Political Parties Grasp Power to Keep out Third Party

No Labels bills itself as a bipartisan grassroots movement
of “over 1 million Americans” who are “tired of extremes on the left and the right”

The history of third parties in America

Americans are deeply divided when it comes to politics. In 2016—for the first time in two decades—more than half of each party said they viewed the other side in “deeply unfavorable terms.” Slightly fewer than half thought the other side was a “threat to the nation's well-being.” A recent survey found that about 42% of people think members of the other party are “downright evil.” While some suggest the nation hasn't seen such division since the Civil War, the country has a history of disparate political views since the signing of the Constitution.

President George Washington was an independent, and didn't believe in Parties. America's creators didn't mention political parties in any of the founding documents, and Washington championed moderation. In his 1796 farewell address, the nation's first president cautioned the new country's citizens against the destructive nature of divided factions. He once said: “We must drive far away the demon of party spirit and local reproach.”

Our nation's second leader, John Adams, was a Federalist—a party spawned from the ideals of Alexander Hamilton, who wanted a strong central government. In the third election, Adams lost to Thomas Jefferson, who opposed Hamilton and helped form the Democratic-Republicans who evolved into the modern Democratic Party

Drift of two parties to extremes may leave room in the middle. It should be remembered the last time parties evolved like this, the Whigs died, Republicans were created, and we had a Civil War

The history of parties in America is a long and complex one, with various parties rising and falling over the years. To understand how the Republican Party emerged and ultimately replaced the Whig Party, we need to look at the political landscape of the mid-19th century in the United States.

1. Emergence of Third Parties:

1820s-1830s: The first two major political parties in the United States were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans (also known as Jeffersonian Republicans). However, by the 1820s, the Federalist Party had declined, leaving the Democratic-Republicans as the dominant party.
1830s-1840s: As the Democratic-Republicans began to fracture along sectional lines and over issues such as slavery and economic policy, new parties began to emerge.
Anti-Masonic Party (1820s-1830s): This was one of the earliest third parties in the United States, formed in opposition to the perceived influence of the Freemasons in American society.
The Whig Party (1830s-1850s): The Whigs emerged in the 1830s as a coalition of various groups opposed to President Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party. They drew their name from the Whigs in British politics who opposed royal power. The Whigs included supporters of protective tariffs, internal improvements, and a strong federal government.
Free Soil Party (1840s-1850s): This party formed in opposition to the spread of slavery into newly acquired western territories. They advocated for the restriction of slavery in these areas.

2. The Decline of the Whig Party:

Slavery and Sectionalism: The issue of slavery increasingly divided the United States in the 1840s and 1850s. The Compromise of 1850, which attempted to address these tensions, only served to exacerbate them.
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854): The passage of this act allowed for the possibility of slavery in new territories based on popular sovereignty (allowing the residents to decide). This outraged anti-slavery Whigs, who left the party.
Formation of the Republican Party (1854): In response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, anti-slavery activists, former Whigs, and other groups came together to form the Republican Party. The Republican Party's platform was primarily focused on opposing the expansion of slavery into the western territories.

3. The Rise of the Republican Party:

Election of 1856: The Republican Party ran its first presidential candidate, John C. Frémont, in the 1856 election. While he did not win, the party showed its strength in the North.
Election of 1860: The Republican Party's second presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, won the presidency in 1860. His victory led to the secession of Southern states and the outbreak of the Civil War.

4. The End of the Whig Party:

As the country descended into Civil War, the Whig Party found itself divided over the issue of secession and largely ceased to function as a national political force.
Many former Whigs joined the Republican Party, attracted by its anti-slavery stance and its broader appeal in a time of crisis.

The rise of the Republican Party and the subsequent Civil War effectively marked the end of the Whig Party. The Republican Party emerged as a major political force in the United States and would go on to become one of the two major political parties, alongside the Democratic Party, which it remains to this day. The issue of slavery and the sectional tensions of the time played a crucial role in this transformation of American politics.

3rd Parties in the 20th Century

Third parties have had a significant impact on American politics throughout history, and the 20th century was no exception. While no third-party candidate has won a presidential election since the 19th century, third parties have played a vital role in shaping the political landscape and advancing important causes.

