It's time to face facts, we live in a two-party culture and inevitably leads to a two party system. It's taught that way from the moment you begin your education. Republicans and Democrats are all you learn about right through to high school. I knew about the Libertarians, but I didn't realize fully what they stood for until I got into college and didn't know much about the party's history and background until I got out of college.

So be it. Until we change that culture, that's the way things are for the time being.

But if the classic role of the "third" party is to influence the behavior of the other two parties and the national debate as a whole, then I say it's time third party activists embrace that role and play it to its fullest and they should start with the 2004 presidential election.

Right now candidates are gearing up to contest both the Libertarian and Constitutional Party presidential nominations. While one cannot just dismiss their dedication and commitment and care to solving the nation's problems along with their willingness to fly their parties banner in the face of overwhelming odds, they are also all unknowns and the same type of party stalwarts that nobodies knows or, sadly, cares about. They will be no more successful in gaining more voters to their cause than Harry Browne was or Howard Phillips for that matter.

To solve this problem, I propose that the Libertarian Party give its Presidential nomination to U. S. Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and the Constitution Party give its nomination to either Paul or Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Col.) whether they ask for it or not by draft.

The reason for this, putting the names of two recognizable statesmen who have followings within the independent political movement, is to draw voters to both parties who wish not to vote for candidates of either faction of the social democratic political establishment that currently rules over us. In others words, tweedle dee or tweedle dum who will more than likely engage in a campaign straight out of Wonderland that will turn off independent minded people off across the country.

But to have Paul and Tancredo on the ballot at the same time I strongly believe will be the most effective way for third parties to gain larger share of the vote than they ever had before and in turn make the major parties play by our tune in 2004. They may also attract more voters to both parties down ballot candidates as well. And with the campaign that I propose, the beauty of it is, they won't have to leave their home states to campaign and can still campaign for their respective offices they currently hold, which I doubt anyone would want to see give up and lose their activism in the halls of Congress.

There are draft movement for both men to run for President out there and obviously both men are reluctant to sign on to them. Besides the possibility of losing their Congressional seats, the truth is, the reality of the modern presidential campaign is a thankless task for those outside the dominant two parties. Little money, little attention, traveling from one small airport after another, speaking in front of one small group after another, nights in one Motel 6 after another. Who needs it and who can afford it? Especially when it seems the prize may not be more than one percent of the vote?

But this was not always true of presidential politics. In fact many a successful candidate conducted front porch campaigns for the White House in the 19th and early 20th century. In fact, Republicans practically invented the procedure. Presidents like Lincoln, Garfield, Harrison, McKinley, and Harding did not barnstorm across the country as modern candidates do. They stayed at home, entertaining and visiting with groups of voters on their front porches, literally, getting media attention with each visit. Such a campaign could work today. Someone like Ron Paul could stay in his Texas congressional district, campaign for re-reelection to his seat in Congress, and yet still entertain groups of voters and activists on his proverbial front porch and gain media attention at the same time, with maybe an occasional out of district speech to say a college audience or staged audiences like the ones that filled Madison Square Garden to hear Ralph Nader three years ago.

The importance of this idea is to have the names of Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo on the ballot even if they are not actively pursuing the White House. The LP and CP can nominate whomever they want for president. Why not this time have persons representing both parties on the ballot with identifiable name recognition and elective offices to go with them? With both men on the ballot, this will force Karl Rove to alter his plans for the 2004 elections. Although many Republicans thump their chest and think George Bush II will win by a landslide in 2004, Rove knows better. He knows that electoral map of 2000 hasn't changed all that much in some case may be much more polarized. He knows he's going to need the vote of every conservative and libertarian who are not Republicans or strong Republicans in order to win. Putting Paul and Tancredo's name on the ballot will have Rove playing to the third parties' tune for once. With someone like Paul on the ballot, Bush II may not be so eager to support the Patriot II Act and with someone like Tancredo on the ballot, Bush II may have to shelf those plans for a blanket amnesty for illegal aliens. This, my friends, is effective third party activism and there's evidence to show it works. Certainly back in 2000, Al Gore's campaign took a much more populist leftist tone than it would have with Ralph Nader on the ballot. Even Buchanan himself had an effect on Bush when the latter talked about having a "humble foreign policy" and expressed skepticism about "nation building." Of course, the deficit wouldn't have been a major political party issue if it wasn't for Ross Perot in 1992.

Of course, major party politicians being what they are, it's hard to say that even if they tailored their rhetoric to gain votes away from third party candidates, how sincere they would be if they won. But that, at least, is more of an accomplishment than third parties have been able to show for over the past two decades. At least it's worth a try compared to same old tired tactics that many now, especially those in FSP have now concluded, don't work.

Like the idea of reviving the old Non-Partisan League for third party activism or the FSP itself, the idea of the front porch campaign proves that something old can be new again. It's a part of a process to convince third party and independent political activists think outside the box of political strategies towards ideas that can help them be more effective within the current system and culture that we currently live and vote under. Members of the FSP have made this step and the results are there for all to see. Now it's time for the rest outside the social democratic ruling class to do the same because much is at stake now in the first presidential election post 9-11. Third party activists must make voices of those outside the ruling class heard this time because the stakes are high. Will it be done it the old way, which I feel guarantees marginalization and fringe status, or will new ways be explored, tinkered with, and adopted to get the message out at the voting booth?

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

Sean Scallon is a freelance writer and newspaper reporter who lives in Arkansaw, Wisconsin. His work has appeared in Chronicles: A magazine of American Culture. He is a new columnist for Ether Zone.

Sean Scallon can be reached at: pchsports@rivertowns.net

Published in the July 17, 2003 issue of  Ether Zone.
Copyright © 1997 - 2003 Ether Zone.

We invite your comments on this article in our forum!