Parties no longer what voters want?

opinion@dailylobo.com

It’s pretty much a consensus, especially among many younger voters, that the current political climate isn’t really helping many people besides those already in power and low-information voters in both parties. The two extremes we’re offered every election are becoming increasingly unattractive, and the prospect of adding in additional parties to balance out the bipolar nature of American politics today is becoming increasingly attractive.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing a major three-party system of Libertarians, Greens and Constitutionalists, with the Republicans and Democrats relegated to third- and fourth-party roles.

But since that’s incredibly unrealistic, why not try a different approach instead, and bring back the old tradition of both Republican and Democratic parties having their own moderate, liberal and conservative wings?

From the 1950s until Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, the Republicans and Democrats each enjoyed a healthy mix of candidates which would seem strange to modern voters. You could find moderate Republicans who enjoyed popularity, as well Democrats who today might have been rejected as too conservative.

Further adding to the confusion, certain presidential candidates who today would be embraced as more or less mainstream representatives of each party were rejected by voters in landslide elections. Examples include conservative Barry Goldwater on the Republican ticket in 1964 and liberal George McGovern as the Democratic challenger in 1972.

Let’s break it down on a party-by-party basis and take a look at some presidential winners and losers from 1952 to 1976.

Republican presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford would probably not be embraced by the establishment of today’s Republican Party.

Eisenhower, though an anti-communist who advocated spending on deterrent measures against the Soviet Union, was very much in support of reducing the federal deficit while accomplishing those goals. He also put a stop to the Suez Canal Crisis instead of expanding it into an armed intervention or a full-fledged war.

Also, Eisenhower created the Interstate Highway System as well as both NASA and DARPA.

Nixon, on the other hand, began to put an end to the Vietnam War, started a policy of détente with China and expanded federal programs in areas such as fighting illegal drugs and imposed wage and price controls. He also created the EPA and OSHA and worked toward health insurance reform. Nixon did all this while embracing what he called “New Federalism” and transferring a good amount of governmental control back to the states.

Of course, there was the Watergate Scandal during Nixon’s second term, but we’ll leave that alone for the purposes of this analysis since scandals are not party-specific and have happened on both sides.

Ford, on the other hand, pardoned Vietnam War draft dodgers, pardoned Richard Nixon, supported the Equal Rights Amendment and advocated a one-year, five percent tax increase on corporations and the wealthy to stem inflation before suddenly switching to a tax cut stance. Foreign policy-wise, he was an internationalist and continued détente, neither of which are widely considered Republican traits among the modern party’s establishment.

Democratic presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter would find more mixed support from voters on a modern ballot, and from the Democratic Party establishment.

Kennedy took a militant anti-communist stance by invading Cuba in an attempt to depose Fidel Castro, by stepping up involvement in Vietnam and by forcing the Soviets to back down during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Domestically, Kennedy aimed to lower taxes for individuals and corporations while proposing to expand federal programs in the areas of education and medical care, to name a few. He also was a civil rights and Space Race supporter.

Johnson would be a mixed bag for modern voters, since he escalated the U.S. involvement in Vietnam from 16,000 advisors in 1963 to a high of more than half a million combat troops in 1968, but at the same time started the “Great Society” policies which included civil rights and environmental legislation, support for Medicare and Medicaid and the War on Poverty.

Finally, Carter instituted a national energy policy focused on conservation, deregulated the beer and commercial airline industries and re-instated draft registration. He also scored a diplomatic victory in signing the SALT II nuclear arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union. At the same time though, Carter also presided over an ineffective military rescue attempt of hostages taken in an attack on the Iranian embassy in 1979.

However, things get very interesting when we return to non-elected presidential candidates Barry Goldwater and George McGovern.

Goldwater more or less fits the stereotypical modern mainstream conservative Republican image. He supported states’ rights and as such opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as government overreach into states’ affairs, and advocated an aggressive, hard-line anti-communist stance against the Soviet Union. Goldwater also supported cuts to Social Security and the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam.

McGovern looks to fit the stereotypical modern mainstream liberal Democrat image these days. He engaged in grass-roots campaigning and was popular among college students, was anti-war and pro-progressive reform and planned to cut military spending 37 percent over three years. McGovern also supported the Equal Rights Amendment.

Feel free to draw your own conclusions as to the wider implications of the above data. However, on its most basic level, it is undeniable that there has been a major shift in which candidates are considered acceptable for each party.

Moderate presidents from both parties — such as Eisenhower and Kennedy — seem reasonable now to many voters of all stripe, and I’ve heard many Republicans and Democrats lament how they would be pleased to cross party lines to vote for a candidate if they were like Ike or Jack.

However, each party’s establishment, hopelessly out of touch with the people they’re trying to represent, continues to field candidates who do not resonate with what the majority of Americans really want.

And unless we the voters send a very strong electoral message at the polls, and push for the return of the acceptance of multiple wings within both parties, moderates in America will continue to be forced to compromise their political views every election year by engaging in the now-traditional practice of voting for the lesser of two evils.