The Leftist vision of salvation
A provocative post from Walter Russell Mead, titled: “Will We See A Successful Third Party in Our Lifetimes?” notes:
Third parties regularly fail in American life, but the hunger for an alternative to the two existing parties points to one of our core beliefs here at VM: the profound transformation reshaping America demands new ideas and new approaches that go well beyond the alternatives being offered by either party today. The Democrats are trapped by their nostalgia for a blue social model that cannot thrive under current conditions, and the GOP seems more eager to bash bad Democratic ideas than to develop serious proposals that would meet the needs of our times.
In the meantime, voter dissatisfaction with both parties grows. Third party or no, the Democrats and Republicans are going to have to significantly adapt to changing economic, cultural, and political realities in the coming years.
Commenting on the article, Glen Reynolds at Instapundit writes:
I’ll be interested to see if we’ll have an anti-corporate, populist strain of primary challengers appear in the Democratic Party, as it has in the Republican Party.
What changes are possible? The Democrat Party has shifted so far left there no longer appears to be anything approaching a moderate left, at least not on the national level. In fabled days of yore, there was considerable overlap with the center in both parties. There truly was such a thing as a conservative democrat willing to put aside party when the good of the country or the very concept of liberty was at issue. The concern of conservative democrats for the sanctity of the Constitution was, perhaps, no less than that of most Republicans. No more. Today’s “conservative” democrat is yesterday’s hard-core democrat, perhaps even leaning a bit left of that.
As the recent fiscal debacle has revealed, Democrats are more than delighted to stand up and advocate violating the Constitution and the law. There is, for many of them, particularly their leaders–think Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid–no longer any such concept as the truth, only whatever lie best serves the desires of a party that is, more and more virtually indistinguishable from socialists, even communists.
I’m going too far? Consider that one of the hallmarks of Communism is the worship of a maximum leader. By its cult of personality shall ye know it. There was Newsweek editor Evan Thomas lauding his god, David Brooks of the New York Times impressed by predictive pants creases, and of course, the NYT photo of Obama superimposed over a cross, just in time for Easter. Still not convinced? Google “Obama halo photos” if you can’t imagine what I’m getting at; there are hundreds.
The holiness of government
The Republican party has not-despite the lies of the left and the media (I know, one-in-the-same)–in any significant way, shifted more to the right. On the contrary, it is struggling mightily to remain the status quo party, the part comfortable with big government and all of its perks, while occasionally being forced to make some noises about unsustainable spending and traditional American values by those annoying Tea Party Republicans that actually advocate–and are willing to vote for–smaller government, the Constitution, and American exceptionalism.
Of course, there have always been liberal Republicans. Upon occasion some of them defect to the Democrat party, but the opposite is rare indeed. On any issue, at any time, there are many Republicans willing to vote with the Democrats. The unanimity of Republicans in opposing Obamacare is remarkable largely because of its rarity.
Democrats demand and work, long-term, toward the fundamental transformation of America into a socialist, redistributive utopia, never stopping to truly acknowledge that when everyone is on the dole, no one is working to pay for it, and that Margaret Thatcher was right: the trouble with socialism is you really do run out of other people’s money. That such goals destroy a self-sufficient, vital culture, enlarge and empower government at the expense of individual liberty and destroy and ignore the Constitution are, for them, features, not bugs.
Republicans think short-term, trying to maintain majorities and the status quo, whining about why they can’t stop the fundamental transformation occurring under their elevated noses (“we only control 1/3 of the government, only one co-equal branch, and the branch that holds the purse strings! Waaaaah!”). Speaker of the House John Boehner is the poster child for ineffective, weak-kneed Republicanism. The speakership is a powerful position, but Mr. Boehner treats it as Barack Obama does in representing the United States to foreign governments: with utter fecklessness and resignation.
Mead is incorrect in that while bashing Democrat ideas, Republicans do come up with many ideas for solving the nation’s problems, some of them quite good. However, as a party, Republicans are far more interested in maintaining the status quo and the personal perks–including their continuance in office and being free of the destructive requirements of Obamacare–that go with it than banding together to preserve America.
