Which one are you - an Inside Insider, an Inside Outsider or an Outside Outsider? This questioned was inspired by reading a transcript of a Democracy Now conversation between Amy Goodman and Cornel West which prompted a flashback to my college sociology class and the concept of coalition triads.

Here’s the snippet of discussion which started this whole train of thought:

Cornel West: Unlike Bernie Sanders, I'm Not Convinced The Democratic Party Can Be Reformed

As a preface, Cornel West expressed frustration with the fact that the Democratic Party had proven itself incapable of coming out against TPP or fracking in its platform due to not wanting to embarrass the President and its ties to lobbyists. He said that this demonstrated a lack of “integrity and moral consistency”. He also said that by choosing to work within the Party, Bernie Sanders had become a New Deal Liberal as opposed to a Social Democrat. Here is his response when asked by Goodman for clarification about these terms:

That means that he is a—well, a Democratic socialist is a radical who’s critical of the system. A New Deal liberal works within the system and doesn’t want to bring massive critique for structural change. And I can understand it, because he’s inside. But those of us who are outside and free, we’re going to tell the truth. We’re going to be honest. We’re going to have a certain kind of moral and spiritual and intellectual integrity. And no matter how marginal that makes us, we’re not in any way going to become well adjusted to this injustice out here.

Based on CW’s comments about Bernie and the Democratic Party, to me he defined the 3 players of a power triad:

The DNC neolib centrist Democrats represent A, or the Inside Insiders. The Bernie Sanders contingent represents B, or the Inside Outsider. Lefty Independent types, like Cornel West, represent C or the Outside Outsider. Let’s just accept that no member of the triad can win a general election without the other. There is one other potential player outside of the triad and that would be D who represents Moderate Republicans

Coalition triads are a concept about how power can be shared by 3 entities with various configurations of individual strength within the triad. For example, if A>B>C, A will usually be part of the dominant power structure because they start off with greater strength and are very likely to get either B or C or both to join them since everyone likes to be with a winner. So either A +B or A+C works well as a coalition that will most likely work to support the goals of A with some sops to the subservient partner, whether it be B or C. Things get more interesting however if the minor members of the triad realize at some point that a union among them, B+C, has greater power conjoined than does A independently.

I think we just saw what happens when A+B formed an alliance, as that’s exactly what happened in the last election. Sadly it wasn’t enough to swing the election overall because nationally some Bs and a larger number Cs opted to stay home or defected to a third Party. Ds did not join A despite the pipe dreams of Charles Schumer and other great Democratic strategerists. So, A +B was a failed venture.

I think we can safely assume that A+C is a no go from the getgo. That leaves one last possible combination which would be B+C. In that combination A, the formerly superior member of the triad, is given the choice traditionally given to B and C accompanied by a sneer – Good luck with Trump! (Or McCain or Romney).

In truth, given that A has control over the power structure within the Party and the money and shows no sign of being willing to give up the scepter, re-electing Pelosi as a prime example, even a union of B+C has a small chance of ousting A from its dominant position, which supports Cornel West’s assertion that it is not possible to reform the Party from within, at least not in the near term.

Which means that given its propensity for stasis and incrementalism, the Democratic Party will continue to foist the losing coalition of A+B, neolibs and New Deal Democrats, in a forced marriage wherein all are unhappy and will continue to lose election after election. Meanwhile the C’s will continue to roam in the wilderness trying to entice the B’s to join with them while the Republicans mount various versions of Trumpzilla the Hun and continue to reshape the country to the Dickensian London of their daydreams, replete with workhouses and orphan asylums.

Aside from finding some Superman who can spin the Earth backwards on its axis through time back to a place where the Dem Leadership realizes HRC is fatally flawed and allows Bernie to win the primary, I don’t see anything on the horizon to alter the downward power spiral of the Democrats. Unless . . . .

One tiny bit of me wonders whether the ongoing wearing of purple by Bill, Hillary and Schumer, doesn’t signal FINALLY a future unveiling of a No Labels-ish Purple Party. Yes folks, Bernie’s too rad and Trump's too anti-social, so Bill and Hill will head the new Moderate Purple Party of both Dems and Repubs (blue + red = purple, get it?). Am I crazy for thinking this is on the horizon? Did ergot infest my ham on rye?

If that did happen, B+C could finally inherit the old manse, the Democratic Party and set about making all the repairs to the foundation, and put on some new paint and appeal to that 58% of the public who already polls as wanting single payer healthcare. Turns out radical is mainstream, who knew? (B+C)-A could be the winning combination.