New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has a new column out, building on one that he wrote about a week ago, arguing that America is ripe for a new political party. Since he quotes me in this one, I thought maybe I should add a few comments. (Here's the link to his Times column, but they haven't made it easy to do so by sticking all their columnists behind their paywall.)
Number one, I think it would be good for American politics if we had more major party competition. In too many places, we live in one-party districts that are gerrymandered with the collusion of both major parties. And thus 98% of the House of Representatives gets re-elected year after year. Real competition in elections would create more accountability and responsiveness, I believe. So, for starters, let's have a real competitive two-party system, not a duopoly.
But on top of that, with half the electorate not bothering to vote in most elections, it's clear that there's room for more parties and more voices--if the system wasn't rigged against them. Ballot access laws discriminate against new parties, campaign finance laws hinder their development, and the media marginalizes them. All of this is unhealthy for democracy. I'm for opening up the process with things like fusion (cross-endorsement) and proportional representation.
However, even with the odds stacked against them, third parties in American politics can still play a vital role. Especially when the two major parties are failing to address a major issue or neglected constituency, a third party can force a new issue onto the table and break up entrenched political logjams. Such was the effect of Ross Perot in 1992.
Could it happen again?
Well, here are some harbingers. The latest USA Today/Gallup Poll shows that disatisfaction with the direction of the country is today at levels that echo the 1994 election that swung the House from Democratic into Republican hands. This November, that may mean big gains for the Democrats, but by 2007, if the country is experiencing more partisan gridlock, conditions might be ripe for an independent or third-party bid for president.
And, as Friedman writes, the two major parties are hardly demonstrating much leadership on the critical issues facing America, like our dependence of carbon-based fuels and the global warming crisis.
And while the tinder may be dry, new technology guarantees that a third-party fire would spread quickly. In 1991-92, remember, people sneered when maverick candidates like Jerry Brown and Ross Perot used 800-numbers to go around the mainstream media and connect directly with grass-roots volunteers. Not so today, in the Age of Connectedness.
As Jesse Ventura showed in Minnesota in 1998, under the right conditions--a relatively open media system that included him in debates, relatively generous public financing for third party candidates, and same day voter registration--a maverick third-party candidate with a strong message CAN drive a truck right up the middle of American politics and pull enough votes from both major parties to win an election.
I'd have to say the odds of that happening in a national election in America are far lower. But that said, even a 10% showing by a serious independent or third-party effort that focused on American renewal would undoubtedly shake things up in a very good way.
Posted by msifry at May 2, 2006 11:20 PM