Oftentimes, the positions of America’s politicians are described on a spectrum that ranges from the “right” to the “left”– conservative to liberal. Oftentimes this description is helpful, especially within a two-party system where each stakes a side of the range. However, it is impossible to accurately portray an individual’s ideology and plans on a single flat scale. There are nuances on every position, and a liberal on one issue may be more conservative on another. In reality, ideologies are much better represented on the surface of a sphere, with 360 degrees of available variation on each question. By relying on a single line, we analyze only an arc length of that sphere.

 For example, if we take the term “liberal” at its etymological value as promoting liberties, then we would view support of gun rights as a “liberal” position. However, clearly our current political dialogue asserts it as a conservative stance. The cynical viewpoint would assert that this is the result of geographic values that influence candidates, and that if ideological consistency were important perhaps it would be a liberal position. Moreover, “conservative” candidates often favor farm subsidies, then trumpet the virtues of free market on other issues. 

The point of this observation is not to argue against this political system because there is no reason that political positions need to be ideologically consistent to achieve results. It is merely to show that the general terms by which we evaluate an candidate  are not as definitive as they purport to be. The political debate in most two-party elections, however, occurs ultimately along the arc that connects the two poles of candidates. If their positions are the same on an issue, that arc curves along that position, not through it. Because of the nature of this arc in political dialogue, some issues are not addressed. The ideological sphere is far too varied to expect all possible solutions to all possible issues to be on the table. For example, a single-payer system will not be a possibility no matter who the democratic or republican nominee is. Most likely, neither will the Fair Tax. The arc of public discourse will not pass through those points.

  The goal of a third party candidate in the American presidential system is to alter the position of that arc. Nader does not believe that he will win nearly as much as he believes that he will influence the dialogue. Ron Paul, if he decides to run, will also hope to bring the democratic and the republican nominee closer to his position. When an additional point is added on the political sphere, the rhetoric of the original arc will twist slightly so as to better capture those that gravitate towards that new pole. The debate in 1992 between Clinton and Bush I was fundamentally shifted by the candidacy of Ross Perot. Each substantial candidate brings certain issues to the forefront of a campaign; McCain focuses on lobbyists, Obama focuses on opening diplomatic channels with all leaders. These issues would not get as much weight had these specific candidates not pressed them. As more candidates enter the fray, they will bring other focuses to the forefront, and the arc of public dialogue will shift around it appropriately.

 If, as I suspect, this is the true goal of a third (or fourth) party candidate, they the substantive question is whether or not a specific candidacy will fulfill that goal. I think that we have every reason to suppose that the candidacy of Ralph Nader in 08 will have that effect. He speaks on policy points that are mainstream enough to be addressed  substantively, and has enough clout to bring them. However, the candidacy of Ron Paul has less potential. While I, and many others, believe he has a powerful and intelligent ideology, it does not come close enough to the mainstream to substantively influence the political arc.

  When Noam Chomsky is asked why he has never sought political office, he replies that it is because he “lacks concision”. By which he means he lacks the ability to express his viewpoint succinctly. The general public dialogue, its own political arc, is on such a part of the sphere that Prof. Chomsky’s ideology comes nowhere close to its trajectory. For him to get his viewpoint across he needs to address a variety of issues on which he differs from the “mainstream”. To address of this issues is too herculean a task for a single election.

 Ron Paul’s ideology is similarly distant from the “mainstream”. Although “conservative,” he is a “LIBERtarian”. In every republican debate he has expressed himself well, but he has not brought the debate any closer to his “pole”.  It is as if he occupies a point completely opposite the republican discourse arc, so that no movement would capture those that gravitate towards that pole. If he were to run in the general election, I believe that there is reason to believe that the public discourse would not be altered. Instead he would only be playing the role of “spoiler”.

  But here’s the kicker. If the goal of the third party candidate is to alter the public discourse of the election, what might be his expectation for the actually term? If Nader were to successfully get the candidates talking more about a single payer plan or impeaching Cheney, it hardly seems possible that it would result in action. Each candidate has a duty to his or her party, and as such much maintain a place in the arc in the dialogue between those parties. Hence, the real substantive goal of a third party candidate needs to be to change the public dialogue permanently. The points brought must resonate in voters long after the election. Can Nader do that? Perhaps Ron Paul is better suited for that effect?