Editorial

Wrong Light, Wrong Tunnel

Third parties and campain finnce reform may be popular solutions to the failures of the US electoral system. What does that mean for you? About as much as the two would do good for the system: probably not much.

These are dismal times for U.S. electoral politics. We are told that we have two identical candidates supported by two identical parties, fueled more by money than by popularity, and that participation is at an all-time low. Illustrative are news articles from the summer:

Republican nominee G.W. Bush has collected $100 million in campaign contributions, the most any candidate for office has ever raised.

The Nation reports that 52 percent of Americans believe special interests have the most control in Washington (Congress topped out at 19 percent, voters with only five).

And who can forget that UPN's "WWF Smackdown" beat out CBS' Democratic convention coverage, as cyber-journalist Matt Drudge gleefully reported.

Based on the analysis of mainstream television pundits and newspaper columnists, the numbers indicate that the election is out of the voters' hands, money is increasingly more important than individual efforts, and no matter who wins, we are going to elect a President we don't want this November. Dissatisfaction with the mainstream candidates is an American institution all by itself, it seems.

Perhaps, however, there is a light at the end of this electoral tunnel. In recent elections and this year in particular, so-called third-party candidates have captured the American imagination like we haven't seen since Eugene V. Debs pulled in nearly a million votes in 1920. The argument that both parties have too much influence has been a persuasive one for a long time. Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader would all like to claim their title as political vanguard, but even Theodore made his own unsuccessful bid on his own Progressive Party ticket in 1912, and we've already covered socialist hero Debs.

To that end, some polls show independent non-affiliation rising, especially with the younger and (currently) less politically active. Ask around, and most twenty-somethings registered as an elephant or donkey have more than their share of reservations. Party loyalism at the University of Oregon is pretty much limited to the College Republicans, but crowded their meetings are not.

More recently, the issue of campaign finance reform has become the hallmark of reform-minded politicians seeking attention. Spearheaded by John "Luke Skywalker" McCain until he predictably tripped over Super Tuesday, the cause was promptly picked up - albeit clumsily - and waved around by Al Gore for all to see. The push to close the "loopholes" left open by the 1976 Supreme Court Buckley v. Vallejo ruling has become a cause celebre among younger voters.

However, it must be said that neither a "true third-party system" nor an overhaul of the laws regulating campaign contributions are going to save the American electoral process For instance, the likelihood of a strong third party to compete seriously with the mainstream is too improbable to consider. The emergence of two recently popular alternatives, the Greens and the Reformers (nee United We Stand America), has excited many a voter and even converted a fair number - but what have they done to change the shape of the political landscape?

The problem is not in the party system itself, but in the way people choose to organize: just as your average booze hound could opt for an Anchor Steam or Sheaf Stout at the local 7-11, he is more likely to pick up a forty of Pabst Blue Ribbon. Humans have the tendency to organize themselves, and in political participation, this is evidenced by the emergence of the large party "machine." Not only do they want to win, but they can attract the most number of voters by finding a candidate who appeals to a multitude of demographics. Hence your free-trading Democrat who criticizes the sensationalist media (Gore's selection, Joe Lieberman) and your pro-choice, moderate Republican (Hillary's opponent, Rick Lazio). In today's political nomenclature, they are not "contradictory." Instead, we say they are "balanced."

Compromise, of course, means that no one is happy. Perhaps the "lesser of two evils" should be rephrased as "the candidate you disagree with least." It isn't that the electoral system does not produce good candidates, it's just that there is no consensus on what makes a candidate good.

The major parties are themselves a conglomeration of concession and acquiescence. In fact, they're a lot like the coalition governments in France or Germany. Republicans and Democrats may have one platform, but each is born out of compromise among the many factions and wings under each umbrella. Just because Jerry Falwell and P.J. O'Rourke will both be voting for Bush, don't think that means they have the same views on religion, or drugs.

That the two parties are so similar speaks volumes about the political nature of Americans. The ideological differences between the mainstream left and right are so miniscule, one wonders why they waste the time of holding elections in the first place. Minority political views are ignored not because they are threatening and politically dangerous, but because not very many people share those ideals. The support just isn't there, and no matter what Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader may tell you (and on this they sound eerily similar), most Americans realize that everyone will eventually benefit from the promulgation of NAFTA.Truly, the American public agrees on a lot more than they don't. Sure, many people are concerned with the income gap and what they perceive as dishonest corporate practices, but these are the relatively insignificant breaks of living in a free society. Just because Microsoft bullies its way into new markets doesnÍt mean we should all divide into Prince Kropotkin's agrarian mini-utopias.

So where is this new third rail going to come from? Unless there is an unequaled rift in one of the parties, or a new issue pushes itself to the fore, it isn't. Even then, the likelihood of a third party to consistently poll around 30%, or even in the double digits is incomprehensible. This is not a bad thing in and of itself; just because a third party is not as widely popular as the Big Two does not mean they are not important contributors to the process. Often a third party's most useful function is to introduce new issues or attract a protest vote. Ralph Nader has been roundly criticized by left-wing groups who fear the election of George Bush, but here Nader is doing the right thing. Even if Al Gore does overcome this burden and become President, the party is aware of a shift in their base, and will factor their force into future legislation.

The other major issue which has more tangible support is campaign finance reform. It may seem a good idea to limit the amount of money any one person can donate to a political campaign, but the rules it draws around what is and is not acceptable means of participation are in many cases unethical.

Currently, donations to political parties and political action committees are not regulated; under many proposals, the hypothetical efforts of Bill Gates to pour millions into Republican party coffers would be illegal. To the many concerned with the persuasive power of money, this is comforting. But what about the non-hypothetical millions that Robin Williams or Barbra Streisand raise for the Democratic party by giving special concerts, open only to the elite and monied? This form of participation is allowed, but it takes no great thinker to realize that one individual made all of that money possible - even the loopholes have loopholes.

Secondly, money is only so influential in politics; it is far from an absolute. More often than not, money follows support rather than the other way around. John McCain was not rolling in money until the week after he won the New Hampshire primary; if Bush loses in November, McCain is the presumptive go-to guy for 2004. If money did convert efficiently into votes, we would be in year four of the Forbes administration, or year eight of the Perot era.

Whether the aggregate of society truly is skeptical or not, all Americans would like to think that they are worldly voters on whom no fast ones could be pulled, and they act accordingly.

The twin powers of money and organization are only as good or bad as the cause for which it is used. So long as we live in a free society, all participants deserve the benefit of the doubt, in all the ways in which they choose to participate.