ARTICLES
April 2002 ARTICLES
Contents © 2002
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
Votes Cheaply Bought, or Thrown Away
Jim King, Third Party -- Should One Vote for Him?
By Christopher Zehnder
"You'll throw your vote away, voting for him." "He can't win." "He's got no public policy experience." "You're just helping Gray Davis (or Riordan or Gore or Clinton or ...), voting for that guy." "A vote for a third party is a vote for the pro-aborts."
Jim King of San Bernardino has heard all these objections, and probably more. Despite the objections, he has thrown his hat into the ring for California state lieutenant governor, running on the slate of the American Independent Party (the California branch of the national Constitution party). Is King courageously bucking outworn shibboleths, or is he just a well-meaning crank? King called us asking that we do a story on his candidacy -- publications like ours, he said, were his only means of getting his message out. I called King thinking, if he were a serious candidate, it would be good to get the word out about him. And if he were a crank -- well, it would not be the first time the Mission has featured a crank.
In talking with King, I discovered there was little about him that people would consider cranky. He is a real estate and mortgage broker, generally considered a respectable profession. Since 1992, King has been active in pro-life causes and has served as president of the Inland Empire chapter of Human Life International. He has written frequently for the San Bernardino County Sun, "more than 50 percent of the time," he said, on the pro-life issue. What's more, King in 1976 entered the Catholic Church. (He had been raised a Baptist.) None of these credentials sounded particularly cranky, to me.
King told me that he decided to run because his party asked him to. "I didn't have to think long about it," said King. "I believe in my party, I believe everything it's about, I believe every word in their platform, 100 percent of it. I just couldn't say no to them."
King has made one platform plank the centerpiece of his campaign. This plank reads: "Any consideration of individual rights would be an exercise in futility if there was not first an affirmation of the right to life upon which all other individual rights are contingent. The American Independent Party recognizes that the first and most important role of government at any level is the protection of the right to life. We support the reinstatement of anti-abortion laws, which laws, by their very nature, protect the lives of those innocents least able to defend themselves." The platform also supports the enactment of a human life constitutional amendment and opposes euthanasia.
The pro-life issue, said King, "is the prime reason I'm involved [in politics], because I feel deeply called to do something about what is going on in this culture of death. If we don't do something about it, this society will cease to be the great country that it is." The commitment to protecting human life, said King, characterizes the state-wide candidates of the American Independent Party. "We're all pro-life. If you looked at the California voter guide at the 100-word voter statements, all of us said we were pro-life. It's hard to find active members of our party who take any exception to our platform, though some take it more seriously than others."
Jim King said he has been a member of the American Independent Party since is formation in 1967. (The party supported Governor George C. Wallace in the 1968 presidential campaign.) "I lapsed for two or three years during the 1996 elections when I saw some hope for the Republican party through their candidate Pat Buchanan," he admitted. But when King saw how the party treated Buchanan, he returned to the American Independent Party. King has little hope that California Republicans will seriously uphold the right to life. Not only is the Republican party "running scared" on the abortion issue, to King they haven't any sort of political principle. "In 1996, Bob Dole admitted that he had never read the Republican Party platform," King said. "Some months ago, I called several of the local Republican organizations here to get a copy of the Republican Party platform, and nobody had a copy. They didn't know where it was. I finally got a hold of a guy at the national headquarters in Washington, D.C., and he sent it to me. That told me that a lot of Republicans really don't pay attention to their platform. In our party, our platform is our backbone. It's everything we believe with passion. If you know my platform, you know what I stand for."
Since the lieutenant governor has little to do with public policy or law making (except in breaking a tie vote in the senate), what does King think he can do for the abortion issue if he is elected? Being lieutenant governor, said King, could give him "the bully pulpit to speak up about being pro-life." He continued: "I think that the public needs to know the truth about what is going on in the abortion mills in this state and, not only about the medical problems, but about the psychological problems that women suffer because they've had abortions. This should be a stand of the state government. They have advertised with public funds how bad smoking is for your health; I think the state needs to spend some of that money to advertise the truth about abortion, and how it's hurting women and families. Until Roe v. Wade is overturned, we can take a stand that it is not necessarily a good thing to have an abortion, and therefore can cut the abortion rate down considerably -- if the public had an attitude towards it like they do towards smoking."
