Political Purity and Small Political Parties

With Ralph Nader on the left and Allan Keyes on the right, and the Libertarian Party wherever they may be found, we certainly have options for voting third party this year.

I have voted for third parties in the past, specifically for the Libertarian Party, though I once offended a roomful of Libertarians who were trying to persuade me to join the party by telling them that the best characteristic of the Libertarian candidate in my view was that he had no chance of winning. For me, voting for a third party is a protest vote, designed to point in the direction in which we need to move, and not to indicate full support for the person I vote for.

There is a critical difference between all of our current minor party movements and the major parties. The major parties seek some kind of compromise and consensus. As an independent, I often think they do a very poor job of this, but at least coalition building is a goal. The minor parties tend to seek political purity, and to provide a “correct” option for which their supporters can vote.

A party that remains in that minor party mode will never become a major party. They will remain minor. Political purity is not going to win elections. Compromise is a requirement of political life, and a requirement of governing. Compromise laws and policies will always find plenty of critics. It’s easy to criticize when you don’t have to provide a positive alternative that not only would work, but that could be passed.

As an example, consider the war in Iraq. For context, let me note that I believe we need to get out of Iraq and do so with due speed. Congress, under the control of the Democrats, has failed to get us out of Iraq, and many people are criticizing them for this failure to control George W. Bush and make the “right thing” happen. But the fact is that a responsible pull-out will require the action of the executive branch. Simply cutting off funding won’t work. It will result very likely in more casualties on both sides and in a political disaster. Even pulling out requires strategy! The ideal (getting out) clashes with the real (an executive branch that is determined to prosecute the war), and the result is that we have to wait.

We can get impatient and decide instead to support some minor party that is more determined to get out of Iraq, but what exactly does that accomplish? As we seek greater and greater purity on one issue–and this is my #1 issue in this election–we lose our ability to build the consensus that would be necessary to both get elected and implement the policy.

Personally I think Allan Keyes and Ralph Nader are both nuts in their own individual ways. But more importantly they are too isolated and too pure to manage to get elected, even if either of them is right. The Libertarians may pick up more votes, but again they are not, by nature, consensus builders. I recall that same group that tried to get me to join also suggesting that I wasn’t a “real” Libertarian because I support public education. On the second part they were right. I’m not a “real” Libertarian. I’m not even 100% a libertarian. I just have a bit of a lean in that direction.

So under what circumstances would I vote third party, since I have indicated that I have done so before? There are three requirements: 1) That I can live with the election of any of the major candidates, 2) I would not be overjoyed with any one of the major candidates, and 3) There is a third party expressing a political and moral position that may drag the political discussion in a useful direction.

Those conditions are rarely met. Normally I can discern a valuable difference between the major candidates. In a few cases, I have found that I’m about equally OK with both, and then I consider giving a miniscule push to some third party.

In this election, considering that the war is my #1 issue and I believe we need to get out of Iraq, I have a key reason to vote for a particular major candidate, so minor parties need not apply. I’m not happy about some positions of each of the major candidates, yet I will have a clear idea of whose weaknesses I can tolerate and whose strengths I would like in the White House.