...thus ensuring that "the party of principle" continues to remain a joke in the eyes of most voters for years to come. What a pity. Our democracy could really benefit from a strong and viable third party, not to mention a fourth or fifth, but it seems fated never to be. When most people in the U.S. think of third parties, they will continue to associate them with such misfits as Lyndon LaRouche, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and now Mike Gravel.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Perot had a go of it for a while, then he went insane with the "George H.W. Bush is trying to ruin my BBQ!" thing.
Nader and the others are never viable because they have fringe views that only appeal to 4 or 5% of the public.
No doubt. Frankly, I've become convinced that there's just something about the collective American mindset that prefers the comfortably duality of having only two parties. Most political scientists are probably right that the two-party system has in many important ways contributed to the enduring stability of our political order. But there's a big difference between stability and stagnance, and I think our democracy has stagnated. The two major parties don't accurately represent the views of most Americans, and every election we all bemoan the fact and then vote for one of the two options. Kind of ironic for a country that prides itself on choice, competition, freedom of expression, opportunity, etc., isn't it?
"The two major parties don't accurately represent the views of most Americans"
I think they do, or else it would be a lot easier for another Perot to swoop in again.
Post a Comment