Party crashers - third US political parties - Column

National Review, July 10, 1995 by Rich Lowry

``I THINK we have a phenomenal opportunity,'' says long-time conservative activist Howard Phillips. ``I think we could elect a President in 1996.'' And he's not talking about the Republicans. Phillips likes the chances of his U.S. Taxpayers Party, founded in 1992 (it made the presidential ballot in 21 states) and dedicated to the proposition that any compromise of conservative principle is a vice.

``Our hope,'' he says, ``is that events will unfold in such a way that the wisdom of our approach is ever more evident.'' Don't snicker. In the wake of Ross Perot's strong showing in 1992, outlandish presidential scenarios, especially those involving an end-run around the established parties, are close to going mainstream. Respected Eisenhower biographer Stephen Ambrose retired two years early from the University of New Orleans to devote his life, unsolicited, to drafting General Colin Powell for President. His partners in the effort: two aging veterans of the 1951 draft-Eisenhower movement, convinced history can be made to repeat itself. Ambrose would prefer that Powell run as a Republican, but would support an independent bid. There's little doubt the public is yearning for a new political look; an April Times-Mirror poll found that 57 per cent of Americans say they want a third party, up 4 points from last year. Which means potential trouble for Republicans. President Clinton seems to have settled at about his 1992 level of support (43 per cent). His hopes for re-election, then, hang on knocking Republicans below that mark, a task mathematically impossible without help from a ``Taxpayer'' candidate, an independent Colin Powell, or some other free agent. ``One of my greatest fears,'' says Bob Dole supporter and former Reagan offical Don Devine, ``is we get a three-candidate race and one of them isn't Jesse Jackson.'' Jackson eats into Clinton's base, but almost any other candidate chips away at the Right or the broad Center where Republicans make their home. So Republican strategy has to be to encourage a Jackson run -- hammering away at affirmative action, especially -- while protecting the party's Right with earnest attention to the social issues and the Center by attacking the Perotista issues of the deficit and government reform. GOP chances depend on what doesn't happen almost as much as what does -- on whether they can spoil the opportunites for the spoilers. Long-time activist Paul Weyrich, now president of National Empowerment Television, marveled at the third-party interest from social-issue conservatives this spring. ``There's open talk about it,'' he said at the time. ``I've been at several meetings recently and that's all these people want to talk about: 'We have to stop trying to beat our positions into stupid Republicans who don't understand what we're talking about. We should have somebody who represents our own values.''' Weyrich devoted his April 19 ``insider'' letter to warning of a possible new party: ``the signs are everywhere.'' But, at least on the Right, this feeling has dampened somewhat. Earlier in the spring, Focus on the Family head James Dobson was firing off missives to Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour warning that Christian conservatives couldn't be taken for granted and to Phil Gramm excoriating him for shying away from the social issues. Since then, Gramm has avowed his faith to the social agenda in a Liberty University speech and front-runner Bob Dole one-upped him in Hollywood. Both campaigns ran drafts of their speeches by Family Research Council president Gary Bauer, who had joined in Dobson's complaints. Dobson himself gave Gramm a post-Liberty pat on the head. Stoking serious unrest on the social issues right now seems to depend on mishandling abortion. One way to fumble would be to give Pete Wilson, Christine Todd Whitman, or William Weld a spot on the ticket. But conventional wisdom now doubts that will happen. The other would be to pull out the plank in the GOP platform calling for a constituional amendment banning abortion. But here too momentum has swung the pro-lifers' way. Alternative language proposed by Bill Kristol and George Weigel (see NR, August 15, 1994) has little appeal for the grassroots, and the current language is likely to have ample protection at the 1996 convention. Phyllis Schlafly's Republican National Coalition for Life is recruiting convention delegates who are robustly pro-life, and the Christian Coalition will be undertaking a massive effort to make its supporters delegates. Even if Republicans do blow it, any independent social-issues challenge needs a viable candidate. Pat Buchanan seems the only high-profile possibility -- and he has motives to run beyond the social issues. Buchanan is likely to have problems with any Republican candidate (apart from himself) on issues related to his economic nationalism. ``I think he believes that he can lead a movement that's in orbit around his central ideas, which aren't about to be embraced by either party,'' says American Conservative Union chairman and Dole supporter David Keene. ``And he thinks there are a lot of votes out there for him.'' Howard Phillips has felt Buchanan out on a third party bid, as he did in 1992. ``At this point he's not interested,'' says Phillips. ``I would say his body language is a little bit better this year.'' The trouble is, as Buchanan runs an increasingly credible campaign in the Republican primaries, he has more of a vested interest in the party. He may get third-party proddings from advisors more inclined that way than himself, but bolting the GOP is likely to run against Buchanan's grain. Back in the early 1970s, when frustrated conservatives were exploring a third party, Buchanan was firmly on the Republican side of the fence. In 1992, an ideal year to bolt, he brought himself to back Bush. In 1996, there will be fewer temptations, as any nominee is likely to sound more like Pat Buchanan than George Bush. If the Right holds for the GOP, will the Center? Republicans have a tougher time controlling the answer to that question. A variety of candidates could spring up in the middle. In Connecticut, former Republican Senator and independent Governor Lowell Weicker seems to be spoiling to run, although he'll have trouble marshaling the financial resources needed to get on state ballots. Former Democratic Senator Tsongas has talked of Powell running as a third-party candidate. But given the sharp Republican attacks on the deficit -- the main centrist issue -- it's tough to see a gaping hole in the middle, especially if the GOP nominee is Bob Dole. ``I just don't see it this year,'' says former Republican Senator Warren Rudman, who shares leadership of the Concord Coalition with Tsongas. Ross Perot should be dissuaded from running for the same reasons, but may not be. After Congress passed GATT in December, he threatened to form a third party. Since then, United We Stand state organizations have been investigating the arduous procedures for gaining access to the ballot and sounding out the third-party sentiment among their activists. In August, state representatives will travel to Dallas for a three-day conclave that will feature about every major political figure in America, except perhaps President Clinton. After listening to the best that Republicans and Democrats have to offer, the members will break off into discussions about the future of their movement. ``That seems to be the quick answer, is a new political party,'' says United We Stand executive director Russ Verney. ``But when you get into trying to measure it then some of the other options become equally viable. Such as working within the Republican Party, and working within the Democratic Party. . . . There's the option of running independent candidates instead of a new political party. There's the option of remaining the enormously successful swing vote that United We Stand America has been for the last three years.'' Since Perot's animus against Clinton rivals his hatred for George Bush (Ann Richards got a Perot endorsement, based mainly on the qualification of running against one of George Bush's sons), it makes little sense for Perot to run again. ``If Perot runs we'll re-elect Bill Clinton,'' says Orson Swindle, a Perot spokesman in 1992. But Perot watchers note that executive director Verney moved to his current position from being chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic party in 1992, and realize if Perot wants to run there's little to be done to stop him. ``Whenever you get in there telling him what he should do, you've made a mistake,'' says a Republican official. The good news is that Perot is a less compelling figure these days. ``I think the Perot people have transcended Perot,'' says Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, president of the new Polling Company. That phenomenon has been playing out in microcosm in Perot's state organizations. Arizona executive director Mary Lou Stanley has the distinction of being fired twice by the national orgnization in Dallas, first in March, then in early June for a comment in an AP story. The Arizona state board has hired her back as state director. ``They have in my opinion a top-down and military mindset,'' she says of the national headquarters. Ohio chairman Debbie Taylor agrees: ``It's a feeling you get you're being ignored.'' So here's some consolation: the notoriously disgruntled public may not even like its third-party options.