Life of the (third) party

Politics has fascinated me from an early age. I've put up political signs, made my own, written letters of support and dissent and acted as a county coordinator once. I even won the presidency of my high school band.

Throughout my voting years I have thrown my full support to candidates of both major parties at various times. It was always the person I was passionate about rather than party, the way our nation's founders intended.

When folks question me as to what party affiliation I belong to, I gladly tell them that I am an independent voter who is not tied to the whims of a particular establishment. It's true, we do exist. There is much more honor in going down the ballot, selecting candidates whose philosophies closest match those of mine, rather than resorting to the cowardly act of voting a straight-ticket.

But there's only so much you can do when just two names appear for a particular race, chosen by a two-party machine that are in it for much the same reason as the candidates they prop up: for power, for profit. We do not live in a black and white world, so why do we have to choose between red and blue?

I figured this out long ago, perhaps in my quest to seek a fairer alternative.

For instance, something in 1992 roused an ambition in me to support the independent candidate for president — H. Ross Perot — and it is an ambition that hasn't waned since. I was actively supporting and campaigning for a candidate a full six years before I was old enough to vote. The same thing happened in 1996 when Perot was a member of his Reform Party, before it was hijacked like most political revolutions are (thanks, Pat Buchanan). It was refreshing to be a part of a movement, no matter how Quixotic.

I cast my first presidential ballot for a third party candidate in 2000. It was Ralph Nader of the Green Party. My support was not based on some hippy-dippy notion of environmental action and world peace, but rather the fact that someone was shaking up the two-party system that has ruled American politics for too long. And while Nader never had a chance of winning — and who knows if he would have been a good president — the Greens were a worthy party to help support in the hopes of larger campaigns and better candidates down the road. You've gotta start somewhere.

And before you are reminded that a George H.W. Bush second term was thwarted by Perot and a Gore presidency denied by Nader, just remember that if those two contenders would have been better at their jobs, they would have won. All Gore had to do was win his home state, and he didn't. 

My only regret in my third party dabbles was in 2006 when I foolishly supported the gubernatorial aspirations of Kinky Friedman, who turned out to be more of a joke than jokester. But honestly, all four candidates in that horse race were jokes, and you had to pick one.

Since we are on the topic of jokes, let's take the top two clowns in this year’s presidential race. It's no fun to pick on either of the two because they are just so...bad. Whoever wins is likely to be a one-term president because surely the other party will come to their senses and nominate a more electable candidate in 2020. Makes one almost pine for the days of a mundane Gore or Mitt Romney. Bob Dole, anyone?

But fortunately enough, America does have choices this year outside of the two-party debacle being presented to us as our only hope. There's a third — and a fourth — option this year that you should closely examine for president. If not for what you see in either of the candidates, but what they represent.

The Green Party is back with Jill Stein, the Harvard-educated physician and author who also ran on the Green ticket in 2012, in which her website proudly touts her receiving the most votes ever by a woman candidate for president in a general election. Most Gonzales County voters will surely pass her over based on the funny name of her running mate (look it up!) but if you are into renewable energy, living wages, health care for all, free tuition, climate change, and justice for all, then this is your woman.

Policy aside, she advocates a third option for your choice for president. She understands that the political system is broken and is doing her best to provide a reasonable alternative. If nothing else, you should look at her website and take in the positivity that it radiates. Her logo features a shining sun of all things.

But the candidate that has caught my attention is Libertarian pick Gary Johnson. I've never been much for that party, for they usually run some half-baked Republican that could never gain any traction in their own party, like pseudo-Libertarian Ron Paul. Fortunately enough, he has been relegated to the electoral scrap heap of history and we have a delightfully positive campaign from Johnson and his running mate, Bill Weld.

Johnson is a former two-term governor from New Mexico and Weld a former two-term governor from Massachusetts. Do you know what they have over Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? Public service. Yes, Clinton was elected senator in New York in 2000, but it is hard to argue that she didn't ride the coattails of her popular husband as he rode out of office. Johnson and Weld didn't have the same opportunity but excelled anyway.

Johnson stands on a platform that is true at defending personal liberty. If you want big government out of your way, you should really check him out. He understands that the national debt is a national security issue. He gets that the tax code is unfair. He's for term limits, creating jobs, criminal justice reform, and understands that fixing immigration is more than just building a wall. What's more, he understands that the supposed War on Drugs is a failure and that if politicians really want to get big government out of the lives of Americans, then they should stay out of the bedrooms and out of the decisions made between a woman and her doctor. As he says, “Appreciate life. Respect choice. Stay out of personal decisions.” There's your liberty right there.

If you've heard recently of the Johnson/Weld ticket, it's probably because they are agitating to be included in the upcoming presidential debates. And here's the deal: to be considered to debate the Democratic and Republican nominees, a candidate must consistently poll 15 percent in public opinions polls leading up to the debate. To help their cause, they held a campaign fundraising blitz on Aug. 15 asking for $15 donations to get to $1.5 million to get them closer to that 15 percent poll threshold. And he did it, getting closer to the $2 million mark.

That's still a far cry from Clinton's recent $80 million haul, but a movement is a movement. Just ask the Bernie Sanders camp. Once something catches the imagination of the people, it is hard to extinguish.

If you really want to change the system, your agent of chaos isn't Clinton or Trump. It lies within the third party ambitions of those fighting to go get a voice at the podium and a seat at the table. To change the system, you have to elect a president that can really change things, not just disrupt them.

The deal is plainly simple: Texas is a state that will vote for Trump this November. Why not shake things up and vote Libertarian or Green? The major parties will have you believe that a third party vote is a wasted vote, but the reality is that a vote for Clinton in Texas is a wasted vote. She's not going to win here, just as sure as Trump won't win California.

Why not do as you do every time you get a $1 lottery ticket, and take a chance on actually winning something important. Throw your Texas support behind a third party contender and see what happens. Or at least consider the option. Things will never change in Austin or Washington if you don't start thinking for yourself and take a chance.

Besides, your odds are way better that Johnson will actually win the presidency than you winning $1 million.

Learn about the candidates. Visit www.jill2016.com and www.johnsonweld.com to read about the Green and Libertarian party platforms and the people involved.