Political Reality

A couple of days ago I heard a news story on the radio ... ok, not just any radio, it was XM and it was Air America, probably the Rachel Maddo Show. The story was that a survey of some kind had been completed that showed that only about 20% (maybe less) of Americans now consider themselves to be "Republicans". The flip side was that those who consider themselves to be Democrats was a higher number but not nearly as high as you might think. The upshot was that there were a LOT of people who did not consider themselves to be part of either party.

Do I smell Third Party? Frankly, the desire for a third choice has been strongly with us for a LONG time.

What percentage of votes was Ross Perot pulling in 1992? Now, it seems whenever I hear Perot mentioned in any discussion someone inevitably tries to dismiss him as a kook and/or jokes about his ears and/or someone starts imitating his voice while saying kooky things. WHY is that? Why do I seldom hear a discussion about how many votes he actually received?? He got 18.9% of the popular vote. He actually beat Bush Senior in Maine by a hair. He beat Clinton in Utah by more than a hair. And this was after he dropped out of the race for a time and then re-entered, claiming that Republican operatives had tried to interfere with his daughter's wedding. The wedding story was widely discussed as evidence that Perot was mentally unstable or just a plain, old liar. Knowning what we now know about Bush Jr-style Republican tactics, perhaps Perot's wedding story was just a sign of things to come? Perhaps Perot was trying to tell the truth about what happened without too many gory details? Maybe there was a true and more sinister aspect to the wedding story that Perot believed the American people would simply not believe if he told it and that is why the story didn't make much sense at the time?

Back to the point. A third political party.

"But Don, we already HAVE a bunch of other political parties. Why do we need another?"

Perot's party was the Reform Party and it was all about him. To my knowledge it did not exist before Perot's candidacy. Why is that? Why didn't Perot rise up through an existing party? I believe the answer is simple, but it also explains both the Democrat and Republican party flirtations with fringe elements in society.

These third parties (i.e. Libertarian, Green, Peace and Freedom) do not have a large enough "base" to win a Presidential election. They rarely have a large enough base to win U.S. House or Senate seats. (A "base" is the collection of persons who virtually always vote for the party's candidates regardless of the candidates' specific positions on issues.)

Why is that? To have a large base today the party has to meet one or the other, or both, of the following criteria. (1) the party has a platform and/or candidates that are widely visible and widely appealing; and/or (2) the party has obtained a large base in the past as a result of the first criteria and that base continues to vote with the party for any number of reasons regardless of the current platform and/or candidates (i.e. habit, feeling of belonging to a group, lack of a appealing alternative, feelings of loyalty).

Only the Democrats and Republicans meet criteria number 2. The other parties have not yet met criteria number 1, and none of them seem likely to do so in the near future.

In other words, the current crop of "alternative" political parties just do not have a platform or candidates that are appealing to a large section of the public. They just don't, end of story. Of course, a party could always turn up with an incredibly appealing candidate that could catapult the party to national success (if the Democrat and Republican operatives aren't successful in sabatoging that candidate - and don't believe for a second that they would not try). Failing that, our current crop are themselves too "fringy". Libertarians come off as too erudite and untouchable in their ivory towers. Greens come off as one step away from anarchists. Peace and Freedom makes people think of pot-smoking hippies (whether or not it is true).

The Libertarians ran an interesting questionnaire (which may still be available on their website. I'm not promoting any of them in this article, so you'll have to go find it yourself if you are interested!). It seems that nearly everybody who answers all the questions discovers that they are much more aligned philosophically the Libertarian party than they realized.

Why, then, don't the Libertarians have a candidate for the Presidency with serious chance at winning? Back to criteria #1 - visibility and appeal of the platform. And the same goes for the other also-ran parties. Visibility and appeal.

Again, using the Libertarians as an example: how many Americans would be for open borders? The Libertarian party is. Of course, the Libertarian view on this and many other issues does not work in isolation. You can't have Libertarian open borders without also having Libertarian abolishment of Medicaid and Medicare, and how many people are willing to let grandma fend for herself without Medicare at this point? To say the least, Libertarian-style government would have to be VERY carefully phased in over a long period of time to avoid disaster. It would obliterate many pet projects and upset many apple carts. When it comes right down to it, so many influential people would be so upset by it that I doubt it will get off the ground in my lifetime or in the next generations lifetime.

In other words, influential people would be inclined to suppress it (visibility), and many others would simply not be for it when it hurts grandma (wide appeal).

OK, so what about the base for the Democrats and Republicans? They are not doing so well in the criteria #1 department. Mostly I see them riding on the coattails of those who built their parties up before them - criteria #2. Their bases are dwindling. Fewer and fewer people are voting Republican or Democrat "because their daddy did". More and more people are feeling disenfranchised by both parties because the parties are not living up to their promises and/or peoples' expectations of them. At least some "values" organizations cannot be too thrilled with violations of law that are being revealed in the Republican administration on a daily basis. "Lefty" organizations cannot be very happy with Democrats like Ted Kennedy who seem so beholden to big-money pharmacy interests that they'll take away people's right to use herbs and alternative medicines.

So, with ever weakening bases, they two main parties find themselves flirting with fringe elements in society to try to win elections. Most obvious may be the Republicans appearing to align themselves with the likes of the Moral Majority and Focus on the Family. Perhaps less obvious is the Democrats appearing to align themselves with gay interest organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign.

I believe that a great many people are ready for a party that they believe represents THEIR interests. I believe that a majority of the population believes the following and would like to see a new party that addresses these issues:
1. Most elected officials at the national level are bought and paid for by corporations.
2. Most elected officials at the national level are more interested in winning the next campaign than doing the job that they were elected to do.
3. Most elected officials at the national level spend far too much time on issues of little importance to the majority of Americans (i.e. abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools).
4. Most elected officials at the national level see the American public as an endless supply of cash to fund pet projects or hand out to their friends.
5. Most elected officials at the national level don't give a damn about being honest with the public.
6. Most elected officials at the national level see themselves as "special" and as those who elected them as "common".
7. Most elected officials at the national level have proven themselves as willing to mortgage America's future in an effort to bolster the bottom line of a few mega-corporations.
8. Most elected officials at the national level (from BOTH parties) are willing to sacrifice individual rights and ignore the Constitution anytime it serves their own agenda.

If a new political party came on the scene that addressed these issues, look out.