“Political campaigns are designedly made into emotional orgies which endeavor to distract attention from the real issues involved”

James Harvey Robinson (1937)

With the 2002 elections now history, it’s time to reflect on events which continue to undermine a free and open playing field for all candidates for public office.

High on that list is the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision permitting Democrats to replace their scandal-tainted Senate nominee when he withdrew after the deadline to make substitutions had passed.  Cowed by public indignation over its decision in Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court then failed to correct this injustice.

The Democrats argued, “The voter’s opportunity for choice on the ballot is fundamental to our electoral process” and “Were voters not to have the full benefit of a selection among competing candidates…”.  One would think Senator Torricelli’s withdrawal left voters with no alternative except the Republican candidate.  That three other qualified candidates remained on the ballot was apparently an inconvenient and easily ignored fact.

  • Does anyone seriously believe similar consideration would have been given to the Green, Libertarian or other “minor” parties had their candidate withdrawn under similar circumstances? 

Clearly, not the petitioners whose pleading went on to state, “the public interest is best served by preserving the two party system.” 

  • Where does our Constitution institutionalize the two party system or bestow special privileges on the Republican or Democratic parties?

Forrester’s campaign contended it would suffer if a new Democratic opponent was substituted at such a late date. 

  • Why was no attention paid to the potentially enormous impact a substitution would have on other Senatorial candidates whose prospects might have significantly increased with Torricelli’s departure?

At roughly the same time the justices were hearing the Republican and Democratic arguements, Green candidate Glick and two Green Party Congressional candidates were forced off the steps of the State Capital by state police for lack of a permit.  Only hours later, Democratic Governor McGreevey used what should be his apolitical State House office to host a political pep rally anointing the party’s new candidate, probably without a permit. 

  • Since when are candidates for Congress required to have permits to campaign on public’s [the people’s] property?   

Undeniably, America has prospered under the stewardship of Republican and Democratic administrations.  Our nation is strong both militarily and economically, and continues to provide the best model for freedom and the preservation of human rights in the history of mankind.   Still, it is noteworthy that all of the fundamental tenants and liberties ingrained in our Constitution, as well as the vast majority of today’s mainstream social and economic programs were conceived by dedicated citizens working for political parties “other” than the Republicans or Democrats. 

Despite these recognized contributions, Republicans and Democrats have systematically conspired to enact legislation effectively institutionalizing the two-party system.  These efforts are nowhere more evident than in the laws denying reasonable and easy ballot access to minority parties.

Whether to curry favor and subsequent access or because journalists are incapable of grasping complex and sometimes radical proposals of “minority” party candidates or as legitimate coverage would require more than brief sound bites or token references in print columns, the media has actively abetted this conspiracy.  The electronic media in particular has fallen prey to a political axiom that without widespread support in the polls, minority party candidates need not be covered seriously.  Yet, without reasonable and fair coverage, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for these candidates to get their messages and programs before the voters or to have their often challenging questions addressed to and by their Democratic and Republican antagonists.

It’s no wonder polls continue to indicate an increasing number of Americans now believe a separate class has emerged in America … the political establishment … self-serving and primarily concerned with its own job security.  

During the past decade, nearly every Republican and Democratic politician has publicly lauded governments in emerging democracies, encouraging them to allow full political participation of all parties of all persuasions, large and small.  Yet, these same, selfish individuals quickly shrink from insisting we be as inclusive in our American political process.

The time has come to stop pandering to the self-serving defenders of the two party system and strip away restrictive and unfair laws which perpetuate the unequal treatment of ”third” parties.  Concurrently the media, and other sponsors of political information events and candidate debates need to stop sucking-up to Republican and Democratic power brokers and begin to demonstrate their mettle by working to broaden the political process, opening it to those without “connections”, to those who lack the obscenely large financial resources it now takes to run most campaigns and to those who are not part of the Republican or Democratic establishments. 

Only in this way, in a marketplace of fresh ideas and increased competition, will the American electorate again begin to believe it has a say in how it is governed.