Entry: The Third Party Illusion Wednesday, June 07, 2006



With all the Conservative anger directed toward Liberal Republicans these days over immigration and overspending (among other things), it's only natural that talk turns to third party politics as the midterm elections approach. Even such a Republican stalwart as Peggy Noonan, special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and chief speechwriter for President George H. W. Bush, recently wondered in a Wall Street Journal op-ed whether it might be the right time for a new political party. The answer, sadly, is no.

Slick-talking professional politicians with what seem like lifetime appointments to Congress have soured people on both sides of the aisle, the Left no less than the Right. Many people feel their voices aren't being heard (unless, of course, they speak Spanish or ask for government handouts). But while the Democratic party remains intact, making a break to a third party can only be disastrous for Conservatives.

Generally speaking, in many states as well as nationwide, the number of those who vote Republican and Democrat are pretty close to even. For starters, no third party can really get of the ground without adequate financial backing and charismatic, effective leadership. Given those things, a Right-leaning third party still only has two ways to win. They can take all Republican votes without missing any, or take votes from both sides. Either way, the end result would be the same.

If a truly Conservative third party emerged, there's no way it would take all the votes that normally go to the Republican party. Even if it managed to avoid the religious overtones and isolationism of the Constitution or America First parties, not all Republican voters are really Conservative. The only way a third party could completely replace the Republican party would be to duplicate the Republican party, which would put Conservatives right back in the same position we currently occupy.

Furthermore, a growing Conservative party would force the Republican party to become even more Liberal than it currently is, to retain power by taking votes from among the more Conservative Democrats. In the end, America would have a medium-sized Conservative party, a small middle-Right party, and a Democratic party not much smaller than it is now -- and stripped of its moderate voters. With two opposing parties to its Left, a Conservative party would have a hard time pushing its agenda.

Suppose a middle-right party like the Libertarians (fiscally Conservative, but socially Liberal) gained power? A middle party would weaken both Republicans and Democrats, forcing both parties to play more to their respective bases. Good for Conservatives, right? No. Again, the smaller, more Conservative Republican party would face a pair of more Liberal parties, and have a tough time passing Conservative legislation.

So what's the answer -- just lie down and take whatever the Republican elites dish out? Hardly. The best answer, as long as the Democratic party remains whole, will require time and effort. First, Conservatives must use the primary election process to replace Liberal Republicans with their more Conservative opposition. That's the point to holding primaries.

Second, voters must pay closer attention to their candidates for office and how they vote. It's easy to throw up your hands and proclaim, "I won't vote for any more Republicans!" The problem is that your Senators and Representative might not merit replacement for the reasons that you want change. For instance, only four Republican Senators running for re-election in 2006 voted for the Senate's illegal immigration amnesty bill -- Lincoln Chafee (RI), Mike DeWine (OH), Richard Lugar (IN) and Olympia Snowe (ME). Throwing those four out of office, even at the cost of allowing Democrats to take those seats, would send the right message. When the other Republicans who voted for amnesty come up for re-election, they'll have to go through a primary election as well. That's the right time to remove them from office.

On the other hand, voting against Senators like Rick Santorum (PA), John Ensign (NV) or George Allen (VA) out of anger over illegal immigration would be ridiculous, as they all came out strongly against the amnesty bill. Intelligent, careful voting is the way to take back the Republican party without putting the Democrats in charge.

A third way to make your voice heard is with your wallet. The national Republican party might see the message in dwindling contributions, while your money might be better spent directly on a more Conservative candidate with whose positions you agree.

It's not a fast or easy process, but real change rarely is.

   17 comments

Anna Venger
June 7, 2006   05:26 PM PDT
 
Well said. I read that Peggy Noonan article a couple weeks ago when it first came out and found it disturbing. Splitting the Republican party, which I am afraid is where a third party would come from primarily, would not help conservatives at all. I don't think I will ever vote for a third party unless I know it has a real chance or my vote will count for so little that it would be worth it for a statement, and boy, I'd have to be really sure. Perot, for example, got 19% of the vote, but it was the Republican party that was hurt most. I don't see where anything has changed. So until there are real changes in choices (or we toy with a coalition govt) I think we should follow your ideas and remember that "friends don't let friends vote democratic".
Name
June 8, 2006   11:17 AM PDT
 
RE:On the other hand, voting against Senators like Rick Santorum (PA), John Ensign (NV) or George Allen (VA) out of anger over illegal immigration would be ridiculous, as they all came out strongly against the amnesty bill. Intelligent, careful voting is the way to take back the Republican party without putting the Democrats in charge.


