Historically, American third parties tend to be flashes in the pan. There is an initial surge of voter interest and political upset as they assert dominance in either a region or key voting block, but they fade away within a few election cycles. The only time a third party becomes lasting is when a declining second party falls to shreds, as when the Republicans took their spot from the Whigs.

I've assumed for a long while that this was the best lens to view the Tea Party. They're unlike a third party in that they're entirely beholden to Republicans (and GOP PAC money), but like a third party, their insurrection within the Republican Party cannot be controlled by party leaders.

So I take today's NYT article with several grains of salt. It means nothing that the Tea Party is adopting fringe issues when so much of the right-wing agenda is already fringe. What matters is that the Tea Party has the power to primary incumbents out of existence, and left-leaning PACs such as American Bridge will help them do that in order to make it a Democratic seat in the general. Third party or not, the Tea Party can prevent the Republican Party from moving out of its entrenched, and possibly unelectable, position.

To my way of thinking, the big question of the next 10 years is “who replaces the Republicans?” Most likely it will be another Republican Party, less dominated by its lunatic fringe. But if the GOP founders on the rocks (leaving behind a far-right remnant, powerful regionally in Red states), there's an opportunity for a titanic shift in American politics. Because the replacement party, like during the Civil War, need not be from the same place on the political spectrum.

The Democratic Party is in no way a “liberal” party; most of its platform and all of its presidencies since the 1980s would have been comfortable Republican positions earlier. In Europe, leftist parties spring up when the former left party shifts to the center or center-right. That's been happening here since 1992, but the Democrats continue to suck up all of the oxygen in the room. That might not be the case by 2020.

Which is why I point to the Occupy movements as a qualified success, despite the mainstream tendency to laugh at their aimlessness. They answer questions that for the time being are rhetorical. Who will support a new party? Who will contribute time and money? Who will vote against Democrats for a traditional liberal agenda?

And most importantly, who will provide the visible critical mass such that a third-party vote is not obviously throwing it away on an unelectable candidate?

I'd still put the odds of this as being rather low, maybe one in four. But the re-election of Obama provided fuel for this fire—a popular but not populist centrist who refuses to entertain the traditional left. As does a highly visible lunatic right with power far beyond their electoral share. Really, the only question is if the vacuum will open, and if the left nonprofit and political coalitions will be organized enough to take advantage of it.