It is a commonplace of American politics that third parties can never succeed. Editorialists, op-ed columnists, talking heads - even political scientists (who should know better) - insist that, for constitutional, institutional, and other reasons, third parties cannot succeed.
Which would be tragic, if it were true, because today's Republican and Democratic parties are manifestly dangerous and useless, respectively. The Democratic Party hasn't been good at governing since Lyndon Johnson doubled down on JFK's early investment in Vietnam. The Republicans - at least since Ronald Reagan pronounced government "the problem" don't believe in governing.
Tragic if it were true. But of course, it isn't. The United States has had one extraordinarily successful political party. It sprang into existence in the aftermath of President Franklin Pierce signing the Kansas-Nebraska Act on May 30, 1854. That chief effect of that law - sponsored by Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas - was to repeal the Missouri Compromise, which had banned slavery in all US territories north of latitude 36°30'.
For 34 years, the Missouri Compromise Line had made it possible for Congress to admit new states in pairs - one slave, one free - thus maintaining a sectional balance in the Senate. Both North and South could live with that, and America was thus free to grow richer, prouder, more populous, and ever more confident of its destiny.
But when the Line disappeared, it suddenly became possible to imagine slavery expanding both westward and northward. This proved too much for many in both parties, including an impressive number of professional politicians - governors, senators, congressmen, even skilled political operatives.
Within months, in most Northern states, fusion or anti-Nebraska parties had formed. Former Whigs and Democrats - men who had been bitter partisan enemies - embraced each other (if cautiously) and vowed to work together to restore the sacred Line.
That summer, the anti-Nebraska partyu in Michigan had adopted the name Republican. Within two years, Republican parties were fielding candidates in every free state, and a national convention had chosen John C. Fremont as the first Republican candidate for President of the United States.
In 1858, the Illinois Republican Party nominated Abraham - a former state legislator and one-term Congressman - for the US Senate. Lincoln would challenge Stephen Douglas, author of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Though Douglas eventually won re-election, the seven debates between the two candidates - reported throughout the nation - made Lincoln a credible candidate for President in 1860.
In 1858, the Republican Party gained control of the House of Representatives. Two years later, Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States. When he took office, on March 4, 1861, his party - so recently a third party - was less than seven years old. It held the White House and the House of Representives. Within months, as Senators from seceding states withdrew from Congress, the Republican Party controlled the Federal government.
How was this possible, in a nation where third parties never succeed?
A detailed analysis would require a great deal of study. Perhaps the best single-volume history of the period is David M. Potter's Pulitzer Prize-winning The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 (posthumously completed by his colleaguek Don E. Fehrenbacher.)
But in brief, the circumstances which made it possible for a third party to rise to dominance in a few years' time were three:
First, the defection of serious political professionals from two long-established major parties was motivated by their genuine outrage over their parties' failure to address an issue of imperative moral importance - the expansion of slavery.
Second, in addition to its moral opposition to slavery, the new party united around an ambitious economic program which would transform the United States into the most powerful economy on the planet. This program involved the rapid expansion of farming and ranching into the West, providing food for the growing industrial cities of the East and Midwest by means of a new, transcontinental railroad network. All would be financed by a national banking system.
Third the new party which closed the West to slavery - while opening it to small farms and ranches - was strongly nationalistic - in contrast to the Whigs and Democrats, both riven by sectionalism.
This was the formula for the Republicans' unique success: a profound moral imperative, closely allied to a timely economic transformation, both pursued in a spirit of renewed national unity.
Today, at a time of growing disunion and societal breakdown, we confront a parallel opportunity. The great moral imperative of our time is to assure the survival of our planet as a place of habitation for humankind - and many other species which whom we have co-evolved since the last great extinction. To this moral imperative is linked the overdue transfromation of our economy from one based on excessive consumption, easy credit, and fossil fuels to a new economy of security, sustainability, thrift, and human dignity.
Neither of the two existing parties seems remotely capable of leading America in achieving these twin goals. If a third party is not possible,
If a third party is not possible, our once-great nation is doomed to decline - at a time when the planet desperately needs our leadership.
But first, a third party is necessary - a third party which can rapidly become the leading party in the nation.
Impossible? We will never know, unless and until we try.
