labor pool, education, systems of government, and so on.