|
| The third-party Catch-22 |
|
In America's history, good ideas, and the determination it takes to make them succeed, are almost commonplace. We are a nation that has prided itself on innovation, on making something come to life and succeed. All of us know inspiring stories of great businesses that began in someone's garage. Our history is filled with such stories, and we delight in repeating them, because it gives us hope for the future. The great immigrations to America were made by people who came here to "make their dream come true" with nothing more than sound ideas and hard work. Despite that history... despite the fact that we've seen so many good ideas grow from nothing to immense successes, so many of us still don't give similar new ideas the benefit of the doubt. I get such skeptical feedback frequently, because I push new ideas. When I decide to push an idea, I have already projected how it can be brought to success... it's more than a pipe dream, and I can explain all that, but I often don't get a chance. I meet resistance... not based on reason, but on the premise that "it must not be a good idea because there isn't already a mob of people involved", or because "something might not work". I like to use the example of the Sturgis Rally, the annual motorcycle "event" in South Dakota that draws about a half-million people together each year, even though it started with 2 riders who decided to parade down main street and get together for sandwiches afterward. It's had 63 years to grow, and I imagine there were a lot of naysayers along the way. Ideas for new commercial products get similar skepticism, and comments like "if it was a good idea, one of the big corporations would have done it long ago". What does that have to do with the Libertarian Party being marginal in the political arena? There are several comments libertarians hear so often that we really should create a multiple-choice "excuse card" for people to fill out, so they don't have to say them aloud. 1. If you people had more clout, I'd be with you in a minute. Objection 4, that it makes sense to vote for one person to prevent another from being elected is playing right into the strategy of both parties. Even though they cooperate between elections, when campaigning starts, they demonize each other precisely to pick up "we have to stop him from winning" votes, and to rouse the "party faithful" who might otherwise not bother to vote. Objection 5 occurs only because nobody is sure what the positions of the major parties are. Libertarians, on the other hand, are very clear about their positions, and don't mince words. Given the number of issues involved, for anyone to reject any party for one position, while agreeing on all others, makes no sense. To seek a party that agrees perfectly with you is to reject all parties... it just ain't probable. The first 3 objections become self-fulfilling. If all the people with objections 1, 2, and 3 were to join the LP, and/or support libertarian candidates, it would attract front-page media attention and create a bandwagon effect that could quickly eliminate those objections. As long as voters treat party selection like choosing a football team to root for, they're stuck with the "big two", and nothing will ever improve. The desire to "pick a winner" rather than supporting the party or candidate that will do what you think is right, is keeping alternative parties from making progress. It's an attitude that helps limit your own choices to the major parties. So... third parties have a serious Catch 22: You can't have a chance of winning unless you already have a chance of winning. Witness the fascinating results of a poll taken after the Wisconsin gubernatorial race in which Libertarian Ed Thompson got 10.5% of the vote. The poll showed that Ed would've gotten 23% if the voters thought he could have won. There are plenty of libertarian voters out there, but that doesn't mean that they'll join the party or support libertarian candidates. According to a September, 2000 survey by Rasmussen Research, 16% of Americans -- about one of every six voters -- strongly support libertarian positions on issues, compared to only 13% who are staunchly liberal and 7% who are consistently conservative. Another 32% of Americans are centrists, 14% are "authoritarians," and 17% fall on "the borders" of the different categories Maybe the voters are satisfied with the 2 major parties? A recent Zogby poll asked about the "fit" with the two major parties. Here are the questions: Since virtually all elections are won by either a Democrat or a Republican, you would expect that the responses would be stacked fairly high. Here are the actual responses: "How often does the Democratic Party speak for you when you go to the polls?"
One might be tempted to dismiss the "Never" votes as loyal votes against the other party, but, if that were true, wouldn't you expect the "All the time" votes be at about the same level? It seems clear to me that these results indicate that very few people are enthusiastic about either major party. Have American voters resigned themselves to having a two-faced, one-party system? It often appears so, at least on a national level. Libertarians do well in local elections, probably because the issues are REAL to the voters... less abstract... the issues hit them where they live, and they'll vote for candidates who make sense. Currently, over 300 Libertarians hold elective office, more than twice as many as all other third parties combined. Tomorrow, I'll talk about handicaps imposed by the big parties, and about how Libertarians handicap themselves. |
| # -- Posted 7/25/03; 12:09:36 AM |
 |
Many Americans seem to resist ideas unless they can see that many others have already endorsed them. I happen to be an "idea guy", and have been paid for the ability to come up with ideas, and to enable them to come to life.