The US presidential election is an event that the world is closely watching because of the supreme position of global leadership that the US assumed since the advent of Pax Americana at the end of WWII when the US became the world’s dominant economic, cultural, and military power.

Where America goes, so too does the rest of the world. However, that certainty is contentious today because of China's rise as a competing global power and the simmering turbulence of US politics.

The great divide between the liberal Democrats and the conservative Republicans has never been most apparent. However, to make matters even more perplexing, the presumptive candidates, incumbent Joe Biden and comebacking Donald Trump, are viewed to be perhaps the least desirable among presidential hopefuls. This seeming dislike for both has given rise to the emergence of a third-party candidate, an improbability but a continuing hope that disenchanted voters always dream of.

US history is littered with apparently viable but unsuccessful independent candidates such as billionaire Ross Perot, who secured 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992; segregationist George Wallace, who garnered 14 percent of the popular vote in 1998; and comebacking ex-President Theodore Roosevelt, who after two successful terms in 1901-1909 as a Republican decided to run in 1912 as an independent; he lost despite securing 27 percent of the popular vote.

This year, a scion of the US political nobility Kennedy clan, a staunch environmental and anti-vax advocate, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of the assassinated Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, the younger brother of assassinated American political icon President John F. Kennedy, has emerged as the latest third-party presidential hopeful to attempt to break the legacy of unsuccessful campaigns of independents against the entrenched political establishment.

His life story reads like an enthralling comeback movie script. Shortly after his father’s assassination, he fell into drugs at the age of 14 in 1968. He studied at Harvard University and the London School of Economics and eventually earned a law degree from the University of Virginia and a Master of Law from Pace University. His addiction, however, consumed him intermittently until his rehabilitation in 1984.

Emerging from his rehab, he immersed himself in environmental advocacies, championing successful litigations against corporate behemoths like DuPont, Monsanto, Mobil Oil, General Electric, and even the US military establishment. His anti-vax conspiracy theories have also endeared him to millions who doubt the efficacy of vaccines. The latest polls apparently show that RFK Jr. is garnering anywhere from 9 to 12 percent, but with waning numbers of late as his popularity, particularly among the young, has triggered heightened criticism of him by his opponents. More so from the Democrats, who see him as a definite threat to Biden.

This phenomenon, however, is not unique to America as other countries have had instances where the incumbent or the leading oppositionist has not been met with popular approval or has had challengers from outside of the establishment who have more credibility.

In the Philippines, the political playbook for independent presidential hopefuls is similar but quite different in some ways. I still have youthful memories of third-party presidential candidacies of movie matinee actor Rogelio De la Rosa and President Magsaysay’s proteges Raul Manglapus and Manuel Manahan in their ill-fated attempts to beat impossible odds. Manahan came closest in the 1957 presidential election, where he garnered 20.9 percent of the popular vote for third place against the incumbent Carlos P. Garcia of the Nacionalista Party. Manglapus only secured 5.17 percent against Marcos in 1965, while De la Rosa withdrew in favor of Liberal Party candidate Diosdao Macapagal in 1961.

Today, our country’s political landscape is murkier, with the demise, for all intents and purposes, of the traditional political party behemoths of our past, the Nacionalista and the Liberal, to which aspiring candidates had previously flocked for endorsements and their political machinery. This has been replaced by personality-driven coalitions, which spring overnight after a candidate has gained traction in the polls or after victory.

It is now the political party chasing the candidate that has popular mass appeal. Political parties, unfortunately, do not represent distinct advocacies and clear philosophies of governance for the electorate to vote on. This highly personalistic selection of our leaders has had unfortunate consequences.

Hmm… I wonder if the proposed constitutional changes will address this issue.

Until next week… OBF!

For comments, email bing_matoto@yahoo.com