Why This Election Needs another Andrew Jackson (and, yes, I want Harriet Tubman on the $20!):

The Path to a Viable Third Party

It is not too late. Until the 2016 Presidential election is over, I will keep arguing for a center-right candidate to enter the race as an independent. I believe the United States is close to a major party realignment. The Presidential election of 1824 can show us a viable way forward.

If you detest the choices put before you this November, have a deep love for our nation, and believe that our election process generally allows transparency, accountability and change, then look with me to history as a guide toward true, representative government in 2016.

In 1824 only one U.S. political party existed: the Democratic-Republican Party. (Some today argue the Republican and Democratic parties are more alike than dissimilar.) The Democratic-Republican Party of the 1820s believed in the exercise of federal power for tax-funded infrastructure projects. Democratic-Republicans also cooperated with domestic industries through protectionist taxes on imports.

Enter Andrew Jackson: populist war hero from Tennessee, a self-made man, who, as an orphaned teenager, fought in the Revolutionary War and led troops to defeat the British at the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812. Politician, planter and slave owner, Jackson gave voice to the popular sentiments in the West that white male suffrage should be universal (not based on property), and voters should be allowed to choose their political candidates through primaries and conventions (believe it or not, a hard-won political victory for the masses).

The ballot for President in 1824 included four well-known Democratic-Republican names: Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, Speaker of the House Henry Clay, Secretary of Treasury William Crawford, and U.S. Senator from Tennessee Andrew Jackson. In a stunning victory, Jackson won forty percent of the popular vote and a plurality of Electoral College votes, but he did not win a majority in the Electoral College. As outlined in the Twelfth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the entire election was thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives. Remember the nationwide terror of this prospect in the 2000 Bush vs. Gore debacle?

You can guess what happened. Not only did the House of Representatives deny the Presidency to the upstart Andrew Jackson, but, after alleged backroom discussions, Representatives chose Adams as President. Adams immediately nominated Clay for Secretary of State. Needless to say, a large group of American voters were not pleased.

Yet this is not the end of the story. Jackson quickly utilized his supporters’ “righteous anger” to form a Presidential campaign that would roar back in 1828, deny Adams a second term, and give Jackson eight years in the White House, during which time the Jacksonians began to call themselves “Democrats,” and Jackson’s opponents began to call themselves Whigs. The Democratic-Republican Party was dead.

How is Andrew Jackson’s candidacy a model for the twenty-first century? During his four years of political exile, Jackson solidified his coalition of supporters upon the platform of “states’ rights.” The federal government had too much power, Jackson argued, and hardworking Americans, particularly along the frontiers, had little. Jackson’s rhetoric echoed that of the first Democratic-Republican President, Thomas Jefferson, yet Jackson’s political loss demonstrated to voters that his arguments were true.

American voters today have little faith that the federal government is responsive to their concerns and goals. Bernie Sanders attracted those who were fearful about their financial future, and Donald Trump attracts those who fear cultural change brought about by America’s global involvement in trade, industry and immigration. But only Bernie Sanders can argue against a Democratic Party system that appears weighted against individual primary voters. Where is the injustice in a Donald Trump nomination? Unfortunately, there is none. Republican primary voters chose Trump.

This is why Americans need a third choice: a twenty-first century Andrew Jackson, a candidate who rejects the illogic of Bernie Sanders’ economic proposals and the xenophobic politics of Donald Trump, a candidate who believes that government can best be responsive to voters by rejecting the extreme Congressional divide that allow officeholders to brag ideological purity at the expense of national security and prosperity.

We need a candidate that can explain to young voters that individual financial independence cannot be won through increasing taxes and deficit spending, and we need a candidate who can reassure older voters that change is inevitable but can be useful and managed.

An independent candidate that reflects such responsiveness to voter concerns and rejects base cultural divisions, in favor of love for this country and all of its citizens, would allow voters like me to be able to cast a vote for President, rather than abstain from voting for the first time in my adult life.

The Republican Party is clearly divided and possibly dying. A lot depends upon how many Republicans hold their noses and vote for Trump. As a registered Republican, I won’t. My husband, also registered Republican, won’t either. A center-right, independent candidate could begin the process of party realignment and lead conservative voters into a new expression of themselves.

Could this candidate win? Probably not. Could he or she throw the Presidential election into the House of Representatives? Doubtful. Could this candidate emerge with a political future? Absolutely! But not as a Republican or Democrat. This, as I see it, is a way out of our 2016 Presidential mess and one way forward. I have to admit I am truly surprised and saddened that those who purported to love our country enough to run for President have fallen in line behind two candidates who show little love for anything other than themselves.

Was Andrew Jackson a good President? Not really. He defied the Supreme Court in order to remove the Cherokee Indians from their land and vetoed Congressional reauthorization of the national bank, which existed to ensure the nation remained solvent for creditors abroad. Yet Jackson’s party, the Democratic Party, still exists, and appears to be the strongest political party in the United States today.

The Democratic Party emerged out of voter discontent, Washington shenanigans, and the persistent political efforts of Andrew Jackson and his supporters. The history of U.S. third parties is largely one of defeat, due to their fringe politics that mainline parties reject, while absorbing their more useful positions. Third-party candidates also have a history of sabotaging Presidential elections by enticing ideological voters away from center-right and center-left candidates. Andrew Jackson’s party emerged out of the broad middle ground of voter discontent. It also took time. But, isn’t it about time?