Political Trust-BustingrnThe Third-Party Optionrnby Jeffrey Tuckerrn/ »M VLrnHHN f^’WBrnJW ^ • • • ^rni^nmMh ff t K’-.’yj^mlKmwrn* % ^S«^rn1 llrn ^^ 1 i e /rnS^ M^I^^^HI x ^'”-.^..–”””^ ” 1rn^^wE^v^i m. ^ f r ^ Jrn/ mjffl^ ‘fllrn•HSflHHrn1 IP^^J V V Vrnr* frn^:;aa»,::..t«»j-^«lrnIn the “nihilistic politics of the 1990’s,” warns a newswriter forrnthe Wall Street Journal, “party loyalty counts for almostrnnothing.” The writer means obeisance to the two major parties,rnwhich the civics books imply are ordained by God to rulernus. In fact, America needs a breakup of this two-party system,rnwhich looks more and more like a one-party apparatus designedrnto stave off all threats to Leviathan. We need a seriousrnthird party, a fourth, a fifth, and a sixth: whatever it takes tornspread the “nihilism” D.C. so fears. A Bosnianized country atrnleast deserves a political system that genuinely reflects the realityrnaround us.rnWe need new political parties, lots of them, parties thatrncome from below, from the people, devoted to advancing singlerncauses or complex philosophies, sane or nutty, scholarly orrncranky, warm and fuzzy or filled with hate. Bring them on, andrnscare the dickens out of the elites. Now is the time for old-fashionedrnpopulism. The public’s political instincts may be flawed,rneven deeply, but they are not as defective as the actual agendasrnof those in power.rnThe case for sticking with the Republicans gets thinner everyrnday. Whenever you are tempted to cheer them for a seeminglyrnprincipled stand, wait a few hours, and they will showrntheir true colors. When, for example, they defeated Clinton’srndisgraceful crime bill (at $33 billion, the only “criminals” itrnpunished were middle-class taxpayers). Newt Gingrich told thernnation how badly he wanted a crime bill, just not this one. AndrnJeffrey Tucker is director of research for the Ludwig von MisesrnInstitute in Auburn, Alabama.rnthough he voted against the trimmed-down measure ($30 billion),rnhe and other Republicans prepared the way for it by advocatingrnthe same idea that motivates Clinton: federalizingrncrime control.rnThis bill passed in what the New York Times described asrn”one of the most partisan sessions” in memory. Sure, andrnonly a few weeks earlier a $ 13 billion “education” bill designedrnto bail out public schools had passed in the Senate, 96 to 4.rnPartisan “fights” over the medical industry seem increasinglyrnfrivolous, with everyone agreeing that insurance companiesrnshould be stripped of the right to reject the uninsurable andrnwith only the Democrats being intellectually honest enough torncall for complete socialism.rnBill Clinton won the presidency with only 23.76 percent ofrnthe eligible electorate, the lowest level of support since 1824. Ifrnhis presidency is remembered as anything other than a politicalrncatastrophe, it will be thanks to the Republicans. In his firstrntwo years, Clinton’s only notable legislative “success” has beenrnNAFTA, the regional regulatory and trade bloc the Republicansrnhanded him on a pewter platter (paid for by aggressive lobbyistsrnand unwilling taxpayers). Soon after, the Loyal Oppositionrngeared up to do the same with the World Trade Organization,rna GATT-created supranational agency to manage world tradernfrom Geneva, Switzerland. But very few of those who actuallyrnand unwillingly sustain government with their tax dollars favoredrneither NAFTA or the WTO.rnDespite media handwringing about obstructionism andrngridlock in Washington, fewer and fewer political issues are subjectrnto partisan debate at all. When was the last time we hadrnNOVEMBER 1994/21rnrnrn