A number of communications in response to yesterday's post about American politics. Yes, I accept that the Senate, in particular, will continue to contain enough Republicans to make that party look like a reasonably viable national force. The question, then, is which of the two Democratic Parties, competing in the bitterest of terms within that body, will partly subsume and partly be subsumed by the rump of the GOP.
Will it be the economically populist and even social democratic, morally and socially conservative, largely black one (the Republicans having been historically the party of the blacks) which is also sufficiently "white ethnic" to speak and act for the ancient indigenous Christians of the Holy Land and the wider Middle East, but which otherwise represents Republicans' own historical norm of more or less isolationist foreign policy together with a strong pursuit of global nuclear disarmament?
Or will it be the economically neoliberal, socially liberal one with a largely Hispanic electorate but with its direction set from the liberal Jewish salons of Hollywood and New York, giving it a strong and active commitment to the secular Zionist project of old and to a wider liberal interventionism throughout the world?
These will be the two main formations in American politics before very long at all. America does not really do third parties. So, the remnant Republicans can find a home in one of them, or they can find a home in the other. Which is it to be? And why?
In the meantime, might not a party on the first model be set up for ballot line purposes in New York State?