Ross Perot 1992 run for president spoiled George HW Bush’s reelection. Photo Credit: AP
The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
The spirit of protest is natural to the American ethos. When unleashed, it has reaped catastrophic harm and emboldened the government to further intervene in our lives. When employed strategically, it has toppled forces of autocracy, compelling our nation to relinquish tribalism and unite beneath a common banner. We should call for peaceful protest to achieve a good purpose: to rebuke complacency and guide our society towards a more equitable system. Protest is a tool to be wielded sparingly, lest its sway become obsolete or cliché to the political ruling class. The most effective venue through which we protest is not on streets or college campuses, but the ballot box.
The protest vote flows through the veins of our great republic. It has repeatedly faced the ire of the two major parties from which it may siphon votes. I say “may” deliberately, in order to suggest that these votes of conscience are not entirely to blame for electoral blunders; failed outreach and shortsighted strategy are often chief culprits. Yet, Democrats and Republicans have historically maligned the protest vote as some fait accompli responsible for unsuccessful elections. This sentiment was particularly felt during major coalition shifts of the late twentieth century, which generally translated into historic and unusual election results.
The 1968 presidential election saw avowed segregationist and Alabama Governor George Wallace break away from the Democratic mainstream and embrace far-right ideology under the umbrella of the American Independent Party. He attracted a number of Southern Democrats who feared the Democratic Party’s landmark legislation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The American Independence Party caused a narrow popular vote loss and massive electoral college defeat for Democrats; Wallace’s faction placed their coveted electoral votes from the once-reliable Deep South out of reach. The Republican Party could not boast a governing mandate with a vote total of 43.4 percent, but given the scorching political climate after nearly a decade of Democratic trifecta, the nation was ripe for a political earthquake. The protest vote had fulfilled its mission.
The protest vote’s application was not monolithic — merely twelve years later it was reared once again in a contentious presidential race, though this time to spurn center-right partisans. Nixon’s continued unpopularity following resignation bogged down Ford’s affable brand of moderate Republicanism, giving rise to a new age of conservatism made up by technocrats, classical liberals, and religious evangelicals. The fusion of an oil embargo, massive stagflation, and the Iran hostage crisis catapulted Ronald Reagan to the forefront of the party. While the GOP’s message lured traditionally Democratic audiences from blue-collar professions, this movement turned away the Yankee patricians of the American northeast whose sympathies had been historically tied to the Grand Old Party. Moderate Republican Congressman John B. Anderson of Illinois capitalized on this resentment to run as an independent in the 1980 presidential election. Here too, the protest vote allowed for a third option. Anderson’s tenuous coalition of college students, liberal “Rockefeller Republicans,” and secular New York City Jews pared away from both major-party candidates, and Reagan scraped by with a slim majority of the national popular vote. Indeed, Anderson proved an ideal antidote to keep Reagan’s conservative excesses at bay while disavowing the status quo ante under Carter.
Two of the past five presidential elections have unveiled idiosyncrasies in our system of electoral delegation. In these races, the national popular vote winner did not garner enough electoral votes to secure victory. The Democratic Party, whose presidential prospects were twice thwarted, view the protest vote as culpable. Florida Democrats will forever bemoan Green Party candidate Ralph Nader’s nonnegligible impact on the 2000 presidential election. The Democratic National Committee applied similar logic sixteen years later when Trump swept the Rust Belt, eking slim pluralities in the crucial swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania on the back of diminished Democratic popularity and historic third-party vote totals. Democrats have only themselves to blame. Clinton’s losses throughout the Upper Midwest were consequential and not aberrative, for in the demographically congruous states of Iowa and Ohio, Trump breezed to stable vote majorities with substantial (nearly double-digit) margins. In the peculiar case of 2000, the national spotlight on Florida masked poor Democratic reception elsewhere; Gore’s home state of Tennessee, alongside solidly blue Minnesota, Oregon, and New Mexico, produced strong results for Bush. Millions of citizens have cast protest votes fairly and judiciously, serving to reveal larger issues plaguing the major parties.
We who wish to employ the protest vote must do so tactically, lest our voices be walloped by some prevailing ideology or fringe movement. Furthermore, we must relinquish the title of “spoilers” which our critics so swiftly ascribe to us and recognize our duty to reasonably temper the nation’s occasionally consequential electoral impulses. Delusions claiming that any vote not for Joe Biden is a “vote for Trump” or a “vote for the status quo” have circulated a plethora of online fora in recent months; we must steer away from these antagonistic assertions and consider uthat electoral engagement takes more than two forms. For instance, when over 200,000 Utahns cast ballots for independent Evan McMullin in 2016, they rejected the potential of a continued Obama legacy while refusing to endorse Trump as a valid conservative contender. A protest vote opting for a third-party selection is not, by any means, an endorsement of either major-party candidate.
This most recent election did not display ideological fluidities minted by historically unpopular candidates. Rather, it presented two diametrically opposed visions for our future; one seeks to maintain our imperfect social fabric and venerate unsound traditions, the other will chart anew to indiscriminately reimagine our institutions. Normally, voters have little choice but to align themselves with those whom they deem more trustworthy. If our current voting system does not fulfill this insatiable desire, we must forsake the duopoly and, in the custom of Anderson and Nader, transition to alternative methods of civic expression. The protest vote offers a stern rebuke of our electoral status quo and a forthright commitment to checks and balances on both major candidates vying for our highest office.
As the fate of America rests upon two deeply flawed candidates, we must assess a number of considerations. Has the Trump administration delivered on its most fundamental promises? Does the President’s style of rhetoric work towards specific pragmatic outcomes, or simply deflect policy failures and warrant criticism? Will a Biden presidency delineate a viable path to reconcile our fragmented nation and confront our most pressing concerns, or will it exacerbate these conditions? If these answers set forth a clear narrative, then we must vote with unconditional enthusiasm, regardless of partisan affiliation: either in favor of our own candidate, or, emulating the synergy of patriotism and protest, against our party. If the choice is unclear or conflicting, minor parties present several ideologically grounded candidates. If political efficacy has evaporated, then we must detach any semblance of stigma from pure abstention and pursue that route.
Modern polling points to the undecided or third-party vote of four years ago morphing into a protest vote of staggering proportions against our current administration; whether this will come into fruition is yet to be realized. Regardless, the prospect serves as a stark reminder of the rapid evolution of the American protest vote. It has jostled the established duopoly. It has encouraged necessary introspection and realignment. We reside in the most prosperous nation known to man — let us never settle for mediocrity. We shall strive for better, and recognize that alternative modes of expression do exist.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.