Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, November 3, 1994 TAG: 9411030065
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-13 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
As one whose name has appeared on a ballot 10 times, I might have a basis for saying the campaign mode is seldom a politically wise place to conduct a symposium on serious subjects that will be faced in the governing mode, as Oliver North discovered when he ventured a sensible opinion that younger workers should be cut a better deal in Social Security. But the general rule of campaigning must be: Keep it simple and keep repeating it.
That said, it is not insensible for truly independent voters to look beyond the sound and fury to focus on what they see as signs of character in a candidate, or simply whether they "like" one person better than another.
Despite what people say about "voting for the man and not the party," close to 60 percent of the vote is locked in from day one for candidates representing the two major parties. In Virginia, this can be seen by tracking support for two very controversial candidates from the inception of the campaign. Or, it can be seen in those elections where a candidate of one party is scarcely known and hardly competitive in mobilizing the resources to make an effective run. Such candidates still get roughly a third of the vote.
In the end, most voters still feel more comfortable voting for a possible winner among the two major party candidates who has been at least competitive in paid advertising. It almost seems they believe something must be wrong with a candidate who lacks the clout to be seen frequently on television.
Can it be different? Yes, but you would have to change the Constitution in ways that go counter to our entire history of elections as a free-for-all. In reality, there is no practical way for voters to delegate responsibility as guardians of democratic institutions.
Is there a new political system struggling to be born? Many think so. Or, at least, they think there ought to be. In a recent major poll, 53 percent of Americans think establishing a third political party is a good idea, up 10 points from a decade ago.
This state of rancid disgruntlement is hardly new in American politics. When the times seem out of joint and the existing parties seem unable to scratch the itch, new forces seem naturally to arise, demanding the deck be reshuffled.
Our first real political party, the Federalist, arose over the protests of Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson to create the framework of a strong national government embodied in the Constitution. But those ideas soon ran afoul of an even stronger attachment to localism and the grievances of the "little man" in the South and West. Jefferson represented a new party, called Republican, long seen as the foundation of the modern Democratic Party, though the Sage of Monticello might not want to claim paternity.
In his first message to Congress, Jefferson laid down the program he saw correcting the imagined abuses of the Federalists: an end to internal taxes, retiring the national debt, reducing expenditures and reforming the "bloated" judiciary. As he said in that first message, "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy."
When the existing political parties, by this time called Democrats and Whigs, could not deal with the crisis of slavery and secession, the modern Republican Party was born to assert the supremacy of the national government. Given the recent posture of Republicans as the anti-government party, it's ironic that Lincoln was the spiritual heir of those great Federalists, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton.
So, both parties of today reversed their historic roots. And despite his original posturing as a conservative Democrat, we see Sen. Charles Robb making plain where he now stands: "I am very, very pleased and proud to be working with a president and a vice president and an administration who understand the role - the positive and constructive role - that government can play in our lives."
There have been four great third-party efforts in this century. The first three, Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, Robert LaFollette in 1924 and George Wallace in 1968, were decidedly populist in tone: the squeezed little man vs. the ever-fattening big man. But Wallace pointed to the present by protesting big government more than big business.
Without getting into the racial unrest that undergirded the Wallace campaign, Ross Perot also saw the federal government as the enemy, and used phrases similar to those Wallace had employed to claim there wasn't "a dime's worth of difference" between Democrats and Republicans in their ability to deal with the real cancer of deficit spending. Despite their relatively small vote, both Wallace and Perot had an enduring influence.
When and if a third political party succeeds in this country, it will join the fiscal conservatism and pro-business rhetoric traditionally favored by Republicans with the social liberalism of modern Democrats. This would appeal to the rising generation that believes Clintonism is bad but doesn't want the Rev. Pat Robertson inside the bedroom.
But Marshall Coleman isn't the first independent to discover that old loyalties die hard. As improbable as they are for the role of "ideal" candidate, North and Robb will get at least 80 percent of the vote.
And there may be a good reason for that: North and Robb clearly represent the only two brands of politics that have ever had much of a following in America. That is, whether the federal government should do less or more.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB