The Case For A Third Party: Whither The Centrists?
Right-wing, left-wing, and moderate are surely in the eye of the beholder. Here in Austin, a disgustingly ‘progressive’ community (and I love Austin – but the politics? Bah!), I’m seen as a fascist to the right of Mussolini – among hard-core conservatives, I’m no doubt viewed as a wishy-wishy RINO for my belief that John McCain and Rudy G. may be our best hopes in 2008. Of course, any of you could tell similar stories, I’m sure.
The point is that left-right only goes so far in describing an individual’s views. The big picture is easy enough – as a general rule, the left puts society above the individual, and thus is more trusting of government in domestic affairs. Socialism is their spiritual antecedent, and in foreign affairs, they prefer internationalism and diplomacy over patriotic nationalism.
The right believes in the individual first, and as such, values capitalism with its inequal outcomes, but greater overall reward, to the enforced mediocrity of socialism. The right is distrustful of government solutions to social problems, and favors an aggressive foreign policy that is not ashamed to embrace American exceptionalism.
At least, that’s what the two sides profess – their actions are filled with hypocrisy. The same left that believes international affairs should be one big love-fest is quick to abandon internationalism when it comes to free trade and globalization – similarly, the right, with its primacy of the individual, is curiously unconcerned when the government intrudes on privacy, and indeed, treats the ACLU as one of the biggest jokes on the planet.
Might there be a third way? Aren’t there Democrats who don’t think the right to consequenceless sex is sacred? Aren’t there Republicans who perhaps think gay marriage is none of the government’s concern? Of course there are, and these are simplistic examples, but the net effect of the two-party system is the marginalization of the center.
Both parties play to the base, even though it’s a mistake. The base is motivated already – that’s why they’re the base. You hear a lot of garbage about how the Republican base won’t come out in 2006, because they’re angry with the President and Congress. Baloney! Anyone who thinks George W. Bush is insufficiently conservative will NEVER cast a ballot for a Demo-rat. Similarly, no one who thinks Harry Reid is spineless because he’s not angry and progressive enough would dream of pulling the lever for a Rethuglican.
It’s the center both parties should fight over, but seldom do. In the great Ken Burns documentary of the Civil War
Of course, we have third parties today; Libertarian, Green, and a new one, Unity08. Now, I’m not endorsing Unity08, I want to be clear on that – it’s far too early (we’ve got to get past the 2006 election first) for one thing. I will say, however, that the following resonates with me:
Unity08 divides issues facing the country into two categories: Crucial Issues – on which America’s future safety and welfare depend; and Important Issues – which, while vital to some, will not, in our judgment, determine the fate or future of the United States.
In our opinion, Crucial Issues include: Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.
By contrast, we consider gun control, abortion and gay marriage important issues, worthy of debate and discussion in a free society, but not issues that should dominate or even crowd our national agenda.
I’m sure you see the problem right away – you can’t even get basic agreement on the ‘crucial’ and ‘important’ issues. As an example, the ‘disappearance of the American Dream’ is far too squishy and has no place on that list. Nevertheless, I think the basic concept is right – but here’s where I differ. I don’t really want just a third party – I want a fourth party, too.
I want two new parties because I want the lunatics on the fringe of both sides to marginalize themselves, and free up the rest of us who care about working together for a better America. The problem with ‘centrist’ organizations is they don’t, by their very nature, do a very good job of firing people up. Let the fringes form the new parties, and Jane Hamsher and Ann Coulter can speak to their acolytes undisturbed by the great unwashed middle, and they can draw their 10% of the vote each, and the other 80% of us will go about our business.
Alas, I probably dream here – for one thing, the Green party experience is instructive. Too many ‘Greens’ by inclination vote Democrat out of practicality – because even a fanatic is not necessarily a stupid fanatic, and most of them know that a Green vote in America is a wasted vote. The inherent obstacles against starting a truly viable major party are formidable, as well, as Ross Perot found out.
Then again, most things seem impossible until they are done. I don’t have the visionary answer to the things that bother me – but somebody may. Until that time, I wish the folks at Unity well, for their attempt at addressing the big picture at the expense of ‘base’ politics, and I wish the existing minor parties well, for offering that most precious thing to a capitalist, choice.
And I hope that the people that call the shots in both major parties will remember what Richard Nixon once knew – beyond the partisans, who make a furious noise beyond their numbers, there lies that vast, vast ocean of voters Nixon called the ‘Silent Majority’. Nixon betrayed the trust of his countrymen, but he was often a very astute politician, and ‘Will it play in Peoria?’ is a question that both parties would do well to ask themselves frequently…
I’m sympathetic to the notion of a third party, as I imagine many people are. My problem is that while Unity ‘08 and similar movements over the years can identify big issues they think are getting short-shrift, what’s their proposed solutions? How do you go about providing “health care for all”? How do you address foreign dependence on oil? How do you fight global terrorism? There are lots of serious people who have very definite ideas on this, and their proposed solutions are wildly divergent.
It all reminds me of Ross Perot, who was good at identifying things that seemed to aggravate people, but never was especially specific on how he would solve them, other than some vague promises to “fix them,” as if political choices were a simple matter of mechanics.
The two parties as they’re set up now can be deeply unsatisfying. I just don’t see how one or two additional parties will do much to really address that dissatisfaction. I suppose if we had dozens of parties, it would be easier to find candidates more tailored to each of us, though that might make governing coalitions terribly unwieldy. Though as someone who prefers weaker governments as a general principle, that might not be the worst thing in the world.
I voted for John Anderson in my first Presidential election, and look what it got me – a wasted vote.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the effort. However, I don’t think you made a very good case for a third party. Like you, most of the time I would prefer a third way to the two ways that are offered in campaigns.
President Bush, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc. all governed as centrists. Senators from states controlled by one party are very partisan, but most Senators from most States govern as centrists. How would a third party have changed the immigration smorgasbord that passed the Senate? The House of Representatives is much more partisan, but even the House has a way of compromising at the end of the legislative process. Granted, partisans control elections, but partisans don’t control government. I am pretty far to the right, but even I can’t think of one extreme left position that has been adopted by the Federal government in my lifetime. Hillary-care never saw the light of day.
I still don’t see how a third party will improve government. I do see how a third party will hurt government though if politicians can get elected with less than a majority. A third, forth, fifth, etc. party will increase, not decrease partisanship. Perhaps I just don’t understand your main point. Can you help me out?
I think this argument is important and I am actually writing a paper on it as we speak. I highly suggest a reading assigned in my PoliSci 1 course which is an interesting analysis of the polarization of the “political class”.
The book is Culture War? :The Myth of a Polarized America by Morris Fiorina.
One of his most basic arguments, and something we’ve discussed in class, includes the idea that because the parties have the power in government and make the rules, they have the advantage in the game.
Thus I wish the third parties luck, but I am cynical. It’s hard to get ahead when the rules of the game cater to specific players.
Amanda, thanks for the recommendation. Indeed, the deck is stacked pretty high against any third party (personally, I think there should be four or more – but then, I guess that would make us parliamentarians)…