Dave Weigel is reporting on the tea party convention over twitter. One big scoop is that the organizers have flatly rejected the idea of forming a third party to run their own candidates in general elections:
Organizers say they "absolutely do not support a third party."
Well, that's that. Any hopes that Democrats will preserve their large congressional majorities in 2010 through a wave of tea party candidates who splinter conservative votes should be dashed.
Tea partiers are correctly identifying increasing their electoral power within an already powerful electoral institution--the Republican Party--as an easier path to overall power than a creating a new electoral institution altogether.
There is, without a doubt, a certain emotional satisfaction to third-parties. Whether it is the sense of rebellion, of getting back at politicians that have let you down, the feeling of breaking with a corrupt system, the promise of dramatic change, or of making an uncompromising public statements of your beliefs-siding with a third-party can feel very good. Having voted for a variety of Democrats and third-party candidates from 1992-2002, I know this from personal experience. Whatever the consequences, sometimes it feels good not to feel owned.
However, beyond the emotional, the bottom line is that third-parties have accomplished little to nothing in the way of electoral and legislative ends over the past several decades. Less than 1% of the people elected to Congress have been on third-party or independent tickets. Even the very few third-party and independent candidates who do make it to Congress caucus with the major parties and enter into their seniority systems, effectively making them no different from (usually) Democrats or (occasionally) Republicans.
No system lasts forever, and this may not always be the case. Also, I still expect something of a third-party resurgence in 2012 or 2016 (but not 2010 or 2014). However, in the short-term, even the tea-partiers are not breaking away.
|
STATE BLOGS
