Why We Need A Third Party

If any of my ex-students are reading this I am sure they are asking themselves how I could endorse a third party movement when I taught them that third parties are doomed to failure in or political system. Relax people, I have not changed my position about the ultimate failure of third parties. In the end, because of our winner take all electoral processes, it is all but impossible for a third, or minor, party to dislodge one of the two giants that dominate the American political scene. But history suggests that minor parties can and often do have a major effect on the direction of public policy, so this may not be a futile effort on my part.

In the late 19th century, a third party emerged out on the Great Plains that called itself the People's Party of America, or the Populist Party. Although this party was not around very long, most of the important policy agendas that it endorsed were ultimately adopted into our political system. In fact, this minor party that swept through the farm states in the center of our country, was instrumental in fundamentally changing both of the two major parties during its short life in the 1890s. The Populists, led by the fiery and eloquent young attorney from Omaha, William Jennings Bryan, called for many radical reforms in our political system to relieve the economic suffering of mid-American farmers. Within its party platform were calls for a national income tax, women's suffrage, direct election of US Senators, secret ballots in all elections. The first three were eventually adopted as constitutional amendments, and by the end of the first decade of the 20th century, every state had converted to the sue of secret ballots to elect officials at all levels. By most standards these would be enough to call the Populist Party a raging success.

Unfortunately, in the United States, political parties are not judged by the number of policy initiatives they inaugurate, but whether or not they can win a presidential election. By that standard the Populists were unqualified failures, so they are relegated to the trash heap of American history, along with the Anti-Masonics, Greenback Laborites, Free Soilers, and Know Nothings that preceded them in the 1800s. But if we eliminate this one criterion of success, an ability to take the White House, the Populists were anything but failures. In fact, the success of having one's policy positions woven into our political character may be much more important than a head count of presidents bearing the party name.

Throughout our history, sweeping political and economic reforms were first endorsed by minority political movements, before being adopted by an electoral majority. In a fiercely competitive political environment where the major parties are vying for control, third parties can have a major impact on the outcome of even our most important elections. In 1992, Ross Perot organized the Independent Party movement in response to the tax increases President George HW Bush promoted after the first Gulf War. Perot did not win, but his presence opened the door for a political unknown from tiny Arkansas, Bill Clinton to win the presidential election. And let us not forget that Bush was a sitting president in 1992. Then in the 2000 election, Ralph Nader, Green Party candidate, mounted a campaign for the presidency that siphoned off votes from the Democratic candidate, Vice President Al Gore. Had Gore not lost votes to Nader followers, he would have won that election and George W. Bush would have ended his public life as the retired governor of Texas.

One of the reasons that third parties fade so quickly in America is that they focus more on finding viable candidates than they do on creating plausible policy agendas. This may be the ultimate fate of the contemporary Tea Party movement. Without a clear set of policy proposals, this extreme right "party" is relying on endorsing a set of charismatic champions who shout and rail against the established political status quo, rather than championing a slate of real political objectives. However, the Tea Party movement, like the Progressive movement in the early 1900s is attempting to take over an existing major party rather than going it alone as a third party. This is a risky proposition, as moderate Republicans may be so turned off by these radical candidates that they vote Democratic in November, or just stay home in states where Tea Party candidates have won Republican primary elections.

All that aside, there is no doubt that the Tea Party movement has tapped into a portion of the American electorate that is highly energized, if completely unfocused. One can only surmise that if this kind of energy was lying dormant on the far right of the Republican Party, then those of us to the left of mainstream Democrats may need to begin organizing too. However, I believe that we will be better served outside our party, rather than trying to move the monolithic Democratic Party from within. Further, we need to focus on establishing a clear set of policy goals with specific plans for achieving them, instead of railing against our opponents, as has been the strategy of the far right. I say this because in order to be a legitimate force, a new Progressive Party will have to draw, rather than repel a number of political moderates.

There is no doubt that the Obama led Democrats decided to court the status quo from the very beginning of the President's term. Opting for a weak economic stimulus and supporting programs that rescued multi-national banks and Wall Street investors, while doing almost nothing for working Americans and financially strapped home owners has left us wallowing in a Japan-style recession with no real end in sight. Further, the watered down health care program left to the likes of Blue Dog Senators such as Max Baucus, the darling of Drug companies, offers no real change from a system suffering from runaway costs and the wrath of insurance companies. With all the shouting about socialized medicine from the right, very little attention has been paid to those of us who were hoping for real reform. A Medicare for all program or at least, a public option would rescue us from the car wreck our health delivery system is still heading for. In short, all the attention is going to people who never supported Obama and the Congressional Democrats anyway, and those of us who carried the elections of 2006 and 2008 for the Democrats have been left out in the cold. Can yo think of a more powerful message as we move toward 2012 than to let the Democratic establishment that they can no longer count on us as an automatic voting block? Me neither.

More to come on some possible policy positions. Let me know what you think.