An Unreasonable Political System

Synopsis
In 1966, General Motors, the most powerful corporation in the world, sent private investigators to dig up dirt on an obscure thirty-two year old public interest lawyer named Ralph Nader, who had written a book critical of one of their cars, the Corvair. The scandal that ensued after the smear campaign was revealed launched Ralph Nader into national prominence and established him as one of the most admired Americans and the leader of the modern Consumer Movement. Over the next thirty years and without ever holding public office, Nader built a legislative record that is the rival of any contemporary president. Many things we take for granted including seat belts, airbags, product labeling, no nukes, even the free ticket you get after being bumped from an overbooked flight are largely due to the efforts of Ralph Nader and his citizen groups. Yet today, when most people hear the name "Ralph Nader," they think of the man who gave the country George W. Bush. As a result, after sustaining his popularity and effectiveness over an unprecedented amount of time, he has become a pariah even among former friends and allies. How did this happen? Is he really to blame for George W. Bush? Who has stuck by him and who has abandoned him? Has our democracy become a consumer fraud? After being so right for so many years, how did he seem to go so wrong? With the help of exciting graphics, rare archival footage and over forty on-camera interviews conducted over the past two years, "An Unreasonable Man" traces the life and career of Ralph Nader, one of the most unique, important, and controversial political figures of the past half century.

While the United States is theoretically a multi-party system, it has operated as a de facto two-party system since the Civil War. Seventy-five percent of registered U.S. voters currently belong to either the Democratic or Republican party.

Third-party or independent candidates face a slew of obstacles in American politics, from limited media coverage to legal barriers and Congressional leadership rules. Laws regarding third-party candidates also vary from state to state, presenting additional difficulties. In addition, popular belief holds that a third-party candidate won’t win an election, so there is no need to give him or her publicity. This often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But U.S. politics have not always been solely dominated by two major parties.

Creating the Two-Party System

The notion of “parties” in American politics is not indigenous to American government itself. The administration of George Washington and the first four sessions of Congress were non-partisan. By 1797, factions had coalesced into the Federalists (who supported the policies of the Washington administration and a strong national government) and the Democratic-Republicans (who supported states’ rights).

The Federalist party eventually collapsed, and the Democratic-Republican party split further into additional factions: Democratic Republicans, who became the Democrats, and National Republicans, who became known as the Whigs in the 1830s. But by the 1850s, the Whigs had become bitterly divided over slavery. So-called “conscience” Whigs joined “free” Democrats and nativists known as the Know-Nothing party to form what is known today as the Republican party, while other Whigs joined what is known today as the Democratic party.

U.S. Third Parties

Major third parties in America have included the Socialist Party, Libertarian Party, Anti-Masonic Party, Know-Nothing Party, Constitution Party, Green Party and Free Soil Party. While third-party candidates have never held presidential office, they have ran and won numerous smaller positions at the state and local levels. Third parties have also advocated for issues such as women’s suffrage, the abolition of slavery and workers’ rights, challenging incumbent parties to put reforms into effect.

There are more than 100 national third parties in the U.S. today, but most lack the ballot status in most states to make a bid for president. The “winner takes all” system of the U.S. electoral college also favors the two-party system. In recent years, the presence of third-party and independent candidates such as Ross Perot in the 1992 election and Ralph Nader in the 2000 election have drawn attention to the need for election and party reform.

Presidential Debates

A black-and-white image of two men in suits standing at podiums at opposite ends of a stage with another man in the center seated at a desk with an American flag, in front of an audience consisting of four other men in suits seated at a long table

In October 2000, a month before the presidential election, Ralph Nader was prevented from not only participating in, but even attending the presidential debates, physically barred by the private security firm hired by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Because the televised presidential debate—the “Super Bowl of politics”—is seen as the final showdown between the top candidates prior to the election, the exclusion of third-party candidates from the event not only denies them a public forum, but also ensures that the status quo of the two-party, two-candidate system remains in place. The reasoning behind such exclusions can appear to be contradictory. As political analyst Lawrence O’Donnell says, “In an election in which now the Gore world wants to say, ‘Ralph Nader lost the election for us,’ I guess he must have been a factor in the election. But you said he couldn't be in the debates because he wasn't a factor in the election.”

History of Debates

Presidential debates usually take place during the two months leading up to an election and consist of a series of three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate. In 2004, the first presidential debate focused on domestic policy, the second was held in a “town meeting style” with questions posed by attendees, and the third centered on foreign policy. Each debate lasts for 90 minutes and has one moderator, often a prominent journalist or newscaster.

The major presidential nominees did not debate publicly until 1960, when Richard Nixon and John Kennedy faced one another on network television. But because incumbents often refused to participate in debates, and federal communications laws required equal time for all presidential candidates, the next official presidential debate did not take place until 1976.

Since then, debates have played a major role in forming and reaffirming public opinion about presidential candidates, allowing them to strategically broadcast their personalities to a national audience.

The Commission and Controversy

Nader filed a lawsuit with Pat Buchanan—another third-party candidate barred from attending the 2000 debates—in 2004, challenging the Federal Election Commission’s legitimizing of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The CPD was created in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic parties. The nominees of the CPD decide the number of debates that will take place, the format of the events and who will ask the questions. Further investigations followed the lawsuit, but the CPD continues to be the main organizer of presidential debates, despite growing criticism.

The CPD was initially formed to replace the non-partisan League of Women Voters, which had included independent candidate John Anderson in the 1980 presidential debate and prohibited major party candidates from selecting the debate panelists in 1984. Opponents of the CPD argue that its partisanship is questionable due to the fact that the senior staff and board members are all prominent Democratic and Republican leaders. In order to participate in a CPD-sponsored debate, a candidate must have garnered 15 percent of voter support in a major poll. Critics say that this requirement is tailored to exclude third-party candidates from participating.

In his book No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates, George Farah asserts that the CPD took over the debate process from more non-partisan groups in order to give more power to the two-party system. Funded by corporate monies, the current debate system, according to Farah, was created with the intent to stifle third-party candidates.
Debate Reform

With the 2008 elections looming, several conservative and liberal non-profit groups are working to sponsor more non-partisan debates. Increased access to the Internet has also allowed for an increased number of forums for opinion sharing and political debate. The Citizen’s Debate Commission, established by civic leaders from across the political spectrum, aims to host presidential debates that allow room for more diverse political views. However, whether or not these goals will be implemented prior to the election remains to be seen.

Keep in mind that I am not advocating that we all run out and vote for Nader, although in a way I am. I think the system should be open and fair. America promotes and exports the notion of open market and the benefit of competition. Then why not in politics? Why is competition litigiously opposed? Why is a third party candidate automatically a spoiler? Or even worse, a wasted vote?

Wikipedia has outlined the arguments for and against a two-party system. It seems a little strange that the US promotes and pushes multi-party democracies in other countries, yet at home the government vehemently opposes any challenge to the current monopoly on power. One more choice for president than North Korea and Cuba has is just that, one choice.