Raising the topic of more viable parties in American politics is an awful lot like speculating about a cure for the common cold. It would seem inevitable, and do so much good. It’s also something of a head-shaking lost cause.
Yes, money and the influence of the Citizens United decision is devastating to our democracy.
But having watched campaigns for three decades the primary problem I see is this: it’s a zero-sum game. If Mitt Romney or Donald Trump’s campaign stumbles because one said something silly about Hispanics or someone only loosely in his ideological camp pumps out comments on women more appropriate for the boozy office of “Mad Men’s” Don Draper, we see Hillary Clinton or President Barack Obama’s fortunes climb slightly.
Should job numbers emerge weaker than expected at the end of a quarter, or gas prices soar under Joe Biden, or if Jeremiah Wright delivers a provocative sermon, or a new spin on the Clinton email server hits the media, then throw the dynamic in reverse. The daily cascade of emails and blog posts and talk radio spouting reflects this. Build up, knock down, build up, knock down. It’s like match play in golf.
In this two-party circus of big tents, New York’s Al Sharpton and West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, are both Democrats, and Terry Branstad and Bob Vander Plaats, the latter with his pre-Iowa statehood era perspective, call themselves Republicans.
This contributes to a politics turning more on cult of personality than platforms of ideas. Obama is either the secular Black Jesus or a foreign interloper. Imagine the fate of the Democratic Party for three election cycles had John Edwards been its standard-bearer as he carried on with a paramour. Let’s not forget, he was the vice presidential candidate in 2004.
The way to curtail this destructive politics and to jettison the hero worshipping and the devil casting is not just the addition of a third party, the pipe dream of good folks in the middle coming together around someone with an accountant’s eye for numbers and a special-education teacher’s patience.
No, we need at least six viable political parties: Social Conservative, Libertarian, Liberal, Democratic Moderates, Republican Moderates and something akin to The Green Party, one operating with the noble philosophy we are but temporary stewards of the planet. Maybe even a Rural Party — since we are 20 percent of the population and could build a political organization to fight in a world where the demographics are trending against us on central issues.
Iowa State University’s Steffen Schmidt has talked about the multi-party concept as well. He suggests four parties.
Too often, taking the Americans Elect approach, attempts at the third party are made with an eye on White House politics, Which makes sense. It’s national. The whole country is watching.
But what if a collection of the ideological elite selected one state — say Iowa, since we are something of a political Garden of Eden — and established multiple parties, recruited candidates for county and legislative offices, established platforms and headquarters. All at once. The year 2000 saw the temporary relevance of the Green Party in the form of Ralph Nader as a spoiler. That’s destructive and plays into the zero-summing of politics.
With more parties, Americans could build loyalties to ideas, to platforms, that would have at the top of them leaders who are easily exchanged, more disposable servants of the agenda than indispensable personalities. Get someone else. Some candidate for The Social Conservatives gets caught in a state park restroom with a boy? Cut him loose.
Think how the news cycles and the flow of political dialogue would change. If the Democratic Moderates took a PR hit it wouldn’t necessarily — by default — boost the standing of the Moderate Republicans. Our elected officials would have to develop coalitions to govern. It takes the skills of builders to do this.
The experiments of the Greens and the failure of Americans Elect aren’t bold enough. You can’t build just a third party. The change will come when several advocates of new parties pick a common spot and develop the infrastructure with an eye on a state legislature.
Spend the billions now on advertisements and PACs and tilt one election or change the system for the long haul. Of course, columnists are great at spending other people’s money.
(Editor’s Note: Pleased to be part of the Iowa Writers Collaborative. Look for the stable of writers to grow.)
I really Doug--okay, you know what comes next. But I disagree this is a wise strategy at this point in our history. The below podcast made the point by asking who is going to join the newly formed Forward party. This question was answered by arguing that none of the MAGA groups, leaders, or members are going to join the new 'party'. They will stick with the Trump party. While I am a former elected D official, I have frustration with strategy and tactics employed, especially by our national party, i.e. campaigning against Meier in Mich. This podcast points out the challenges of what Yang wants, creating one new party. Multiple parties would only multiply the problems Listen to Saagard Marshall kick off The Realignment's new season by discussing Andrew Yang's new political party https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/270-season-premiere-saagar-marshall-discuss-andrew/id1474687988?i=1000574748357 Again, at this point in time, when our democracy is at a turning point, I want to focus on messaging and grassroots organizing, not structure of parties (regardless of your views on abortion, see Kansas)
Doug--I love it! Amazing concept. Many Americans identify with platforms not represented by conventional Rs and Ds. Makes me interested in the history of how parties have developed and changed over the past two centuries. Liz Cheney is posed to present the fact of at least one new party! And the Party of Trump could just fade away...Chris Louscher