Mike Gravel was my favorite pre-candidate as the 2008 US presidential race got started1 The longer this campaign goes on, the more I realize why I liked him so much: For an advocate of a multiparty system, there can be no better candidate than one who:
(1) Endorses a candidate of one party, while (2) suggesting he will run for the nomination of another, while (3) still officially a candidate for the nomination of yet another.2
The first two points refer to a remark he made to Reason magazine on 18 March:
“I’m more libertarian than Ron Paul… I just endorsed Jesse Johnson to give him a leg up over Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader.†The obvious question: Since Gravel considers himself a libertarian, would he run for the LP nomination? Yes.
When Gravel endorsed Johnson, the latter candidate crowed about how this was “the most unprecedented cross party statement of support.”
Now The Caucus blog at the New York Times reports Gravel is indeed seeking the Libertarian nomination.3 As for the man himself, Gravel really is more Green than Libertarian.4
And, honestly, if Mike Gravel actually had enough influence to keep McKinney or Nader from getting the Green nomination, Bob Barr5 from getting the Libertarian nomination, while having debated earlier in the season on stage with the Democratic pre-candidates, I would say that he had performed quite a service to our multiparty system (such as it is).6
_____
Update: While my title is somewhat flippant, “fusion” is actually not a bad idea at all, and evidently it is something Gravel has in mind. From a comment at Third Party Watch:
The Senator would like to become the ‘fusion’ candidate in this election
—J. Skyler McKinley
National Multimedia Coordinator
Mike Gravel for President 2008
Apparently there was a Green–Libertarian fusion candidate for US Senate in Maryland in 2006 (Kevin Zeese). I do not know if that is feasible elsewhere, but I certainly like the concept. While there are many differences between Greens and Libertarians as parties, the basic idea–to unite all non-authoritarians and non-imperialists in a “big tent” (not that it would be all that big, I realize; Zeese got 1.5%) is sensible until such time as we have proportional representation and ranked-choice voting and other rules changes that make a multiparty system more feasible.
I doubt this is feasible under the ballot-access laws in most states, however, though that is not my specialty by any means.
As always, Ballot Access News and Third-Party Watch are good places to go for news and discussions on these matters.
________
- To the extent that he could be said to have been in the race, that is. [↩]
- Now that he has stated on the campaign website that he is joining the LP, I assume he has formally withdrawn as a Democratic candidate (as if any Democrats would notice). However, a little time searching for such a statement turned up nothing. I would add that there is no longer a map on his campaign’s front page showing the states in which he is on the Democratic Party primary ballot. Maybe he was not on the ballot in any of the remaining states, anyway. [↩]
- Presumably he will have to withdraw his candidacy for the Democratic nomination now. [↩]
- Whenever I think of Gravel as Green, I think of all those mobile home park with “lawns†of, well, green gravel. [↩]
- Yes, that Bob Barr. Steven discusses. [↩]
- At last check, he had won about 0.1% of the Democratic primary vote! [↩]
More on defectors to third parties: Alan Keyes is apparently going to seek the Constitution Party nomination. He is not exactly the best fit for that party:
That reference to challenges for Gravel is to the fact that other pre-candidates (that you’d have to be a Libertarian activist to have heard of) have been running for the party’s nomination for a while now. However, it also is to Gravel’s policy positions, albeit mis-charaterized:
I suppose it would be far too much to expect a publication called Conservative Pulse to realize that Gravel’s proposal is by no means socialized medicine:
At the previous link, there is a linked YouTube video where he explains his plan. The first thing he does is indirectly disparage the Democratic candidates’ plans (and that of the state of Massachusetts) which would “sock it to business.” Rather, he wants to free business of the costs of health insurance and provide consumers with vouchers for purchasing private health care. Where is the socialism in that? (Even “single payer,” which is not precisely what Gravel advocates, as I understand it, is not socialized medicine. Socialized insurance, perhaps, but it doesn’t socialize the medical care, which is what one might think “socialized medicine” would mean.)
Seed planted by MSS — 28 March 2008 @ 13:38
MSS: until such time as we have proportional representation and ranked-choice voting and other rules changes that make a multiparty system more feasible.
But don’t you usually argue that this asking the cart to draw the horse, and that a multi-party system is what makes electoral reform feasible?
Seed planted by Bob Richard — 31 March 2008 @ 20:59
Yes, Bob, I always argue that!
What I meant here was that it might make sense for minor parties to work on ‘fusion’ candidates, on the theory of united we stand (to get noticed, get into debates, make the case for reform, etc.) rather than divided (running separately) we fall (into the usual morass of squabbling over issues that hardly matter when you can’t even get representation).
Seed planted by MSS — 31 March 2008 @ 22:05
The Israeli model of parties forming long-term electoral blocs seems perhaps more appropriate than ad-hoc fusion candidates. As long as this “fusion” process is candidate-led and not party-led, it would seem to simply weaken the (already quite weak) organization of the small parties.
Seed planted by Vasi — 05 April 2008 @ 02:19
Bob Barr, Libertarian candidate for President
Just on purely objective indicators this year’s cast of “minor” presidential candidates could be one of the strongest in memory.
Scion grafted by Fruits and Votes — 27 May 2008 @ 13:20