Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.
Maybe it depends on how you understand a “win.” Or just “progress.” If it demands dramatic and relatively rapid successes, then by that understanding of “win,” the kind of persistence and patience required in creating, developing, evolving, maintaining, growing something different won’t be appealing. Actually, by that understanding of “making progress,” there’s really no point in making an effort outside the established norm. Simply live with “this is just the way things are.”
“Third parties” are largely judged by this kind of criteria. Two related factors that can be in play: the basic desires to 1) vote for a “winner” and 2) have an uncomplicated either / or choice.
The very fact that “third party” is the term usually employed to describe everything except the Duopoly is telling in itself. When people actually work and run and vote for “third parties,” wherever they fall on the political continuum, they’re very definitely engaging in “fighting the system” actions. I, of course, think that’s a very good, healthy and essential thing for our political and governance systems..
When, as is the norm in the MSM, you can find little to nothing about anything but the Democratic and Republican parties, one good place to check out is Independent Political Report, which
… is dedicated to covering America’s third parties and independent candidates, and providing a forum for the intelligent discussion thereof.
I’ll point out that both Taylor, here, and I, here, have recently posted about this general topic, and not for the first time. I think we get “intelligent discussion,” too.
A PEW Research report from last month included this:
Idea of Third Political Party Still Popular
A majority of Americans (57%) agree that there should be a third major political party in addition to the Democrats and Republicans. This is on par with levels of support for a third party in 2008 and 1996, but higher than in 2000 and 2004.
And while the PEW poll shows a majority of Americans think a third party is needed, a July 6 released GALLUP Poll provides some additional insight into this 2012 moment specifically in Little Support for Third-Party Candidates in 2012 Election. Putting that with the PEW report, I think the result might be, “third parties are a good idea, just not for this election. And probably not the coming mid-terms, either. And then we’ll need to wait until after the next general. But it’s a good idea, someday.”
From GALLUP:
U.S. registered voters show limited support for third-party candidates this year, with the vast majority preferring Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. A June 7-10 Gallup poll asked a special presidential preference question, listing three third-party candidates in addition to Obama and Romney.
Third-Party Vote Likely Helps Obama
With Gallup’s daily horse-race ballot generally showing a competitive race between Romney and Obama – the two are tied at 46% of the vote among registered voters since Gallup began its tracking program in April – it is interesting to note that much of the third-party vote seems to be coming at Romney’s expense. Romney’s 40% share of the registered voter total in this ballot format in the June 7-10 survey is significantly below his average in tracking to date, while Obama’s 47% vote share is more in line with his typical performance. …
For another take, this op-ed piece via the Santa Cruz Sentinel:
The independent party’s over …
Third parties have a long history in this country, without ever gaining enough influence and stature to truly change government. Today, with the astronomic cost of running for office, third parties have even less chance of competing. …
The most recent example of the fate of American third parties came when the well-financed Americans Elect was unable to persuade a candidate to take up the group’s invitation to run for president. …
Political analysts noted that to break the iron grip of the two major parties, a third party needs to be associated with either a compelling cause or a candidate who can stir the masses. Just using technology and gaining access isn’t enough.
I’m not sure how much more “compelling” things would have to get for a “break the iron grip” moment to arrive, not when looking at the economy, unemployment, wars, petroleum industry pipelines and off-shore drilling, climate change (for those who accept the science), health care, foreclosures, etc. And while I certainly get that a candidate “who can stir the masses” could be a way to “break” that Two Party grip, there’s something a bit troubling about that, too.
Another perspective, via Columbia Daily Tribune, “Time is ripe for third-party test,” which is basically an endorsement of John Huntsman, but presents some general arguments for “third” parties.
In considering the huge challenges for “third” or “independent” parties, candidates and voters, maybe one other factor is in play: for many of We the Electorate, the “right time” for challenging the Duopoloy usually seems to be “after this election.” I keep wondering how many “most important election of our life” seasons, followed by a mid-term in which we’re either suppose to preserve or undo the results of the general election, we’ll have before enough people definitively respond to the fact that two choices aren’t enough, and that the two choice limitation is imposed by those it benefits. To some extent, we aren’t just playing the game we’re presented. We’re being played.
” A compelling cause or a candidate who can stir the masses.” As you say, we already have a compelling cause and I don’t believe either one of these two clowns are stirring the masses. What you need is media attention and big bucks, you need third party candidates in the debates, third party candidates on the Sunday talk shows, on all the late night shows and in issue oriented ads. Their is nothing stopping the media from inviting these people on, they just need to be shamed into doing it. Big donors who say their not happy with the present choices should fund third parties instead of throwing good money after bad. Nothing will change, as you know, until the entire process by which we debauch ourselves every four years is replaced; public funding, 100% public funding, free air time ( since the networks are getting the space for free anyway ), no corporate funding and free access to all debates. You may start laughing now.
