The Media Needs to Stop Being Lazy
What they are calling a "Third Party Candidate" really isn't...
My apologies to our overseas subscribers: this might dig a little too deeply into the political landscape of the United States. For our readers within the United States, I am commenting on the political party system, not a particular party or candidate.
There are allegedly six recognized political parties in the United States. Besides the two we hear about every day ad nauseum, the other four are the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the Green Party, and the Alliance Party. There is also a “No Labels” centrist movement which does not yet have the status of a political party, and it remains unclear if this movement will put a candidate on the Presidential general election ballot in November, 2024.
The so-called “third party” designation seems to have come into vogue probably back in 1968 when Alabama Governor George Wallace ran on the American Independent Party (AIP) ticket with retired Air Force General Curtis LeMay as his running mate. The party’s platform was generally populist, but political analysts have assessed the AIP to also be pro-segregation and white supremacist, appealing mostly to southern voters disenchanted with Democratic Party policies. Only the 1968 and 1972 Presidential elections garnered more than 1 million votes for an AIP candidate; George Wallace received just under 10 million votes in 1968 and John Schmitz received just over 1 million in 1972. The AIP’s platform in 1968 (which, by the way, is a pretty interesting read in today’s political environment) never overtly mentioned segregation but did imply the concept through statements like “We pledge to take the Federal Government out of the business of controlling private property and return to the people the right to manage their lives and property in a democratic manner.”
The existence of the AIP led to considerable confusion among voters, some of whom even changed their party affiliation from Democratic or Republican to the AIP, thinking that, depending on individual state law, was what unaffiliated independent voters were supposed to do. That confusion continued well into the early elections of the 21st Century, with several celebrities in California mistakenly affiliating themselves with the AIP. (Note: The AIP still exists, but no longer appears to be viable except in the State of California)
The confusion over the AIP may be part of the media’s reluctance to call candidates other than the Republican or Democratic candidate an independent (notice the lower case letter “i”) as it could be construed as attaching “the others” to the fractured AIP or the offshoot “American Party” (ca. 1976) and their very negative connotations. Generically, “a third-party candidate” is probably correct, but the media throws even potentially viable candidates into the “third party” bucket, often with pejorative connotations. Basically, the media suggests that such candidates cannot be taken seriously.
I don’t have a good answer for the use of the “third party” euphemism. I just wish the media would stop using it, especially for true independent candidates (including the “No Labels” movement) not affiliated with any of the officially recognized parties.
Michael Paul Hurd