Third Party Candidates

I wanted to take some time to clarify some comments I made about third party candidates.  The discussion started on Tuesday when Diane in St. Louis Park (a listener who doesn't care for the two party system and is a big supporter of ranked choice voting) commented that the incoming Speaker of the Minnesota House not showing up to the swearing in ceremony of the Governor is more indicative of the failure of the two party system, ignoring the real problem, petty partisanship which is the mantra of the GOP today.  She then used her distorted deduction to call for an abandoning of the two party system and expressed frustration that more people were not willing to throw their long voting allegiances to the side, for third party candidates.

A third, fourth and fifth party can exist, and they can be successful, but they're hard to start, and require a massive amount of effort, time, supporters, and financial backers to bankroll them.

But, let me start by acknowledging the reality we live in, stating the obvious: You are doing the GOP puppet masters bidding when you throw your hands in the air and insist their is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.  That is exactly what the right wants you to think.

Being angry and dissatisfied with the Democrats is a hobby for some on the left.  They can always find something the President and Democratic leaders are failing on; Keystone, Guantanamo, Net Neutrality.  Don't get me wrong, Obama's support of the TPP, oil drilling and his close allegiances to Wall Street are very disappointing, Democrats need to grow a spine more often and I think Harry Reid is a waste of skin, but the President and the Democrats have managed to do a lot of good considering the forces they have had to contend with.  The two party system is what we currently have, and if you protest not getting exactly what you want from one party by not participating in the elections, you're helping the other party by default.  That's a fact made clear by the results of 2014.

Let me challenge the flawed accusation that there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans another way.  The GOP's main goal is to end the basic social safety nets and social rights we have in this country.  Public education?  Whittled down to 'pay for education,' and if you can't afford it, no school for you.  Transportation?  No mass transportation, more toll roads, and no basic repairs, with the exception being the roads in wealthy neighborhoods and around corporations.   Workers rights?  No unions, no pay, no benefits and your only recourse is to quit.  Health care?  "Let 'em die!"  Tax policy?  Wealthy people and corporations not only don't pay any, they actually get massive rebates, all paid for by the middle and lower class, just because they are wealthy (Kansas and Wisconsin are prime examples of this principle in its early stages).  I don't necessarily agree with the Democrats stances on all issues, but don't tell me their isn't a difference between the two parties.  I imagine the families of tens of thousand of dead and permanently injured soldiers from Iraq would whole hardily agree there is a difference.

Money in elections is a legit problem, but that too can be addressed.  Prohibition wasn't a national issue until politicians who believed in enacting a Constitutional Amendment started to get elected to the US House and Senate beginning, in earnest, in the 1910 election.  After 1912, 1914, and 1916, enough politicians had been elected to office to start those wheels into motion.  Granted Prohibition was a misguided endeavor, but the point remains, if we held our politicians to one standard over all, the first act of their first day would be to introduce "a Constitutional Amendment limiting the amount of spending in elections by political candidates, and 'money isn't speech,' and we limit the amount of outside money spent on an election, and none of it anonymously," we could start to change the tide of this issue, and eventually get to a point where real change can happen.  It just will take many years, and a heck of a lot of hard work.

How about the third party's themselves?  The feeling many have is you can't run a third party candidate today and win.  I don't disagree with that sentiment.  If I was to start the Matt Party, I wouldn't get invited to the debates, I wouldn't get the press coverage, and I wouldn't get the money of the major parties.  It's foolish to think the major parties have to recognize you, just because your political party exists.  I don't agree with opening up the debates to everyone and anyone.  If your political point of view garners interest in less than 2% of the population, I don't think you should be part of the debate (currently, Minnesota demands 5%.  I think that's too high.).  I don't want to see our elections become like the California recall election where for every legit candidate, 6 others who were jokes got the same stage.  That's how you get buffoons elected.  Starting an effective third party is not a sprint, it's a marathon, but a marathon you can lose if you don't stay focused on the finish line.

Let's look at two examples.  First, I'm no fan of Ron Paul, or of the Tea Party, but they've given a textbook example of how you start a political party or highly influence a major party.  By taking advantage of the system that was in place, individual Republican state primaries and caucuses, the far right pseudo-libertarians started getting more and more say in the Republican national agenda.  Today, they have a majority control of the Republican party, a party that is terrified of them breaking off and beginning their own political party, something they could easily do.  Their demented rise started only six years ago, a tiny blip on the timeline of politics.  It can be done.

The Independence Party in Minnesota isn't dead, but it's on life support and needs a major re-boot to become relevant again.  They mismanaged their nomination process and ended up with a non-Independent, Tea Party Senate candidate.  They screwed up, but instead of ignoring that race and focusing on the Governor's race, many of the party jumped ship and endorsed the Republican.  By changing affiliation as quickly as they did, they doomed the IP to failure this last election.

What both of these cases point out is your political movement is only as powerful as the amount of people who are willing to endorse it.  The Tea Party, shockingly, strengthens because the people involved don't want to be just far right Republicans, and the Independence Party falters as the members of their congregation look to return to their old church.

Which brings up another question people who desire third party's don't want to ask.  Is the foundation for your third party an issue that is primarily important to only you and a handful of your friends?  Is it really that popular?  This is a hard question to answer.  We all become convinced something that means a lot to us individually is important to everyone, but is it really enough to start a successful political party?  Most of the times no.  Doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for what's important to you, but if I'm for taco Tuesday really becoming a mandatory "taco Tuesday," can I convince enough people to abandon their established political ties to jump on board a new political party centered around that principle?  When worse comes to worse, can I still count on all of those followers to stay on board the taco Tuesday bandwagon, or will they run back to a political party that is more relevant?  It breaks my heart to see people passionate about something fail because they never realized what they believe in is not something many others do.  Remember, it has to become a rallying cry for your new party, not just something turned down by your old political party and you're determined to prove them wrong.

And what happens when you do find an issue that does get many people motivated?  Let's look at the Green Party.  They live on because their tent pole issue fires up fervent loyalty, but the Green Party wised up years ago and started developing a complete political platform, giving their party substance and sustainability.  Their political stances have some similarities too other parties, but they are unique to the Green Party.  You can't just be the one issue and then the Democrats for everything else.  It has to be a complete foundation for a political party/movement to thrive.

If someone on the left was smart, they would start to cultivate the feelings of the Occupy Movement. There was a political issue which had massive appeal.  A political party based on defending the rights of the citizens against Wall Street and Corporate America would garner ground support quickly.

I know this article might come across harsh, but I really am for more than two major political parties.  I think the best governments function when they have three to five major political parties represented, but at the end of the day, I do prefer quality over quantity.