Dr. Tammy Greer is the author of “Nowhere to Run: Race, Gender, and Immigration in American Elections” and the co-author of “Georgia’s Journey Down the Purple Brick Road: A Review of the 2018 Georgia Mid-Term Election Results.” She was the 2023 Chair of the DeKalb County Board of Ethics, and she is the director of the Bachelor’s in Interdisciplinary Studies Social Entrepreneurship Program in the Public Management and Policy Program of Andrew Young School of Public Studies at Georgia State University. Speaking at the Foreign Press Center briefing, she explains the role of lesser known political parties and candidates in American politics. United States Bureau Chief OLUKOREDE YISHAU was there. Excerpts:
American political parties
Unlike other democracies, the United States has two dominant political parties: Republicans and Democrats. These parties have gone through an evolution over the course of the United States’s history. The major political parties have always existed. The names, the ideologies have shifted, yet overall the major political parties – the Republicans and Democrats – have been the dominant political parties since the creation of the United States.
As for third parties, in the United States mostly third parties have had a selective view of an issue or of a position that perhaps the major political parties are not necessarily keenly focused on. Yet that’s the opportunity for the third parties to be able to shine, to focus on particular issues within the U.S. political system. So their platform – the third-party’s platform – seems in its origination to be singularly focused on a particular issue.
So for example, when the Green Party first came into being as a third party, it’s platform was mostly focused on the environment. So many of the issues that Green Party candidates focused on, when it came to the federal level in particular, was specifically and keenly focused on environmental challenges within the United States and around the world. Their platform has, of course, evolved, at the same time still centered around environmental issues.
Originally, when third parties were created and they were focused on this one particular area, their platform seems to have no consideration of the nuance, the complexity, and how – as some of those issues intertwined with other challenges within the United States and around the world. So for many individuals who are focused on the dominant parties within the United States, to look at third parties was to look at an organization that was very narrow in its focus and didn’t really appreciate how all of the issues within the United States and around the world actually work together. So third parties really didn’t have a place – a serious place – when it comes to U.S. politics.
To be clear though, third parties play a critical role in governing and the election process. Third parties are able to make – bring to the forefront to the political – of the political consciousness some of the matters that may not be politically palatable for the dominant parties. Third parties in this case are able to have a platform – whether it be on social media, interviewed on mainstream media, TV, radio, or print – and they are able to discuss some of those critical issues that may not be politically expedient for the dominant parties.
An example
So for example, one example that was – is very recent is the discussion around universal basic income. While running to be the presidential – the Democratic presidential nominee in 2019, Andrew Yang consistently discussed universal basic income. Those in the Democratic Party usually – and mostly in private – like the idea of universal basic income. However, their – most of the Democrats who are in elected positions are moderate, and it was not – they were not able to say or to agree to universal basic income because of the fear of being labeled as socialist by Republicans or conservatives, which could lose them elected seats.
So after months and months and months of being on the campaign trail discussing universal basic income, getting the public to listen to this option, as well as even going to conservative and Republican areas and media to discuss universal basic income, those particular areas that may have looked at UBI as a socialist function actually began to listen and appreciate UBI, because those particular areas were facing economic distress.
So after months and months and months of discussing UBI, then it became part of the lexicon and a consideration for others to consider universal basic income, up to and including some Republicans even discussing considering legislation about UBI on the federal level. So the thirdparty notion had a really interesting space in shifting some of the more conservative view of what we think of some of these issues.
The challenge though with third parties is that, from an electoral standpoint, these parties and candidates do not have a local electoral presence. These groups are not vocal and local on the state, the local, or the county levels to create an electoral imprint. If these groups were more local than vocal, then the abnormality of voting for a third party could subside in the electorate’s eyes.
One of the questions that we often hear, particularly around the presidential election time, is could third parties gain momentum in the United States. The answer is yes; there’s a caveat though. Third parties could gain more momentum on the – for the electorate if the third parties position themselves on the local level, have messaging that incorporates all of the angst, the challenges, the economic, the political, the social challenges that are in the United States and around the world, if third parties had a wider viewpoint of politics beyond their singular issue, if third parties were to connect their major concern, their major platform with other challenges that may be on the periphery of their platform, or even to consider the interdependencies of all of those policies that come together that then impact their particular platform. You could see a groundswell, if you will, of third parties rising in the electorate in the United States.
The challenge
However, the narrowness of what third parties are in the United States creates a challenge, as well as if we also appreciate that the two dominate parties in the United States have begun to open – as they like to say – the big tent in their political parties to include some of those individuals who perhaps have a keen focus on some of those platforms for third parties, and then the dominate parties connect the dominant platform – the Republican platform of the Democratic platform – with those particular areas. This is why you would see, particularly in a presidential year, the political parties’ platforms get longer and longer and longer, because they understand and appreciate the third-party’s responsibility in the electoral process and how, perhaps, having a third-party candidate being out there to create a groundswell about an issue opens the door for the dominant parties to then take ownership of those particular issues.
Yet both of those parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, are conservative in their viewpoint, because there’s an understanding that the United States electorate in and of itself really is adverse to major change, so they need someone on the outside of the dominant parties to continuously discuss the issue, so that then the citizens can then take hold of the issue and demand that the major parties take on these particular issues as part of their platform.
