Why We Need A Third Party
The two-party system has failed the American voter. It does not matter which party is considered; both have miserably failed to accomplish their stated goals and never fulfill their promises to voters and party members.
Looking to the Republican takeover in 1994 is enough to demonstrate this case for the Republican Party. During decades of Democrat domination of the federal legislature, the Republicans claimed to be the party of limited government and lower taxes. This mantra was repeated by nearly all candidates and was a central theme to Newt Gingrich's Contract With America.[1] The revenue collected by the federal government has grown from $1.259 trillion in 1994 to $2.568 trillion in 2007.[2] How many readers have had their income more than double in the same time frame? As a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, the federal revenues have increased from 18.08% to 18.79% over the same time period. There has been no reduction in government revenue as a result of the Republican pledge of limited government and lower taxes. Even worse than the revenue, federal spending has increased from $1.462 trillion in 1994 to $2.73 trillion in 2007.[3] So we have neither a more limited government nor lower taxes.
The Democrat Party routinely extols its concern for the poor and education for the children. The Democrats were in control of the House of Representatives from 1954 until early 1995. In 1959 the Census Bureau tells us that there were 8.32 million poor families, and by 1994 there were 8.05 million poor families.[4] The number of poor families in the United States barely changed despite the growth of the federal government and the War on Poverty. In terms of basic education, the increasing rate of high school graduation ended in about 1977.[5] Since the 1979 creation of the United states Department of Education, the high school graduation rate has changed very little. It would appear that government spending and regulation has little to do with poverty or educational attainment.
The twin parties ran the United States Congress in pretty much the same fashion. The majority party used its position to extract campaign contributions from special interest groups and enforced party line votes on most issues. While "bi-partisanship" has been a nice word that was included in many a speech by members of both parties, it has rarely been put into practice. The minority party has no real direct influence and so resorts to simple obstruction and manipulation of procedural rules to frustrate the agenda of the majority party. This dynamic remained the same regardless of which party was in control. A few members of the 1994 class kept their word to self-limit their terms, leaving control with career politicians and their lobbyist accomplices.
It is easy to place all of the blame on politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists because they deserve a great deal of it and could choose to rise above the party and special interest politics. However, the voters have the ultimate authority to demand change and accountability. Unfortunately, what passes for a political campaign in today's world is a race to raise the most money in order to run the most slogan filled TV commercials promising "change" or "family values." Voters have allowed themselves to be swayed by such marketing efforts and have continually rewarded this abomination of political discourse. We the people have gotten the government we asked for and deserve and must choose to change our behavior in order to achieve different results.
A substantial third party could be a solution to many of the problems of our current two-party system. Today the calculus is something like this: in order to implement policy, you have to get elected; in order to get elected you have to raise and spend a great deal of money on your campaign; in order to raise a great deal of money, you must have the support of your chosen party; in order to have the support of your chosen party, you must vote according to the direction of party bosses on "important" issues. A look at the more recent years of the Rehnquist Supreme Court provides a useful analogy. The Court was divided on many of the most controversial issues into four "liberal" justices, four "conservative" justices, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Justice O'Connor had only a single vote, but because her vote was frequently the swing vote, she had tremendous influence without having to convince or otherwise exert influence over the other Justices.
A third party with 10% of the legislature would be in a position just like Justice O'Connor. The third party members, in a party line world, would be the decisive vote on all contentious legislation. In order for either of the twin parties to pass any legislation, the votes of the third party would be required, except in the trivial cases where there is overwhelming support for the proposed legislation. The need to work in cooperation with the members of the third party would change the campaign rhetoric. After all, how can the Democrats demonize the Libertarians in the election cycle and then expect Libertarians to support Democrat legislation. Rather than personal attacks and negative ads as a matter of course, there would likely be three way debates about real issues and actual proposals during the campaigns. This may sound optimistic, but what else could fill the void left by removing the personal attacks and demagoguery? Alternatively, the campaigns will remain as negative and devoid of substance as they are today. This will lead to the election of three bitterly divided factions that will refuse to work cooperatively and lead to gridlock.
Now consider the possibility that the third party added to the equation is actually devoted to the principle of limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility and lower taxes like the Libertarian Party. Unlike the current twin parties which simply prefer different sets of special interests, the Libertarian Party first asks whether government should be involved at all and whether the best course of action is to remove the influence of government rather than use it to the benefit of one special interest or the other. The influence that the Libertarian Party could have on a legislature with only 5% or 10% of the seats could be profound. Democrats would frequently find common cause on issues involving basic rights and civil liberties. Republicans would do likewise on many economic issues. In those cases where cooperation with one of the twin parties does not occur, gridlock happens. Gridlock is good, if you are in favor of limited government.
Conventional wisdom is that America is a two-party country and that there is no changing the system. Although it is true that the American political landscape has been dominated by two parties for nearly all of our history, they have not always been the same two parties. Over time, the labels and alignments have changed. This simple fact demonstrates that the party dynamic is not fixed absolutely. The way to bring about a viable third party is through basic grass roots organization seeking out those disenchanted voters who have not been served by the twin parties. Right now the fastest growing voter demographic is unaffiliated voters. The twin parties are losing ground every day, but the Libertarian Party has failed to step up and take advantage of the situation. Outreach to those actual voters who have already chosen to send a message by remaining unaffiliated should reveal a substantial number who are receptive to the libertarian philosophy.