One of the most successful third parties of the 20th century was the Progressive Party. Founded in 1912 by former President Theodore Roosevelt after being denied the Republican nomination in an era before presidential primaries. Roosevelt rallied his progressive supporters and launched a third party bid. Roosevelt’s Progressive Party, nicknamed the “Bull Moose Party,” lost the election, throwing the election to the Democrats Woodrow Wilson, but marked the most successful third party bid in history, winning 27.4 percent of the vote. This election bares an uncanny resemblance to what might happen in 2024.

The Progressive Party advocated for a wide range of reforms, including women's suffrage, direct election of senators, and trust-busting. Roosevelt lost the 1912 election, but his party's platform had a lasting impact on American politics. Many of the Progressive Party's reforms were eventually adopted by the two major parties, and the party's legacy can still be seen in the modern American political landscape.

Another important third party of the 20th century was the Socialist Party. Founded in 1901, the Socialist Party advocated for a wide range of reforms, including social welfare programs, labor unions, and public ownership of industries. The Socialist Party never achieved widespread electoral success, but it played a significant role in advancing important causes, such as the fight for women's suffrage and the eight-hour workday.

In recent years, there has been a growing movement of socialists within the Democratic Party. This movement is known as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The DSA is a large and growing organization with over 90,000 members. The DSA has had some success in electing members to office, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar.

However, the DSA is still a minority within the Democratic Party. The majority of Democrats are not socialists. In addition, the DSA has faced some resistance from the Democratic Party establishment. For example, in 2020, the DSA endorsement of Bernie Sanders was opposed by the aging establishment Democratic leaders, including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

It is possible that the Democratic Party will adopt some of the Socialist Party program in the future. The Democratic Party is a large and diverse organization, and it is difficult to achieve consensus on major policy changes, although the DSA and Bernie Sanders think they will.

In addition to the Progressive and Socialist parties, there were a number of other third parties that played important roles in American politics in the 20th century. These included the Populist Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Reform Party.

While third parties have never won a presidential election in the 20th century, they have had a significant impact on American politics. Third parties have often served as vehicles for new ideas and movements, and they have helped to push the two major parties to adopt new policies. Third parties have also played an important role in raising awareness of important issues and in mobilizing voters.

Here are some examples of the impact of third parties on American politics in the 20th century:

The Progressive Party's advocacy for women's suffrage helped to lead to the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920.
The Socialist Party's advocacy for labor unions helped to lead to the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935, which guaranteed workers the right to organize and bargain collectively.
The Green Party's advocacy for environmental protection helped to lead to the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970 and the Clean Water Act in 1972.
The Libertarian Party's advocacy for limited government and individual freedom has helped to shift the Overton window on a number of issues, such as same-sex marriage and drug legalization.

While third parties have faced a number of challenges in the 20th century, they have continued to play an important role in American politics. Third parties have helped to shape the political landscape and advance important causes.

Republican and Democratic Party Evolution

Over the last century, both the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States have evolved on various issues, reflecting changes in societal attitudes, demographics, and political dynamics. In many cases the party positions have been moderated to bring in ideas from a nascent third party. It's important to note that these changes are not uniform across the entire party, as partys are necessarily a compromise by the people who make them up in order to get things done, and can vary by region and individual politician. The Great Depression, the FDR administration and WW II were tidal change events in evolution of the Parties.

The Great Depression and the Democratic Party:
- FDR and the New Deal: The most significant transformation occurred within the Democratic Party under the leadership of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). FDR's New Deal policies aimed to address the economic hardships caused by the Great Depression. His administration implemented a range of programs and reforms designed to stimulate the economy, create jobs, and provide social safety nets for Americans.
- Expansion of Government: The New Deal expanded the role of the federal government in regulating the economy and providing social welfare programs. This marked a departure from the Democratic Party's previous emphasis on limited government intervention in economic affairs.
- Support from Labor and Minorities: FDR and the Democratic Party gained support from labor unions, urban minorities, and working-class Americans who saw the New Deal as a lifeline during a time of economic crisis. This coalition of supporters became a key element of the Democratic base.
- Southern Democrats: Notably, the Democratic Party still had a significant bloc of conservative, racially segregationist "Southern Democrats" who resisted some of the more progressive aspects of the New Deal. This tension would persist within the party for decades.
The Great Depression and the Republican Party:
- Critique of Government Intervention: In contrast to the Democrats, many Republicans during the Great Depression were critical of FDR's New Deal, viewing it as an overreach of government power. They argued for a more laissez-faire approach to the economy, emphasizing individual responsibility and free-market principles.
- Conservative Wing: The Republican Party maintained its conservative wing, which advocated for limited government, lower taxes, and deregulation. This ideology remained a core tenet of the party, particularly in the post-Great Depression era.
- Business and Corporate Interests: The Republican Party continued to enjoy support from business and corporate interests, who were often wary of government regulation and intervention in the economy.
- Opposition to Social Programs: While some Republicans supported social safety nets and welfare programs, the party generally opposed the expansion of government social programs advocated by the Democrats.

The Great Depression and the responses of the Democratic and Republican parties to it marked a significant turning point in American politics.

FDR and the New Deal

The New Deal and the Democratic Party's embrace of a more active government role in addressing economic and social issues set a precedent for the party's platform in subsequent decades. Meanwhile, the Republican Party maintained a commitment to limited government intervention and free-market policies, which also shaped its identity for years to come. These foundational differences in approach to government and economics continue to influence the two major parties in the United States to this day.

Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) had a significant impact on the evolution of the Democratic Party during his four terms as President of the United States from 1933 to 1945. His presidency marked a transformative period in American politics and government, and his policies and leadership played a pivotal role in reshaping the Democratic Party.

The New Deal: FDR's most enduring legacy is the New Deal, a series of programs and policies aimed at addressing the economic challenges of the Great Depression. The New Deal included initiatives such as Social Security, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and many others. These programs reflected a shift in the Democratic Party towards a more active role for the federal government in addressing social and economic issues. This approach became a defining feature of the party.
Economic Policy: FDR's economic policies emphasized government intervention and regulation of the economy to mitigate the effects of the Depression. This marked a departure from the laissez-faire approach that had characterized the Democratic Party in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Democratic Party under FDR became more aligned with progressive economic policies.
Coalition Building: FDR was able to build a broad coalition of supporters, including labor unions, urban voters, minorities, and progressive intellectuals. This coalition became a key part of the Democratic Party's base and contributed to its evolution as a party that embraced diverse interests and demographics.
Civil Rights: While FDR's administration did not initially prioritize civil rights for African Americans, his presidency marked the beginning of a shift within the Democratic Party on this issue. The New Deal coalition included African Americans, and pressure from civil rights leaders like A. Philip Randolph began to push the party toward a more proactive stance on civil rights.
Foreign Policy: FDR's leadership during World War II and his role in the creation of the United Nations also had a significant impact on the Democratic Party's foreign policy stance. The party became associated with internationalism and a commitment to collective security.
Electoral Dominance: FDR's electoral success, winning four consecutive presidential elections, solidified the Democratic Party's dominance in national politics for much of the 20th century. This era, known as the "New Deal Coalition," included urban liberals, labor unions, Southern conservatives, and various minority groups.
Legacy: FDR's legacy continues to influence the Democratic Party's platform and ideology to this day. Elements of the New Deal, such as Social Security and labor protections, remain central to the party's platform. Additionally, the Democratic Party's emphasis on expanding access to healthcare, social safety nets, and government intervention in the economy can be traced back to FDR's era.

World War II

World War II had a significant impact on the evolution of the Democrat and Republican parties in the United States. Prior to World War II, the parties had different ideological orientations and coalitions than they do today.

Democratic Party:
- Before World War II, the Democratic Party was a coalition of various groups, including Southern conservatives (Dixiecrats) who supported racial segregation, urban working-class voters, and northern liberals. The Southern Democrats, in particular, had a stronghold in the South and often blocked civil rights legislation.
- President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, led the country during most of World War II (1933-1945). His New Deal policies helped shape the modern Democratic Party by expanding the role of the federal government in economic and social affairs.
- During World War II, Democrats were in power and focused on winning the war, strengthening the economy, and expanding the social safety net. Roosevelt's leadership and popularity during the war solidified the Democrats' image as a party of social welfare and progressive policies.
Republican Party:
- The Republican Party, prior to World War II, was often associated with business interests, fiscal conservatism, and a limited role for the federal government. They had a more diverse ideological base, including progressive and moderate Republicans.
- The Republican Party's opposition to FDR's New Deal policies helped define its platform in the years leading up to World War II.
- During the war, many Republicans supported the war effort and cooperated with Democrats in a bipartisan manner to ensure the success of the war. This spirit of bipartisanship was evident during the war but began to erode after the conflict ended.

