If there is more than one of them, why do we call them THIRD Partys? Why, for example, if the LP is a third party, are the Greens not a FOURTH Party? The Constitution Party a fifth, and so forth?

The designation, third party, is no mere arithmetic or numerical term. It is rather a qualitative labeling.

It’s about time we employed a little historical perspective in this great debate over the future course and organizational structure of the Libertarian Party.

In so doing, we will see just how bogus and futile the “reformers” arguments truly are.

Their agruments are entirely based on the ahistorical assumption that a “third” party is an institution of the same nature as the established partys, within the context of the American two-party system. But history shows this to not be the case.

This explains their unexamined premise, that the purpose of a third party is to win elections in the same manner as the established major partys, that it’s goals can only be achieved through a successful effort to supplant one of the major partys. It’s time to see how history overturns this premise.

While on the one hand,we see history clearly dispels this superficial, simplistic notion, to recognize this historic fact does not in any sense, as the reformers are so fond of implying, mandate the a given third party should not make geniune efforts to win elections, nor that such victories are in any way undesireable or inconsequential.

Much to the contrary. as Richard Winger has pointed out, there have been several cases in American history of third partys suppanting one of the established partys.

But in each such case, the successful third party advanced itself not by imitating the crassness of the established partys, but rather by repudiating it.

Of course, in a parlimentary system, there are multiple partys that compete on a more or less even basis with each other, although, as in Britian, there may still be a functional and traditional basis for dominance by two partys. But this is not the same situation as the American two-party system, with it’s winner-take-all, geographically based divisions.

In the parlimentary system, there is no intrinsic difference amoungst the various partys, except for their relative magnitude, a direct function of their popularity, but not an indication of inherent differences.

A critical distinction that must be made is between the two-party system that evolved and functioned reasonably effectively in the United States up until the latter twentieth century and the system into which we are currently and rapidly evolving. I consider it quite apt to refer to the former as the two-partys-only system.

I won’t bother to rehash the accelerating efforts to shut third partys out by the Republican/Democrat factions, but clearly, the intent is to reduce political discourse and options and consolidate power in the hands of the two factions. This is a distortion and denigration of the two party system. It serves to illustrate the essential role historically played by third partys and most importantly, illuminates the fundamental differences between the established partys on the one hand and third partys on the other.

With no other competitors, the loser on election day can afford to collude with the winner to shut other partys out, as it insures them no worse than second place. From an assured second place, with no other competitors, it’s never far to the top.

This looming problem must be addressed through educational efforts.

It is the nature of third partys in the American two party system to represent the concerns and aspirations of those who are dissatisfied with their voice and influence within the established partys. In order to do so, a third party must remain true to it’s convictions; it must show the electorate a consistent and sincere adherence to principle, electoral success notwithstanding.

It must gain respect through it’s consistency and verasity. It cannot, for example, oppose all foreign aid in it’s platform, publish and display articles supporting that position on it’s website, and then present a solution to a major public concern that includes the advocacy of foreign aid. The message to the prospective voter is unmistakable: HYPOCRACY.

Once a third party begins to focus it’s strategies on getting elected as it’s fundamental purpose, the voting public will see it for what it is; not a true third party, just a major party wannabee.

The reformers need to stop their panicky, cowardly, must-win-now at all cost approach and put what is happening in historical perspective.

There can be no gaurantee of success for the continuation of the LP along it’s historically consistent path of strict adherence to principle.

But the reformer’s strategy gaurantees failure, as it ignorantly repudiates the dictates of history for achieving success as a third party within the American two party system.

What so many more voices, of such wide range of perspectives are calling for today is a third party that will fulfill it’s proper historic function. Not just another competing faction to joust with the Rep/Dems for power on their terms. The interests of voters be damned, we have elections to win.

Or as Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi have told their partisans, forget impeachment, forget troop withdrawal from Iraq, just vote for us like good little sheep, at least you get to punish the Republicans.

It’s time for the reformers to grasp, that while the majority of voters may not have it clear in their minds, their unarticulated unease can only be addressed by a true third party, not a mere major party wannabee.

—The Bikemessenger

Addendum: see also:“3rd Parties: What They’re For and What They Do”
by Rick Gaber