COLUMN: Two-party system is challenged by many contenders
WHEN WE
were kids, enthralled by the nonsensical
world created by our elders, the adults took it easy on us. In school, we were
not rushed into the complex world of calculus on our first day. They started us
off with finger-paints. It was nice, maybe even perfect for us, but they moved
us on. We entered the world of fairy tales and talking animals.
Again, we could have dallied a bit, but the grown-ups insisted we pick up the pace. From there it was a rushed tour of the worlds of true-false, multiple-choice, short-answer and essay; the latter, the final level of an odyssey which if completed grants us the key to the marvelous university.
With successive levels of education, our teachers and professors claimed to expand our critical faculties, allowing us to see the world from our viewpoint. It seems strange, for Americans to have reached this stage in higher education, while remaining in a near medieval true-false stage in their political system.
The system has worked until recently. Most Americans saw enough difference between the Democrats and Republicans to feel their interests lay with one more than the other. Ross Perot entered in 1992 and destroyed the traditional conception of a presidential race. The duopoly was dead.
This year, the old system is breaking down even further, with non-mainstream parties gaining acceptance and support through grassroots activists. In Texas, there are six parties besides the Democratic and Republican that have candidates running for president as well as other national, state and local posts. Here's a brief look at them:
On the far right of the spectrum is the U.S. Taxpayers Party, who find the Republican Party insufficiently conservative and evidently consider themselves taxpayers first and citizens second. They are staunchly pro-life, but wish to clear cut government regulations and agencies. Under President Howard Phillips, we are led to believe, many federal agencies would go in an effort to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical premises.
The Reform Party proposes Ross Perot for president. These people, too, seem like upset Republicans, with ideas like a Balanced Budget Amendment, ending the Internal Revenue Service as we know it and expanding the War on Drugs. Their one sop to moderates is a pro-choice plank, but issues like immigration and environment barely addressed.
The Libertarian Party, with its presidential candidate Harry Browne, is the strongest third party not built on one man's fortune. Built completely through community efforts, the Libertarian Party has as its platform a curious but clear amalgam of ideas. These proposals are consistent with their goal of forcing a total governmental withdrawal from individuals' lives. Thus, they embrace traditional conservative ideas like abolishing government agencies. At the same time, they are pro-choice, call for the legalization of drugs and oppose limits on immigration.
The Natural Law Party does not fit in the right-left spectrum. Growing from its origins in 1992 as a transcendental meditation group, it has entered politics. The transcendental meditation influence is unmistakable when it is mentioned that presidential candidate John Hagelin, a Harvard-educated physicist, promotes the full utilization of human potential. The NLP is the fuzzy-headed scientist's party.
The Socialist Party USA has Mary C. Hollis as its candidate for president. Founded in 1901, the party is notorious for the presidential campaigns of the 1910s and 20s with Eugene V. Debs. It still believes in nationalization of industries, worker internationalism and putting workers above profit. As a nod to the post-WWII world, it opposes NAFTA, supports universal health care and favors cutting the military by 50 percent.
The Green Party is new to the national political scene. In a twist, its presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, is not campaigning. Instead, a volunteer-run group is coordinating fund raising and voter education. Nader's two main themes are ending corporate control of our political system and redistributing wealth. For Nader, this means more progressive taxes, campaign finance reform, gun control, universal health care, a reduction in military spending and a review of drug policies.
And if these parties aren't enough, the Pansexual Peace Party promotes a partnership paradigm through prurient propaganda.
Massoud Javadi is a Wiess College senior.
This item appeared in the Opinion section of the October 18, 1996 issue.
Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights
Reserved.
This document may be distributed
electronically, provided that it is distributed in its
entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted
without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.
The Thresher Online Project -- ethresh@listserv.rice.edu