Slowly and surely, Americans are beginning to tire of the two-party system that has polarized politics for the better part of this nation's history. In 1992, seventeen percent of those who voted did so for a raving, lunatic billionaire who backed out of the race a few months prior to the election only to buy his way back in and make the largest gain by a third party since Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party split up Republicans in 1912 and gave the win to Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Now, as the 1996 presidential race is well under way, the big question remains whether Colin Powell will run as a Republican or a Democrat - or an independent. Moreover, Perot is still around with his Freedom(?) Party. Given today's political climate of non- issues, infighting, and blatant lying to the public, the voters who determine this country's leadership have every right to question the Republican- Democrat dichotomy that is plaguing the land.
First of all, the presence of only two political parties damages the parties themselves. Despite what a few hopelessly optimistic right-wing conservatives claim, the Republican Party is indeed split into two major factions: libertarians and fundamentalists. Anyone who closely follows politics knows that libertarians such as Massachusetts Governor William Weld and fundamentalists such as columnist Patrick Buchanan are at each others' throats on the issues - and that each one has a sizeable following. The two are even more different from each other as Bush and Clinton were in 1992, and clearly do not belong in the same party.
Likewise, the Democratic Party has been plagued by ideological setbacks. In 1994, the more liberal of the lot, such as Mario Cuomo and Dan Rostenkowski, were voted out of office. Some, like Georgia senator Sam Nunn, have called it quits. And a few others, like Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, have swiched over to the Republican Party. The Harley-riding, ponytailed Campbell is as much a Republican as he was a Democrat, which further illustrates the absurdity of two political extremes running the show. More and more Democrats, especially Billy-boy, are starting to sound like Republicans on the regrettably important non-issue of "family values." Regardless of whether these sentiments are real or typical political maneuvering, the fact remains that there exist more ideologies than adequately represented by the two major political parties.
What does this mean for the voters during the more important elections? For starters, only one individual and a virtually insignificant running mate represent the two major parties on a ballot. That individual has no way of truly appealing to the diverse makeup of the party, and people are left voting for someone with whom they might agree on only a few of the many important issues that face this nation.
Also, philosophies that differ from the two major candidates are currently left to be represented by tiny, Dark Horse parties rather than by better-known politicians. These politicians are better-known only because of party affiliation. This vicious circle can only be broken by a proliferation of more political parties (not just a third). If that was the case today, libertarianism in 1996 might have been represented by Weld instead of the much overlooked Libertarian Party, and socialism might have been represented by Ted Kennedy instead of the hopeless Socialist Party. Liberalism, of course, would continue to be represented by Bill Clinton, and Bob Dole would be running as a conservative. Neo-fascist Patrick Buchanan would be able to run under his own party and concentrate on those oh-so-important social issues as much as he wants without having to go through a primary in which a Dole, Gramm, or even a Weld would surely come out ahead.
To be sure, the blame for the polarization of American politics does not lie entirely with the politicians, but also with the voters that keep maintaining the Republican-Democrat status quo despite the presence of many other parties. Clinton's victory in 1992 and the Republican landslide in 1994 both came about because people wanted "change." Change to what? We have all seen where various combinations of Republicans and Democrats have gotten us in the past, yet people continue to vote for them. A Clinton or a Gingrich step up to the podium, and basically claim, "Our party is the way, the truth, and the light," and the presence of only two prominent choices on the ballot ensures that the people keep buying into the established dichotomy.
The good news is that the people are buying it less and less. Why else would so many rational, average Americans have voted for an arrogant, impatient little nationalist in 1992? For what reason do so many Americans support the idea of a Powell candidacy even though no one, including Powell himself, appears to know where he stands on any of the issues? Simple. The people want some variety. And the two major parties know that. Why else would so many Republicans, for example, dismiss the Libertarian Party as a bunch of anarchists even when Weld recently referred to himself as a libertarian on a radio program? Because they know that people are beginning to tire of infighting within the parties and are looking for something more. And if enough people actually muster the courage to vote for a third party candidate, that pary will go from being simple a good-sounding idea and become a desired reality. Keep this in mind in 1996 when deciding between Bill Dole or Bob Clinton.