
August 3rd / 5th, 2007
"Third-Party Candidates Are Vital"
I first became disillusioned with the two party system back in 1976 when
Ronald Reagan was rejected by mainstream Republicans in favor of party hack (but
nice guy) Gerald Ford. I thought Reagan should have bucked the system and
run on a third party ticket. Instead he resisted the urge to break away,
but I wondered how things might have been different had he bolted the GOP and
won as an independent. The recession wouldn’t have occurred, our hostages
wouldn’t have been in Iran for over a year, and the Cold War would have ended
sooner.
As much as I liked Reagan, though, my admiration is mainly reserved for men
and women who take risks, show courage, and run against the grain.
Sorry, but two-party people just don’t fit those criteria.
Early on, America had a few more political choices than today. There were
Whigs and Federalists, Democratic Republicans, then Democrats and
Republicans. But throughout those transitions, we still maintained a basic two party
system, and that’s why we also have a rich history of third party challengers.
Generally speaking, but not always, third-party-goers conduct a one issue
campaign. In 1872 Victoria Woodhull became the first woman to run for President, and
she was nominated by the Equal Rights party. Guess what her campaign theme
was. But Woodhull was not the one trick pony you might have guessed. She was
a whiz at investing, she owned her own publishing company, and she advocated
free love. Unfortunately Woodhull lost to incumbent Ulysses Grant.
Racist Strom Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat in 1948 and his platform focused on
preserving the status quo in the South. His bigotry was mildly disguised
by calling his group the States Rights party. But racism aside, Thurmond’s
independent bid was significant because he managed to win 39 electoral votes,
and that brings us to the biggest barrier that third party candidates face in
trying to ascend to the Presidency. Hardly ever do independents win
electoral college votes, and that’s because the system was designed by old white,
power hungry, aristocratic, living- off- their- wives’-money, control freaks who
distrusted the will of the people, and wanted to make certain that insider
politicos picked the chief executive. As such, we are locked into a corrupt
system in which the winner of the popular vote in any given state captures 100%
of the electoral votes for that state, even if he only won by one popular
vote. Today there is a move afoot by some states to revise the system so that
each candidate receives a proportionate percentage of electoral votes
according to his popular vote tally. In my opinion, we should abolish the EC
altogether, but if that’s not possible, then the reapportionment strategy is the
next best thing.
But even if the college was abolished, most third party candidates would be
hard pressed to win the top prize. Teddy Roosevelt came close in 1912 when his Bull Moose party spoiled Taft’s
re-election bid and put Wilson in the White House. And Ross Perot was a
contender in 1992 when he ran as the Reform Party candidate against Bush the
elder and Bill Clinton. At one point in the campaign, Perot was neck and neck
with his rivals, but then faded to collect only about 20% of the popular vote.
What Perot did, however, was to educate us about the deficit, and proposed a
business-like approach to governance. He ran again in 1996 and began warning
us of the dangers of NAFTA. The two party mainstream wouldn’t heed his
warnings, and today we’re paying the price with plant closings and massive
layoffs.
Pat Buchanan, who ran twice as a GOP rebel in ’92 and ’96, and as an
independent in 2000 used the national stage to warn Americans about the dangers of
illegal immigration. He proposed a moratorium, and a tightening of border
security before anyone else was even talking about the threat. Had voters put
Buchanan in office, and had he implemented his programs, it’s doubtful that
the 9/11 terrorists would have been able to enter the United States, and
certain that they would have been unable to obtain fake drivers licenses so
easily, which enabled their deadly operation to move forward.
Over the years we have also had third party candidates campaign for peace by
calling for an end to a war. In 1968, Dick Gregory and Eldridge Cleaver ran
on the Freedom and Peace and Peace and Freedom tickets respectively,
demanding an end to the Vietnam War.
And Ralph Nader may make his fourth independent run next year by advocating
a quick pull-out in Iraq. Since Congressional Democrats are obviously impotent against the Decider, I
am hoping Nader will stay engaged, and keep up the pressure to bring our
troops home ASAP. Nader as you recall was blamed by Democrats for Al Gore’s loss in 2000. That
’s because the consumer advocate guru garnered nearly 3% of the popular vote
in a race where Bush won by less than 1%. That’s all the more reason for
Ralph to run in 2008 so he can clean up the Bush mess which he made possible.
Perhaps my favorite third party candidate of all time is Millard Fillmore
who in 1856 after serving one term as President, ran as an independent. To be
honest, I don’t really like the man, I just love the name of his
organization. It was called the “Know Nothing” party, and I think today’s GOP and
Dems should adopt the moniker because they actually do know nothing, and seem to
be proud of it.
Bush is certainly a know nothing. John Edwards is a do nothing. Obama
basically says nothing, and Giuliani thinks nothing. Ralph Nader, a relatively
poor man, has nothing, but knows a lot, so, by default, he’s my man in ’08.
Wouldn’t it be great if we all ended our disillusionment with two party
politics and finally put a third party person in the White House?
Once again though, the only thing stopping us are old white, power hungry,
aristocratic, living-off-their-wives’-money, control freaks. Some things
never change.
|