Third Party, Or Just Fix What We Have?
Tim Haile
We are presently witnessing a popular uprising in the United States. The insane amount of spending that is presently being done by the Obama administration, its nationalization of certain businesses, its insistence upon nationalizing health-care, its assault upon free market enterprise, its contempt for separation of powers as evidenced by its executive orders, its appointment of dozens of unelected “czars,” and its overall progressivist, anti-Constitutional approach to governance has resulted in a high level of unrest and overall dissatisfaction among many Americans. Many of these dissatisfied people are associated with the Tea Party movement. This movement emphasizes a respect for, and a return to a Constitutional form of [limited] government, which allows for lower taxes, resulting in more personal responsibility and liberty. As demonstrated above, this is the opposite of what we are seeing in the Obama administration.
The growth and popularity of the Tea Party movement has led to much talk about the formation of a third political party, but is this really a good idea? In the 1992 presidential election, by receiving just 18.9 percent of the vote, Ross Perot’s third party candidacy enabled Bill Clinton to become the 42nd president of the United States. It is very likely that a third party will draw votes from the Republican Party, thus insuring victory for the progressive Democrats. I realize that, ideologically speaking, Barack Obama now makes Bill Clinton look like Dick Cheney. However, let us not forget that though Clinton’s policies were not nearly as destructive to the Republic as are Obama’s, he was also a progressive.
In a representative republic, the sentiments of the people are reflected in the kind of representatives they elect. Many of us complain about the dangerously liberal and unconstitutional policies and agendas of the Obama administration, but let us remember that Barack Obama is president because he received the majority of the votes. He is in the White House because a majority of the American people wanted to put him there. The same is true with U.S. congress men and women: They are appointed to office by the expressed will of the people. The presence of liberal congress people is reflective of a liberal constituency. Conservative congress people reflect a conservative constituency, and moderate congress people reflect a moderate constituency. Whether one likes it or not, this is the nature of a representative republic. I happen to believe that this system of government has served our country very well for over 200 years. Elected officials who well represent their constituents are appreciated and often re-elected, and those who ignore their voters and begin to serve their own interests are voted out of office and replaced.
What happens, though, when the political parties themselves cease to represent the people? The United States has predominantly a two-party political system. What are the people to do when the ideology of neither party represents their principles and interests, and neither party is willing to change? In such an event, the formation of a third party will be necessary. Sadly, as noted above, our country is so accustomed to the two-party system that it is very difficult for a third party to succeed. There is another way…
Like politicians, political parties typically reflect the ideology of their members and supporters. Parties expand and flourish only when their platforms are popular. Liberal parties attract people with liberal ideals, and conservative parties attract those with conservative ideals. When liberal policies are popular (big government, wealth redistribution, high taxes, welfare, abortion, gay marriage…etc), liberal parties thrive. When conservative policies are popular (limited government, low taxes, personal responsibility, traditional values…etc), conservative parties thrive. In order for a political party to actually defeat its political opponents it must attract a majority of supporters.
Changes in the social-political-economic environment can result in ideological shifts in the electorate. This means that political parties must sometimes make changes to their platform in order to maintain relevance. We have watched the Democratic Party make such changes over the years. Sadly, these changes have been made in the interest of attracting and appeasing social and fiscal progressives, not the type of people attending Tea Party events. As a result, the present Democratic Party agenda is completely contrary to that of the Tea Party movement. The Republican Party, foolishly fearing that ideological scales had tipped in favor of a more moderate approach to governance, compromised its limited government, fiscal conservative stance in order to appeal to moderates. This was a miscalculation and a mistake on their part. Obviously, as the Tea Party movement is demonstrating, conservatism, at least fiscal conservatism, is in the ascendancy, and neither of the two major political parties well represents these people. Either a third party must be formed, or one of the existing parties must change to reflect the sentiments of the conservative movement. Is either the Democratic or Republican Party willing to make such changes? If so, let that party step forward and state its resolve to be the party of and for the people. Consistent with the principle of democratic representation, let that party design (or redesign) its platform and shape (or reshape) its agenda to facilitate the will of the people. If neither existing party is willing to make this change, then let a new party be established.
Can Either the Republican or Democratic Party Do It?
As the party of big government, it is highly unlikely that the Democratic Party will be willing to make the changes necessary to facilitate the Tea Party agenda. However, such is actually possible for the Republican Party. After all, it has served this function before. It was the party of Reagan, and of the Gingrich revolution. Regrettably, each time, after some period of committed conservatism, the Republican Party swerved in favor of big government. Has it now learned its lesson?
Discussions are presently under way between GOP and Tea Party representatives. Some people are justifiably concerned over whether or not the GOP is serious about its commitment to basic Tea Party principles. Some are wondering if the Republican Party can be trusted to stay the course. After all, it does have a shaky history in this area. I would point out however, that the same concerns could be equally had with respect to a third-party. That is, in the same way that an existing party could cease to represent the concerns of the people, a third-party could eventually do the same. It could lose sight of its electoral directive and began to chart its own course. In either case the safeguard is the people. The power of the Tea Party movement is the people themselves. Regardless of which political party these people use to advance their agenda, it must be remembered that their support can be withdrawn at any time and it can then be given to another party. Again, this is how representative democracy works.
One thing is certain; it is essential that conservative, constitutionally minded people work together to defeat the progressives who are trampling upon our Constitution and the American way of life. They cannot be permitted to remain in power.
Tim Haile