This is a perfect example of shallow minded analysis or misdirection. The senate amnesty bill would not even be on the floor if Majority leader Frist did not want it to be and all these so called good republicans voted for Frist to be majority leader. (well not really, bush picked frist to be his personal sap) If the majority of senate republicans oppose amnesty then why is their leader bringing it to the floor? See the scam? All republican senators are just as responsible.
JM
June 8, 2006   11:37 AM PDT
 
>All republican senators are just as
>responsible.

Now, THAT'S a shallow-minded analysis. Let me get this straight: you want to attack Santorum and Allen because Bush picked Frist, because Frist allowed a bill that Bush favored, but that we don't like, to be introduced by McCain? Does that even make any sense? Seriously, you're just lashing out in anger, which won't do anyone (but the Democrats) any good.

>If the majority of senate
>republicans oppose amnesty then
>why is their leader bringing it to
>the floor?

The Senate does not work like the House, where the Speaker has more say in what bills are brought up.
Name
June 8, 2006   12:34 PM PDT
 
Conservatives
The Republican Party is Pro-Amnesty and Pro-Illegal Alien


Why is Bush arm-twisting Republican House members to support amnesty?

Don’t get fooled! The Republican leadership is pro-amnesty and they will assemble a coalition of patsy democrats and safe seat Republicans to pass it.

It is up to you to show the pro-amnesty Republican party that there is no such thing as a “safe seat Republican” by voting against every Republican on the ballot on election day 2006 if amnesty becomes law.

The PRICE of amnesty must be loss of the Republican majority and the way to accomplish that is to vote against every Republican on the ballot on election day 2006 or stay home.

If amnesty passes the Republican party is no longer worth supporting.
Name
June 8, 2006   12:56 PM PDT
 
Dear Republican,

If amnesty for illegal aliens becomes law I will vote against EVERY republican (at all levels) on the ballot on Election Day 2006

It does not matter if you are a U.S. Senator who voted against amnesty

It does not matter if you are a U.S. Representative who voted against amnesty( we remember how you tricked and betrayed us with 245i)

It does not matter if you are a state or local republican

Every republican at every level is expected to stop amnesty from becoming law......and if you don’t........then

If amnesty for illegal aliens becomes law I will vote against EVERY republican (at all levels) on the ballot on Election Day 2006

Remember,it is MY vote, not yours!
IL Conservative
June 8, 2006   01:10 PM PDT
 
Always vote your principles and you can't go wrong.
The only wasted vote is a vote against your principles.
If the republican most represents your principles and has shown it by voting against amnesty and there is no one else that is a better selection then vote for the republican. Voting based on a party label alone is unintelligent.
Take the gubernatorial race in IL as an example.
Oberweis who was actually a conservative spent lots of money in the primary and still lost to Topinka, who is any but a conservative. Now we have a third party candidate named Stufflebeam who is running as part of the Constitution Party. He is pro-life, pro-family, pro-2nd ammendment, and a real conservative. According to this blog I should vote for Topinka, who is Pro-death, Anti-family, Anti-gun, and as liberal as they come, simply because she has an (R) after her name. That would be worse than wasting my vote, that would be voting against all that I stand for. If people would vote principle instead of party then we would not have liberals like Spector as part of a supposedly conservative party. It is like saying you are a Cubs fan, but then rooting for the Cards because they have a better chance of winning the world series. Ok, so the team you rooted for may win the world series, but the team you say you are a fan of still did not win. Vote your principles.
Name
June 8, 2006   01:21 PM PDT
 
The Republican party controls everything right now and they are responsible for the illegal alien invasion. Treasonous President Bush supports the invasion of the U.S. by illegal aliens. President Bush wants to reward illegal alien invaders for breaking the law with amnesty. If amnesty passes it is because the controlling majority Republican party wants it to pass. Don't give me any simplistic nonsense about individual voting records. The controlling majority Republican leadership will assemble a voting coalition of democrat patsies and safe seat republicans to scam it through. The republican party at large is responsible. Don't get fooled by their musical chairs voting record. Amnesty can not become law unless the Republican party wants it to become law. The minority party can not pass anything by themselves.
JM
June 8, 2006   01:32 PM PDT
 
>The Republican party controls
>everything right now

Is that a fact? You don't seem to understand how the government works, at all. Republicans have a majority, but not control. And not all Republicans are Conservative.

