Sad, but true. Real, viable alternatives do not exist on the North American political landscape. In Canada the Liberal plutocracy has for far too long enjoyed what can only be termed as hegemony. This solely for the lack of a genuine credible established long-term alternative. The blips that were the Chief, Joe, Brian and Kim never had a chance to implement change. Part of the problem lies with a flawed elctoral system, that does not allow for representation by population. As a reminder - the ruling Liberals did not gain a majority in electoral votes in Québec and Ontario, but swept the latter in terms of seats, in the former took a convincing ,majority, the basis for their majority government. A government that routinely ignores the concerns of the West, panders to the East.

Discontent and dissatisfaction with arrogant rulers has generally come from the west - birthplace of both Canadian viable right wing and left-wing political alternatives. In the first category one must consider Reform, now morphed into the Alliance, and the Social Credit; in the second the New Democrats. Given the consistent divisions in opposing camps it would be a surprise if true opposition to the bloated trough-feeders on Parliament Hill were to form.

With the two party system in the USA things are different yet similar. While the Democrats and the Republicans take regular turns in power, whether with the Presidency, command of the Senate or the House, there does not exist a real third party alternative, to which the disaffected citizen could turn.

Independents have captured some of the imagination of the voters recently. Yet these independents have been either obscenely wealthy men -(think Forbes, Perot, both right-wingers), - loonytunes (think Buchanan) - or credible candidates with populist support but the opposition of the moneyed elite (think Nader) that effectively eliminates any real chance of being elected.

It’s not really curious that independents, leaders of alternative parties that challenge the deeply entrenched status quo are able to initially grasp the attention of the dissatisfied. Yet the tendency to burn brightly but flame out shortly comes with the package. (Think Stockwell Day). Add to this list the Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura.

Ventura is, and was, a product created by the media, that rode the coattails of being different to victory in the gubernatorial campaign by running on the Reform Party ticket. While espousing Libertarian principles he was hardly one. The burden of running a state proved it - Ventura championed government monopoly schools and public transit, both of which are contrary to Libertarian beliefs.

When elected in 1998 Ventura gained 37% of the vote, which was enough to defeat his Republican and Democratic opponents. The Northern and Northwestern states have always been known for their independent approaches, Wisconsin for one has a strong libertarian presence. (Ed Thompson, Libertarian candidate for governor in Wisconsin is given a fighting chance to win this year; Thompson is hoping for Ventura’s support during the campaign.) Analysts noted the individualist trait in explaining Ventura’s triumph. For certainly, no neophyte politician like Ventura had ever triumphed on his first attempt at major elected office.

The life Ventura led before and after being elected garnered much media attention. No shrinking violet, he enjoyed the limelight, appearing on CNN as an “analyst”, giving interviews to Playboy, trading quips with Letterman, refereeing professional wrestling. Even the ignominy of shunning Minnesota’s radio voice Garrison Keilor (a woebegone and tired, boring presence that Public Broadcasting could do without) left no stains on his image. Add to this an appearance on the soap opera “The Young and the Restless” and providing television commentary for a now defunct professional football league and many wondered, whether Ventura had any time for his day job - running Minnesota.

Now, with his term about to end, Ventura has announced that he does not intend to run for re-election. Many see this as a blow to minor parties, representing a setback for their ability to raise money and attract candidates.

Ventura’s more sharptongued opponents, such as Mike Lynch of reason.com pulled no punches, most (typically) below the belt. Ventura gave his reasons as personal ones - wanting to have more time for his family, and saying that he no longer had the stomach for the job. Lynch called this the”most tired, cliched politician’s rhetoric imaginable”. One surmises that the jaded Lynch has no family to protect after such an unfair low blow. But that is the American media for you, public figures are not allowed to have private lives.

The flamboyant Ventura probably is better suited for a role as a private citizen. His reputation as an unrepentant individualist, as a muck-disturber intent on changing tired beliefs should serve him well in non-political public service. As a governor, Minnesotans have mixed reviews of the man who captured the attention of America. While receiving plus points for being known as the governor who said no - reactive is better than proactive, without any doubt - he also received low grades for changing directions in midstream. Much of that can be explained by factors beyond any politician’s control - 9/11, the decline of tourism as a result, and the changed economic climate forced him to change his stance on taxation. Yet he did stand up to the bullies that run professional baseball, protecting the Minnesota Twins franchise. His legacy as such is as a champion, misguided or not, of the common people, the ones who follow baseball, who believe in local values as opposed to Washington’s aloof imitations.

His election gave minor parties and independents new energy. By building a coalition of young people and first time voters he bucked the biggest obstacle faced by minor party candidates: the belief that a vote for them is wasted.

Those fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal - there are more of those voters out there than, say, the Liberal Party in Canada would care to admit - carried Ventura to victory. Sadly though, it seems that like or dislike Ventura and his achievements, non achievements, this flash in the pan has not changed the political system so desperately in need of real change.

Wingnuts and oddballs often dominate the fringes of politics. Ventura was different, a refreshing breeze that gave hope for those that are tired of the same old political bromides. While I shudder at the thought of Jesse the Wrestler elected as President, one cannot argue against the fact that more options, more choices are needed in any political system that dares call itself a democracy.

Märkmed: