Tired Political System Looks for a Tonic : Are incumbents and the traditional parties losing power?

In Oklahoma last week, eight-term Rep. Mike Synar lost his campaign for renomination on the Democratic ticket to a 71-year-old political novice who had no hired staff, ran no TV ads and spent less than $17,000 on the race. What defeated the nationally known Synar? The biggest single factor seemed to be incumbency.

In Washington state last week, House Speaker Thomas S. Foley, first elected to Congress in 1964 and running unopposed in the Democratic primary, was able to get only 35% of the total vote cast. Two years ago he tallied 52%. What happened? Again, dissatisfaction with veteran officeholders appears to have been a key.

These early election results are said to have chilled many in Congress, especially House Democrats. Yet they are more confirming than startling. The anti-incumbent mood is not new. That it has continued to grow--witness the broad support for term limit measures--is clear. But that mood in itself signals a larger sense of alienation from the political system.

A new survey by the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press, based on interviews with more than 4,800 voters, describes the mood of the electorate as “angry, self-absorbed and politically unanchored.” Increasingly, government inspires not trust but cynicism, with federal programs seen by a staggering 69% of those questioned as usually wasteful.

The anti-government mood has a number of striking concomitants. Among them is the decline in support for the traditional two-party system, and what could be the accompanying emergence of a perhaps durable constituency for third-party alternatives. Ross Perot’s personal appeal may have fallen somewhat since he ran for President in 1992, but the appeal of perotism--of the self-proclaimed political outsider doing populist battle with a bloated, inert, unresponsive government--remains a powerful force in the political arena.

And not without reason. In his new book “Arrogant Capital: Washington, Wall Street, and the Frustration of American Politics,” excerpted in the current Time, Kevin Phillips connects Washington’s imperial growth to the gap that people now feel between themselves and their government. To a large extent influence, which in Washington is power, has been transferred from elected officials and those they are supposed to represent to the more than 20,000 congressional staffers, to the 91,000 people associated with lobbying, to the interest groups that contribute so heavily to campaigns. Parties once represented deeply held convictions. Now, “exhausted parties” become easy prey for special interests, “because there is little heartfelt belief to get in the way.”

There is, to be sure, nothing sacred about the Republican and Democratic parties, and preserving them in their current form is not a national imperative. But the two-party system, however it has fallen into disarray, has had historic value. It has contributed significantly to political stability, forcing factions into compromising coalitions and in so doing controlling political extremism. This is no small achievement.

In a time of continuing political, social and economic flux and uncertainties the potential for demagogic extremism must be taken especially seriously. Will Americans’ fundamental common sense keep it in check? Phillips holds out the prospect of a revitalization of the political system through a “bloodless revolution” aimed at dispersing power away from Washington and from lobbies and interest groups, while reversing the trend toward an increasing concentration of wealth. These may prove to be the real political issues to be debated over the next few years.