I've been a long-time reader (and a rare poster) over there. It's often a source for interesting news stories, and often quite amusing threads based on them. But Jim Robinson, the site founder and proprietor seems, to put it simply, to have gone nuts.

There have always been three topics that generate a lot of heat (and usually little light) over there: homosexuality, the War on (Some) Drugs, and evolution. It looks as though heretics who don't believe in creationism will no longer be tolerated over there. Too bad--it was fun while it lasted.

Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians are all facing deep schisms. The Libertarians have been splintered by the war, as have the Dems, but these social issues are breaking down the long-time useful alliance between small-government conservatives and libertarians, and social conservatives within the Republican Party. It's not clear whose split is worse, or what the long-term political consequences will be. I do think that it opens up room for a new political party of some type, perhaps by the disenchanted libertarians (e.g., me, Glenn Reynolds) who make up much of the blogosphere.

My prediction (hope?) has been that, if Rove is right and the Republicans do retain both houses next month, then the Dems will begin to be relegated to nothing more than a regional party that wins only in certain metropolitan areas. At that point the Republican party will quickly begin to schism into those two camps. What isn't all that obvious is how our two party system and the laws making third parties impossible will play into those splits.

Even if half of the Republican Party did decide to leave, it would take at least a decade for the half that didn't keep the party label to assert itself.

When fully half the country would vote to put Al-Gore in the drivers seat of the worlds leading technological civilization (presumably so he could run it into the nearest iceberg to appease environmentalist guilt), it's not the time to hope for the only counterweight to schism.

Sure, the Republicans are ideologically heterogenous, a rather strange alliance, and have to depend on the fundamentalists too much for my comfort, but the alternative are a gaggle of utopian socialists who listened to Imagine one too many times.

The two party system is stable because the first "third party" to split off guarantees the defeat of it's own ideology for decades as people re-adjust to the new divisions, and the opposing party wins.

It would be much better to change both the philosophical landscape of America, and then use that to rearrange one of the parties from within, than to go about hoping for schisms and breakups.

I do think that it opens up room for a new political party of some type, perhaps by the disenchanted libertarians...

A new political party of the disenchanted rather than the disenchanting? The Blue Druid Party leaves you wanting? Acceptable would be a party that picks up where them Founding Dudes left off?

It begins with a name. "libertarian" means nothing and anything and has devolved to a childish nihilism. For a new party name find something positive. Something with direction. Something that gives some clue as to goal.

How about a new Whig party? I've thought for a long while now that our country needs a classical liberal party for the disaffected voters who are neither fire-and-brimstone SoCon luddites nor ultra-lefty Kossacks. The GOP originated from the Whigs, and maybe the South Park republicans could splinter off with some centrist Dems to found a new "old" party.

John, not wanting a direct neural hookup to the internet does not make one a luddite.

Wow. Well, as a member of the latest FR schismatics, I guess I might as well toss my $0.02 in here. LOL. Keep in mind that I can only speak for myself, though, and not all of us.

This split has been coming for some time over there - the only real surprise is that it took this long. When in the course of human events, etc., etc., but the bottom line is that a group of us found that our interests were no longer in alignment with FR. I suppose that they equally well found that their interests were no longer aligned with us.

To that end, a group of us - the disaffected, if you will - built the (rather more narrowly focused than FR) Darwin Central, designed to concentrate on issues of politics and science, and the intersection thereof. To address Aaron's comment briefly, I think if you visited our blog or forum (gotta plug, sorry - http://www.darwincentral.org/inside.htm ), you'd find that almost all of us are quite pragmatic in our political outlook - there are very few starry-eyed idealists among us. The irony is that it is we who have been found to be insufficiently ideologically pure by the social conservatives that are gradually coming to dominate FR.

Be that as it may, only time will tell if a realignment is underway. I personally tend to be pessimistic about such things - they appear to me to be cyclical as much as anything else. Every so often, the social conservatives get fat and sassy, and decide that they can pitch their baggage overboard, in the form of me and folks like me. Then they get hammered at the polls, and suddenly they discover the virtues of cooperation and compromise once again. LOL. There is nothing new under the sun, eh?

almost all of us are quite pragmatic in our political outlook - there are very few starry-eyed idealists among us. The irony is that it is we who have been found to be insufficiently ideologically pure by the social conservatives that are gradually coming to dominate FR.

