Three's a Crowd: The Dynamic of Third Parties, Ross Perot, and Republican Resurgence

11. Conclusion: Third Parties & Political Change in America

XI Conclusion THIRD PARTIES AND POLITICAL CHANGE IN AMERICA LIlJ AMERICAN POLITY, IMPLICITLY or explicitly, has chosen a two-party over a multiparty system. Apart from the wisdom of that choice, OIlC consequence is that "successful" third parties in presidential politics are rarc. Throughout the twentieth century, thc IlUlnber of thirdparty presidential calldidates has been small-Theodore Roosevelt and Eugene Debs in I76, I982). One of the 1ll~~or barriers to third-party formation, ballot-access restrictions , actually provided an opportunity for Perot to challenge his volunteers to rise to the grand purpose of getting his name on the ballot ill all fifty states. But another impediment to third parties, the unit rule in the electoral college, left Perot with zero electoral votes after the election, despite his impressive popular-vote showing. The winner-take-all character of our institutions not only creates disincentives to potentially strong third-party candidates; it deters activists and voters hom "wasting" their efforts on a hopeless cause in a system that recognizes only plurality winners . Again, whatever their merits, these institutional barriers to third parties reduce the instance ofsuccessful insurgent candidacies, such as Perot's, and make all the more remarkable and important those few that succeed in overcoming these impediments to attract significant support. Later in this chapter, we will consider the place of third parties, such as Perot's, in contemporary U.S. politics. But first we will speculate about Conclusion 225 two questions that flow from our analysis of the Perot movement in 1992 and its aftermath: How real is the dynamic of third parties in explaining the impact ofPerot and other similar movements in U.S. political history? And beyond the 2000 elections, what consequences for the U.S. twoparty system are likely to follow from the continued presence ofthe Perot constituency? REASSESSING THE DYNAMIC OF THIRD PARTIES To our argument about how the Perot movement aHected the two-party system, a skeptic might respond by asking how we can be sure the Republican resurgence would not have happened at the same time in pretty much the same way if Ross Perot's I992 insurgent candidacy had never occurred. Skepticism about the impact of third parties was articulated by Paul Beck (1997,49) in his textbook on American political parties. The evidence suggests ... that the major parties grasp new programs and proposals in their "time of ripeness" when large numbers ofAmericans have done so and when such a course is therefore politically useful to the parties. In their earlier, maturing time, ne\v issues need not depend on minor parties for their advocacy. Interest groups, the mass media, influential individuals, and factions within the major parties may perform the propagandizing role, often more effectively than a minor party. Among other things, Beck argues that policy entrepreneurs exist throughout the political system and that if an issue's time is "ripe," someone will latch onto it to make political hay. Moreover, such political entrepreneurs exist within the two major parties as members of Congress, presidential nomination candidates, members of interest groups, and others who seek to advance their cause within the party. Indeed, it might even be fair to say that Ross Perot was one such policy entrepreneur, who might well have chosen to pursue his ambitions through one of the parties -perhaps by challenging President Bush for the Republican nomination -instead ofrunning an independent campaign outside the parties. Our position is to agree with Beck to a point, while admitting that 220 THREE'S A CROWD we cannot absolutely defeat the skeptic's argument. We do not contend that third parties are the only or even necessarily the m;~or way to effect change in the two-party system. We agree that the major parties are remarkably porous organizations, subject to influence from within by freelancing candidates and other entrepreneurs seeking to advance their own agenda and interests and from without by interest groups and others who see the parties as instruments to further their purposes. The major parties, in short, are both affected by and instigators of change, the mechanisms of \vhich need not include a third-party or independent candidate's electoral movement. If Perot had run as a Republican nomination candidate, he might have been even more eftective as an agent of political change. Nomination candidates, even when they lose-it would have been virtually impossible for Ross Perot to wrest the Republican nomination from...