By Stephen E. Ambrose & Richard D. Lamm
You would be surprised at the number of years it took me to see clearly what some of the problems were which had to be solved....Looking back, I think it was more difficult to see what the problems were than to solve them. 
~ Charles Darwin

America needs a new political party. The most pressing issues facing the nation are beyond the ability of the two parties to solve, because neither party can act alone to solve these problems, and any bipartisan compromise can not equal the magnitude of the problems we face. These are not issues problems we are talking about here; they are structural problems. Structural problems that we are not even seriously debating, let alone solving! Structural problems that can only be solved by a new political coalition.
 

A new political party is not without precedent. There is nothing constitutional or sacrosanct about the existing two-party system. Other democracies have multiple parties, which make sense in parliamentary systems which have proportional representation (i.e., your party gets 9 percent of the vote, and you get 9 percent of the contested seats). However, in a "winner-take-all" system like ours, a two-party structure is almost inevitable. Constantly shifting coalitions work out their differences using two competing political umbrellas. Thus, although a two-party system usually has many more than two parties, pragmatically only two are real contenders for power. And, generally, this structure has served the nation well.

There have been times in American history where neither of the two political parties were able to solve the nation's problems. At that point, great pressures emerge to form a third political party. In the vast majority of cases, these third political parties add to the dialogue but do not succeed in building a permanent party. Political scientist Richard Hoffesteder has observed that the role of the third political party is "to sting like a bee and then die." This truly has been the fate of third political parties for the last 140 years. Many third parties deeply impacted public policy, but they did not become institutionalized. Their issues endured, but their party disappeared. The last third political party to become one of the two major parties was the Republican Party in the 1850s.

It is now time for another political realignment. We are not arguing for a change in the two-party system into a three-party system; we are arguing that America needs a new political party that would eclipse one of the existing major parties and itself become one of the major parties.

There is no divine right of political parties any more than there is a divine right of kings. Political parties were not part of the vision of our founding fathers, and are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. George Washington actually opposed the formation of political parties. They were necessary, however, as a way to focus political choice in the new republic. Being a pragmatic people, Americans needed some way to organize various philosophical and policy differences. Philosophical differences soon emerged as the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Americans kept these two parties only as long as they played a useful function, and then easily developed new parties when the old ones ossified or failed to face the political needs of the country.

The Federalists disappeared, the Whigs replaced them, then gave way to the Republicans. Thomas Jefferson's Republican Party became Andrew Jackson's Democratic Party. The Populists of the late 19th Century, and the Progressives of the early 20th Century, failed to replace either the Democratic or Republican Party, but did force them to adopt their issues. They did not institutionalize a new permanent party, but accomplished their ideological mission by changing one or both of the existing parties.

Overall, the two-party system has served us well. A large factor in that success was that the two major parties could be forced to change by a third party threat. New issues forced themselves on the existing political process and demanded to be heard.

As a practical and pragmatic people, Americans were not wed to any particular party. Americans often formed a third party and, if successful, either one or both of the existing political parties adopted their issues. Twice in our history such a movement brought forth a whole new political party to replace one of the existing parties.

Now is again such a time. We fear that neither political party can do politically what we need to do economically to remain a great country, and that a third party built around a personality cannot force change—something just proven by Ross Perot. Bringing America's expectations in balance with our revenue will be a terribly painful and monumental task. We shall have to substantially downsize some of our most popular programs. We have ourselves in a Catch 22—where the best politics is the worst long-term public policy. Neither party can afford to take the steps in campaign reform and entitlement reform required to solve these politically volatile problems. Short-term political considerations eclipse long-term public interest considerations. We judge it to be substantially beyond the ability of either political party in the present political climate to deal successfully with these structural problems.

If a new party is to emerge, it would of necessity have to begin as a third political party and then grow. It is relatively easy to start a third political party; it is immensely difficult to grow them. The third parties that have grown into major parties are those that went after structural change. They solved not political problems (which the existing system could eventually solve), but instead deep structural flaws the existing political process could not solve. The Free Soilers/Republicans of the 1850s, and the Progressives of the first two decades of the 20th Century, are the models. They insisted on confronting issues the two major parties were incapable of addressing — slavery in the first instance, and the need for state and federal regulation of meat packing, drugs, the stock market, civil service, etc. in the second. Major problems had gone unaddressed by the existing parties until a new party filled the need. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.

The answer of the Progressives to the ills of democracy was something the existing system could not or would not give the nation - more democracy. Recall. Referendum. Direct election of senators. Primaries. Above all, primaries. Progressives said that if you take the nomination process out of the hands of the pros in their smoke-filled rooms and give that power to the people, all of a sudden you will have clean politics. In many ways, this worked. But in the age of TV and special interests primaries have extended the political "season" to a nearly continuous process costing huge sums of money.

