This post is quite long, but bear with us. It gives a reason--even beyond the usual stand on conscience regardless of consequences--for voting third party.
We all know the end of the story: Abraham Lincoln was elected president as a Republican in the hotly contested election of 1860. His staunch opposition to the spread of slavery drove South Carolina, first, and other southern states later, to launch unsuccessful attempts to secede. His steady leadership played a major role in bringing the nation through the subsequent war and ending slavery, securing a place for him among the greatest American presidents. What came before is equally important, but far less commonly known.
The rise of the Republican Party--and Lincoln's rise with it--came on the heels of the demise of the Whig Party. The Whig leadership had become out of touch, comprised primarily of wealthy elites concerned only with increasing their own considerable fortunes. They carefully ignored the most divisive question of the time--slavery--focusing instead on economic issues. In doing so they contributed to the marginalization of the dedicated minority of abolitionists, primarily Christians, who saw the Whig Party as their best means of achieving their goal. The Whig Party began to collapse in part because a small rival party, incapable by itself of achieving significant national success, pulled away just enough abolitionist support to hand a few states to Democrats, notably New York in 1844. That small rival, the uncompromisingly abolitionist Liberty Party, never achieved its ends through its own elected officials, but the devotion to principle of its members nevertheless contributed to the eventual end of slavery.
The story of the Whigs, the Republicans, and the Liberty Party provides a new look at the role of the third party. To date it has been nothing more than a futile protest. The typical argument against voting for third party candidates is that we cannot risk damaging the established party's candidate who, although unprincipled and self-serving, might feel obligated to concede, if only in rhetoric, to the wishes of those who dutifully trooped to the polls to elect him. The example of the Liberty Party provides a different reason to support a third party. If a major party has become too out of touch, too dominated by rich elites, to provide an adequate vehicle for advancing the wishes of the bulk of its supporters a third party could play a part it removing it to make room for a party that will can provide that vehicle. A third party should exist not in spite of the fact that it could hamstring a formerly useful but now aloof party, but because of it.
The situation conservatives, particularly Christians who value social issues, are faced with today, although not identical, is analogous. The Republican Party, in the past the most promising of the major parties, is now dominated by a wealthy establishment obsessed with fiscal conservatism--an admirable cause, but not the sole or most important role of government--as a means to benefiting themselves. The timeless principles on which the nation was founded have been discarded as distractions from their quest for personal gain. Is it now time to discard the Republican Party? Not quite yet. As in chess, sometimes the threat is more powerful than the attack itself--but it's still time for a conservative show of strength. Modern Christians can find their Liberty Party in America's Party. Even if it was completely impossible (and the point is, in fact, somewhat debatable) for America's Party, it could still influence the Republican Party and drive it back to the principles that made America great. Failing that, it could replace it as a vehicle for those who love their country and believe that conservatism represents the best future for the country.
This election cycle is the perfect one in which to make this show of strength. Republicans appear likely to nominate a candidate who, although ostensibly conservative, spent his political career as a progressive liberal. When one takes into consideration the long term harm caused by liberal Republicans in leadership it becomes apparent that a Republican victory would scarcely be better than a Democrat. At the same time America's Party has nominated a conventional and principled, if perhaps inexperienced, candidate in Tom Hoefling.
For once standing on principle and voting one's conscience can be something more than a protest vote. Rather than simply registering dissent, it can be a vehicle of effecting real positive change. That, however, is ultimately not the best reason to stand on conscience. The best reason is still that it is the right thing to do--we have too long been without the spirit of "fiat justitia ruat caelum" that motivated the abolitionist movement. For those who believe that the ability to have some influence, however slight, on a political party warrants compromising principle to support the elite's agenda, however, the Liberty Party can provide a much needed lesson. It is past high time to take to heart the principle that drives America's Party and place "principle over party."
For a new birth of freedom!
No comments:
Post a Comment