“You may start laughing now.” Yep, or crying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP4abiHdQpc
Thank you
This is why we may expect to see Gary Johnson on Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartmann, Chuck Todd, etc. etc. while Jill Stein gets the silent treatment– pretty much every vote Johnson gets will come out of Romney’s pocket, every vote Stein gets comes out of Obama’s. “Progressives” on TV (actually corpo-Democrats) are only interested in “Organizing” when it means “Organizing for Obama,” and they are only interested in Third Parties when they help the President win re-election. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised to see an in-depth interview with Virgil Goode on “Progressive” media in the near future.
The only chance Jill Stein has to get on tv is if Fox wises up and gives her a platform.
“The only chance Jill Stein has to get on tv is if Fox wises up and gives her a platform.”
Very unlikely, as I know you know, but I like the way you’ve made your point
That is interesting, because in my case Gary Johnson is a better choice than either Obomney or Robama. He’s not a great choice, mind you, but respect for civil liberties and the rule of law as applied to government is something that is so far beyond the objectives of either major party right now that anyone who supports them is a big step up the evolutionary ladder.
Maybe the close race is as much about lack of choices as anything else. If only Johnson, Stein and whoever else would be given the opportunity to be heard, maybe more people would realize there’s something else to hear … that we really don’t have to accept the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy as the only voices that count. Or to use your good words, people could hear some further up the “evolutionary ladder” ideas.
But millions and millions are being raised to make certain those ideas aren’t heard.
Could be. A coin comes up heads roughly half the time.
But this almost suggests that putting Johnson on MSNBC might not be a good move for Democrats, either, as jjamele is suggesting. It’s been a long time since they were serious about civil liberties, and an articulate third party candidate could make that point pretty readily given the opportunity.
Cujo359:
Your comment reflects just how dumb some so-called Progressives really are. You are completly unaware of what Gary Johnson’s platform is, apparently you like Gary Johnson because he is for legalized marijuana use.
Gary Johnson is a self made millionaire, former Governor of New Mexico, is a Libertarian, who in addition to calling for the legalization of marijuana is also for the return to a free market economy, the de-regulation of all private enterprise and austerity budgets that will cut entitlement programs like social security, Medicare and Medicaid in order to balance the budget.
So he’s basically Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, if those guys believed in legalized marijuana and if Romney were a self-made millionaire. Got it.
Curiously, RAJensen, I knew all of that. You may perhaps note that I wrote he was not a good choice. He is simply better than the ones presented by the major parties.
As for his being for “free markets” and for cuttting SS and Medicare/Medicaid, there’s no contrast there between him and Obama. Obama’s economic advisors are the same sorts of Wall Street pirates his campaign is talking about when they’re dissing Romney for his work at Bain Capital.
Apparently, for you being dumb involves not having a selective memory.
In my opinion, a third party vote helps America. I think it is time that We the People let the Government know that we are unhappy with both parties. I do not understand why people believe that the 2-Party “Duopoly” is set in stone. I know that the most effective way to communicate to the knuckleheads that we want an alternative to the stranglehold the two parties have on OUR Government. The two part system is like a see-saw – one party rises up and the other party falls, people get sick of the party in power’s crap and they go back down and the other party rises up. This has been going on and on and it is time something happens to break this cycle. My vote for a third party is not a vote for anyone else escept the person whos name I am selecting. It is a crime how both parties do everything they can to discredit any third party from gaining any steam. They go to court to keep them off of ballots and much worse. The only thing the two parties agree on is that two political parties are enough choices for the American People to have when it comes time to vote. I am voting 3rd party because I favor a 3rd party and what that has to offer more than what Romney or Obama have to offer!
Very well put. May more people hear more of your and similar voices here and elsewhere.
Thom Hartmann took a call today from a guy who said “I just can’t see myself voting for either of the two major party candidates…” Hartmann angrily interrupted with “well, you are going to have to, if you want to participate in our democracy in any meaningful way!” Hartmann then went into a “Democrats and Republicans are vastly different” rant, offering no real examples to back up his claim.
Hartmann is one of the most “Progressive” voices on the radio. When he reacts like this to a caller who suggests that maybe the major parties are bankrupt, you know that there are really no liberal voiced outside the blogosphere.