“There is a segment of the electorate that I have called the Restless and Anxious Moderates, or the RAMs, who I believe will decide the election. They include most of the independents and a fair number of Democrats and Republicans as well. … Indeed, it is my argument that the RAMs could become the Restless and Anxious Majority if a credible third-party candidate emerges.” (P. 16)

Here’s a quote from somebody else:

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

You may recognize that as part of Barry Goldwater’s speech accepting the GOP’s presidential nomination in 1964.

While politicians often pay lip service to the sentiment in Goldwater’s words, they tend to act like “Landslide Lyndon” Johnson, who said, “Extremism is an unpardonable vice. Moderation in the affairs of the nation is the highest virtue.”

So, Schoen is quite safe in identifying a centrist candidate as the most likely type to succeed in 2008. For third-party candidates, he advocates newly independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as leading the field of choices. Schoen acknowledges that he has worked for Bloomberg, who continues to deny plans to seek the White House in 2008.

And why should he?

If you want a moderate presidential ticket, Schoen himself names a winning combination, with remarkable prescience:

“All things considered, an Obama-McCain or McCain-Obama ticket would be at least as credible as any pairing the Democrats or Republicans could mount.” (P. 205)

That particular quote masterfully demonstrates the truth of the following from Gore Vidal:

“The two-party system was never anything, just two political factions fighting over jobs, money, influence and power. We have only one political party, the Party of Property, which has two right wings: Republican and Democrat, and that’s it. There are no great differences.”

Yet despite this truism, Schoen maintains that the GOP and the Democratic Party are too far right and too far left for most Americans.

In his introduction, he writes:

“Where’s the plan or even the principles Democrats and Republicans can agree on? They don’t exist.” (P. xxi)

Bull-twaddle!

The North American Free Trade Agreement, the Patriot Act, authorizing a pre-emptive war in Iraq and, most recently, a tax rebate to try to stave off recession are just a few of the thousands of items that have received overwhelmingly bipartisan approval through Congress and the White House.

Some of those actions may seem, in retrospect, monumentally stupid. Some may have been in the best long-term interest of the American public. For my point, it doesn’t matter.

And that point is, there’s much more in common between the two major political parties than there is in contrast.

But even if one concedes the fallacy that the two parties are too dogmatically diverse for the public, what would make 2008 any different from previous election years in which independent candidates failed to win?

Schoen cites surveys showing the rising percentage of voters identifying themselves as independent.

He describes the history of independent or third-party movements as trending toward increasing popularity. He notes that in 1992, H. Ross Perot actually led in the polls before he pulled out of the race, only to come back a few weeks before the election.

He claims that the extremely inexpensive telecommunications technology of 2008 changes the playing field, reducing the importance of existing, efficient political machines such as labor organizations and the Christian Coalition.

He spends some time touting last year’s YouTube/CNN debates, and how they might change what questions are asked and limit candidates’ ability to stick to their scripts.

He also makes this claim:

“Ballot access is improving … as independents become savvier and learn to work the system. Today, only a handful of states make it extremely tough on third-party and independent candidates.”

Only a handful?

Right.

But that handful includes the two most populous states, California and Texas.

So, if you’re thinking about mounting a serious independent presidential candidacy, hop to it. Just plan on spending millions of dollars on lawyers to navigate the challenges you’ll face getting on the ballot — or else leave the two biggest states out of your election strategy.

But disregarding such outrageous bloopers, is reading “Declaring Independence” a waste of time?

If you’re pretty much a political layman trying to learn more about the challenges and opportunities in our election system, it can be useful.

In particular, the last chapter, “The New Language of Politics,” offers some insights about what changes might make third-party and independent candidacies more realistic.

He notes that 48 of the 50 states have a winner-take-all rule on electoral votes. If all of the electoral votes went to the candidates in proportion to that each state’s popular vote, a national candidate could fairly easily accumulate enough to deny a majority to the leader, if not to win outright.

Schoen also mentions the “instant runoff” voting method, in which each voter ranks the candidates according to preference. This tends to ensure that the person most acceptable to the most voters gets the office. I actually saw this method in use as a student in Australia, and it seemed to work, but it takes a little getting used to.

But, it seems to me that the book’s subtitle, “The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System” gives new meaning to the term “exaggerate.”