Benefits of third-parties members
The benefit of third-party members, again, is to push the issue into the mainstream lexicon. So let’s take the Green Party and let’s take environment. Even though when the Green Party was first created, it – they appeared to be on the fringes when they were discussing environmental challenges, the impact of environment, environmental justice. There’s a whole notion that the Green Party was going through in its origination that seemed to be way out there on the left. As time has progressed, Green Party – the Green Party platform as well as individuals within the Green Party have begun to shift the dialogue about environmental challenges, such that there is a discussion about climate change in both political parties, as well as in the different ideologies associated with the political parties.
So there is room for them in terms of bringing issues to the forefront. The limitations that third parties have is that they are – can be so focused and their position can be outside of the mainstream of what some folks can imagine, and that sometimes the policy solutions, if they do have policy solutions, are not grounded in a full appreciation of the structure, function, and financial connectedness of the U.S. political system.
Strategies do third parties use to gain visibility and support
Third parties go to young people in particular who may have a not-so-positive view of the two dominant parties in the United States. Third parties also use social media as well as going to certain communities – regardless of age – that fear that they have not been heard by the dominant parties. So you’ll see infiltration in particularly underserved, underrepresented communities inside the United States. You’ll see when it comes to the U.S. territories who do have a say-so for the primary process in the United States. You’ll see third parties thrive in U.S. territories because that becomes a voice for them – the territories – to note those particular policies or items that have not been addressed because those territories are not states.
So you see those communities that are negatively impact and feel unseen are the ones that usually grab the ear or the support from third parties.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
So third parties, especially in the presidential election, tend to focus on those soft states. And I use the term “soft states” to describe those states that may not have a large majority for one political party or another, right. So we see in – what we hear in the media, battleground states is where you’ll see third parties usually, like, stake their ground.
In terms of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., what I see with RFK is that he could, depending on where he is, take votes from both political parties. There is one particular component – again, especially when we look at underserved and underrepresented communities, and communities that do not have a positive history with the United States, some of the language that is used in terms of understanding one’s pain, one’s history, a distrust of the U.S. Government – these particular talking points resonate with individuals in some of those communities that slowly take away votes from both dominant candidates.
And so even if you have a Georgia, for example, where the vote count was 11,780, right – when you have such a small margin, any chipping away of the electorate matters. And so then those states truly do become a battleground and a toss-up state because you have less votes that go to the major parties.
What this does, though, for the electorate is there tends to be folks who vote for third parties in this particular race, the presidential race, where it’s mostly a protest vote. And it’s a protest vote because you have the dominant parties – someone in the dominant party is going to win, right, when we consider the rest of the states in United States and their voting, particularly – and considering Washington, D.C., as the only territory that has Electoral College votes in the presidential election.
So the protest vote tends to throw off the seriousness, if I could use that word, of – that there’s going to be one or two of the dominant parties to win. And if there is a protest vote or a platform to say this really matters, there’s a different, more constructive way of using that, particularly because, again, the third parties are not local and vocal. And because they’re not local and vocal, they are dominant in the electoral process only during a presidential year. And the seriousness of becoming a viable political party that is competitive in the United States means that local matters, and unless and until those third parties come to the local level, I’m not sure how competitive and serious the entire electorate could take third parties.
The key issues of RFK’s platform
MS GREER: So he talks about – this is very interesting because there is discussion about – from a medical standpoint some of the challenges that we have, like with COVID, with vaccines in particular. There is conversation about economic issues within the United States. There is also a conversation about foreign policy. So he’s touching on elements in the – that the electorate can appreciate. At the same time, when it comes to putting those issues together, when it comes to getting individuals in the center, then his candidacy does not connect those people in the center which makes up the majority of the electorate in the United States.
The third theory
Ross Perot. Ross Perot was very close to winning and made it very – well, he made it very competitive, such that neither dominant candidate, George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton, received a majority of the total number of votes in the country, yet Bill Clinton won the Electoral College. So Ross Perot did extremely well with infiltrating the U.S. electorate, and he did that by, number one, he bought time on PBS, on public television and public radio, to put forth his message, and most of it was an economic plan. He went to other places to discuss economics in a way that made sense for the electorate and then connected economics to some of the issues that – some of the peripheral issues that individual communities were having.
So – and, of course, he was made fun of for his candidacy, yet he maintained and continued, and even through he was not part of the two-party system, his candidacy made sense to the moderates within the electorate. So this is why he was able to do more than other third parties have been able to do, and then you saw that even George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton started shifting some of their language and – to complement what Ross Perot was saying, because they understood his message was making sense and perhaps they should adopt some of his language and perhaps some of his policies in their particular platform to get some of those votes back that were leaving and going to Ross Perot.
Third parties helping to voice the worries and views of immigrants in the United States
When we consider the United States, we consider that there is a great swell of immigrants in the United States and/or people who have become naturalized. And these particular communities, particularly the ones that are recent naturalized citizens, have an enormous amount of power, particularly on the state and local level, to shift policies. However, I see candidates not taking these communities seriously and leaving an enormous amount of votes on the table. If third parties, for example, were to be local and vocal, they would be able to go in some of these communities, especially depending on where they’re located, and to begin to create collective action among those communities, and then have centralized voices and have those individuals to move not just from a conversation standpoint or a protesting standpoint, from an electorate standpoint.
So even if some immigrants aren’t able to vote, even if the immigrants are not able to vote, there are naturalized citizens who connect with those communities who can vote. And if those two spaces work together, they can move policy on the state and local level, which then will influence policy on the federal level.
RFK’s campaign
They always say that. (Laughter.) Because if they say “I don’t have a clear path,” then the question is, then why are you running? So this is one of those if I say it then people will believe it, so I say it over and over again to hopefully create a self-fulfilling prophecy. He does not have a clear pathway to be president of the United States.
