If I were a GOP strategist - or a Democratic one - I would be worried by Arnold's body language. He and other major independent actors on the political scene - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Vice President Al Gore, chief among them - comprise a Third Force that could upset two-party politics as we know it in the 2008 presidential race.

Indeed, although there is no formal alliance, Schwarzenegger, Bloomberg and Gore have formed a mutual admiration society that has huge potential implications for 2008. They have come to share similar visions on the urgency of the global warming and health care crises, and a similar impatience with politics as usual.

This could be the year of the Third Force.

Oh Lord. Where to begin? Bloomberg has already said he won't run in 2008, Schwarzenegger is not eligible to run for President, and the idea that Al Gore would run on a third-party ticket, after losing the presidency at least partially as the result of a third-party challenge, is utterly absurd. Further, it isn't just that Fineman names three absurd possibilities to head up some sort of "third force," but it is also the idea that sustainable third forces are driven by cults of personality. How's that Reform Party working out for people these days? And, like I said, third party performance is either stagnant or in decline anyway. Of course, actual numbers and research don't dissuade many pundits from still believing that beltway CW with no actual voter base is representative of large swaths of actual Americans.

If there is going to be a viable "third force" in American politics that goes beyond a Huey Long or Ross Perot type figure seeking to have himself installed as King, it is going to have to be broadly based and impact far ore than just the occasional presidential election. It will have to arise organically and, at least partially, at the grassroots level. This will be extremely difficult, since most of the people who consider the two-party system wholly inadequate don't even vote, much less participate in other forms of political activism. Further, "independents" are an extremely fractured bunch, and any viable third major coalition will have to combine all of the widely disparate interests of the many different factions of people who do not consider themselves either Democrats or Republicans, which borders on the impossible. Good luck combining Perotistas, Naderites, Libertarians, Greens, ultra-theocon Constitution Party types and ANSWER types into a viable, unified coalition. Finally, it would require broad-based internal coherency on how it is separate from both the Democratic and Republican parties. In other words, it can't simply be a one or two issue coalition based on immigration (like the No Names) or segregation (like the many Dixiecrat third parties) that can be easily co-opted into one of the two major coalitions. The difference must be both ideological and cultural, and it must be widespread. Otherwise, it ain't happening, and you are basically talking about a new single-issue advocacy organization than a real "third force."

It isn't just Fineman and other pundit types who carry on with "third force" fantasies. The consultants behind Unity08 thinks they can engineer some sort of popular revolt against the two-party system in a top-down fashion:

Republican consultant Doug Bailey and Democrats Jerry Rafshoon and Hamilton Jordan, who worked in the Carter White House, originally planned to collaborate on a book about the broken political system. Then they decided not to just write about it, but to do something. Their idea: to attract 10 million people who would become delegates by simply going to the Unity '08 site and registering. If 10 percent of them give $100, that would raise 10 times the $10 million to $12 million Unity '08 needs to get off the ground and hold its virtual convention in June '08. "The [Howard] Dean phenomenon was not some kind of fluke," says Bailey, referring to the fund-raising potential of the Internet.

I don't know any organization that set out to manufacture a mass, popular movement whole cloth and ever succeeded. The movement behind Dean was self-generating organically before it was taken up by the campaign. MoveOn.org and the progressive blogosphere started as informal, populist movements before taking on any semblance of institutional structure. Yet, the consultants behind Unity08 think they can create something on that level out of thin air. That is simultaneously so utterly arrogant and out of touch with the rise of previous mass movements that I don't even know where to start. First, I have rarely seen a more breathtaking description of treating the Internet like an ATM machine than Bailey, Rafshoon, and Jordan do above: they just think there are ten million people out there willing to pony up cash for their pet project? How disgustingly arrogant. Further, as such, it isn't surprising that they have entirely failed in their mission to create a mass movement:

In case anyone was wondering whether or not Unity08 was actually a front-group for top-down, corporate political consultants who are worried about the rising grassroots and netroots influence on, at the very least, the Democratic Party, just look at their amazing donor list. With droves of free publicity and great political savy, they have generated all of about $80,000 from less than 100 donors to support McCain / Lieberman / Bloomberg. This compares, um, poorly to the $17 million Act Blue raised for Democrats in 2006, almost all of which came from tens of thousands of small donors giving less than $50 a pop.

It isn't surprising that Unity08 is generating such poor results when they rely on celebrity spokespeople like Sam Watterson in order to promote their cause. Note to Unity08: celebrities do not generate mass, popular, activist movements. Second note to Unity08: when Diageo / Hotline polls open-ended presidential questions, no independent or third party candidate, nor any great "unifier" like Bloomberg or Lieberman, ever even reaches 1%. You have no natural base. There is no popular movement against the-party system laying dormant in the electorate that is simply waiting for centrist, wealthy, Liebercrat, DC consultants to breathe life into it.

When it comes to discussions of the rising, radical middle in America that we have been subjected to for the past two decades, pundits would do well to stop believing their own fabricated narratives, and consultants would do well to stop believing their own poorly designed poll questions. In both cases, they would do better to look at actual election results and metrics of political activism. If anyone thinks that Joe Lieberman could have won the Connecticut Senate general election had he not been a well-known 18-year incumbent, if the pathetic Republican in the race received more than 10%, and had he not generated $2,100 donations at the rate that most netroots candidates generate $50 donations, then that person is living in fantasy land. Lieberman's campaign, much like these third-force fantasies, are only "populist" within an extremely narrow band of the American population: wealthy, neoliberal consultants and pundits. Such campaigns are always based on cults of personality, despise grassroots activism, require only low-information voters, and make everyone in an extremely narrow, isolated, and wealthy social class feel good about themselves. There simply will not be a viable third, major coalition in American politics for a long, long time to come.