Third Party Addenda

I endorse Erik’s post, but to add a few points:

• Arguments that third parties are potentially useful vehicles for political transformation confuse cause and effect.   Given American electoral rules, third parties generally reflect new issues that cause parties to realign, but they don’t cause the realignments.    It its implausible in the extreme, for example, to think that George Wallace was the reason that Dixiecrats left the Democratic coalition, or to believe that they wouldn’t have left the Democrats without his runs in 1968 and 72.
• The most compelling recent argument against third parties is, as Erik notes, Ralph Nader in 2000.   (To summarize for our younger readers — downsides: many, that just start with Iraq and Alito/Roberts.   Benefits: none.)    The response seems to be that this is unfair, as Nader’s particular brand of third party run (i.e. with no interest in party building and with a central goal of throwing the election to the the Republicans) isn’t inevitable.     Maybe.    But it remains true that (intentionally or not) left-wing third parties of any influence risk throwing elections to Republicans, and it also remains true that nobody can explain in concrete terms what they will accomplish that can compensate for this risk.   “The Democratic coalition, but purer and hence much smaller” isn’t a governing coalition (especially given that malapportionment of the Senate and electoral college), and in a first-past-the-post system if you’re not a potential governing coalition you’re nothing.    Even if a third party replaces some very liberal Democratic House members with very liberal third party House members and Bernie Sanders no matter calls himself an independent, so what? It should be obvious that this doesn’t make up for increased Republican control of all three branches.
• Ultimately, then, while the ideological goals may be more laudable, seeking solace in a third party  isn’t any more serious than Tom Friedman seeking solace in Unity ’12.   Holding out for the party that agrees with you about everything is just anti-political narcissism, and neither third-party movement reflects any plausible or coherent theory of politics.