Texas Rainmaker » Time For a Third Party?

Time For a Third Party?
June 1st, 2006 7:56 am

I’ve been saying this for several years now. Peggy Noonan sums it up pretty well.

The problem is not that the two parties are polarized. In many ways they’re closer than ever. The problem is that the parties in Washington, and the people on the ground in America, are polarized. There is an increasing and profound distance between the rulers of both parties and the people–between the elites and the grunts, between those in power and those who put them there.

Read the whole thing.

I think there are many “Libertarians” and middle-of-the-roaders that don’t feel totally comfortable identifying with either major party, but feel compelled to choose sides when it comes to an either-or choice. The problem is the two-party system has created such an atmosphere that makes it virtually impossible for a third-party to gain much traction. At least, that’s the way it used to be. But now with the grassroots effort of the Internet, I think the tide could be changing. Now anyone with a computer and Internet access can reach millions of potential voters and get something close to “equal time”… especially as citizens continue to shun the traditional media outlets.

The question is not if… but when?

Update: Joe Trippi, the liberal campaign manager and a friend of a friend, seems to agree with me:

America’s two political parties may not realise it yet, but in their current form they are nearing obsolescence. As technological advancements continue to bring more and better tools for communication, citizens are increasingly empowered to come together in common purpose and reject the current political system that seems designed by the two parties to keep us apart.

There was a time when to have any hope of winning office a candidate needed to run within either the Republican or Democratic party. To come from one of the major parties meant that a candidate inherited a dedicated donor base and an organisational base as well.

The 2004 presidential campaign proved that those days are nearing an end - and it is the ability of hundreds of thousands using the internet to connect with each other that makes it so.

16 Comments »

Hitting it on the nailhead!
The internet will bring politics to more
laymen than any other medium ever used
in the past.
Hopefully it will draw more into running
for office and not have to beg for big
bucks from the upper echelons.

Comment by nbpundit — 8:48 am
Soon?
I’m one of the few right wing “radicals” who still absolutely loves their president. I am rabid anti-illegal immigration but I don’t think it’s President Bush’s job to fix a 30 year old problem. Yes I want him to arrest/deport illegal aliens,close/seal the borders, and build the wall/fence. But we all know that’s not going to happen.

If Bush and the Republicans can pass a satisfactory immigration bill, would that solve any problems? I doubt it.

People are pretty wound up about several issues: gas prices,
immigration,Iraq,etc.

I think the first candidate who can schmooze their way into American’s hearts by telling them what they want to hear and making promises we know they can’t keep, will win.

Sad isn’t it?

Comment by newFan — 8:49 am
The cyclical third-party fever strikes again. Just like with Perot, you hear a lot of the same complaints - dislike of “elitism,” and anti-immigration policies. THEY are giving the country to the Mexicans, so THEY are out of touch for not immediately building a 50-foot brick wall from California to Texas. Perferably with moats and a minefield.

I also don’t have limitless faith in the healing-power of the internet to give us the mythical, perfect “third choice” - America’s politics are based around getting past 50 percent, and any split makes it harder to reach that magic number.

No - the real problem isn’t the two-party system, which has been supposedly “broken” as long as anyone could remember. The problem is incumbency - the distance Noonan speaks of isn’t a party issue so much as it is an issue of Washington vs. everyone else.

Its that, rather than forming yet another bufoonish, embrassing third party, that’ll end the political malaise creeping up in American life.

DU

Comment by Dan — 9:13 am
Dan, I don’t think we’re disagreeing. I think it’s the two-party system that breeds the incumbency.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 9:22 am
Via the Puppyblender

Instapundit
PEGGY NOONAN: “The Perot experience seemed to put an end to third-party fever. But I think it’s coming back, I think it’s going to grow, and I think the force behind it is unique in our history. . . . The problem is not th…

Trackback by Gulf Coast Pundit — 9:45 am
[…] It is Ms. Noonan’s contention, and that of the Texas Rainmaker (who also quotes the above) that not only has the come for a third party to form; it will form, and this time it’s got leverage that even Perot’s money couldn’t buy fourteen years ago: The internet. […]

Pingback by Houblog » Blog Archive » Are You Republican? Or a Jacksonian? — 10:05 am
The Bleak Future of CanAmerExicoIstan

Peggy Noonan’s blood is boiling:

Something’s happening. I have a feeling we’re at some new beginning, that a big breakup’s coming, and that though it isn’t and will not be immediately apparent, we’ll someday look back on this era as the time w…

Trackback by Super Fun Power Hour — 10:07 am
Problem is, this is what happened with Ross Perot, which got Bill Clinton elected. Could the same happen again and get Hilliary elected?