There has (correctly, we think) always been a heavy skepticism about the future of third political parties. In the last 140 years, not one third party became institutionalized, not even the Progressives. So, why a new party and why now?

Because we have a structural problem that cannot be solved with "politics as usual." As political scientists Levergood and Breyfogle point out: oint out:

New parties arise when the existing parties cannot or will not meet some large contemporary issue. We see two major issues which are unlikely to be solved within the normal two-party system: campaign reform and entitlement reform.

Campaign Reform:

It is hard for us to imagine a scenario where either of the existing political parties reform the campaign laws. A Congress elected under one set of rules is unlikely to change those rules. Yet campaign reform is imperative and overdue. A giant "For Sale" sign hangs over America's political system. The biggest correlation of victory in politics is not your issues, your character, not your energy; it is how much special interest money you have been able to collect. It is not the ideas in your head, but the money in your pocket. Voter cynicism and alienation are at all-time highs, and cynicism and alienation goes right to the heart of a democracy.

Public alienation from the political system is the greatest danger any government (especially a democracy) can face. Columnist E.J. Dionne has observed, "A democracy which hates politics cannot remain as a democracy." We must act to restore the public confidence and rescue our nation from factionalism and cynicism. We do not believe this can be done within the existing two-party system.

Power tends to corrupt all human institutions, but the U.S. Constitution and its balance of powers has worked well to deal with corruption or abuse of power. The two-party system plays a real role in this process in debating issues and exposing self- interest. To a remarkable degree, we have enjoyed a self-correcting system. Now, however, the special interests have found a way to avoid this self-correcting system. They have taken over both political parties. They advance their coercive agenda by electing all or most of those who make the rules. It does not matter whether someone is a Republican or a Democrat - do they support and defend your particular interests?

They can often pass and stop legislation at will. Their actions are becoming increasingly blatant. Lobbyists' campaign checks are being handed out on the floor of Congress. What better symbol of how corrupt the process has become? It isn't the validity of your cause, but how you work the system. We use the resources of the uncomplaining many to satisfy the complaining and self-interested few. Eventually, this is a political Ponzi scheme that is bound to crash.

This dilemma seems to be beyond the reach of the normal political process. The U.S. Constitution is still an effective document. We still have two major political parties. The problem is that there has developed an end-run strategy which controls public policy through election laws, party rules, and special interest money. Our problems are more with our funders than our founders. It is not our Constitution that is flawed, but this end-run strategy that has developed to elect, fund, and lobby all our elected officials. We cannot express the national will because we cannot get around those with a special agenda. It is Thomas Jefferson's ultimate nightmare: Alexander Hamilton's "economic elite" has taken over both political parties.

The first step in solving a problem must be to correctly identify the nature of the problem. As Abraham Lincoln observed, "The hole and the patch must be coterminous." We have an institutional problem more than a political problem. Both political parties are for sale; both are hopelessly compromised by special interest money. Our political institutions, instead of being part of the solution, have become part of the problem. Only a new party, unencumbered by the past, can take the money out of politics or reduce its caustic influence. Real political reform will require a Constitutional amendment allowing limits on campaign spending, or possibly publicly funded campaigns, and nothing short of a political revolution will garner the needed political support. The Republican and Democratic foxes will never adequately protect the henhouse. The historic solutions have themselves become the problem.

There is an important distinction here. There will always be special interests; they are not inherently evil. Madison, in Federalist No.10, observed they were integral to democracy. However, when they change their modus operandi from argument and logic to buying political influence, it is time to act. They must inevitably exist; they do not have to inevitably control the process.

Entitlement Reform:

The second structural issue which neither existing major party is addressing is entitlement reform and retiring the "baby boomers." America faces a series of agonizing choices as it retires the baby boomers The aging of America, plus the drop in the birth rate, has made our most popular programs demographically obsolete; and we are faced with the unenviable task of substantially amending Social Security and other of our most politically popular programs. History has few examples of downsizing expectations in a democracy. It is easy to add programs: it is all but impossible to subtract programs. /p>

The full extent of the problem is gargantuan. Yet few have focused on the new realities about to burst in upon us. The Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform has warned that by the year 2012 the revenue from the current tax structure, as applied to anticipated 2012 revenues, will only fund entitlements and interest on the national debt. Nothing else. No Defense Department, no Judiciary, no Executive, no national parks, etc. They then warn, by 2029, the current tax structure will only fund four existing programs: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and federal retirement. Our current entitlement system is popular, but unsustainable; it is well-intended, but economically ruinous. The Congressional Budget Office has warned that annual deficits when the baby boomers start to retire will "push federal debt to unsustainable—indeed, unthinkable—levels."