That’s why when someone like Ted Cruz comes along and lights a fire under Americans, he stands out. He’s a smart, traditional conservative who represents what the party once stood for–in reality, not just rhetoric–but these days can barely be bothered to speak about.
Our system of government makes it difficult for a third party to get any traction. Parlimentary systems work best for this approach. However, there is one possibility that might work, but only when things go beyond potentially desperate, to absolutely desperate.
An independent party that splits the difference between social issues by essentially keeping hands off–there will always be a terrible temptation to meddle here–and focusing on restoring the Constitution, as Mark Levin has recently written, and rational, business and growth-friendly economic policies can attract rational people from both parties. Surely, it will attract more former Republicans than Democrats, because its drawing power will be the power of individual liberty, small government, logic, what works and rationality over emotion and what feels good.
The problem remains that Democrats will generally retain about 35-40% of the vote, and there will always be a sclerotic Republican party that will hang onto perhaps 30% of the vote. The only way a third, Constitution-focused party can win is to manage in the neighborhood of 35-40% of the vote. Attaining and maintaining that goal for several election cycles could tip the balance and render the Republicans forever a splinter party.
Unfortunately, people have short memories, and Democrats have had decades of conditioning the American people to be a nation of taker rather than makers. Should such a movement succeed and restore prosperity and economic and world security based on the Pax Americana, a great many Americans will be, once again, tempted to return to the past that promised much, but led us to the brink of ruin.
What, gentle readers, do you think?
The idea behind our “winner take all” election scheme essentially means that only two parties can complete nationally, and it produces a clear winner (in electoral votes, at least). Those who wish to change that must realize that a national popular vote could easily lead to not just three candidates but six or more, and the presidential election could be won with a very low percentage of the vote, like 27 or 32%, which is not a recipie for stable government. No, the Republican Party will have to change from within, become more libertarian, and better at explaining their ideals in order to grow to a governing majority. Our current high level of political discord is a direct result of bigger and bigger government. Transferring most political decisions back to the states us the only way to diffuse the national political tension that plagues us. See Mark Levin’s new book, The Liberty Amendments. It’s the only way.
After more than 10,000 statewide elections in the past two hundred years, there is no evidence of any tendency toward a massive proliferation of third-party candidates in elections in which the winner is simply the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by the office. No such tendency has emerged in other jurisdictions, such as congressional districts or state legislative districts. There is no evidence or reason to expect the emergence of some unique new political dynamic that would promote multiple candidacies if the President were elected in the same manner as every other elected official in the United States.
Based on historical evidence, there is far more fragmentation of the vote under the current state-by-state system of electing the President than in elections in which the winner is simply the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the jurisdiction involved.
Under the current state-by-state system of electing the President (in which the candidate who receives a plurality of the popular vote wins all of the state’s electoral votes), minor-party candidates have significantly affected the outcome in six (40%) of the 15 presidential elections in the past 60 years (namely the 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections). The reason that the current system has encouraged so many minor-party candidates and so much fragmentation of the vote is that a presidential candidate with no hope of winning a plurality of the votes nationwide has 51 separate opportunities to shop around for particular states where he can affect electoral votes or where he might win outright. Thus, under the current system, segregationists such as Strom Thurmond (1948) or George Wallace (1968) won electoral votes in numerous Southern states, although they had no chance of receiving the most popular votes nationwide. In addition, candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), and Ralph Nader (2000) did not win a plurality of the popular vote in any state, but managed to affect the outcome by switching electoral votes in numerous particular states.
Oh, I forgot to mention that Madison warned of this danger, that of factions, in Fedetalist 10. Please read it if you haven’t.
Dear Phil:
Good point, and thanks. Welcome to SMM.
I think any first-past-the-post system, ours included, will inevitably devolve into a two party system once again. Even if your example bore out, and a third party managed to dominate for several election cycles (which I doubt can happen to begin with), eventually one of the other two will die off and/or be absorbed by the others, and we’ll be back to where we are now.
That’s twice recently that you have done “one-in-the-same”. See http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/oneinsame.html.
No, they do not. It is actually the way other commenters have pointed out. What makes third parties more viable is whether there is a way round the “barrier to entry” posed by first past the post voting, whether through a regional base (19th century Irish parties) or through more proportional voting (the multi-member constituencies that let in the first successful British Labour candidates) – and even then success often takes internal failure by one of the major parties (which can be enough even under first past the post voting, if it goes on long enough). When a parliamentary system lacks these features third parties are at a disadvantage, and contrariwise when a monist or a magisterial republic has some of these features it too can let in third parties.
B.M., “No, they do not” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Only those who live in closets could be oblivious to the contrast between the (multi) party systems of parliamentary systems and the (two) party American system–or those who simply wish to be contrary out of policy. My aunt Hepsibah was known as a “commenter” on any and all topics, but then, she was certified looney and a poor source for an appeal to authority, however nebulous.
Wlle, Mr. Sandford, hsame for makign fun of a dyslexci. Pu yousr ild say, but there is no room left.
Dear PM Lawrence:
Surely you understand that I mean that parliamentary systems function with multiple parties. Whether they function terribly well is another matter, but those systems do function, whereas the American political system is, for all practical intents and purposes, a two party system. This was my intent.
Even though a third party candidate cannot win national elections, non-traditional candidates can have a positive impact on the issues discussed. Ron Paul’s campaign as a Republican in 2008 was influential in the rise of the Tea party.
I think eventually the entitlement state will totally collapse, and then the public will finally turn to smaller government and the Republicans as the only solution. The Republicans will still be self-serving (they are politicians, after all!), but hopefully they will realize there is an opportunity for them to look good and make real reform at the same time.
By the way, Mr. McDaniel, I found your blog during the Trayvon Martin case, and have been reading it regularly since. I appreciate your writings.
Dear Brad:
Welcome to SMM, and thanks for reading. I appreciate your kind comment.
I was involved in the formation of the American Conservative Party almost a decade ago. We avoided social issues, but because we in the leadership wouldn’t attack abortion, we splintered. I finally gave up because you can see that the Democrats and Republican have collaborated on at least on one thing, setting up rules that make it extremely difficult in most states to get a third party on the ballot. So instead I became an early TEA Party activist working with others to change the GOP from the bottom up in our county. We are working for long run results. It took the progressives almost 100 year to get where they are, so this is not something that can be done overnight. If ObamaCare fails, as I expect it to, millions of Americans may just see the light and speed up the process.
I tried to get the national TEA Party organizations to utilize MLK’s methodology of civil disobedience as well as influencing both the culture and congress, the 3 Cs, but they refused to go that route; only the influencing parts were considered worthwhile. The 3 Cs worked for the anti-war Left against the Vietnam War too. The civil rights and the anti-war movements won; conservatives are not. Hat Tip to Jeffrey Lord at http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2013/10/obamacare-new-vietnam.html
Patience is a virtue. I have to admit, in terms of a “third party” the TEA party has done pretty darn well for itself in the short time its been known. They sort of set the bar for the whole grass roots concept, however soon got co-opted (and eventually taken over) by a larger party for elections. I really -really- hope the folks involved have enough sense to focus their goals to a compromise/conservative standpoint rather than just knee jerk reactions to the Democratic party.
Thus far my faith hasn’t been realized.
Politicians are by definition second raters, so, mediocre accurately describes the ‘character’ of Barry and the Democrats. As for the Republicans? Well if you consider what you do is pointless, but continue to do it, you cannot fail to dislike what you see in the mirror each morning.
In politics, the best people get out very quickly, while the non-descript stay and prosper, and it is they who set the tone, recruiting and promoting others like themselves.
So dry your eyes the worst is yet to come: there will be no third party, the Puppet-masters won’t allow it, only the illusion.
There will be no ‘exceptionalism’: SHAME will be the defining national characteristic of America in the decades ahead. And you did to yourselves.