We need a second political party
by Mischa Gelman
(published 5/17/00)

  I've been wondering of late what exactly our two big-name parties
actually stand for nowadays. They have copied off each other so much in
their vying for the middle ground and for corporate donations that they so
often resemble one another. In fact, the radio commentator and author Jim
Hightower has made the point that what we need in this country isn't
really a third party, but a second one.
  How did we arrive at this dilemma? Well, each party has made enough
changes to deviate from its older paths. The Republicans, you see, once
stand for the wealthy and corporations and also for a somewhat limited
morality. The Democrats once stood for workers and consumers. The
Republicans have softened up less - they still stand for the rich -
unfortunately, the Democrats have joined them. Bill Clinton and Al Gore
have pushed numerous pro-corporation policies, backing the WTO and NAFTA,
reducing antitrust and environmentalist suits and increasing the amount of
corporate welfare. They still talk the right talk at times, but their
actions speak louder - and they act on the side of those with the dough.
Few of those truly concerned about the middle class or poor buy it, which
is why more and more are willing to vote for a Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader
in the main election.
   The Republicans have abandoned their heritage not by doing something as
awful as developing a full set of morals by helping the poor rather than
the rich, but by abandoning some of the social conservatism they did
possess. The party, under the likes of Tom Ridge, has become increasingly
opposed to the life of humans while in the womb of the mothers,
"pro-choice" as they term it. Many Republicans push the causes of gamblers
(to the disappointment of moral Republicans, like Frank Wolf) or corporate
admen seeking to brainwash kids into their line of thought. With men like
Newt Gingrich and Bob Packwood and David Duke and women like Helen
Chenoweth aboard the ship, the moral anchors have vanished.
   As the Democrats ditch family farmers and unions and the Republicans
ditch morality, they arive at the same point - pro-corporatist rule,
anti-democracy and anti-morality. We are truly left with the Republicrat
party, as many (from all ideologies) have termed the one-viewed mass that
is our government.
   Thankfully, we have another choice - the truly "second" parties that
Hightower recommends. Some, like the Libertarians, are in the same
anti-democracy/pro-corporatist/anti-morality mindset as the Republicans
and Democrats, but anyone exposed to libertarians for long enough learns
that the surest solution will be the election of a libertarian regime,
which would show the flaws inherent in their schemes. Also, facts are a
handy weapon against America's prominent libertarians, who tend to be
proven consistent liars like Charles Murray and John Stossel.
   No, our true choices lie in other parties. The Green, Natural Law,
Reform, Socialist and Constitution parties are all running candidates in
2000 and these folks seem honest about their views, and many are highly
preferable to the "big two" - in fact, I can almost guarantee that the
views of one of these parties will match those of potential voters from
Pitt more than the Democrats or Republicans.
   The Greens are the most plausible option. Ralph Nader is running ahead
of the Libertarians and Pat Buchanan in the polls - he has the best
difference between positive and negative ratings of all candidates. He has
the best track record of concern for our country and is highly motivated,
intelligent, thoughtful and sincere. Hence, the media ignores him. 
   They likewise do not give Buchanan equal airtime. He has a wide number
of negatives, for instance his plans to burn the Watergate tapes before
they became common knowledge, or his virulent xenophobia. On the other
hand, he gives more of a damn about working people than Gore or Bush and
calls for more moral behavior than either. I can't recommend voting for a
racist and sexist, but Bush has the same qualities and other negatives to
boot. When one honestly analyzes the evidence, Buchanan is a more
desirable candidate for conservatives.
   If conservatives don't like Buchanan's hatred, they can go to Howard
Phillips and the Constitution Party, a truly conservative choice highly
preferable to Bush. For those to the far left who think Nader is too
conservative, David McReynolds has a strong socialist and pacifist
background and seems like the perfect candidate. You see, third parties
still stand for something - the Greens for environmentalism, consumer
protection and control of corporations, the Constitution Party for small
government and some aspects of social morality, the Libertarians for
the rights of the rich and freedom to do your own thing without any rules 
(AKA anarchy), the Socialists for income equality and a non-market economy
and the Natural Law Party for small government, environmentalism and an
end to partisan politics. There's something out there for almost anybody
once you look beyond the horizons we're typically exposed to.

   Mischa Gelman invites Pitt students to dare to look beyond the
Republicrats for the party that suits their views.