[290] in libertarians
Time is Ripe...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vernon Imrich)
Mon Oct 3 15:23:20 1994
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 94 14:50:50 -0400
From: vimrich@flying-cloud.mit.edu (Vernon Imrich)
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
This should interest all of you. Note particularly the possible
characteristics of the new party which I underscored.
Food for thought for those who think a third party is too wild
or without foundation (i.e. the defeatists and "island builders.")
IMHO, the LP needs to seize this opportunity with a more mainstream
"reasonble" incremental approach to policy, while maintaining a
strong committment to long term principles.
NEW POLITICAL PARTY POSSIBLE
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Before there were Democrats, there were
Federalists. And the Whigs were big before Republicans came along
in the 1850s. Not to mention occasional rumblings from the Know
Nothings, the Free Soilers and the Greenbacks.
Yet for the past century and a half American politics has been
largely a two-party affair, with only an occasional threat to the
Democrat vs. Republican matchup in national, and most state,
elections.
But there is intriguing evidence that is changing, and more than
a fleeting chance that a new party could emerge before the end of
the century.
``I think the country is waiting for the invention of a new
party that looks a lot different than Republicans or Democrats do
right now,'' said Vin Weber, the former GOP congressman from
Minnesota.
Among the evidence to support such a view:
--Independent and third-party candidates are crowding ballots
this year.
--Party identification is dwindling, with more people identifying
themselves as independents than with either the Democratic or
Republican parties. This is particularly true among younger
Americans.
--Ross Perot got 19 percent in the 1992 presidential election,
even though he dropped out of the race and then got back in.
--53 percent of Americans think establishment of a third major
party is a good idea, up 10 points from a decade ago, according to
a new Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press survey of
3,800 adults nationwide.
``The economic realities of the country are remaking the middle
of the electorate,'' argues Times Mirror survey director Andy
Kohut. ``The post-industrial working class is not driven by
ideology.''
The reasons for this discontent are many, from anxiety over
global economic turmoil and stagnant wages to the increasingly held
view that there is little difference between the two national
parties -- that both are captive of wealthy special interests and
deaf to the concerns of average Americans.
``People see the political parties as a barrier to participating
in society rather than a conduit,'' argues Weber.
Still, for a new entry into national politics to became viable,
it would need a powerful personality at the top. The 1996
presidential election is viewed by most involved in this debate as
the logical steppingstone.
Few believe Perot could match his 19 percent if he ran again,
although he still gets that in hypothetical three-way races posed
by pollsters.
Now, the consensus favorite as the personality most likely
capable of launching a viable third party through a serious
presidential candidacy is Colin Powell, the retired chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In a trial-heat poll of 640 voters by Newsweek last week, Powell
beat President Clinton by 15 percentage points in a direct
face-off. In a three-way matchup, Clinton had 34 percent, Powell 30
percent and Republican Sen. Bob Dole 28 percent, with each figure
having a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 points.
Maverick GOP pollster Frank Luntz suggested Massachusetts GOP
Gov. William Weld also could fit the mold. Also, Connecticut Gov.
Lowell Weicker, a liberal Republican turned independent, has had
casual discussions with political operatives to kick around the
idea of a 1996 run.
To varying degrees, the sentiment that there is fertile ground
for a new party is shared across the political spectrum.
Gordon Black, a veteran pollster who is assisting several
fledgling new parties, argues in his recent book, ``The Politics of
American Discontent,'' that voters weakly attached to the
Democratic and Republican parties could be peeled off into a new
``centrist'' party that is somewhat conservative on economic issues
and moderate to liberal on social matters.
Similarly, Luntz says there are better than even odds of an
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
emerging new party that would be ``economically right, socially
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
left and based in states and localities.''
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In Black's view, this new party would be for term limits and a
balanced budget amendment, ideas advocated primarily by
conservative Republicans, but not afraid to make the case for more
education spending, generally a liberal cause. And it would steer
clear of divisive and distracting issues like abortion and gay
rights.
``A new party must avoid taking sides in the moral and cultural
debate,'' Black asserts.
Former Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas, a Clinton opponent in
the 1992 Democratic primaries, suggests a ``growing army'' favoring
deep deficit reduction and a balanced budget could prove the
foundation for a third party.
``The question is, who is going to deploy that army?'' Tsongas
said. ``I don't see a Republican who can do it. My instinct is it
depends on what (President) Clinton does vis-a-vis spending and
entitlement reform.''
Issues aside, advocates for a new party -- whether brand new or
through a major reshaping of one of the existing parties -- see
technology as the building block.
Instead of organizing based on where people live, voters would
be targeted based on what they do and where they rank in the
socioeconomic spectrum.
Cable television, computer networking and other technological
advances offer extraordinary opportunities to organize ``electronic
precincts,'' in Weber's words. ``The geographic precinct doesn't
exist any more.''
To Democrats, this new party debate is hardly new. But the fact
that it is still being waged shows the difficulties in giving an
existing national party a major face lift.
Clinton, after all, was the candidate of the Democratic
Leadership Council, a centrist group whose sole mission for nearly
a decade before the 1992 election was to remake the Democratic
Party and loosen its ties to labor unions and other liberal
interest groups.
``The intellectual work has been done for a new party,'' argues
DLC economist Rob Shapiro. While unwilling to concede just yet that
Clinton will fail to recast his party in the DLC's image, Shapiro
said the lessons of Clinton's 20 months in office hardly leave him
optimistic.
``There is a part of the fundamental base of the existing party
that cannot make a move to the new party, and this is because the
old party has been organized around interest groups,'' Shapiro
said. ``The prospect of making either of the two parties today into
a new party may be impossible.''
Labor unions and minorities are the groups foremost in Shapiro's
mind when he talks of the reluctance of powers in the Democratic
Party to change. His evidence is the fierce resistance of unions to
the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the liberal howling
over welfare reform.
For Republicans, the stumbling block to any major makeover could
prove to be Christian conservatives, the party's most reliable, yet
controversial, constituency.
The religious right's opposition to abortion and homosexual
rights clashes with the libertarian views on social issues found
among the majority of disaffected voters.
``This question about the religious right is one of the biggest
question marks in my mind,'' Weber said.
Weber believes that this desired ``new party'' can be created
from one of the existing parties, and he is urging fellow
Republicans to take the lead.
But Weber and other conservatives who gathered recently to
discuss the idea of a new party -- and a book Weber is writing for
the conservative Progress & Freedom Foundation on the subject --
believe the GOP's efforts so far are more cosmetic than
substantive.
For example, Weber applauded House Republicans for developing a
list of issues they promised would be voted on within 100 days of
voters electing a GOP House majority. But he said the list, which
includes term limits and a balanced budget amendment, is ``not very
revolutionary.''
Progress & Freedom Foundation fellow Michael Vlahos agrees, and
suggests that both parties are ``seen as indissolubly and
inexorably interwoven with the elites.'' As a result, he predicts
``a new party in terms of name and startup, and not simply a course
correction or internal shakeup or new focus.''