What's so ironic about that? Pragmatic folk are "insufficiently ideologically pure" by definition.

Ilya -

Of course, you make a good point. It's really only "ironic" in the sense that it's usually libertarians and the like that are accused of being unrealistically rigid in their ideology - that's not at all an uncommon parody in conservative circles. Here we have the spectacle of a group of people who, while not especially libertarian, are perhaps more libertarian than some, are being shunned by people who define themselves as the conservative "base". In the land of all-or-nothing folks, I committed the mortal sin of being willing to take half a loaf over nothing at all. It's just amusing to see that the habits and practices of unbridled social conservatives aren't really all that different from the rigid, unbending "liberaltarians" they claim to despise so much. :)

First of all put your hearts at ease. The Repugs will retain control of both houses. This will be the ultimate test of Chairman Rove's mastery of the political universe and he will pass with turd blossoms. The Republican peasants aka the SoCons will don their chastity belts, stick a picture of W in with their privates and make their voices heard in such astounding proportion to their numbers that all pollsters will be stupefied. The gay mawwiage event/decision in New Jersey is just the kindling needed for this kind of fire.

On the contrary though, not managing to control either house won't necessarily mean the Dems are dead. The interesting thing is that white males are beginning to return to the Democratic party. In Virginia for example, Allen leads in the female vote and yet, yet there is a statistical tie with Webb. More ex-military are running as Dems. The Dems are slowly moving away from the fringe issues and regaining the center with some measure of Social Moderation thrown in. In addition, even if as Michael says the Dems become a party relegated to the Metro areas, thats where most of the votes are or will be in the future due to the wonderful libertarian idea of breeding like hell.

Iraq will not be anywhere close to being "solved" in two years and in a very pragmatic view of the longer term picture, the Dems may even be better served by not having control of either house right now. W broke it, why should anyone else have to fix it? Better to snicker on the sidelines. At some point the smaller fraction of an even larger group going to the polls will offset the mass voting of the SoCon serfs.

As for the "libertarians," best to milk the serfs for as long as possible. Keep the gay mawwiage thing alive as a moving target. Or find some other perversion.

Michael's scenario would be a dream for those on the center-right because it would imply marginalization of the left and political center of gravity moving to the right. But this kind of thing could only happen if the Democrats become marginalized and implode. As much as I might hope for this to occur, there's isn't much sign that it is really occurring. Sure, the Dems do fragment over some issues and say a lot of stupid things, but so do the Repubs. As long as each of the two parties is basically getting between 45% and 55% of the national vote the current two party configuration will be stable.

This isn't anything new for Freerepublic, they've always hammered away at each other. This is no more bitter or devisive than the Terry Schiavo battles or the bitter fight over Supreme Court nominess. I certainly wouldn't say that FR is an exact barometer of where the GOP is headed.
They have their little groups over there and sometimes they are ready to tear each other's heads off.

I don't even pay attention to the crevo threads, I like the space,technology and sci-fi threads.

Why found a new party when you can instead Pray for Bush.

Why found a new party when you can instead Pray for Bush.

I doubt the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians combined have enough Gods to haul Bush out of his self-dug hole. Not even the Holy Choir of God's angels, aided by da Bears and Mike Ditka himself, would be sufficient to intevene on his behalf.

Why found a new party when you can instead Pray for Bush.

Maybe because I'm not as much of a moron as you, and don't find prayer efficacious for anything, let alone politicians?

Rand -

I trust Jim didn't pass along that link with the same earnestness as the site itself.

Glancing through the TradeSports market, it looks to me like that market puts the chances of the GOP retaining control of the House at a third or perhaps a little higher given the short term price trend in the same direction. That probably means that even if the GOP retains control, they will do so by a small, shaky margin and won't have strong control unless they can include some democrats in the voting block.