The Free View-- weblog of a presidential candidate

You've Got to Fight for Your Right to Third Parties

E-ThePeople has been highlighting a discussion at their site about third parties in their weekly e-mail update, entitled IS THE TIME RIGHT FOR A THIRD PARTY TO EMERGE IN AMERICAN POLITICS TO THREATEN THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC STRONGHOLD?

The opening premise is this:

As neither major party is fulfilling its obligation to the American public, is the time right for a new party to emerge victorious over Republican and Democrat reign?

A revolution started this great country and a revolution may be required to maintain its greatness.

Obviously the topic was attractive to me, and I was originally planning on replying to one of the commentors who brought out that hopeful classic, "with the right charismatic candidate...". I started trying to think up a good way to say "Look at me!" without having it sound like that. ;-)

Then I came upon another commentator, who brought out an old canard that is much more classic, and much less hopeful: "Third parties always fail." Well that got my dander up, as they say, and so that's what I replied to. As it turned out, I think it turned into a good way to say "Look at me!", without really saying that at all. Though it was posted pretty late in the discussion, so it's not really getting seen too much.

Here's cynical Glenn's post, with his unfair verdict against third parties. And here's my reply:

Third Parties do *not* always fail

Glenn, your comment...

"A third party movements,whether the Peoples Party, the Socialist Party, Perot`s Reform Party, the Green Party have always failed in this society."

...is not true. First, third parties in the past have been successful. The various "progressive" parties in the late 19th-early 20th centuries managed to set the platform for most of the 20th Century. Virtually all of their platform planks became law in the decades after their attempt to gain electoral control had "failed".

While Perot's party has essentially collapsed, it can hardly be said to have failed either. It inspired a re-awakening in the "outsider" political movement, and a number of new parties and efforts have spawned from its ashes. At the very least, it gave millions in this country reason to believe that something different could be possible in our supposedly "fixed" system. As long as people still remember Ross Perot's '92 run for president, people know that it is possible to break through the two-party stranglehold. And knowing that is half the battle.

Then there are the Greens and Libertarians, neither of which has failed by any measure. Both are growing in influence and organization with each passing election. Libertarians were credited with "spoiling" the election of two Republican senators in 2002, and the Greens are widely blamed for throwing the 2000 election to Bush. That's not a sign of failing parties -- that's a sign of parties which are rising to challenge the political status quo. Just ask those two Republican Senators, and Al Gore, if they think the Greens and Libs have "failed".

The Libertarian Party is going to be the country's next "major party" -- it's just a matter of time. The two parties it's competing with are over a century old...of course the change isn't going to happen overnight. In just over 30 years, the LP has gone from a handful of folks sitting in a living room, to the only party in U.S. history that has had a presidential candidate on all 50 ballots for three elections in a row. That's not failure -- that's success. It has gone from 0 elected officials, to over 300 elected officials. It runs thousands of candidates, every election, often providing incumbents with the only competition on the ballot.

And it's not going to stop. It's going to keep growing, in spite of whatever challenges and roadblocks are thrown in front of it. It's not dependent on a celebrity champion, it's not fragile and easy to take over, and it's not going to give up.

Not to mention that the libertarian movement has, much like the "progressive" movement 100 years ago, had considerable influence on the direction of public policy in the time since it was formed.

I think declaring past third party movements to be "failures" is inaccurate, and to stamp that label on current third party efforts is not just inaccurate, but short-sighted and destructively pessimistic.

This whole idea of "It's got to happen NOW, everywhere!" is part of the training that the two parties have given us -- that solutions and changes in the U.S. can just take place through the waving of some sort of national magic wand. It doesn't work that way in public policy, and it doesn't work that way in electoral politics.

If you want third parties to succeed, then pick one and support it. (I recommend the Libertarian Party -- it's your best bet, by far.) If enough people support them, then they will succeed.

If you want them to fail, then simply support the other two parties.

All this "will they, won't they" talk is largely just a distraction from those real-world options.

Be well, Be free,
Lance Brown

http://freedom2008.com
The Free View -- Weblog of a presidential candidate

----------End-------------

That discussion and a number of Democrat-v-Republican presidential polls and newspaper articles that I've seen recently have acted like an alarm clock for me, reminding me that it's time to get serious about policing the media and the debates for third-party inclusion in Election 2004. I'm going to build up a storehouse of insta-letters for third-party supporters to deluge the media and debate sponsors with. The alternative party movement should be strong enough so that we can target violators one-by-one and "persuade" them through sheer force of numbers -- phone calls, faxes, visits to the front desk, protests, etc.

The numbers thing hasn't generally worked in the past, but it hasn't been done with much force or consistency, and it hasn't generally been very creative. I think the debate hosts -- generally universities -- are extremely susceptible to persuasion through public opinion. In my experience, universities hate embarassment, and will choose the least embarassing option when given a choice. For them to insist upon third party inclusion is honorable and shows integrity. For them to kowtow to the Bipartisans, suppress democracy and open debate, and help further tilt the playing field to the advantage of the dominant parties is reprehensible, shameful, and embarrassing. Or at least it should be...and I'm going to try and help make it so.

In case you're thinking, "Oh God, he's launching another spontaneous plan," don't worry. This one's not spontaneous...it's been brewing in me for the past two election cycles. If we play our cards right, and figure out some hardball ways to make the media and establishment change their ways, we could see an Election 2008 where all eligible candidates are covered relatively equally, and Bipartisan-only TV debates are a thing of the past.

Hey -- stranger things have happened. ;-)

So to kick off the season, I wrote in to Care2.com, about their Bipartisan-biased presidential poll.

Here's what I wrote:

I was very disappointed to see that your recent presidential campaign poll did not include third party candidates and alternative options -- or even a "none of the above" on the main poll.

I ask that you make an effort in the future to provide voters with all of the available electoral options when conducting political polls.

You can write to them too, right here.

Within the next few weeks, I'll be launching a new site centered around the mission of achieving equitable third-party candidate inclusion in media coverage and candidate debates and forums. I'm thinking ThirdPartyAction.org (and ThirdPartyActionNetwork.org), and calling it the Third Party Action Network. What do you think? Got a better domain or organization name idea? Let me know soon if you do, because I'll be settling on these things in the next week or two.