The Democrats have caved on issue after issue after issue because they've essentially been systematically stripped of all of their power and are at least partially beholden to the will of the corporate powers that be, instead of their lowly constituents.
You are correct the Republicans have attempted to strip Democrats of their power, this is more evident in the House where there are few institutional rules protecting the minority. However, to say that a Democrats have "caved" because they disagreed with your preferred outcome needs to be backed up more strenously. In a party such as ours, there are going to be those who take a principled position that differs from yours.
And if they aren't responding to the needs of the "lowly constituent" the constituents haven't figured that out yet. Because the "lowly constituents" return their representatives back to Congress every year.
People are clearly enormously frustrated with the status quo.
Hardly unique to this era, and not a harbinger of a third party movement. The last successful third party was the Republican Party starting in 1856.
If the Democratic Party wants to regain any traction whatsoever they'd better stop listening to their highly paid consultants who are all too often splitting hairs over comparatively inane and inconsequential daily talking points (i.e gay marriage, flag burning, immigration, abortion, etc. and ad nauseum) pandering to the so called imagined "center."
'Scuse me but not to minimize the import of those issues to those involved, this is all tripe compared to the suspension of all of our very Constitutional rights. Those comprise the very cornerstone of our fumbling nation.
Sadly in our media driven culture, perception often matters more than reality. The Republicans know this which is why you see these issues getting the lions share of the noteriety. IN purely political terms, candidates have to respond. As when Mike Dukakis ignored Willy Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance, and as John Kerry virtually ignored the Swift Boaters found out, these things do affect outcomes. The only Democratic Presidential candidate who seems to have learned that lesson was Bill Clinton (and by golly, he won).
The problem with a two party system used to be gridlock but at least then there was room for compromise. That is no more.
Now with single party control of the three branches of government, the media, and the voting technology, our democracy is no longer recognizable as such.
The problem of a two party system is dualism, plain and simple.
This fondly remembered gridlock is a relatively new feature. Demcorats have controlled all branches of Government nearly half the time since 1932.
The problem is not dualism; dualism is our system. If there was this hue and cry about it, change would occur. Fact is, in general the two party system has worked pretty well, and the parties have been pretty good at assimilating and responding to the needs of various sections of the populace. When they have failed to do this, they get knocked out on their kiester...which is about to happen again.
Yet we live in a culture that is infused with and overtly rewards greed and selfishness
Yes, it is called capitalism. The basis of capitalism is economic self interest. I don't see a general uprising in the land calling for the elimination of capitalism.
I've been writing incessantly for well over 6 months about the possibility of formation of a (purple:red + blue = purple) party that is determined to restore our Constitution, civil rights, peace and global reputation. Amazingly I've garnered droves of
heartwarming responses.
More power to ya...one of the good things about our system. However, history strongly indicates this will fail. Third parties fail for three basic reasons. First, they often represent a narrow range of interests. Second, they are easily assimilated into the major party structure. And third, there is not a great hunger for a third party. Yes people whine and complin about the two major parties, but when people are asked to put their money where their mouth is, they find that their existing party isn't so bad after all.