I've been thinking for a while about third parties and independent candidates, and the impact they have on a political system that sometimes looks more like a duopoly than it really is. In fact, I had intended on writing about it for the past few weeks, and other topics kept getting in the way (necessarily). But the recent turmoil in the Kansas race for the Senate seat currently held by Pat Roberts provides a way, and an excellent opportunity, of illustrating graphically how third-indy candidacies could be of benefit to progressives, and even to the Democrats as a party.
Kansas, in fact, currently provides the most compelling illustration of this point. Here is a case where the Democratic candidate has formally, publicly, dropped out of the race--and the net result is that progressives have a real shot at picking up a Senate seat in one of the country's reddest states. Why? Because the Democratic candidate's support is going to an independent candidate who has publicly supported progressive causes, but shed the institutional baggage of the national Democratic party. Doubt it? The national Republican Party isn't doubting it. They sent in one of their own to try flogging Robert's chances back to life, while hiding behind the partisan decision of the Republican Kansas Secretary of State to leave the Democrat on the ballot.
This latter action serves to underscore how much Republican success depends on maintaining the us-against-them dialogue that currently "serves" (poorly) as our national political discourse. At the same time, the collapse of Republican Governor Sam Brownback's supply-side policies and, along with it, his own re-election chances, illustrate what happens when bad ideas are given a chance to flourish. Not surprising, they amply illustrate their badness. Put together, the Brownback disaster and the rise of an independent progressive candidate help to illustrate an important practical point about politics: when the focus is off of institutions (i.e., parties) and on ideas, good ideas win. And that means that progressive ideas win.
As much as progressives hate Bill Clinton (sometimes with reason, like the repeal of Glass-Steagall), the fact of his presidency illustrates what can happen when a campaign gets beyond the institutional duopoly and into issues and ideas. The end of the Cold War and the rise of the federal deficit created an opportunity for a third-party candidate, Ross Perot, to address the deficit issue in a non-partisan way, and raised the discussion about the issue to a then-unprecedented level. Clinton's contribution was to recognize what Perot had done and fold the issue into his own campaigning. The long-run result--the Clinton surplus--was an achievement Democrats continue to brag about. But it wouldn't have happened without Perot.
If it ends up being the case (and it may very well be the case) that the Kansas race decides control of the Senate in favor of the Democrats, and if I were a major fundraising player on the progressive side, I'd start to take a hard look at how third-indy candidates could help to break up the political duopoly in states where there is, for all practical purposes, a red monopoly. If doing so can help to get progressive ideas past the bullies and into the hearts and minds of the people, and those people elect candidates willing to coalition with Democrats, who wins? Right, progressives. And progressive ideas.
And, ultimately, all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment