Is it Time for a Third Party?

For a long time I was a big advocate of the idea that it was time for those who did not fall into the usual liberal/conservative mold to break free of Democrats and Republicans and form third parties. Ideally, I would have liked to see a system where there are numerous political parties, such as in continental Europe. After all, if we can go into a grocery store and choose between ten flavors of croutons why shouldn't we be able to choose between ten different political parties? In recent times, however, I have come to a much more nuanced view of this issue and have come to understand that for those outside the liberal/conservative paradigm, whether it is centrists, libertarians or what have the third party path is not the best path strategically.

First of all, we already have the right to choose between numerous different political parties. The Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Constitution Party are almost always on the ballot along with Democrats and Republicans in most states. There are also various smaller parties of the far left and far right respectively like Socialists and American Independents that appear on the ballot. We have the absolute ability to vote for candidates of these parties and support candidates of these parties and if they get the most votes they will win. That being said there is a difference between a party appearing on the ballot and having the ability to gain power.

In countries with multi-party systems, meaning systems in which there are three or more parties with a realistic shot of gaining power there is usually some form of proportional representation or instant runoff voting. This means that parties win seats based on the proportion of votes they receive or people vote on a preferntial basis, thus it becomes more attractive to vote for third parties. A single district may have multiple seats for instance, and the major parties will win the majority but the third parties can win a minority of seats. Under instant runoff voting people can rank their choices for a candidate and thus if a candidate does not get a majority one's vote goes to the candidate one ranked second or third until a clear winner emerges. Even under systems that do not have multiple parties with a chance of gaining power but where there are strong third parties, nations like Canada, the UK, and Australia, most are parliamentary systems in which people vote for a party, not an individual candidate. Parties in these countries often have greater control over how individual candidates vote. In America by contrast elected officials overwhelmingly come from either the Democrats or Republicans but there is a wider variety of beliefs within each party. This is because America does not have a Westminster parliament system. America has a pure first past the post system in which whoever gets the most votes wins. Thus it makes sense for coalitions to be built around a few key issues and thus naturally resulting in a two party system. It doesn't make sense to break yourself into multiple parties if, as in a first past the post system, the candidate, not the party wins. If the Greens get 10% of the vote they do not get 10% of the seats, they get zero. This is why it doesn't make much sense to engage in third party politics.

Critics of my argument will say, "Well then why don't we change America to a proportional representation, instant runoff, or parliamentary system." First of all, that is virtually impossible. The founding fathers made the Constitution very, very difficult to amend. I think this is a good thing because it prevents momentary impulses from gutting our rights, for instance gutting freedom of speech in a time of war. They recognized the faults of pure democracy, namely its tendency toward rapid change upsetting the social fabric of society. To change America's political system would require a constitutional amendment, or multiple, changing us from a presidential republic to a parliamentary democracy. This would be virtually impossible because it would require a fundamental shakedown of America's system of governance. Something tells me people are not up for such a grand undertaking. Second, I am not so sure if a multi-party system is such a good idea to begin with. Multi-party systems allow for extremists to be elected more frequently as is shown by the occasional neo-fascist or communist elected in Europe. Do we really desire these sorts of people in office clogging up the system with their extreme proposals? Secondly, do we want a government that reflects the interest of the voters or only the interests of 33% of the voters? What if one radical party gained power momentarily in a proportional representation election that was not supported by the majority of people and then used their time in power to enact extreme legislation fundamentally altering the fabric of society? Germany, after all has had a multi-party system for a long time. In 1932 there were four major political parties, the Social Democrats, the Communists, the Center Party, and the Nazi Party. We all know how that turned out. The Nazis started out with a small segment of the population and consolidated their power. In a two party system a party as radical as the Nazis could not rise to power in a mere ten year period. The two party system, in spite of its flaws, has its advantages over a multiparty system and besides that it is the system we have in place and the system we must work within.

The best trajectory for centrists to follow is to build strong wings within each of the two major parties. We once had a system like this, but no longer. The reason is that the far left and far right have worked within the system. America has always had two political parties, at first the Democratic-Republicans and Federalists, then the Democrats and Whigs, and finally Democrats and Republicans. After World War II America had two centrist parties each with an influential conservative and liberal wing. In that time America's economy was the greatest in the world and we climbed to superpower status. Then something happened, and that something is called the 1960s. The 1960s were an era of tumult and in that era two movements rose up in reaction to it, the New Left and the conservative movement. The New Left was on one side of the tumult, fighting to bring society to the progressive utopia it envisioned. Meanwhile the conservatives fought for the opposite, they fought to bring society back to the 1800s. The New Left and conservatives had virtually no power during the 1960s themselves but over time their values have come to dominate their politics because clever ideologues worked within the system. The conservative movement worked to infiltrate the Republican Party and while Goldwater was crushed in 1964 today extreme conservatives, conservatives that would not consider Goldwater a "true" conservative, are now dominant in the party. The New Left minted today's Democratic politicians and their ideology. The women's movement has become part and parcel of Democratic politics which has shifted the Democratic Party toward an extreme pro-choice position. The black nationalist movement moderated its rhetoric but it wields its extreme influence in the form of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. These extreme movements, conservatives and the New Left, moderated their rhetoric away from a total abolition of all checks and balances on capitalism and the establishment of a socialist republic respectively but they did not abandon their goals. The goal then became to slowly and gradually push the Republicans a bit further to the right and the Democrats a bit further to the left. Today the values of the far right, not the values of Eisenhower, have become the dominant values in the GOP. While many of the beliefs of the radical hippies were once an anathema to Roosevelt-Kennedy Democrats today they have become mainstream among Democrats. Even if abortion on demand has gone from bra burning to pantsuits it remains just as much of an anathema to working class Catholic and Protestant voters as it was when only radical hippies were advocating it. Those who still retain all the radical rhetoric on either side are just the people too stupid to understand that to advance their views they have to go through the establishment.

When I look at a movement that has successfully dominated a party I look at the Tea Party domination of Republicans. The Tea Party ideology, which I define as radical libertarian economics combined with American nationalism, was an extreme outsider ideology at one point only a few years ago. Then the Tea Party came and if it had started its own party it would have fizzled out but instead it went through the Republicans. Now the Republican Party finds itself in the grip of an ideology that forces Republican politicians to abandon individual thought. There is little diversity to be found among Republican politicians today and each, perhaps with the exception of Jon Huntsman, jockey to show how extreme they are.

Those of us who are fed up with the far left and far right are a growing force. I think most Americans are principled centrists to some extent but we do not have a movement to represent us. When I mean principled centrists I mean people who agree to disagree but want to work for what is best for the nation, not to score points for a radical ideology. For years centrists have advocated leaving the Democrats and Republicans and forming a third party. Ross Perot actually tried to do this in the 1990s but he failed miserably. The reason is because it is doomed to fail because of America's two party system. What centrists must do is one up the Tea Party by copying their ideology. The best course of action is to form grassroots groups built around a common goal of fixing America's problems without much talk of labels like progressive, liberal, and conservative. The worst thing that could happen to centrists is to make the centrist label the most important thing, as Republicans have done to the word "conservative" and start marching people out of the party for less than 100% disagreement. Additionally centrists must get their foot in the door of both political parties and start working toward pulling those parties back to the center. The best strategy is to choose whichever political party one agrees with more overall or to choose the political party which is most dominant in one's area. We have to be political realists. Then we must fight to pull the parties back to common sense, solutions oriented, centrist positions. This is why I see the Jon Huntsman campaign, now only in its infancy, as potentially a watershed moment. The Jon Huntsman campaign can provide an outlet within the Republican Party for those who are sick of the extremism of the Tea Party movement. Huntsman can essentially be made out to be the "anti-Tea Party candidate" and work to gain votes from the silent majority of moderates and reasonable conservatives that make the bulk of the primary votes. After all, it is the most extreme people that are the most vocal and thus extremists always look more numerous than they actually are, but in the end it is the silent majority whose main connection to politics is merely voting every two or more likely four years that decide elections. This is why even though the Tea Party may scream the loudest Huntsman actually has a shot of making it through the filter.

In the end there is not a best course of action for the center. In the end we may have to accept that politicians are probably going to be somewhat to the left or right of the median voter since it is the more ideological people who have the most passion and care the most about politics. In the end though, we do not have to accept blind extremists. What those of us in the great silent majority of the center must do is assert ourselves more than we have already. Most Americans are centrists, why should we let the most radical 20% of people call the shots? It is time for those of us in the middle to take our country back from the ideologues.