Bricks and Straw: Who Joins a Third Party?

In American history, most third-party movements have attempted to make bricks without straw. 

That is, their founders attempt to start a party without thinking about who will lead it, who will join it, and who will work for it.

In the past century, most third-party movements have tried to organize from the top down.  Usually, the man at the top has been an extraordinary personality with an outsized ego.  Usually, he has become a candidate for President.

Or, in the case of Minnesota, for governor.

The results of such ego-driven, top-down campaigns have invariably been entertaining, but seldom positive from the perspective of third-party activists.  H. Ross Perot probably elected Bill Clinton, but his movement evaporated.  Ralph Nader certainly elected George W. Bush, but he - and his party - gained only opprobrium.

The core lesson of everything I've written on this blog has been this:  Thus far, the one truly successful third party in American history began with a powerful, moral issue which was directly linked to a necessary change in the fundamental nature of the American economy. 

In 1854, the moral imperative was opposition to human slavery.  The economic imperative was to combine free labor, millions of new family farms, open-range ranching, transcontinental railroads, telegraph networks, and rising industrial cities into a new economy. 

The result?  Within a decade, the brand-new Republican Party liberated millions of human beings from slavery.  Within a few more decades, it had transformed the America of Davy Crockett into a global, industrial power.

By combining two necessary changes - one moral, one economic - the Republican Party made its rise inevitable.  It needed no popular hero to lead it.  Rather, it produced its own hero in Mr. Lincoln.

Among the factors which helped in the Republicans' rapid rise was the new party's ability to harness the support of veteran politicians and political ground troops.  The new third party didn't consist solely of idealists and newbies.  It was led by men (and a few women) who knew politics from the inside out.

The Abraham Lincoln so well depicted in Steven Spielberg's recent film was an old hand at the sometimes dirty work of legislation.  So were the members of his Cabinet, his Congressional allies, and the scrofulous lobbyists he employed to garner votes.

The Republicans were a new party, but they were hardly new to politics.

In our times, a successful new party will - likewise - need to make use of the talents of experienced political leaders and activists.  And the best place to find them is probably not, as many suppose, among liberal Democrats. 

It will be among Republicans, and former Republicans, who have become disgusted with their party's suicidal march to the extreme right. 

Unlike the original Republican Party, which was formed suddenly by the fusion of anti-slavery Whigs and Democrats in reaction to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the new third party will likely take form more gradually, as Americans awaken to the dangers of slow-moving crises such as global climate change, a soaring national debt, and the corruption and incompetence of the political system.

But the eventual process will be the same:  Disgusted liberal and moderate Republicans, joined by Democrats frustrated over the fiscal or environmental irresponsibility of their own party, will for the core of any new party. 

Journalists and political scientists might choose to call them moderates, but the term will be inapt.  The founders of the new party will be men and women of high principle and practical experience - and it is that which will distinguish them from the practitioners of  contemporary politics.

Who will join them? 

As the Republicans of 1854 attracted the support of new voters and workers, a new third party will need to attract "new blood".  To identify the likely sources of this new support, it will be helpful to look beyond the traditional left-to-right political spectrum favored by journalists and political scientists. 

A particularly useful resource may be found in remarkable study issued periodically by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.  Last published in 2011, Beyond Red vs. Blue: Political Typology groups Americans into nine clusters, organized around their positions on a range of issues.

These nine clusters - which can be further subdivided by careful analysis - create a set of political Legos.  At present, the nine big pieces have been arranged into groups supporting the two major parties - or, by rejecting both parties, voting as independents.  But there is nothing inevitable about this arrangement.

Study the Pew typology with fresh eyes, and a thoughtful citizen might envision several alternative arrangements - including at least one which brings together enough voters to create a viable third party.

I invite my readers to read the Pew typology for themselves.  In a future post, I will offer my ideas for rearranging the pieces of America's political puzzle, but I'd be happy to hear from those with alternative solutions.