When you are trudging along as a member of one of the two major parties, you pretty much expect to be less than fully enchanted by who the party selects to run for the Presidency or any other office. You are realistic and figure that the guy is probably better than the other one.
So, for example, pretend for the sake of argument that there were two major parties in America: the Stupid Party and the Evil Party. If Joe Voter usually votes for the candidates of The Stupid Party, the main objective will be to defeat the candidate from the Evil Party because he thinks the EP candidate is the greater threat.
But this can produce frustration. Sometimes it seems like the SP is delivering lower and lower quality candidates over time, and maybe on purpose. The EP, a Joe might easily think, is always getting worse so that the SP can keep lowering the bar.
And at some point, Joe starts wondering why he is stuck with only two alternatives. So he might look around for a Third Party.
But here is the problem, if he has renounced compromise then he has guaranteed that no third party with any hope of making significant impact can be formed. While a mainstream party is expected to make all of its members somewhat unhappy (other than the very stupid or the very ambitious who plan to make money through the party), a third party has to be perfect in order to justify its existence.
To break away from my hypothetical example to a real one: I don’t care how much I might agree with these people, no national third party that runs against immigration and wants to close our borders will ever get my support. Sure I might tolerate such evil (to some degree) in a main party that I already know I don’t really like anyway. But if you’re going to recruit me to serve a tiny alternative, it needs to be one that agrees with me on the basic requirements for civilized behavior as a nation. “I was a stranger and you welcomed me” (Matthew 25.35).
See, Joe can justify putting up with things he disagrees with if he stays with his Stupid Party, but the minute he gives up such tolerance, he is in pursuit of the Perfect Party according to his beliefs, and that means third parties stay small and insignificant, serving extremely narrow groups of people.
Ultimately, the only way third parties could make a difference is if enough of them were formed to swing votes between them and then together settle on a President who was the least offensive to all of them as a group. In other words, if we work real hard and spend a lot of money we might reach the point where we have the power… wait for it… to settle on a compromise candidate.
That’s a rather long and winding detour to get back where we already are.
But wait, says Joe to me, are you saying that I am stuck with Stupid Party candidates no matter how bad they get?
I answer Joe Voter thusly: No. But if you are going to be punished with bad candidates, why let them punish you further by wasting your time, money and energy? Don’t waste your efforts on a third party; just don’t vote. Don’t bother to show up. You already suffer enough at the hands of the Stupid-Evil monopoly, why suffer even more? Instead of wasting time and gas going to the voting booth, do something productive with your life on November fourth.
Frankly, I wonder if a lot of the third party drive comes from frustrated cheerleaders and frustrated ambition. We want to be at the center of something and wholly believe in it (or make lots of money from those who believe in it).
That, at least, is how things look to me. If I’m wrong I hope I’ll prove teachable.
Perhaps a 3rd party defined by some broad affiliation and not a set of issues would do it. Say, the non-corruption party. Or the States Rights party (i.e. screw things up at the local level, not the federal level). Part of the problem with 3rd parties that ties into your critique is that they typically try to have an answer to everything. My own 2 cents: they should state 4 or 5 basic principles, and then shut up.
Yes, I forgot about the RtL party (does it still exist?). It would endorse other party candidates and give voters instant information at the booth about the candidate.
Mark,
I’m convinced that many 3rd party folks are simply sociologically and psychologically anti-establishment. They are at the fringes of modern life and 3rd parties conform to their psyche.
I don’t see a problem with opposing illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is highly unfair. I don’t see how it helps our neighbors or our country. Turning a blind eye to those who would violate our borders just allows all kinds of problems to fester and grow. And in the mean time, people who would be good, hard working citizens are prevented from coming in to our country and improving it as well as helping themselves and their individual families.
Bob, I want to end illegal immigration and allow all your legal immigrants in as well. I want to end illegal immigration by making legal immigration massively easier for everyone.
But more illegal immigrants are good, hard-working residents needs to not be overlooked. The bottom line is that those with nothing to lose are not going to lawfully starve on the other side of the border. It is galling that more established people are kept out, but I don’t think that is the fault of the illegal immigrants.
Back in the days of the iron curtain we applauded people who escaped across the border of East Germany. I don’t see why I should feel much different about people who escape over the border to feed themselves and raise families.
Again, I agree that the discrepancy is galling, but I want to alleviate all of it at once.
I think you’re exactly right about how opting for a third party because one is too fastidious to support the major party candidates on fairly purist grounds, is either hypocritical or self-defeating. Of course, if you’re really convinced that both are so bad you can’t vote for them, and that a minor party candidate is arguably better, that’s one thing. But if you construct your rhetoric around your belief that every flaw you can find is a non-negotiable, you’re left either having nowhere to go, or having to cheat on your standards for the third party and pretend that some evils are less evil than others — after you’ve already staked out the ground that evil is evil is evil.
And then there’s the thing that’s always bugged me — that somehow basic competence or demonstrated ability to lead isn’t a valid measure for a Christian to use to decide his vote, if the candidate is representing a rhetorically idealistic position. And I’m not talking about worldly or wonkish measures of “competence” or “experience,” but just some demonstration of the ability to do the job we’re asking him to do, beyond the ability to mouth the right words on how it should be done — things that we’d expect of anyone we supported for any level of power or authority that we considered close to home.