Nine days prior to his presumptive endorsement at the Independence Party’s June 24 state convention, gubernatorial candidate Peter Hutchinson and his campaign staff organized a coming out party at Metro State University in St. Paul for what he called “Team Minnesota.” There, in the modest student union on the bluffs overlooking downtown St. Paul, Hutchinson introduced his running mate, Dr. Maureen Reed, as well as his choices for attorney general, secretary of state, and auditor.

It was an audacious bit of campaign innovation, one that Hutchinson argued would offer IP supporters “more bang for the buck,” spreading the gospel of common-sense government as a unit whose combined expertise in the areas of health care, law, finance, and administration would make the sum greater than its parts. “We need a team, not a ticket,” Hutchinson said.

The decision to share the stage with Reed, John James (attorney general), Lucy Gerold (auditor), and Joel Spoonheim (secretary of state) said as much about Hutchinson’s willingness to look beyond his own candidacy in building a political strategy as it does about the IP’s intention to build a party that transcends the individual politician—or celebrity. Having weathered a series of squalls since 1998’s perfect storm that blew Jesse Ventura into the governor’s mansion, the former Reform Party has moved beyond the celebrity politician and aims to use what modest successes it can claim from Tuesday’s election to fashion itself into one of the nation’s few sustainable third-party success stories.

Barring some 11th-hour cataclysm, Hutchinson is not going to be Minnesota’s next governor. Given the fierce anti-Pawlenty/anti-Hatch sentiments among Democrats and Republicans, it’s unlikely that the former Minneapolis schools superintendent and state finance commissioner will even top Tim Penny’s showing as the IP’s standard-bearer four years ago. (The former First District congressman garnered 16 percent of the vote in 2002, finishing a disappointing third after having led in some polls early in the campaign.) But, as IP state party chair Jim Moore sees it, this year’s campaign has been an unqualified success. “I think we’re in a good position to get all our statewide candidates over 5 percent this time,” he said.

That may not sound particularly ambitious, but in an era when a large segment of voters care more about which party controls the levers of government than about how their party’s candidates will run that government, third-party candidates operate in a weird political neverland in which their positions may be popular, but their ability to affect elections are decidedly not. In these conditions, to gain even 5 percent of the vote in a hotly contested election such as the governor’s race is something IPers will be celebrating.

Beyond Jesse
Ventura’s 1998 shocker remains difficult to explain. The former professional wrestler began his long-shot campaign with great name recognition, something Hutchinson and, to a lesser extent, Penny, had to build. Support for Attorney General Skip Humphrey and St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman was tepid (Humphrey had lost the DFL endorsement to Mike Freeman before topping him in the primary), and same-day registration allowed new, mostly younger, voters to jump on the Ventura bandwagon at the last minute and push him over the top.

And while the Ventura victory put the Reform Party on the national stage for the first time since Ross Perot’s flawed presidential campaign in 1996, it did little to build the party into a viable player—either in Minnesota or elsewhere. Ventura’s delayed decision to not seek re-election hampered Penny’s campaign, as did the internecine scuffles that roiled the party during Ventura’s term. Penny and his supporters reportedly spent a good deal of the past four years rebuilding the party’s infrastructure.

It’s been a slow and stormy journey, Moore admits, but the party has been making progress. “Jesse was version 1.0, Tim was version 2.0, and Peter is version 3.0,” he said. “The quality and depth and breadth of candidates has expanded every time.”

The question, of course, is whether the IP or any third party can build itself into a major political force in a “lesser-evil” political era. Kathryn Pearson, assistant professor of political science at the University of Minnesota, has her doubts.

“As a party to win elections, I don’t hold out great hopes,” she said. The most the IP can really expect is to be more consistently included in the debate. “The U.S. system is a two-party system.”

Part of the problem for the IP and other alternatives to the mainstream parties, she explained, is that the so-called “independent” voter is not only difficult to locate, but it might actually be a bit of myth. “Politics is so polarized today that those most likely to vote in a midterm election, especially, are most likely to be partisans,” Pearson explained. “The notion of an independent-minded voter is not really accurate.”

And even in less-partisan times, these “independents” are tough to pin down, since they may agree with a third-party platform on a few issues, but may disagree with a party’s position on any number of others. Party affiliation, after all, often relies on emotional attachments rather than rational ones—ranging from an attraction to “small” versus “large” government, “religious” versus “secular” leadership, or “private” initiative versus “common” good. These belief systems, which are often passed from generation to generation, are difficult to dislodge with arguments touting the importance of “getting things done” with government—the IP’s favorite mantra.

That’s not to say the IP is destined to land in the dustbin of state political history. The party has moved considerably beyond Ventura and is fielding the best slate of candidates in its history, said longtime political commentator Barry Casselman, who’s following Minnesota politics closely for the Washington Times. He argued that the party is building effectively for the long haul, and could come away from this election season with some major momentum.

Besides Hutchinson’s strong showing in debates, the IP’s Tammy Lee is making a real run at DFLer Keith Ellison in the race to succeed U.S. Rep. Martin Sabo in the Fifth Congressional District, Casselman said. “You have to have strong candidates to become viable.”

And you have to recruit proven political professionals to your cause, which the IP has begun to do, Casselman said. The party now has a strong fundraising mechanism and a growing base of financial supporters. The Team Minnesota campaign has shown the IP can be considerably more innovative in its campaign approach than either of the two mainstream parties. And the party has learned the importance of building relationships with outstate media and with county commissioners and other political leaders in Greater Minnesota as a way of overcoming the metro media’s general dismissal of the IP.

“The IP is getting more and more people who are politically sophisticated and knowledgeable,” Casselman said. “These are not a bunch of disaffected amateurs.”

And, with the addition of Lee, Sixth District congressional candidate John Binkowski, and U.S. Senate hopeful Robert Fitzgerald, the IP can boast some of the most exciting young political talent in the state. The key, Casselman said, is continuity. Lee and the rest—including Hutchinson and his team—need to stick with the party despite the electoral setbacks in order to build momentum.

“Until the IP is able to field legislative candidates in virtually all legislative districts, it will be very hard for them to compete on an enduring basis,” he said. “But once that happens, the party starts making a significant increase.”

Help from Lieberman?
Ironically, the IP could get a big boost from Connecticut, where Sen. Joe Lieberman is trying to reclaim his seat as an independent after losing the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont. Lieberman, who is pulling away in the most recent polls, will caucus with the Democrats if he gains re-election, but his victory could send a seismic shock wave through the American political establishment that could be particularly powerful here in Minnesota.

As Cassleman notes, Lieberman is a major political figure in Washington—a vice presidential nominee with a broad base among centrist Democrats. And should he choose to take a leadership position in building a third-party independent movement, the IP will benefit greatly from his credibility. “He could wake up November 8 realizing it’s a whole new ballgame and that he’s the leader of a national independent movement,” he said.

That all remains to be seen, of course, but Casselman is bullish on the future of the IP and independents in general this year. “Regardless of the outcomes of the individual races, the independent movement will only grow stronger.”