Though King said he believes an unborn child is "a child, no matter what," he said he is not sure if his party would call for exceptions in anti-abortion legislation. The platform, at least, allows for no exceptions. "I'm not sure if they would take a position in cases of rape," he said. "The only time you might have to make an exception is if it's a decision between who's going to live -- that rare instance. Do we take the child's life or the mother's life? That's a tough one, and that's where the parents have to make the decision. But if you can, you must always choose life for the unborn child."
King's one big disadvantage is that his campaign has no budget to speak of. His strategy, he said, is "to get around to groups who might like my message -- the pro-life groups, the immigration reform groups. I've never owned a gun, but I believe in the second amendment solidly -- that's a basic right. I'll let the grassroot organizations know I'm out there, and then see if I can get a groundswell of grassroots support that I can document. Then I will go out an ask for donations, and see if we can make an effect, and possibly even win this election. It's kind of like David going out against Goliath, and I know it. But if God's with me, who can be against me?"
Well, maybe, the California Pro Life Council. Brian Johnston, executive director of California Pro Life Council (an affiliate of National Right to Life), told me that his organization does not endorse third party candidates. "My mom," he said, "would be the most pro-life candidate I know, but I wouldn't endorse her." If California Pro Life Council endorsed third party candidates, said Johnston, they would "actually be violating a trust people put in us in bringing an honest analysis to the situation, because we are asking them to throw their vote away. It's important to ask people to make a difference. We're not here to make a statement; we here to make a difference. Life is short and we are dealing with very serious public policy issues and we are talking life and death and we are not talking about gratifying my own personal convictions. We're talking about bringing those [convictions] to pass. The Lord's prayer says, 'thy will be done on earth.' Not, 'thy will be talked about.'"
Johnston said his organization gets "literally dozens and dozens and dozens of calls and requests" from candidates like Jim King -- "well-meaning people who do not have public policy experience." Johnston evinced a certain dismay and annoyance at such "well-meaning" people. "You're talking about holding public office; you're really talking about one of the higher rungs of being involved in society," he said. Third party candidates, said Johnston, "have no involvement in public policy; they've never been involved in election for dog catcher or school board, much less for a state office. Then they come to us and demand and expect us to use the resources and endorsement of pro-life individuals, conscientious pro-life individuals throughout the state, and they demand that we endorse them, because they happen to share those convictions. Like I said, I would not even do it for my mother, because I respect the value of those individuals' votes and I would not want to steer them into what is, not dubious battle, but what is actually certain loss. So, we actually endorse candidates that can make a difference."
But what of the situation where neither major party candidate is pro-life? For instance, Bruce McPherson, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, is not pro-life, nor is his Democratic opponent. In such a circumstance, might the Pro-Life Council endorse a third party candidate, like Jim King? "We would consider that," said Johnston. "There is definitely a possibility of supporting a third party candidate." Has the council supported third party candidates in the past? "I'd have to go back," replied Johnston. "Pete Wilson gave us an opportunity to basically do that. There was a man named Green, who ran in the Republican primary. He was a staffer for Senator Haynes. But we don't want to make that a modus operandi. At a certain point, you are going to lose your ability for people to follow you, because if that is your method of operating, they will say, 'why are we doing this? I'll go home and do nothing.'"
I asked Jim King if he thought those who voted for him were throwing away their votes. "It seems that way," he replied, "but don't forget the guy Ross Perot. Of course, he was a billionaire, but look at what Jesse Ventura did with almost a non-existent budget. People are starving for this [the American Independent party's] message. There is a big vacuum in politics today and it's more so in California than in any other state. When people see the major party statewide candidates after the primaries and compare them, they're going to see almost no difference in their principles. People may say, 'I'm just wasting my vote because you are not going to win.' Well, if you don't vote for how you feel and stand up for your principles, and the worst of the evils get in, then you have denied the political process, and when things go wrong, you have no right to complain. For that reason, a vote for the American Independent Party is not a wasted vote. If we get enough support in this election -- say, we get 10 percent of the vote, or 15 percent of the vote, which will be more than we've gotten in years, that will set the basis for change. I believe, that will change the political landscape of the state of California, if not the whole country. The major political parties are going to have to stand up and look at this and ask, 'what is the populace that votes demanding? They're demanding that we get pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-common sense immigration candidates on the ballot.'"
