Anyone alive and aware at the time remembers the 1992 Presidential bid by Ross Perot. In the summer of that year, Perot had a solid majority in most polls, with the eventual winner, Bill Clinton, a distant third. Perot, alas suffered from a politically fatal gun-shot wound to the mouth, dropping out of the race and showing the world his insidious paranoia, then getting back in the race after he had ceased to be taken seriously. He did manage to get 19% of the vote, and while he most likely didn't effect the outcome in any way, he did make everyone sit up and take notice of third parties and protest candidates.
In 2000, Ralph Nader made his most serious run at the White House. At the end of the Clinton era, the left was frustrated with Clinton's middle-of-the-road approach, and the right pretty much hated everything about the guy. With Gore and Bush, at least rhetorically, there really didn't seem to be much of a difference (although, to be honest, the press hated Gore so much that it was difficult to discern exactly what his positions were). Nader convinced enough people on the left (including me) that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties and candidates, and that if one was a serious liberal/left-winger, he was the only candidate who represented that particular perspective. While I do believe that the latter argument was generally correct, I do not think that was a good reason to vote for him. In fact, I have regretted ever since my vote for Nader. And not just my vote, but my public advocacy for him, and my parroting of the "Republicats" nonsense that spilled from Naderite literature.
If the previous six-and-a-half years have taught us nothing else, they have most surely taught us that there were, and are, very fundamental differences between the parties, and the candidates that represent them. This year, one need only glance at the opposing fields of presidential candidates to figure that out. While I know ideologues are not happy with the Democratic field (except for Dennis Kucinich), it seems to me that, even taking ideology in to account, any individual candidate on the Democratic side (with the possible exception of Joe Biden, who worries me on a number of levels) outshines the entire Republican field of candidates. Since Biden won't approach the nomination, this is why I have no fear or doubt about who will win the Presidential election next year.
The media, however, are getting all frothy over the possibility that New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg will make a vanity run at the White House as an independent. David Broder in particular has written a couple columns on the possibilities of a Bloomberg run.
I think Bloomberg will find little traction other than with Beltway pundits this year for one simple reason - the liberal and left-wing blogs. Unlike fifteen and seven years ago, this new dynamic has changed the way political discontent and action is focused and channeled. While there is nothing wrong in theory with third parties or third party runs at the White House (in New York, at least while I still was a resident, ballot access was so easy that, the first time I voted for President, in 1984, there were many tiny party candidates, including a whole array of socialists and leftists, as well as right-wing and single-issue candidates; my favorite was from the Temperance Party). In practice, however, they are ineffectual, doomed to failure, and steal much needed pressure from the mainstream debate. If there is a serious left-wing, or right-wing, or even middle-of-the-road third party run, it marginalizes that section of public debate; people can say, "Oh, so-and-so has that area marked off as his/her territory, and we don't have to take it seriously."
The best thing about the liberal blogs, for me, is the way they take citizen anger and frustration and channel it toward advocacy within our current system. Rather than create a ground for a fruitless, and most likely unsuccessful third party, Fire Dog Lake, The Daily Kos, MyDD, and others are taking activism mainstream. They are also having a demonstrable effect, not just upon the public debate, but upon practice as well. Just consider the all-nighter Harry Reid has called in the Senate; this was first advocated by a number of liberal blogs as a way of highlighting Republican obstructionism. Were they wasting time calling Harry Reid all sorts of names, giving up on him because he isn't perfect in some way or another, this session wouldn't be happening, and the Republicans wouldn't be called out for what they are.
I think that, at least in the near term, the hopes and dreams of third parties will wither on the vine because the best political protest is being used to push for real change within the system as it exists. It may never create the kind of structural change many, including myself, might prefer. It most certainly has had tangible results, however, and this only shows the possibilities inherent in keeping the pressure up.
Virtual Tin Cup