Comment by Dede — 10:09 am
“Problem is, this is what happened with Ross Perot, which got Bill Clinton elected. Could the same happen again and get Hilliary elected? ”

Possibly, but here’s why I think not. Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Hillary in 2008 has 15+ years of interaction with the American public. She’s not an unknown… and what the country knows about her will likely be her biggest obstacle.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 10:16 am
I think the start-up and time and money (particularly money) required is less now than it was when Perot ran. And there are nascent independent movements (in Texas we have two credible independent candidates for governor, both of whom are likely to out-poll the Democratic Party nominee) which can be co-opted or cooperated with as a source of volunteers. While many of the Perotistas have returned to their natural home in the GOP (including Perot’s 1992 campaign manager, who made an unfortunate pit stop as the 1994 Dem Senate nominee against Kay Bailey Hutchison, but who is now a prominent Republican, and ranking Federal Reserve official in Dallas), they and other disaffected voters are primed to move over the illegal immigration issue.

But when will they move? In many states, including Texas, the filing deadline has passed. Some of them may vote Dem this fall out of frustration, but the Democratic Party is no longer the natural home of anyone opposed to increased Balkanization of America. In effect, I believe this gives the GOP two years to make a substantial move to the right on immigration enforcement. The GOP may lose the House in the meantime, however, and that means that the amnesty forces will be the only Republicans with national power.

The combination of these effects should propel Tom Tancredo (or someone very much like him) into the front rank of GOP presidential candidates in ‘08, though he will ultimately prove unsuccessful. The question then for the GOP is: do they put Tancredo on the ticket in the number two spot, or do they risk the emergence of a third-party challenger on this issue, and lose enough votes (a la Perot) to guarantee a Hillary victory?

In any event, given the onerous requirements of signature gathering, a third party candidate (Chris Simcox, perhaps?) would have to begin organizing his/her efforts no later than the last quarter of ‘07.

Tying this issue to the bloat in the federal government, and making the point (as has been made recently by a number of Washington think-tanks and some conservative columnists and bloggers) that amnesty and increased immigration will bloat the welfare state and balloon its costs might give the third party not only more echo of Perot on the issues, but it would also serve to lance the claim of Republicans that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. This would also bolster the candidacy of Hillary, as Bill presided over years of fiscal surplus.

In any event, it seems virtually impossible for the GOP to win in ‘08 without adopting the current House bill on immigration enforcement or something quite similar. Amnesty (heavy or light) appears to be High-Caliber suicide.

Comment by David — 10:18 am
The 50%+1 voting system drives us to a two-party system. If we want to change that we’ll need to change the system first.

Comment by Karl Gallagher — 10:35 am
Karl:

You don’t need 50% +1 in the presidential election. Clinton never got 50%, and W. didn’t get 50% the first time. In many states (including Texas) you don’t need 50% in the general election — you only need to finish first. In fact, many observers believe that the winner of the Texas governor’s race will get under 40% — and even the most optimistic predict a winner with less than 45%.

That may be a big part of why the independent movement is so strong in Texas.

Some states do require 50%+1. (Lousisiana does, but has a open election in November, followed by the top two finishers — not necessasrily from different parties — in December.) But not all states have this requirement. And the presidency never has. Lincoln got (IIRC) around 40%. Woodrow Wilson was also a minority president, as was JFK, and IIRC, Nixon in ‘68.

Comment by David — 3:19 pm
I seems like since Newt left the House, the “kids” are acting up doing as they please. I’m tired of RINOs deciding what is best for me. If I wanted to live under socialism, communism, a dictatorship of some other form of government, I’d move. I just want the elected representatives to remember who elected them and start acting like representatives, not elitists.

Is another party the answer? Not if the Republican politicians will recall their roots and start acting like Republicans. I believe there are a lot of centrists that would regualrly vote GOP if the GOP representatives remained faithful to their doctrine and their electorate.

Comment by Old Soldier — 5:22 pm
I agree Old Soldier. With all the divergent Republicans we need a bigger tent or we all need to get together. Each faction of the party cannot have it all their way–and that is where some conservatives really rankle me. There are things that I disagree with W or the Congress about, but I can live with it because the alternative to sitting at home on election day on my behind–IS THE LIBERALS–and that thought would and should gag a maggot. Repubs better think long and hard about this, either my way or the highway. That road we have been down before.

Comment by Judith — 10:40 pm
[…] The follow up question then, shows that the two major parties only see a “strong” following by 17% and 21%, respectively. The move to the middle, or possible third party ground is rather significant - 62%. Something I addressed last month. […]

Pingback by Texas Rainmaker » The MSM’s Campaign of Death by a Thousand Elections — 7:05 am
[…] With 2006 all but in the record books, I’m going to take a leap and make a prediction for 2008. Back in June, I discussed the possibility that America is ready for a viable third party. I linked to a Peggy Noonan article that said the problem “is not that the two parties are polarized. In many ways they’re closer than ever.” I think we saw the evidence last night. Conservatives came out and voted for conservative candidate… on both sides of the aisle. […]

Pingback by Texas Rainmaker » Early 2008 Prediction — 4:59 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI