< PREVIOUS ] [ 1995 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Of late, I often encounter speculation about a third party entering American politics.
It makes me wonder if we're like some primitives whose
numeric system consisted of one, two, many,
except
that when counting parties, we go one, two, three, and
that's it.
After all, we already have third parties: Green,
Libertarian, New Party, Prohibition, Socialist Worker. By
an honest reckoning, a third party
would actually be
an eighth party
or maybe even a seventeenth
party.
Not that accuracy, especially with numbers, has anything
connection to American politics. Our constitution makes no
provision for parties, and our founding fathers abhorred
factions,
but the two-party system has become rather
entrenched.
Why? Look at our winter-take-all election system, based on geographical districts. For sake of argument, let's say that my state representative is adored by 40 percent of us, while 60 percent would prefer somebody else.
If those 60 percent unite on one candidate, they can get somebody else. But if their votes go 35 percent to one candidate and 25 percent to another, then the incumbent, with 40 percent, goes back to the statehouse -- even though the majority of his district doesn't want him.
Some countries try to get around this problem with proportional representation. It means a parliament might have half a dozen parties, and the process of forming a government involves tedious negotiations with enough leaders to get a working majority.
In theory, that doesn't happen in America with our two-party system. In practice, though, even when Democrats had a congressional majority in both houses, they had to placate their conservative wing, lest those good ol' boys vote with the Republicans.
Nowadays, majority Republicans, even if their leaders spout hard-core conservative doctrine, still have to placate their party's few moderates to pass legislation.
The two parties aren't there to represent principles anyway; they exist only to win elections. I can recall a time when Republicans stood for civil rights, protection against imports, environmental quality, passenger trains, a guaranteed annual income and a host of other notions that sound worse than subversive now.
A national third party
might get taken seriously
now, since billionaire Ross Perot has promised to lead
one.
Money does talk. During my days as a newspaper editor here, third-party candidates flocked to Salida because I would interview them and publish stories about their campaigns. It was my naive believe that if a man put his name before the public as a candidate for public office, then I was obliged to present his views to the public, in the hope that informed votes might be cast. Other editors, wiser in the ways of this world than I was then, apparently examine campaign-treasury balances before deciding whether a candidate is newsworthy.
As long as we're adding parties during this era of cataclysmic political realignment, we might as well be thorough and get it all over with at once. So I expect to see these parties emerge soon:
Correctness Party: Our cruel First Amendment would be
replaced with a more sophisticated provision. Congress
shall make no law which allows anyone's feelings to be hurt
or self-esteem to be impaired.
Legislators would
produce a list of proscribed terms each year, since we all
know this is the most important issue facing the
country.
Sweatshop Party: Repeal all those silly rules like emissions standards, pollution controls, minimum wages and workplace safety. They keep American business from successfully competing in the global economy against $1.27-a-day labor in the Third World.
Good Ol' Boy Party: What's with this restriction against personal ownership of machine guns? And what is this that I get in trouble for indecent exposure if I pull off the road to take a leak? Is this a free country, or what? You realize they're trying to make it illegal to haul dogs in the back of the pickup?
Bureaucrat Party: Do you realize that every day, millions of people are indulging in thousands of activities that they haven't received a permit for? They didn't even ask the police or a social worker. They didn't hold hearings, let alone conduct appeals of scoping documents. Do you really want to live in a country where people just do things?
Security Party: What we plan to do is classified. Strange buildings might appear, and your neighbors might mysteriously disappear. But trust us, it's all in the interest of national security.
The list could go on, but that's a good start. Some might question the need for more parties, but I think it would produce some truth in politics. On occasion I have voted for what I thought was a Democrat, and discovered that the candidate was actually a Correctness or a Bureaucrat. Securities and Sweatshops have similarly run as Republicans.
We need more parties, so that we know what we're getting.
====END OF COLUMN=====
NOTE TO RAY: It would be nice if you could bold-face the names of my suggested parties.
And, damn it, I'll miss you. Keep in touch.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1995 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >