Will That Be Vanilla or Chocolate?

Published April 1, 1990 in North Shore Sunday.

In the 1988 presidential election, only 50.1% of eligible voters actually bothered to cast a vote – not a proud statistic for such a proud country.

Equally disturbing was the number of people who claimed they didn't vote for a candidate, but against the other candidate.  In choosing a president, the strongest democracy on earth should not have to settle for the lesser of two unappealing alternatives.

But was there – is there – a third alternative?  Is it possible that the major schools of political thought, traditional liberalism and conservatism, are out of touch with the way millions of Americans think?  Is there a growing number of people who are unknown to each other, but who share common, nontraditional ideals that are as yet unlabeled, unrefined, and unexploited?

It seems so.  People are looking for new answers because the old answers no longer satisfy.  When George Bush waxes poetic about the "thousand points of light," and when Michael Dukakis drones on about the omnipotence of Big Government, they are talking about a time gone by.  Some of us are frustrated to the point where we want to shake them by the collars and echo Ted Koppel as he pulled the plug on Dukakis' dying presidential hopes: You just don't get it, neither one of you.

Apparent paradoxes in Massachusetts politics point to the sizeable existence of a third political alternative.  For example, how can such an apparently liberal state be so overwhelmingly opposed to its liberal governor?  Why did the liberals of Massachusetts overturn the liberal seat-belt law?  When did Massachusetts liberals become so conservative with taxes?

But the last sentence is misleading.  Dissatisfied liberals do not simply abandon the heart of their beliefs and become conservatives.  It is convenient to think that way because we tend to think in pairs of opposites – liberal vs conservative, black vs white, up vs down.  In reality, many liberals are redefining the concept of liberalism to the point where an entirely new and formidable school of thought is being developed.

To these rebellious liberals, old-style Dukakis liberals place too much faith in an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful Government – a faith that seems, at times, to approach the intensity of religious belief.

"Religious" liberals tell us that they know better than we do what's good for us.  They are not above passing whatever laws they deem necessary to protect us from ourselves.  And those who dare to question Government wisdom, or to point out that there is waste and corruption in Government, are met with blistering accusations of heresy and sacrilege (or worse, a state tax audit).  Oppose tax increases and be accused of stealing from the poor, the sick, and the elderly.  Propose a reasonable 65 MPH speed limit and be accused of favoring slaughter on the highways.  Religious liberals are nothing if not burning with righteousness.

The alternative to religious liberalism as well as to conservatism is a more down-to-earth liberalism.  The differences between the three can be summed up like this:  a conservative sees a man in trouble and wishes him luck.  A religious liberal tells the same man how he should live his life to avoid such problems.  A down-to-earth liberal offers help.

But the sad truth is that in Massachusetts today, and in the country as a whole, there are only two political alternatives – traditional liberalism and conservatism.  Any third alternative is considered the lunatic fringe.  So much for freedom of thought.

But let's put political reality aside for a minute.  We don't need a government that refuses to accept its responsibility to the governed.  We also don't need a big brother government that assumes it knows better than we do what we think and want.  We need a government that provides basic services, guarantees our freedoms, gives us room to grow and prosper, offers help to people in need, and above all, listens.

Yes, there is a legitimate third alternative.  And the party or politician that defines and articulates that alternative is going to be buoyed by a flood of immediate, grateful support.