GREAT BEND, Kan. - According to polling data, the Democratic party has a low approval rating among American voters. But the Republican party's approval rate is even lower than the Democrats. The "Tea Party" - an informal group of anti-tax, anti-big government folks is approved by more Americans than either major party.
People are angry at Democrats, but they remember why they voted out Republicans in 2008. Republicans gleefully assume that they will be the beneficiaries of all this voter anger at Democrats in the 2010 elections.
Don't be so sure. Chuck Todd, NBC's political director, indicates that the angry voters may turn to "a third force" other than the Republicans or Democrats. Republicans initially assumed that the Tea Party's interests would be identical with their interests. However, there is already some infighting between the Republican party and the Tea Party.
The Tea Party doesn't loudly talk about social issues like abortion or same-sex marriage. Instead, it focuses on "anti-government" and "anti-taxation" and "anti-deficit spending." In other words when government gets too big and powerful, "We the People" get crushed.
The Tea Party has a fatal flaw: it focuses 100% on Big Government as "the oppressor of the people", and completely ignores the fact that Big Corporations are also "the oppressor of the people" today. The Tea Party has no anti-corporate beliefs whatsoever. And that will prevent it from growing.
The only third-party force with a strong anti-corporate tilt is the Green Party and Ralph Nader - a liberal voice that has little chance of success. The Tea Party shouts: "Government is too big and powerful and tramples on the people." And the Green Party shouts: "Corporations are too big and powerful and are trampling on the people."
So people who want to get away from the two parties have only two choices: the conservative Tea Party, or the liberal Green Party. But what if a person, or movement came along that combined both left and right? It's hard to get left-leaning people and right-leaning people to agree on much. But what if someone came along and focused on those things that both ends of the spectrum agreed on? It happened in 1992, when billionaire Ross Perot made a very serious run at the Presidency.
If someone like Ross Perot came along today - an independent or third-party candidate who was both a deficit hawk and anti-corporate - now that's a combination that could really mobilize alot of people. In other words, lots of people, regardless of ideology believe both of these propositions:
- Big Government is trampling on "We the People."
- Big Corporations are trampling on "We the People."
If someone comes along that is charismatic, wealthy, and can bring people together on those two points, it would be "Katy, bar the door."
Perot was a political platypus. Perot railed against excess government spending, but he had another basic viewpoint that is usually not paired with being anti-tax: he knew that big corporations would put profits before the American people and send jobs overseas. He was for "the people" and against ANY entity that took economic or political power away from the people, whether it was Big Government or Big Business.
Perot's opposition to NAFTA and the WTO sent shivers down the spine of the transnational corporations who basically run the show in Washington. And his anti-deficit rants frightened those people and corporations who benefit from government spending, including defense contractors.
So Perot was conservative on government spending, but liberal on policing corporations. It was a good blend that brought people together. He could have been elected President in 1992, but made some missteps along the way.
The one-party plutocracy has no real problem with far-right conservatives starting a third party, or with far left liberals starting a third party. Neither would have a chance to win.
But if someone - or some movement came along that was both anti-corporate AND anti-Big Government - that would scare the one-party plutocracy half to death. In other words, no force - be it government or corporations - should pull more weight than "We the People."
It probably won't happen.
But it could.
Marty, it probably won't happen because 'we the people' are afraid of pioneering new territory. It's safer to choose our perceived lessor of the two evils that dominate the political arena.
Third party candidates don't have a very good record of success. Their main contribution has been in forcing the major parties to address issues that both would like to avoid, on the campaign trail.
Ken, very good point. One of my political science teachers at KU---Al Cigler---said in 1979 in my American Political Parties class: "The system is rigged to ensure a two party system." Take, for instance, the electoral college. It requires 51% of electors to be elected President. No third party will ever get 51%, so they give up.