CHCH News - Third Party Choices

On any given leap year...the recurring folly of third-party candidacies to national office.

Theodore Roosevelt.

Strom Thurmond.

George Wallace.

Lyndon LaRouche

John Anderson.

H. Ross Perot.

These men and others ran for the highest office in the land. Ran at least once affiliated with a "minority" or third party.

Some were spoilers, changing the outcome of the election. Some were little more than jokes

But each of them failed to win. And many of them caused or contributed lasting changes, although not the ones they were aiming to effect.

And yet each election cycle issues a band or two of romantics, hardcore professional political operatives, covert money men, and self-proclaimed candidates, in unholy alliance - to seduce votes from the disgruntled and credulous.

'He can TOO win!'

There's plenty of good reasons to shy away from third-party candidates for major office - but the best reason is that they haven't an icicle's chance in Hell of winning. The reasons for this are found in the structure of the Federal Government itself - and how the Founding Fathers, hoping to avoid the corruption of "factions," concieived of a system of indirect elections which balances regional interests with personal preferences - and elevates the candidate over factions.

In hoping to minimize the endless political warring seen in the "Parliamentary" system emerging in European democracies, the authors of the Constitution chose a system where the candidate, not the party, was elected to contested seats, and that a simple plurality would be enough for victory. The hope was that this would neutralize political parties - since they would be seeking alliances and additional supporters prior to elections, and not on the floor of the Legislature.

They were partly right. The result of the system in place makes the major parties bland and all-encompassing; and basically limits their number to two. A firm, dramatic party platform will alienate as many voters as it will attract; and the tendency with a greater number of parties is to strike alliances to combine - to overwhelm the opposition with sheer numbers.

The player-parties are limited to two; and the platforms are resigned to being "bland" - revolutionary ideas are not likely to be endorsed until they have major, broad-based support.

Nonetheless, the partys' power is enhanced, not diminished, in this structure - as they now serve as a gateway and clearinghouse for prospective candidates wishing endorsement/selection. Nowhere is this seen better than in Presidential elections - where the Electoral College, concieved as a meeting of wise men representative of all and sundry regions of the realm, has instead become a place where lesser party hacks have their moment in the sun - selected as one or the other of competing "slates" of electors pledged to Presidential candidates - proposed by the PARTIES.

In homes, in taverns, in the streets.

Into this vetch comes the third party candidate. His ideas WILL be revolutionary or will lack broad support - else he would work within the framework of one of the major parties. He is taking his ideas directly to the voter - in the purest form of democracy available.

Can he win?

Do his ideas have any support? Without even knowing them, it's safe to say 'no.' Because the major parties are nebulous and vaguely defined - they exist as a channel of power, they use ideas to obtain power. Were there any groundswell for radical ideas - be they rolling back environmental regulation, legalizing abortion, decriminalizing drugs or victimless crimes - they would be adopted by one or both of the "mainstream" parties, as an opportunity to obtain votes and place candidates.

As we're seeing today. Many ideas, particularly of the Democratic Party, were considered and rejected decades ago. Twenty years ago, socialized medicine was political poison. Today, under the euphemism "National Health Insurance" it's being considered as part of the party platform.

Not because the idea has any more merit. Because a new generation of voter has been sold on the attractiveness of the concept, for better or worse. An idea once left to the Communist and Socialist parties has gained mainstream-party support.

And this is not by accident. Congress was to be two houses of the Federal Legislature - not an Extreme Fighting arena. Representatives were to work on the People's business - not to force radical ideas down the throats of each other and We The People. Ideas were to be discussed prior to elections, in homes, in public houses, in the meeting-houses, in the streets - so that by the time they were introduced into the Congress, they were certain to have broad-based consensus.

In this way, the parties are kept both bland and nebulous yet powerful and indespensible to the system.

A Brand Name Experience.

The reasons for seeking the Highest Office in The Land are legion. Big ego, big ideas, lots of attention, a crowning achievement for a military or space-program hero. Some are valid, some are not; but one thing is certain: The political-party bosses are the gatekeepers.

Can't someone bypass all that? Go directly to the people?

Of course. Lyndon LaRouche has made a lifelong carreer of doing just that. And anyone following that example can expect a similar amount of success.

But what if we all just said the hell with the parties? What if we all rallied around a third-party candidate?

What if. What if wishes were horses. What if the People would lead, and make the leaders follow.

It's not going to happen.

First, because of the complexities of modern culture, with all the opportunities for leisure-time entertainment, few of us take time to think much of politics. You, reading this, you do. I do. That puts us in the minority.

For most people, it's an item absorbing little thought - just a passing glance at the horse race, how are the latest polls reading. Thirty-second soundbytes interrupting American Idol, extolling one candidate or the other - or more likely, savaging his opponent.

Theissues we leave to the parties to frame. As to which party to support, we leave that to our churches, our newspapers, our unions, our neighbors.

And as to which candidate to support, we leave that to the party - we look for the letter behind the name, much as we do with any other mass-marketed product. We are proud to wear Levi's jeans, Reebok shoes, drink Starbucks coffee and Jack Daniels whiskey - and we proudly vote Republicrat. Or Demmican.

