Commentary: Third Parties & the White House

With presidential elections still more than a year away, we're already being inundated with presidential electoral politics. If that sounds like a redundancy, it is, and it's only the first of many yet to come. The Democratic hopefuls are all lining-up on the center/left, singing differing versions of the same song, at this point a pop-country ditty about cheating and lying. Bush, still basically unchallenged by any overreaching Republicans, is busy raising a campaign fund huge enough to pay off the national deficit if put to good use.

There's much more to come. So far we haven't heard a whit from the Greens, the Libertarians, the Reform Party or any of the other "third parties" that would like to give the donkeys and elephants a run for their money. Stay tuned, it's only a matter of time before they throw their hats and voices into the ring as well.

If history repeats itself, and it will, the only important role that third party candidates will play in the upcoming debacle will be that of spoiler. Not one of the other-party candidates will be, even remotely, a contender for the White House, but will only serve the purpose of taking votes away from the Dems and the Reps.

During the past four decades we've seen this over and over again. Names like Wallace, Spock, Anderson, Perot and Nader come instantly to mind. None of these candidates' campaigns have had any long term meaning; all were notable during their time only for taking votes away from the real contenders. Except for Wallace and possibly Perot, most Americans can't remember a single campaign promise of one of these also-rans.

Which brings us to the paradoxical crux of the matter. Third party presidential campaigns only serve to further marginalize the visions and ideas of their respective political parties. Again, hardly anyone remembers the substance of the Greens' platform during the campaign of 2000. We only remember that their candidate, Ralph Nader, took votes away from Gore, effectively aiding and abetting the Bush campaign.

There is a redundancy here of paradoxes, for not only do third parties marginalize their message by seeking the White House, their campaign also damages the chances of the major party that is most aligned with their own viewpoints, effectively helping the party whose ideas are most opposed to them.

Given this, why do third parties even bother with presidential politics? If their campaigns will only serve to aggravate potential supporters, and no one will hear their message, and they have absolutely no chance of winning, why squander valuable resources in an attempt to achieve a goal that is patently out of reach?

The answer, of course, is that the Oval Office has become the brass ring of American politics, and that a political party isn't perceived as being viable unless it's held the White House. The presidency, the grand prize of politics, is the most visible way for a party to announce that "I have arrived."

The truth is, most of us wouldn't want a third party, even one we support, occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Third parties, filled with idealistic rhetoric never tested in real life, tend to be fundamentalist and unbending in their approach. They have no experience at compromising or making deals. Ralph Nader in the White House would be a disaster. He would be dogmatic, unwilling to play ball, and the Democrats and Republicans would quickly join forces against this usurper to overturn his every veto.

If the Greens or the Libertarians were to ask me, I would tell them to forget the White House and direct their aspirations to an area where they might do themselves, and the country, some good. Either party could put themselves on the road to true viability by announcing that they were no longer seeking the presidency but were going to focus all of their efforts on seeking Congressional office. Specifically, they should seek seats in the House of Representatives.

The House offers an overwhelming opportunity for a dedicated third party to gain a foothold in the national political arena. A party like the Greens could carefully pick a handful of congressional districts with constituencies that are somewhat radical and environmentally minded. They could then bring all of their resources to bear on these districts, forgetting presidential politics. With good candidates and highly organized grass-roots campaigns, within a decade they could very well hold several seats in Congress.

This approach would benefit both the nation and the Greens. The nation would benefit because this would finally break the hold that the two party system has held on our republic since nearly the beginning. The Greens would benefit by the political experience this would give them. They would learn how to win elections and ,once in office, they would learn how to effectively deal with the opposition.

If the Greens or the Libertarians were to take this tact, maybe in twenty years or so they could be serious contenders for the White House. By then, you see, they would already have proved their viability.

©Copyright 2003 by AlternativeApproaches.com