"Is There a Third Party in Our Future?"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“Is There a Third Party in Our Future?”

August 2, 2011

Apart from suggesting that President Obama is “at heart” an independent, Thomas Friedman had an interesting op-ed in the July 23rd issue of the New York Times. Mr. Friedman is as fed up as most of us are, with a political system that is not working, and in his article he highlights an organization called Americans Elect (www.americanselect.com), which expects to promote the first-ever Internet convention in 2012.

It is true, as Thomas Sowell pointed out in last Thursday’s Investor’s Daily, third parties “have been an exercise in futility, time and again, under the American electoral system.” However, the concept is almost as old as the union. Since 1856, every President elected by U.S. voters has been either a Democrat or Republican. In that election, a hundred and fifty-five years ago, John C. Fremont was nominated as the first Republican candidate for President. Its predecessor, the Whigs, had disintegrated two years earlier over the issue of slavery. Millard Fillmore, a Whig and the sitting President at the time, ran on the Know Nothing ticket, as the Whig Party dissolved over the issue of slavery. James Buchanan, the Democrat, won. Following that loss in 1856, the Republican Party became the most successful third party in the country’s history.

Giving proof to the adage that “hope springs eternal,” seventy-six people (seventy-three men and three women) have run for President as third party candidates since 1832. Their numbers include two former Presidents – Millard Fillmore and Theodore Roosevelt. While several have been spoilers, none have been winners. In 2008, three people that most of us have never heard of ran for President – Bob Barr (Libertarian), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution) and Cynthia McKinney (Green). Of the popular vote in 2008, Obama won 53% and McCain 46%, suggesting that the three third party candidates split one percent.

In a curious twist of logic, Al Hunt takes exception to Mr. Friedman’s support for Americans Elect. Yesterday morning, on Bloomberg, he wrote, that the most basic problem [with third parties,] “is that it’s top down; find a charismatic presidential candidate and all flows from there…the emphasis instead should be on a bottom-up approach…” Of course, that is exactly what Americans Elect is trying to do – promoting a grass roots movement in terms of issues – and then let the appropriate candidates emerge.

While pundits such as Tom Friedman are searching for answers to what seems an intractable problem that keeps getting worse – attractive candidates that are capable of bridging political differences – the “market” is addressing specific complaints, ergo the rise of the Tea Party with its focus on cutting government spending. The movement began with no charismatic leaders, and still has none. Some commentators have written of the fact that it has been a good thing for Republicans that they have not formed a third party. That, I am sure, is true. However, as the primary season heats up there are Republicans who are attempting to harness the discontent that drove Tea Partiers, but straying into issues that have eschewed – opposition to abortion and gay marriage. (As an indication of the concern the High Spending Left has for parsimonious Tea Partiers, yesterday Mr. Diplomacy – Joe Biden – referred to them as “terrorists.”)

Mr. Hunt writes that “America’s two political parties are too often captives of narrower interests and a my-way-or-the-highway base.” He speaks of this as a flaw that afflicted Democrats a generation ago, and today is manifested in “out-of-the-mainstream” [read Tea Party] elements of the Republican Party today. I wonder if he disapproves of Henry David Thoreau’s essay on Civil Disobedience, in which Mr. Thoreau argued that people should never allow government to overrule their conscience. Mr. Hunt does, however, admit that the two parties have “sometimes benefitted from independent or third-party movements, absorbing ideas and disaffected voters.” I believe that is exactly right. But then he adds: “The debt ceiling, however, isn’t the stuff of earlier battles over war and peace, or civil rights or the New Deal. When it comes to unsustainable deficits, Democrats and Republicans both are culpable.” Agreed, both parties are guilty.

But, it was never the “debt ceiling” that was at fault (that is simply an arbitrary number) it is the level of spending and the promises made that we cannot afford that are at fault. It is a fact instinctively understood by the millions that comprise the Tea Party, and conveniently ignored by traditional politicians (leaders of both parties) and the mainstream press (those like Mr. Hunt.) Demonizing the Tea Party makes those like Mr. Hunt feel wholesome and liberal, and is far more pleasant than addressing their legitimate concerns. I have many disagreements with the Tea Party and their singular focus on smaller government and reining in spending, but those who attempt to delegitimize them strike me as reacting from fear, not honest amplification.

Were I in position to offer advice to Republicans it would be: do not constantly repeat: no new taxes; tell the people you want to increase government’s revenues, and the way to do so is through faster economic growth and tax reform. Water can never be squeezed from a stone no more than a failing economy can generate more revenues for Washington.

Were I in a position to offer advice to Democrats it would be do not let special interests dictate an agenda that is illiberal – one of the best examples being support from teacher’s unions who do not allow competition.

My advice to both parties would be: recognize the dishonesty of making promises that are impossible to keep; listen to the distinctions between your voice and your actions. You both profess an interest in the future, yet you both support pillars of the past – the Democrats support for unions that have become irrelevant and Republicans who fail to distinguish between an eternal moral compass and ephemeral social issues. To both, I would urge lift a leaf from President Reagan’s playbook – be optimistic about the future and speak of the uniqueness of America and the promise she holds.

It is not that we do not have problems. We do. We have become addicts of consumption and so have taken on unrealistic levels of debt. With the credit crisis of 2008 came a wake-up call that all roads don’t lead to Rome – we must deal with things as they are, not as we wish them to be.

Will there be a Third Party in our future? There will always be third, fourth and fifth parties. However, for one hundred and fifty years our two main parties have selected our presidential candidates. The odds are that pattern will continue. But to stay relevant both parties will have to adapt and to change. When they don’t, movements such as the Tea Party arise. And one day one might appear with a charismatic leader. It’s possible, but to me doesn’t seem probable. But, while attempts may be futile they are healthy.