George Kerevan: Third party could be insurance for future

As the Republicans struggle to find the right presidential candidate, there is a growing belief in the US that three might be better than two

ONLY two things are certain about next year’s US presidential election. The first is that it will take place on Tuesday 6 November, as prescribed by the Constitution. The second is that Barack Obama, the Democratic incumbent, remains supremely vulnerable to being a one-term president – if only the Republican opposition can pick the right candidate.

The latest national poll puts Obama one percentage point ahead of a “generic” Republican. Give or take a few wobbles, it has been that close for the last 12 months. Yet in 2008, Obama won with a comfortable majority of 10 million votes over John McCain. Obama received the most votes of any candidate in American history, including 95 per cent of the black electorate. Young people aged 18-29 voted 2:1 for Obama.

Four years on the outlook is very different. Obama might be charismatic and effortlessly articulate but has turned out – say former supporters – an intellectual policy wonk rather than a leader for troubled times. While it’s unlikely Obama could ever have met the huge expectations invested in his presidency, his cautious approach has alienated many on the left who voted for him in 2008. Above all, US unemployment remains stubbornly above nine per cent. Historically, presidents are not re-elected when joblessness is that high.

While the US liberal left has splintered, the conservative right – older, white and angry – has regrouped around the insurgent Tea Party movement, espousing an extreme economic and social conservatism. US electoral politics have never been so polarized – as indicated by the inability this week of Democrats and Republicans on the so-called Congressional “super committee” to agree a deficit reduction programme.

This electoral shift has created a problem for the Republican Party. It needs a centrist presidential candidate to win over former Obama voters. But the leading Republican moderate, Mitt Romney, is too liberal for Tea Party activists. As a result, the Republican search for a presidential nominee can be summed up in the phrase “anyone but Mitt”.

Romney, 64, a millionaire, former governor of Massachusetts and famously a sixth-generation Mormon, gave John McCain a close run for the Republican nomination in 2008. He is a highly competent manager but dull. A safe pair of hands, Romney is the Republican establishment’s candidate of choice. But Tea Party folk want a right-wing fundamentalist. So while Romney scores a consistent 20-25 per cent in polls of registered Republicans, a bewildering sequence of rivals has come and gone in the bid to take “frontrunner” status.

First there was Michele Bachmann, a middle class version of Sarah Palin, the gaffe-prone Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008. Bachmann’s candidacy self-destructed after only a few weeks in the limelight when her ability to spout nonsense became clear – for example, The Lion King is “gay propaganda”. Then came Rick Perry, the governor of Texas with movie-star looks. Perry proved embarrassingly inarticulate during television debates, to the point he could not remember what federal agencies he was planning to abolish.

Latterly there was Herman Cain, a former pizza company executive. At first, Cain’s charm and wit attracted popular support. And who better to take on Obama than another black man? Cain has become the latest Republican hopeful to see his candidature wither under the scrutiny accorded frontrunners. In the past two weeks, he has dropped to third place in the wake of allegations of sexual harassment.

Still, the bulk of Republicans are loath to get behind Romney. This has prompted a revival of the presidential hopes of Newt Gingrich, who had all but quit the race in June. A former speaker of the House of Representatives, he is a rare combination of intellectual (he’s written 23 books) and gut rightwinger. But Gingrich comes with baggage: multiple divorces and controversy over his receiving $2 million in “consultancy” fees from a federal housing agency. Gingrich can also be too intellectual. One wag summed him up perfectly: “He always has 25 ideas. Twenty are good ideas and five are idiotic, and he loves them all equally.”

This week, a fresh poll saw Gingrich overtake Romney by one point, at 22 per cent to 21 per cent. But the odds must still be on Romney securing the Republican nomination simply by being the last man standing. In which case the Tea Party movement is likely to field its own, third-party candidate. Then we are in a whole new political ballgame.

Discontent with the existing two-party system has reached new highs among Americans of all ideologies. A recent poll found that 57 per cent of voters thought there was a definite need for a third party. One in five are certain or likely to vote for a third-party candidate. An independent Tea Party nominee could get 15-25 per cent of the vote. But there is also talk of a third-party candidate from the political centre, to break the national political logjam over budget reform.

Third-party candidates are not uncommon in US elections. Businessman Ross Perot, standing as an independent, won 19 per cent of the popular vote in the 1992 presidential contest. Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, polled three million votes in the 2000 election, bleeding support from Democrat Al Gore and letting in Republican George W Bush.

A third-party bid in 2012 could be facilitated by the emergence of Americans Elect. This non-partisan group is actively reserving a space on state ballot papers for an independent candidate, who will be selected via an open internet nominating convention next summer. It has already gained ballot status in Arizona, Kansas, Nevada, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Alaska, Utah and Arkansas.

Who might run in a third-party campaign? The most frequently mentioned name is that of Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire, three-term mayor of New York City. He resigned from the Republican Party in 2007 and is known to harbour presidential ambitions. As the 12th richest man in America, he would have no trouble funding an independent campaign while his centrist politics would inject a note of realism into the debates.

Bloomberg is also a divisive figure. A fiscal conservative, he is also pro-choice on abortion and is in favor of same-sex marriage – positions anathema to Tea Party fundamentalists. To date, Bloomberg has ruled himself out of a third-party bid, which is good news for the Democrats. An independent Bloomberg candidacy would cripple Obama’s chances of re-election. However, on Monday Bloomberg was very quick off the mark to condemn the failure of Democrats and Republicans in Congress to agree budget reform. That could suggest he is changing his mind and might run on a “plague on both your houses” ticket.

Apart from Bloomberg, the most serious third-party contender is Texas Republican congressman Ron Paul. Little known in Europe, Paul has the most conservative voting record in Congress and is considered the “intellectual godfather” of the Tea Party movement. Unlike the political neophytes in the Republican presidential stable, Paul has a hinterland. A former US Air Force flight surgeon turned obstetrician, he’s been in Congress since 1976.

Currently Paul is chasing the official Republican nomination. If he doesn’t get it, many Tea Party activists would demand he runs as an independent. Significantly, only last week Paul refused to rule out running as a third-party candidate. One way or the other, that makes Ron Paul the biggest threat to Mitt Romney ever seeing the White House.

Historically, US presidential elections held during great crises have thrown up leaders capable of uniting the country. Witness Abraham Lincoln in 1860, or Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. This is the strength and purpose of a presidential system. But 2012 could see the collapse of the two-party system in America and the election of a president who divides rather than unites. The rest of the world can only keep its fingers crossed.