The party has told us what they propose. They have elevated a candidate up to offer as their own - someone we may or may not have heard of before - and we're to vote him up or down. Nice, neat, easy and quick.

The enemy of my enemy...is my friend.

Sounds like a good argument to rush out and vote Libertarian, doesn't it?

Or Progressive?...Conservative?...Socialist?

WhoawowoAHH! We've just fragmented voting blocks! Well, that's not the worst thing in the world to happen, either....

...or is it? It wouldn't take very long, in the example above, for the Socialists to realize they could get a lot more done allying with the Communists, then by fighting them. You could measure the time for it to happen in nanoseconds.

So the ComSocials hold an edge - they can win the Chief Executive's seat with a plurality of 25 percent.

For the moment, they have the edge over the other splinter factions - who will band together with somewhat like-minded fellow travelers for their own survival. Progressives with the Socialists, Libertarians with the Constitutionalists and Conservatives...and in no time at all, we're back to two major players.

So, say there's a few holdouts. The Know-Nothings, the Free Silverites, the Christian Republicans. These are folks who are gonna remainpure, by God and by gum.

They nominate their candidates for President in total solemnity. They proffer serious discussions of the issues of the day. And they draw votes.

And - when the tallies are added, the ComSocialDemicans win - with a plurality of 45 percent.

The LibConRepublicrats lose - with a tally of 43 percent.

And the Christian Republicans have the rich and lasting satisfaction of knowing they served as spoilers in this election - taking votes from the major-party candidate more similar to themselves, and allowing the party and the candidate that is anathema to them, to win.

With a plurality - not even a majority.

Think it cannot happen? It DID. This is EXACTLY what happened when the aptly-named "little man," Ross Perot, entered the Presidential race in 1992. Most of his support came from would-be Bush supporters - whose support for their candidate was very tepid indeed. The rest, as they say, is history...and how much of the heartache we have today might have been avoided with an attentive Chief Executive at the helm eight years ago?

But I can't STAND these guys!

Tough toenails. You had your chance, and you blew it.

That's right, you had your chance. How many of you, how many of US, actually went to any kind of party organizing activity? How many of us tried to get a foot in the door, demanding that OUR needs and concerns got addressed? Many of us here liked and approved GWB's tax-rationalization plan...but how many of us made our desires known? As opposed to waiting to see who party insiders nominated and using what set of priorities? And accepting their offerings?

The parties don't stand for anything. It's concerned activists who MAKE them stand for something - and insider party hacks who fill the void if no demands are heard.

The Democratic Party is going Socialist because Socialists have found they're able to gain traction within the party structure, and without alienating large numbers of supporters. This is quite the comedown from the party which was once the "conservative" party, checking the Republicans with their radical-progressive ideas.

Primary voting is only part of the program; in fact the least of the program. The energy that goes into nominating and campaigning a Harry Browne should instead be put into bringing Browne's ideas and his people, into one of the major parties' platforms and power structures. There's nothing wrong with the Libertarians maintaining their identity as a party/interest group/caucus; but fielding candidates who will lose and suck off needed votes is destructive.

If Browne's people want to make a difference, they need to focus on salesmanship; on consensus-building and the forming of political alliances; the building of their own party, the better to use as offers of blocks of votes...

And finally, they need to set aside vanity and pick and choose which set of major candidates to support. Both during the primary season - and during the general election.

Who needs you?

There's plenty of good, informed reasons to vote third-party, for State and National office. Expecting your candidate isn't one of them.

Many voters have had problems with their party's candidate for Congress or the Presidency, but cannot bring themselves to vote for the opposition - who's even more unappealing.

Staying home seems a low-class, head-in-the sand solution. A protest vote, as a way to spank your boy at the polls, might be in order.

But you have to ask yourself: Can he spare my support? If the race is close; and if there's major differences between him and his opponent, maybe the smart plan is to follow the 19th-Century adege to "hold your nose and vote."

If a voter genuinely cannot find a difference to himself betwixt one and another, and if he wants to embarass the majors, then by all means he should pick a third party - the more obscure the better.

But these are relatively rare cases. By the time the general election rolls around, the issues are framed - and the informed voter is as often voting AGAINST someone or something as FOR.

Imagine if Clinton was recognized for the menace he turned out to be. Would it have been wise to punish GHWB for violating his "No new taxes" pledge, and getting on the Perot trainwreck?

Or how much different would have been history, if the Dixiecrat votes given to George Wallace instead went to Hubert Humphrey - thus ending Vietnam quicker, avoiding Watergate, and possibly - because of economic programs certain to fail - led to Reagan's election in 1972 instead of 1980.

These are serious questions with serious consequences - and third parties are too often a joker in the deck. Even a frustration vote needs some sober consideration, if a voter gives a damn about the future.

JustPassinThru is a former political-science student and locomotive engineman in the Great Lakes region, where he drives trains, worships cars, curses government - and now will try to write about all three.

==============================================