Fear of a One Party System? Try Four

The word of the week seems to be "infighting."

Republicans are split on what to do about the budget. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is having to fend off an aggressive left flank.

Some Republicans were chastised for voting for the AIG-bonus-supplexing bill. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are having closed-door shouting matches.

Can't we all just get along?

Even with a tremendous choke hold on the clear majority, Democrats are starting to dig a line in the sand, dividing the party between the far-Left and middle-Left. A coalition of 16 or so Senators claim in the New York Times and elsewhere that they don't wish to water down out Leftward President's agenda, but to enhance it. Many in the far-Left cry foul.

Not to kick a man when he's down, but outnumbered Republicans find themselves fracturing over principle and pragmatism. Sticking to their guns, at times, has landed them the moniker of "The Party of No." Playing ball with the team that has all of the cards at this point labels them turncoats.

While flipping through the channels, sometimes a case of butterfingers causes me to drop the remote, and it comes to pass that I end up listening to the talking heads, or something equally dreadful. Olbermann has taken to referring to Republicans as "the next Wig Party," due to their overwhelming defeats in aught-six and eight.

It seems more likely to me that four parties might emerge. Like a softball outfield, you'd have your Left, Left-Center, Right-Center and Right. Like the Federalist Papers' solution for factions, perhaps Publicus' notion of multiplying and diversifying instead of unifying would be the most ideal solution.

I don't actually see this happening, by the way. I think there will always be mainly Republicans and Democrats from here on out. But the members of those parties — and their platforms — are always subject to change.

But interesting thought, perhaps.