>they are responsible for the illegal
>alien invasion

You mean the one that's been going on for twenty years?

>President Bush supports the
>invasion

I'll be sure never to vote for him again.

>Don't give me any simplistic
>nonsense about individual voting
>records.

I wasn't sure before, but now I'm nearly certain that you're actually a Liberal in disguise, trying to use anger over the illegal alien amnesty to put Democrats in power.
JM
June 8, 2006   01:35 PM PDT
 
>Voting based on a party label
>alone is unintelligent.

Agreed. That's why we have to get off our asses and put more Conservatives in place during the primaries, instead of waiting until the actual election and THEN whining because the Republican candidate isn't Conservative enough.
Name
June 8, 2006   03:57 PM PDT
 
The arrogance displayed by JM it typical of the arrogance that the Republican party displays to conservatives. They only need conservatives at election time. The rest of the time they are cannon fodder. The plutocrat republicans call the shots. Conservatives are taught to remain ignorant and be easily distracted. But when conservatives realize that they put in a lot of grass roots activism and they are not ignorant and they will not be silent people like JM pull their coined response. "You're a liberal"!!!!

JM's message to conservatives is KNEEL and vote R no matter what or else you will get called a liberal.

We will see on election day 2006 the day of conservative payback. Conservatives can either vote write-in, 3rd party, stay home or if they are really angry over amnesty vote D as payback. Just don't vote R.

In the closely divided electorate we are in, a very small percentage of conservatives can be decisive. oh but wait, we are not supposed to know that. According to JM we must be ignorant, silent and vote R no matter what otherwise you are a liberal.
Payback Election Day2006
JM
June 8, 2006   04:32 PM PDT
 
>if they are really angry over
>amnesty vote D as payback

Now we come to the point of your comments. Only a Liberal would urge Conservatives to vote Democrat out of sheer anger -- especially since amost every single Democrat voted FOR amnesty. You're not fooling anyone with your fake Conservative pose.
Name
June 8, 2006   05:53 PM PDT
 
RE:Now we come to the point of your comments. Only a Liberal would urge Conservatives to vote Democrat out of sheer anger --

haha- you are inexperienced Conservatives have indeed voted D out of payback over illegal immigration. The RNC looked at this one and couldn't believe it. Their arrogance blinded them. It cost a R congressman his seat in a strongly R district in 2002. You should already know this. Perhaps you are confusing conservative with castrated. Either way you are clearly not out in the front lines with grass roots conservative activists.
Not all conservatives will vote payback. That is true. But as I pointed out, a few per cent will and that is all that is necessary in the closely divided electorate that we are in. These few percent of conservatives will decide which party will be in power and if amnesty becomes law-----Payback Party on election day 2006
JM
June 8, 2006   06:03 PM PDT
 
Sure, you just keep hoping that Conservatives are dumb enough and angry enough about illegal immigration to vote your party of gay marriage, higher taxes, cutting and running and abortion into power... a party which still wouldn't fix the illegal immigration problem. Good luck with that.
rightwingprof
June 10, 2006   03:37 PM PDT
 
<blockquote>Treasonous President Bush</blockquote>

Apparently, we have moonbat wackjobs on the right as well as those on the left.
Maureen
June 11, 2006   12:40 PM PDT
 
Well, that was quite interesting, if not down right hysterical.
MrMeaner
June 11, 2006   05:43 PM PDT
 
I have to agree.
"Name" is obviously a troll.
We should vote out the RINOs who support illegal immigration.
But to punish all Republicans, including a few who could potentially be among our best choices for POTUS, is asinine.
Well Cav, I guess you're big-time now. You have your own trolls.

As far as a third party, I think we should wait for the left to implode and split into factions,first.
They are going to have to,eventually, or else face mass-defection to the right over the immigration issue. (that is,if we can replace or convince enough of our guys to be on the right side of the issue) It may be that we reach a point where there are enough defectors to go along with the majority of the constituency of the right to slap our guys back to reality.

BTW, I haven't been here in a while, but I can't help but notice that this is actually one of the better written blogs I've ran across in a while. And all of the subjects are actually interesting!..That's rare.
I'm going to have to move Cav toward the top of my bookmarks, into the regular rotation. Kudos!
JM
June 11, 2006   08:58 PM PDT
 
Well, thanks, MrMeaner; I guessyou just belied your name.

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments