I'm looking forward to watching as the Tea Party develops its position in American politics. As a fan of history I know that "third party" organizations have a terrible track record, and are far more prone to hurt the agendas of their similar "mainstream" parties than help them, but there is just the chance that this one will be different.
Every third party effort ever made in this country since the 1890s has failed to put its candidate in the White House, and in most cases has resulted in large victories for their opposite number across the political aisle (as did Perot in '92 and Roosevelt in '12). That's not to say that third parties don't always run anyway... but when they gain a large up-swell in popular support, they tend to detract from the mainstream more than forward their own agendas. In fact, there aren't even that many instances where candidates from third parties have won executive elections at a lower, more local level, either. Ventura's win in MN in '98 as a Reform Party candidate is an exception, as is Frank Zeidler, the only Socialist Party member to win an executive position in a major metropolitan area and the only Socialist Mayor of Milwaulkee, WI for three terms.
What I find fascinating is the seeming intention of this "party" to avoid centralized leadership and to instead focus efforts on making issues important to the party plainly visible to the public AND to candidates from the traditional parties. There is merit and opportunity with this sort of plan, I think.
Imagine the Tea Party having no more of a following than the Reform Party has ever had (historically speaking, less than 10% of the "conservative" vote), but rather than finding someone that those 10% can agree on as the best choice for candidate and knowing that this candidate will take votes away from the traditional party candidate (again, '92 is a great example), what if this third party simply forced the GOP candidate to address issues during his/her campaign that the Tea Party has made a priority for their endorsement? This doesn't detract from the GOP campaign by dividing the voting base, but rather forces the larger GOP convention to address issues that are deemed vital for the support of the Tea Party members. If the GOP wants the support of the 10% of conservative voters that agree with the Tea Party positions, then they'll have to field a candidate that they can support... its as simple as that.
Ross Perot was a progressive candidate with a keen (and probably functioning) understanding of Keynesian economic models and the applicability of the Laffer curve in government budget planning... but he wasn't a "conservative" when it came to foreign policy or national defense. Any Libertarian candidate that you care to point to loses conservative support when the issues of drug law enforcement and national security are raised. Constitutional Party candidates are nothing more than Christians who want the US to be a Christian-first (or Christian-only) nation, and are not traditionally conservative at all outside of abortion and strict drug control. In short, the Bob Barrs, Cindy McKinneys, Ralph Naders and Alan Keyes do nothing more than detract from the candidates of the traditional parties and do very little to forward the platforms of their respective parties.
How much more of an impact would a partyhave if, instead of spending millions of dollars on getting a candidates name/face into the mainstream American press, they spent their millions of dollars on getting the ISSUES into the mainstream American press so that the two traditional parties were FORCED to address them, item by item?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'll give you one example, recently, where a third party had an effect, albeit on a state level.
When Jesse Ventura won the governor's race here in 1998, he was expecte to take votes from the Republican candidate, Norm Coleman.
Instead, the Iron Range, which usually votes largely for the Democrats because of the large unionized work force, voted heavily for Jesse, thus leaving Coleman pretty close to pre-election projections. However, Ventura, projected third, won the race with Skip Humphrey finishing third.
Admittedly, there are far more factors at work on a national level but, basically, I agree with your thoughts that this may be the time where a third party, on a national level, may have an effect.
About the only third-party presedential candidate in recent times to garner much attention was Ross Perot, who, even though he had an impact on the popular vote had little influence because he did gain a single electoral vote. But I won't get started on my rant about the electoral college here.
Would you mind viewing the following videos about the laffer curve? Care to comment on your blog? your opinion is greatly appreciated.
http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/videos/laffercurve1-3/laffercurve1-3.shtml
Post a Comment