I recently received an e-mail from John Perry:

(I’ll just leave out the other-topic beginning, which consists of little more than us putting Ann Coulter’s head to good use for the first time— as a soccer ball.)

“…I was skimming through the ADS site yesterday and caught your response to my post regarding Unity08. Wondering if you could let me know again why you think it’s not a good idea….”

Regards,
JP

John Perry

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY.
http://www.johnperryonline.com

I thought my response might bear a wider audience than just it’s addressee, so with JP’s assumed permission, I’ll post it here.

Most of this is reiteration, but I hope in this form, it will serve as useful basis for discussion.

John:

The problem that I have with “Unity08″ is that contrary to the historical tradition of third partys, it does not attempt to present a clear agenda or ideology. As you might surmise from the ideology that I espouse, I’m no fan of tradition, per se.

However, it does have it’s place. Sometimes, it’s difficult to identify the nature of a large scale social phenomenon that is a result of evolutionary processes, rather than having been pre-planned or directed.

Such is the case of the third party on the American political landscape. I believe that the traditional role of third partys in the American political system is still valid and that this tradition should be resurrected, it having fallen into disuse due to lack of appreciation and understanding.

As I pointed out in one commentary at ADS, the insular attitude we observe inside the Washington beltway can be readily explained by the failure of the majority of voters to understand the essential role of third partys.

This of course, leads to their failure to support third partys when appropriate.

One commentator at ADS implied third partys, Unity08, included, presumably, are some sort of Republican trick.

But the record of the most prominent third partys in the U.S. today indicates otherwise. Moreover, unlike Unity08, they each present, as history would advise, a clear-cut agenda and ideology.

If you spend some time reading each of the websites of the Constitution, Green and Libertarian partys, you see a panorama of views that should accomidate just about any voter in the country.

The extreme dissatisfaction of the authors (myself included) and most of the commentators at this blog with the current LP management notwithstanding. Suffice to say we would employ a higher level of mental acuity and substantially greater philosophical consistency.

The common theme amoungst them; their fundamental purpose being to promote their cause. In order for it to fulfill this purpose, the third party’s supporters must be able to count on said party to stay true to it’s principles. This is an example of the distinct nature of third partys.

It is in this regard, as I have submitted before, that Unity08 fails. Their strategy seems to be to poll prospective supporters in order to form an agenda, on a populist basis. A formula for discord and in-fighting from the beginning. Much in the manner of Perot’s Reform Party, only more severe. The Reform Party, of course, imploded due largely to the lack of a consistent agenda.

Those focusing on the appeal of “Unity” would be better served by putting thier energies into an already up-and-running third party that represents their views.

A third party, as I have pointed out elsewhere, may aspire and endeavour to supplant one the major partys. This is a legitimate ambition. But unlike the history-blind LP “reformers” would have it,it must in the process, evolve it’s “big tent”.

It has no validity to attempt arbitrarily and by fiat to convert a legitimate third party, such as the LP, into an established party before it’s support reaches a commensurate level.

The result, as I have pointed out before and as would be apparent to any prospective voter, is not a more successful third party, on it’s way to supplanting one of the established partys. Rather, the result would be a fraudulent major party wannabee.

Again, this manifests the third party’s fundamentally distinct nature within the parameters of the American two-party system.

What is needed, then is not yet another nebulous, vague attempt at populism that presents no material threat to the established partys.

But rather a recovering of the historical position of third partys. A recovery that can only come through understanding of the third party’s fundamentally distinct nature, borne of it’s qualitatively different role from that of the major partys.

—The Bikemessenger

P.S. for more, see also “History Shoots Down The Reformers”