The Third Party Illusion
With all the Conservative anger directed toward Liberal Republicans these days over immigration and overspending (among other things), it’s only natural that talk turns to third party politics as the midterm elections approach. Even such a Republican stalwart as Peggy Noonan, special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and chief speechwriter for President George H. W. Bush, recently wondered in a Wall Street Journal op-ed whether it might be the right time for a new political party. The answer, sadly, is no.
Slick-talking professional politicians with what seem like lifetime appointments to Congress have soured people on both sides of the aisle, the Left no less than the Right. Many people feel their voices aren’t being heard (unless, of course, they speak Spanish or ask for government handouts). But while the Democratic party remains intact, making a break to a third party can only be disastrous for Conservatives.
Generally speaking, in many states as well as nationwide, the number of those who vote Republican and Democrat are pretty close to even. For starters, no third party can really get of the ground without adequate financial backing and charismatic, effective leadership. Given those things, a Right-leaning third party still only has two ways to win. They can take all Republican votes without missing any, or take votes from both sides. Either way, the end result would be the same.
If a truly Conservative third party emerged, there’s no way it would take all the votes that normally go to the Republican party. Even if it managed to avoid the religious overtones and isolationism of the Constitution or America First parties, not all Republican voters are really Conservative. The only way a third party could completely replace the Republican party would be to duplicate the Republican party, which would put Conservatives right back in the same position we currently occupy.
Furthermore, a growing Conservative party would force the Republican party to become even more Liberal than it currently is, to retain power by taking votes from among the more Conservative Democrats. In the end, America would have a medium-sized Conservative party, a small middle-Right party, and a Democratic party not much smaller than it is now — and stripped of its moderate voters. With two opposing parties to its Left, a Conservative party would have a hard time pushing its agenda.
Suppose a middle-right party like the Libertarians (fiscally Conservative, but socially Liberal) gained power? A middle party would weaken both Republicans and Democrats, forcing both parties to play more to their respective bases. Good for Conservatives, right? No. Again, the smaller, more Conservative Republican party would face a pair of more Liberal parties, and have a tough time passing Conservative legislation.
So what’s the answer — just lie down and take whatever the Republican elites dish out? Hardly. The best answer, as long as the Democratic party remains whole, will require time and effort. First, Conservatives must use the primary election process to replace Liberal Republicans with their more Conservative opposition. That’s the point to holding primaries.
Second, voters must pay closer attention to their candidates for office and how they vote. It’s easy to throw up your hands and proclaim, “I won’t vote for any more Republicans!” The problem is that your Senators and Representative might not merit replacement for the reasons that you want change. For instance, only four Republican Senators running for re-election in 2006 voted for the Senate’s illegal immigration amnesty bill — Lincoln Chafee (RI), Mike DeWine (OH), Richard Lugar (IN) and Olympia Snowe (ME). Throwing those four out of office, even at the cost of allowing Democrats to take those seats, would send the right message. When the other Republicans who voted for amnesty come up for re-election, they’ll have to go through a primary election as well. That’s the right time to remove them from office.
On the other hand, voting against Senators like Rick Santorum (PA), John Ensign (NV)Â or George Allen (VA)Â out of anger over illegal immigration would be ridiculous, as they all came out strongly against the amnesty bill. Intelligent, careful voting is the way to take back the Republican party without putting the Democrats in charge.
A third way to make your voice heard is with your wallet. The national Republican party might see the message in dwindling contributions, while your money might be better spent directly on a more Conservative candidate with whose positions you agree.
It’s not a fast or easy process, but real change rarely is.
Joe Mariani is a computer consultant born and raised in New Jersey. He now lives in Pennsylvania, where the gun laws are less restrictive and taxes are lower. Joe always thought of himself as politically neutral until he saw how far left the left had really gone after 9/11. His essays and links to articles are available at http://www.guardianwatchblog.com/
| More from Joe Mariani
Stumble It!
June 7th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
You fail to analyze the real reason why 3rd parties simply don’t work in America. We have a winner take all system, which naturally makes a two party system the most effective. 3rd Parties either grow large enough to take over an older party as the Republicans did to the Whig Party in the 1850s, or they simply act as spoilers for one of the major parties as you suggested. The Reform Party divided the Republican vote and helped Clinton win in 1992 and the Green Party divided the Democratic vote and helped Bush win in 2000. Even though the Greens only got 3% of the vote in 2000, that was enough to swing the election to Bush. In 1992, Clinton might have won without the Reform Party, but it certainly helped him. Reform took 19% of the vote, but it tended to draw from both the Republicans and the Democrats.
3rd Parties only work well in parliamentary systems. If you have a presidential system with winner take all like we do, 3rd parties only make sense if you have a two stage election. The second election is a run-off round between the two biggest vote getters in the first round. Witness the recent Peruvian election for an example of who this might work.
Personally I wish we lived in a country with a German style parliamentary system, so more people would feel like they were voting for candidates who represented their viewpoint.
I hold my nose every time I go to the polls. I vote for alternative parties in races which aren’t close, so that I can send a message that I am dissatisfied with the major parties. When the race is close, however, I vote for one of the major parties so I won’t waste my vote.
June 7th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
If the Republicans divided into 2 parties, the Democrats would surely also divide. The Democrats are even more divided ideologically that the Republicans, which is part of the reason why there is little party discipline among Democrats. The Greens or some other Leftist party would take probably a third of the current Democratic party if we lived in a country which didn’t have a winner take all system. Many of the conservative democrats would probably join your proposed business friendly but socially liberal middle party. You might even see a Black party or a Latino party appear. I suspect the Democrats would be even smaller than the Republicans in a multiparty system.
June 8th, 2006 at 3:45 am
Good analysis. I think it more important and more likely that the Democratic party will split first. Far more than the Republicans, they are a coalition of competing special interest groups, held together only by the ability of Democratic politicians to tell each group that it’s the most important. When the Republicans do things like force a vote on a marriage protection amendment, for instance, it removes the ability of Democrats to obfuscate.
June 8th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
I have to respectfully disagree with (some) of what Joe writes in this article.
In particular, I think the Republican party (especially in Kansas) is on the verge of a breakdown, with Conservatives entirely fed up with the liberal appeasement policies of the Moderates. We literally see the effect of a growing liberalization of Conservative idealogies.
Those who are more Conservative than “Republican” are steadily realizing that the Libertarian and Reform Parties now hold conservative views in higher esteem than the Republican Party does. We are now starting to build coalitions accordingly.
Personally, I envision a multi-party system coming out in the next decade or two. Ultra-Liberal Special-interest Democrats, Liberal Greens, Liberal big-business Republicans, Libertarians, Conservative Reformists, and Ultra-Conservative Constitutionalists.
Leaders elected under this multi-party system will have to build coalitions in support of legislation, and these coalitions will cover a wider range of perspectives than under the current two-party system.
Let’s face it, the two-party system has run its course and has failed to adequately represent the diversity of America. It is also now almost so thuroughly corrupt as to have forfeit the respect of the American people.
Voting for the “lesser of two evils” is still voting for EVIL. It’s time for We The People to seriously consider the alternatives offered by 3rd parties and the solutions they present.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lessman
Topeka, KS
Email: talessman@yis.us
http://www.ThomasLessman.com
June 8th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Thomas, you’re making the leap from what is to what you think should be without looking at how we get from here to there. That’s going to be a problem — as I said, as long as the Democratic party remains intact. Of course, with a multi-party system, all you’re doing is giving names to the groups that will, by necessity, be forced to form coalitions in order to pass legislation. In other words, there will be a Right-leaning coalition of small, weak parties instead of one Right-leaning party, and the same on the Left. Eventually, small parties will coalesce to form large parties, and we’ll be right back where we are.
June 8th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
There is no scenario in which third parties could rise to the level of the two national parties.
Our politics are really very simple. We have two parties which both advance higher taxes and more regulation on business. The Democrats do a little more of this, but “appear” to be more compassionate. The Republicans seem heartless but are better on foreign policy.
The trouble some see is a Democratic Party increasingly pulled to the hard left and a Republican party pulled to the hard right. These are fluctuations and will not break either party. Remember, the Republicans were much more right wing when Goldwater was running; the Democrats were 100% socialist when they ran McGovern. Both parties’ extremes cancel each other out.