How big does the Jobs Deficit have to get Before There is a new Political Party in the US?

It's not true that "3rd parties" can not possibly succeed in the US. For example, the Republican Party was formed in 1854 and its standard bearer Abraham Lincoln became President a short time later in 1861.

There can also be a split of an existing party into two parties, both of which can be viable for some time after the split. This is technically how the Democratic Party formed about 1825.

Yes it is much more difficult for a viable (one that can win elections to the House and Senate) party to form in the US than elsewhere, but it is not impossible.

There has been no increase in gainful employment in the US for about 11 years, creating a job deficit relative to "normally functioning" advanced economies of about 25-30 million jobs.

Since both the current Republican Party and the current Democratic Party are too far to the right (and too much controlled by elites in huge corporations) to be able to support policies that will create jobs, "progressives" in the Democratic Party are doomed to be eventually exposed as totally irrelevant if there are few or no jobs indefinitely. To me and to many others here at Common Dreams, the "progressives" are already seen as irrelevant. Obama is worse than irrelevant. If the labor market collapse continues for a second decade or more, sooner or later the "progressives" in the Democratic Party will have two choices: form a new party or be defeated by fascists of various types.

Fascist voters don't like unemployment either if only because they don't want to support those who don't have a job. Fascists came to power in Germany due to economics in general and lack of enough gainful employment in particular (along with massive inflation).

If the progressives split from the Democrats when the job deficit reaches 50 million or whatever, the new party will obviously (a) promise jobs and (b) be instantly viable. If instead the progressives go down with their ship, a new party can and presumably will form from the ground up. Either way, if and when the point of total economic desperation arrives, the new party will instantly gain massive support from roughly 50 million or more people lacking jobs and another 100 million or many more who don't want to or simply can not support them anymore.

In other words, I doubt that even in the US it will ever get to the point that millions are starving in the streets and yet still there is no new party to address the economic wreckage that the Democratic and the Republican parties have caused.

Precisely because it is so difficult for a new party to be viable in the US you have no choice but to base it on economics rather than on a less popular concern such as the environment. It is no surprise that the Green Party concept works to some extent in parliamentary Germany but not in the more crude US system.

But yes, I do know that the environment is ultimately more important than the economy, please don't waste your time typing that.

Technically I am just speculating and the country’s economy could be destroyed beyond repair (creating the need for very extensive international intervention) but all of those possibilities are beyond the scope of this comment.

The above was in response to this article at Common Dreams
-----------------------
Comments are very appreciated. Comments are moderated but all comments will be approved except for those that do not belong on Unity-Progress. For example, comments that contain any commercial advertising and ones that contain objectionable hatred will not be approved. Many comments that appear will receive a return comment by Unity-Progress.

The email address for Unity-Progress is
unity.progress.mail at gmail.

Use this address for all communications, including requests for link exchange if you have a good economics or political site.