The problem is particularly severe in the funding of health care. Without substantial new funds, Medicare will experience a drop in real funds available for every year for 30 years. This from a Medicare system which, for the last 30 years, has grown three times the rate of inflation. A system built for many kids and few elderly finds itself having to adjust to exactly the opposite. The status quo is unsustainable. The politics are without precedent.

Unfortunately, all the solutions involve substantial political pain. We shall have to raise the retirement age at least to 68, and perhaps to 70, adjust downward the current cost-of-living adjustments, and stop subsidizing the wealthy elderly. We shall eventually have to place most seniors into managed care health plans. We will have to downsize our most popular programs, and reduce benefits to our most politically powerful.

This political burden is so heavy that it can only be accomplished by a new political coalition. Neither political party even took the most modest steps reducing benefits in 1997's budget agreement. They actually increased entitlements and cut only payments to doctors and hospitals. The problem continues to simmer and grow worse right below the surface. It was politics as usual, not profiles in courage.

Don't we have a new political party?

Not even close. Ross Perot's Reform Party cannot be a solution to these problems. A one-person party is worse than a one-party state. The irony of the Reform Party is that the person who saw the need for a new political movement now stands in the way of it happening. The Reform Party could have been the genesis of a new party. But, as Arnold Toynbee stated, "The same elements that build up an institution eventually lead to its downfall." Who knows what might have happened if Ross Perot had decided to build a real party rather than a vehicle for his own ambitions. Suppose he had succeeded in attracting Paul Tsongas, Sam Nunn, or Bill Bradley? Well, that did not happen. Ross Perot was mesmerised by that magic moment in May 1992 when the polls showed him beating both President Bush and Bill Clinton. He is haunted by the fact that at one time he had the ear and the attention of the American public, and that Americans responded in sufficient numbers to win him a poll for the Presidency and a place on the ballot. He is intrigued by the knowledge that 1992 exit polls showed a majority of the voting public would have voted for him "if they thought that he could be elected." Heady stuff this—even for a billionaire. /p>

Right message, wrong messenger. Perot believes very deeply that America is ignoring nation-threatening problems like entitlements and campaign reform, and he has the resources and populist instinct to get his message to the public. He also recognizes standard party loyalty is rapidly disappearing in the United States, and a substantial majority of the American public say they want a new party or at least a third choice. Change a few elements in Ross's personality and who knows? We do know, however, that by 1996 the American public had made up its mind on Ross Perot. Many had admired him for what he had done both in the public and private sector, but few wanted him to be President. Whatever the flaw among his many strengths, the American public was not going to turn the Presidency over to Ross Perot. Americans have built the parties around ideas, not personalities. They want to "throw the rascals out," but do not want to replace one set of problems by a personality who would likely cause more problems than with which they began.

In this age of political money, it took Ross Perot to challenge the two-party system. He has the self-confidence and the capital to create a new party. He also recognizes the existing political system is too dominated by special interest money, and that we are leaving our children a mountain of debt because of our inability to make hard choices. But, the same talents that made him a successful businessman and party founder were flaws in him as a candidate. Despite his talk that "the Reform Party is not about me," it is obvious that it is. He wants to be President. Ross did nothing to help any of the candidates who were attracted to run for other offices on the Reform Party ticket. He gave them no money, he made no endorsements, he participated in none of their rallies. He was not so much interested in building a grassroots party as he was in building a vehicle to promote his quixotic race for President. For anyone who believes America needs a new party and that campaign reform and a balanced budget are two issues which are unlikely to be solved by the existing parties, this was a wasted opportunity. Ross Perot has more ego than conviction, and a needed movement never got off the ground. America builds its coalitions around ideas, not personalities; a workable system, not a savior. Americans want a system that works—not Perot's "George Washington II."

Conclusion:

The vacuum still exists and is growing. American politics is not driven by ideas or idealism, but by organized special interests. Confidence in the existing political system is low and will likely move lower as both parties use the hearings in Congress on campaign reform to expose the opposing party. Time is not a friend to the existing political parties. It will be hard for the public to regain confidence in the existing system. When both political parties have the same disease, it is unlikely one of them will be the cure. /p>

There is a natural coalition out there for a new political movement. Take the pro-choice Republicans and the economically realistic Democrats and you have the core of a new party—the fiscally responsible Democrats and the socially progressive Republicans. Lop off those who have no faith in government and those with a blind faith in government, and organize the remainder. Most Americans neither want to dramatically extend the power of the federal government, nor dismantle it. The center of American political opinion is ripe for conversion. The need is great—and the time is now!