Another pro-life activist in Sacramento said he thinks that, maybe, National Right to Life and other pro-life groups who will not endorse third party candidates "are slow to recognize the new reality." The new reality, he said, is that "we basically have almost a one party system" now. "I almost now call third parties 'second parties' because the Democrats and Republicans, on moral issues, are almost identical now. So, if you want to have any contrast, or get anyone who is going to stand up for the issues, increasingly you have to go to a 'second party.' At some point you have to wake up and realize that this is not the old system."
While in many cases third party candidates cannot win, said the activist, by endorsing them a pro-life organization "at least prevents its followers from starting to make the compromise that they're willing to vote out of party loyalty alone. By insisting that you can only vote for one or the other of the candidates, you increasingly instruct all your followers to take the lesser of the two evils -- and many times, the lesser of two evils nowadays is someone who a few years ago would roundly be denounced as an extremist on abortion. Some silly little thing, like they're against partial birth abortion -- one out of a thousand abortions -- now gives them pro-life credentials. Gradually, the people who are following such advice become so corrupted that they are not going to stand up for anything anymore."
Though support for third party candidates may only represent a protest vote, "it still shows that there are some people who do care about an issue," said the activist. "If a Republican felt he had to scramble to keep that vote which otherwise might go to, say, the American Independent Party, he might cater more to that constituency. But if he feels that, hey, even the advisors on these issues are saying, 'just be loyal, or what not, then, the votes are cheaply bought, very cheaply bought. That's one of my objections to National Right Life. In so many cases they've encouraged candidates, but then they've made no demands and the result is their politics are very cheap. Candidates say, 'hey, all we have to do is stay a paper thickness more pro-life than the Democrats and we'll get the vote.'"
But what of the argument that third party candidates, generally, have no public policy experience? "I would say, in many cases, that's an advantage," replied the activist. "If they ever got elected, you don't have to worry; there'd be plenty competent people coming forward that would assist them."
When I presented Brian Johnston with this criticism of National Right to Life, he replied with a question about the critics themselves. "what have they done to succeed? If they think their method of political operation is, in fact, successful, then they need to demonstrate it." Is the goal to elect pro-life candidates, Johnston asked, or what he called 'absolutist' -- no exceptions -- pro-life candidates? "It's an absurd position," said Johnston, "for what kind of candidates are there who run that way?"
Johnston said that his critics "want to elect somebody who believes in their theology. I have a lot of pro-life folks that like to talk. They think it's all about talk. It's not about talk. It's actually about saving babies. It's about protecting life, not about protecting my morals. It's not about making me feel religiously righteous. It's about doing something. How come they don't want to do? They would rather hinder accomplishment themselves. Jerry Falwell said, [voting for non-absolutist pro-life candidates] is along the lines of negotiating with terrorists. If they are going to give me some of those lives, I'll take them. It doesn't mean I'm compromising. It means I'm saving lives."
Jim Haninck, philosophy professor at Loyola-Marymount University in Los Angeles, pro-life activist and associate editor of New Oxford Review, said he didn't think voting third party was throwing away one's vote. "I want to put this in a larger context," he said. "I really do not know of any case in a general election where something's been decided by one vote. In a certain sense, it is impossible not to throw your vote away. Logically, it could be, but there is no reason for anyone to think, quite literally, that his vote could decide anything other than maybe dog-catcher in some little burg someplace. In one way that frees you up to do a lot of different things, if you want to. Prudentially, a person could vote for an American Independent candidate. Prudentially he could vote for Simon. I think, prudentially, he could not vote at all and that, eventually, they'll see just how many people aren't voting and that will at least give some comfort to people who want to take off in a new direction. I think everyone has an obligation to be politically involved, but I don't think the quintessential political act is voting."
Jim King thinks this year's election may be a pivotal one for his party and for California. He believes that a majority of Californians are, to one degree or another, pro-life, but that "the two major political parties are not giving us good principled pro-life candidates to vote for." That's where his party comes in, he said. "In this election we have probably one of the best opportunities we've ever had to make a good showing, because both major political parties are not in touch with the electorate. We may surprise a lot of people, this time."