Third Party Sought by Women to Rescue Those Now Stuck With ‘None of the Above’

The National Organization for Women’s decision to explore the creation of a new political party has brought every entrenched warrior for the status quo out from under his respective rock. Who are these naysayers? Most are probably Democrats, some are Republicans, but none of them are representative of the majority of the people who feel left out and disenchanted with a government that never changes and has stagnated into heartless gestures about patriotism and the sanctity of the Stars and Stripes.

NOW is not suggesting a “women’s party.” NOW is suggesting a new political party/movement for the majority of the public who have become so mistrustful of the immovable bastions of power that politicians are viewed to rank below the level of worm.

NOW is suggesting a movement for democracy--the plurality of ideas decided by the majority with the rights of the minority protected for the common good of all the people. Protecting the status quo becomes embarrassing when the most popular candidate in America is “none of the above.”

The enthusiasm on the floor of the NOW convention came from women and men who have given of their very lifeblood to both the Democrats and the Republicans. (Yes, there are Republicans in NOW.) These people are very aware of party politics and the problems of mounting a third party in the United States. But they are also aware that the voice of the majority of Americans is not being heard. NOW would not presume to speak for the millions of Americans who do not feel compelled to vote, but NOW understands their alienation. NOW also understands the ironic fact that public opinion has no reflection in the policies of the United States.

If our democracy were representative of the convictions of the people, the 78% (Harris poll, 1988) who believe that the Constitution should include an equal-rights amendment would not be scratching their heads wondering how the ERA didn’t pass. The 60%-70% (various polls) who support a woman’s constitutional right to choose whether or not to have an abortion are angry to discover that the Supreme Court would try to overturn Roe vs. Wade. This same group that supports a woman’s right to choose becomes larger when the question is formed in terms of the right to privacy. No one wants Big Brother in the bedroom. And yet the 95% white male bipartisan government is still ignoring the needs and concerns of the majority of Americans.

NOW’s feminist label may not be as much a negative either. A September 1987 Times-Mirror Poll conducted by the Gallup Organization showed that 51% of women and men identified themselves as feminists or supporters of the women’s movement while in the same poll only 31% identified as Republicans and 44% as Democrats.

Yes, this movement to a third party is born of anger and frustration. The supposed friend of the women’s movement, the Democratic Party, has given empty promises on the issues feminists care about. And now the Republicans are trying to soften their anti-abortion stance. Vice President Dan Quayle recently said that “most Americans still would rather give preference to the unborn than to abortion on demand.” But he also said: “Most people in America support the right of women to have an abortion. But that’s not going to be the argument . . . the argument is going to be how the abortions are going to be performed in this country?” Does this sound like the man who during the campaign told a 12-year-old girl that she would be forced to carry to term a pregnancy that was the result of incest?

So where are the Democrats? Still trying to avoid talking about abortion. And still trying to rewrite the party’s platform on a Hallmark card. In the 1988 platform, the Democrats, after much wrangling, still expressed lukewarm support for the ERA and the right to choose. But a platform should be more than words. If every elected Democrat in Congress and in the 30 state legislatures controlled by them voted even a facsimile of the “party line,” the equal rights amendment would be in the Constitution and abortion would not be a question in terms of government intrusion. The Democrats could also be in the White House. The Democratic Party never bothers to put into action the things it supposedly stand for.

The Supreme Court’s recent attack on the right to privacy has tapped the silent majority’s collective bedroom door, and no incumbent can feel safe. So why are the naysayers and party hacks trying to kill the NOW messenger? When will the debate move from how NOW will fail at creating a third party to why NOW feels the need to try?