Seems to me that we have too many who are so far to the left or right that any in the opposite camp are automatically their enemies. We also have those who can't say liberal or conservative without adding an insulting adjective or two.
Add to this the "parties" that have no chance at all at gaining a foothold in the the least of political offices and it begs the question, WHY?
Why do so many of us place ourselves out of the political arena by clinging to single issues and/or unpopular ideas that are so far out?
Wouldn't it be better to work toward those issues that have a chance of being accepted than just cling to our unrealistic ones?

You make a good point. I think many people feel passionately about political issues, and are therefore reluctant to compromise. The example that comes to mind is abortion. There are people with passionate beliefs on both sides of the issue, who are not willing to compromise. Yet it is clear that this is an issue on which there mist be compromise; neither side is going to get everything it desires.

I guess as a libertarian I'd be one of those "fringe elements" though I'm not generally hostile, and I'm willing to work with a major party to get some of my ideas enacted. But even a party that has no hope of winning elections can make a difference if they promote ideas that are eventually adopted by the major parties. That worked for Eugene V. Debs' Socialist Party, and it can work for the modern minor parties too, the ones that actually have ideas anyway.

I think political extremists consciously or unconsciously move away from the middle ground because it allows them the luxury of never having to compromise their opinions.

In real politics (rather than the somewhat ethereal world of message boards), extremists tend not to attract very many votes. Consequently, they do not get elected very often. Those that do may have short-term success, but quickly find that they do not get to operate in a Manichean universe where they are right and everyone else is wrong - if they alienate everyone around them, nothing ever gets done, and they don't get trusted or elected again.

Real politics always involves a degree of compromise and cooperation between opposing views, even if that is only to the extent of agreeing the rules of engagement. No politician in power ever gets to implement every single detail of his or her vision, because no one person or political standpoint ever has all the answers. Long may this remains so - if we ever discover a political philosophy that has all the answers, why would elections be necessary?

So by distancing ourselves far enough away from the centre, we gets the luxuries of being uncompromising and of being able to criticise anybody from a position where we feel we cannot be legitimately criticised ourselves. Being uncompromising is widely admired in Anglo-Saxon societies, even if we usually recognise that it rarely achieves much of lasting value.

Historically, certainly in Europe during the 20th century, the political left was least willing to compromise, and would often tear itself apart in power or in opposition over the purity of its ideas. This seems to have flipped today - now it is the right that is willing to forego electoral office by being uncompromising, and the left that covers a spectrum of views, with everyone getting a little bit of what they want, but nobody being totally satisfied.

From outside, it seems that the Democrats are in a parlous state, where they prefer to argue amongst themselves than put forward a cogent opposition argument, during which time the Bush administration can do pretty much whatever it likes. It also looks like the Republican Right, while they are in the ascendancy at the moment, are sowing the seeds of a future collapse and disruption within the GOP.

When their current hegemony breaks up (nobody would suggest the can control both houses and the presidency forever), I predict that the moderates will blame the Right, the Right will blame the moderates, and the Democrats will be given a clear field, because voters generally do not like their governments to be too extreme for too long. (Of course, what constitutes "too extreme" varies between countries and over time).

The notion that "power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely" doesn't just work with regard to the honesty of dictators - too much unopposed power for too long erodes (or even "corrupts" i.e.rots) the ability of a party machine to win elections against credible opposition, their ability to form workable and credible policies, and so on. This is palpably true in British politics, and I do not belive that US politics are so different that the Republicans will be immune if they do not rapidly learn the arts of humility and compromise.

(There's an analogy there to US foreign policy if anyone cares to read into it.)

Whilst compromise is always going to be the mainstay of effective deomcratic politics, I think it can be taken too far, and that ideals can sometimes be sacrificed for popularity and votes.

Let's look at the British Labour Party. It started out at the turn of the century as an extremist working class movement with virtually no presence in parliament, but barely 30 years later it was able to form a majority government. Evidently it is sometimes possible for small and unpopular parties to gain mass support

The current Labour government, however, has sacrificed traditional socialist Labour ideals in order to get elected. They have moved significantly to the right, to a position that is in many ways akin to that of Thatchers government in the 80's, and actually display embaressment over links to Labour's left-wing past.

Regardless of our own personal views on Labour or left and right-wing politics, the history of the party tells us two things that are relevant to this debate: -

1. You can gain support by sticking to your ideals, because the political spectrum is never static and the tide may change. The road, however, may be long and arduous, and more likely to end in failure than success.

2. You can gain popularity much more quickly by changing those ideals, but sacrificing idealism to power results in a political stance which is, in my view, morally moribund.

Well, quite, JonBon. I'm sure we could moan about Tiny Blur's bastardisation of all things socialist (although - let's be honest - a fully independent judiciary, the possible disestablishment of the Church, abolition of hereditary peerages, regional assemblies etc. have been pretty long-standing leftwing goals, and I didn't notice the Callaghan, Wilson, or even post-war Labour government so much as try them) till the cows come home.

However, two things would happen:
1. We'd bore everyone here except each other - it's an American site after all.
2. We'd take the thread off-topic - it's about the strengths and weaknesses of fringe parties, not mainstream ones. The "no compromise" parties I was thinking of were not really Labour, Tory, Democrat or Republican, but the likes of the BNP or SWP in Britain, or Libertarians in the USA, whose refusal to engage in realpolitik prevents them from ever the power to do anything except influence debate sometimes. I did wander a bit into speculation about why parties in or out of power for a long time run out intellectual steam until something dramatic changes, which is I guess what you were replying to, so I take my share of the blame for digressing.

We need to get back into the fringes. We have become so centrist, so middle of the road that it doesn't make one bit of difference which talking head wins the election. Our leaders (and I use the term very loosely) are so concerned with not offending any special interest and are only looking to keep their own careers going that very few of them ever take a strong stand on anything.

I see a politician who grows a spine and takes a stand, whether on one side or the other, will get far more respect that the wusses we have now.

Because some would figure that it woul;d have a positive effect on voters. If you are talking about something like Democrats are using the state of the economy as their only platform as an example, then maybe it is because they can get votes from the affected voters

The two major parties are going to run to the political center in order to win elections. The agenda of us "on the fringe" is to move that political center in our direction. The Socialist Party platform of 1924 was almost completely enacted by 1980, despite few electoral successes.