Third-party candidates can provide a necessary course correction

History shows us that the path to success for a new party is narrow but sometimes another institutional voice is necessary to address entrenched problems

Betsy Johnson’s competitive race for governor as an unaffiliated candidate has focused attention on so-called “third-party” candidates, a broad term for anyone who’s not a Republican or Democrat.

Regardless of where Johnson finishes in the race, she has changed its dynamic. What would typically be labeled as an almost certain win for Democrats is now considered a “tossup” by political observers. Also, Democratic nominee Tina Kotek and Republican nominee Christine Drazan are running different campaigns than they would in a head-to-head race.

All of this raises questions. Is Oregon, or even the nation, ready for a third party? And would a three-party (or more) system be an improvement over the two-party system that has existed for most of the nation’s history?

To answer those questions, let’s first look at some history. The founding fathers hoped to avoid the formation of political factions, what we call parties today. But by the time George Washington finished his second term, there were two parties, each with a founding father seeking the presidency: Vice President John Adams for the Federalists and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson for the Democratic-Republicans. Adams won, then Jefferson won a rematch four years later.

Names of parties have changed, but in all but a handful of elections two dominant parties have garnered most of the votes.

So almost 250 years of history teaches us that the U.S. probably will not support three parties over an extended period. But third parties can have outsized, even nation-changing influence, in the short-term. And current political conditions bear some similarities to times when third parties have had success.

The most notable third-party success produced the most significant president in U.S. history, Abraham Lincoln. It is very unlikely that Lincoln could have won an election with only two candidates. First, he represented an upstart party, the Republicans. Second, he had lost his most visible previous campaign, a race for the U.S. Senate from Illinois vs. Democrat Stephen Douglas. But Democrats, who held a dominant position in U.S. politics because of the disintegration of the opposition Whig party, were divided over the issue of slavery. They split into two parties, nominating an abolitionist candidate, Douglas, for Northern Democrats, and pro-slavery John C. Breckinridge for Southern Democrats. Ultimately, Lincoln won with 40 percent of the vote.

The Lincoln example should give pause to anyone who argues that a third party would be bad for the nation. Our best president likely would not have been elected in a two-party race. Those who argue that the 1860 election was unique because of the issue of slavery should consider the similarities between the nation today and in 1860. There’s not a single defining issue like slavery, but racial, geographic, cultural and class issues have created a huge chasm between the parties and intraparty battles within each party.

It is unlikely that the nation would permanently embrace three parties – though I don’t rule out that possibility. But, a new party could replace one of the existing parties – most likely Republicans.

For a party to have staying power, it needs to be defined by something other than a candidate’s personality. For that reason, the 2022 Oregon governor’s race likely is a one-off event, not an audition for a third party. Johnson is a big personality with significant personal wealth and access to even greater wealth through connections built over a long career in business and politics. Her policy mix is eclectic, reflecting personal preferences more than a grassroots movement.

So, what would be the policy framework for a new party? First, what it shouldn’t be: an effort to split the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Most voters don’t think about issues the way parties and their most devout supporters do. Johnson’s campaign probably more closely resembles those of Theodore Roosevelt when he ran on the Bull Moose ticket in 1912 and Ross Perot when he ran under the Reform Party banner in 1992. Roosevelt and Perot were big personalities with high name recognition. Neither candidate had a well-defined policy framework and neither party survived.

If a third party survives, as Lincoln’s Republican Party did, it will need a galvanizing issue and/or clearly articulated vision. Republicans in 1860 had both: the issue of slavery and a commitment to freedom and quality. (Click here to read the full 1860 Republican platform.)

There probably is more than one way to define a third party that would have a chance at success, but here is one suggestion, admittedly based partially on my preferences:

The unifying vision, like with Lincoln’s party, would be commitment to freedom. This would include staunch, unbending support for open elections with as much access as possible – including open primaries so large numbers of voters aren’t excluded from the elections where many races are decided. But, it also would include a more libertarian view of government than either major party offers. Government would seek to help those in need and to address big, life-changing issues such as climate change but would not seek to micromanage how people live.

One example, which admittedly would be unpopular with many. To address climate change, instead of pushing specific industries and energy choices, assign household carbon targets (factoring in size, location and other issues) with taxes on uses beyond those levels. Each household could choose how to meet its targets. Some might drive less. Others might keep their house warmer or cooler. Some might add solar panels, others might replace their gas stove.

Bottom line: Set parameters at the federal or state level and let individuals make their own decisions within those parameters. On issues that are left to states, establish guardrails to prevent the type of showmanship that has erupted over issues such. as abortion and immigration with governors trying to out-extreme each other.

Others probably have better ideas for how to define a new party. But if there ever is going to be time when a third party would be accepted, the current hyperpartisan environment provides it.

Mark Hester is a retired journalist who worked at The Oregonian for 20 years in positions including business editor, sports editor and editorial writer.