The immediate aftermath of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War era marked a shift in the dynamics of the Democrat and Republican parties:

Democratic Party:
- The Democratic Party, influenced by Roosevelt's legacy and the need for international leadership during the early Cold War years, became increasingly supportive of civil rights and a more active federal government. This led to a split within the party between southern conservatives and northern liberals, foreshadowing the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s.
- The Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s saw a significant realignment, with Democrats eventually embracing civil rights and attracting African American voters.
Republican Party:
- The Republican Party saw a shift toward a more conservative stance, particularly in response to the growing influence of the conservative movement in the 1960s and 1970s.
- The Republican Party's conservative wing, led by figures like Barry Goldwater and later Ronald Reagan, championed limited government, free-market policies, and social conservatism.
- This shift led to the Republican Party becoming the home for many conservatives, while the Democratic Party increasingly embraced progressive and liberal policies.

In summary, World War II had a profound impact on the ideological and demographic shifts within the Democrat and Republican parties. The war helped solidify the Democrats as a party supportive of social welfare and civil rights, while the Republicans shifted toward a more conservative, limited-government, and pro-business platform. These changes set the stage for the political landscape that exists in the United States today.

Here are some other key areas in which both parties have evolved:

Civil Rights:
- Democrats: The Democratic Party has undergone a significant transformation on civil rights issues. While Democrats were historically associated with segregationist policies in the South, the party began to shift in the mid-20th century. The civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s played a crucial role in pushing the Democratic Party to support desegregation and equal rights for African Americans. The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 marked key turning points.
- Republicans: The Republican Party was founded in part on an anti-slavery platform in the 1850s. However, in the mid-20th century, many Southern white Democrats who opposed civil rights legislation switched to the Republican Party, contributing to the "Southern Strategy." Over time, the Republican Party became more conservative on civil rights issues, although some Republican leaders continued to support civil rights and anti-discrimination measures.
Social Issues: In 1969, President Richard Nixon took office. Before the Watergate scandal ended with Nixon's resignation in 1974, his administration created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), championed the Clean Air Act, and supported affirmative action. He also advocated for employers to buy health insurance for workers and to help those who couldn't afford it, an idea Democrats opposed at the time. In 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, which extended health care to many but was opposed by many Republicans.
- Democrats: The Democratic Party has generally become more socially progressive over the last century. This shift includes support for LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive rights, environmental regulations, and broader social safety nets.
- Republicans: The Republican Party has become more conservative on social issues, with positions often aligned with religious and socially conservative groups. This includes opposition to abortion rights, skepticism about climate change regulations, and resistance to LGBTQ+ rights in some cases.
Economic Policy:
- Democrats: The Democratic Party has shifted toward a more mixed economy, advocating for government intervention in the economy to address issues like income inequality, healthcare access, and workers' rights.
- Republicans: The Republican Party has generally favored a more limited government role in the economy, advocating for lower taxes, deregulation, and free-market principles.There is an important internal division on globalism and world free trade due to off-shoring of domestic enterprise.
Foreign Policy:
- Democrats: The Democratic Party's stance on foreign policy has evolved over time, with periods of internationalism and isolationism. Before WWII the party was isolationist, but after, the party has supported international organizations like the United Nations and NATO but has also seen divisions on issues like the Iraq War and military interventions such as Ukraine.
- Republicans: The Republican Party has traditionally been associated with a more hawkish foreign policy, advocating for a strong military and a robust American presence on the world stage. However, there have been shifts within the party, with some factions advocating for more isolationist policies. Initial support
Immigration:
- Democrats: The Democratic Party has generally been more supportive of comprehensive immigration reform, including pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
- Republicans: The Republican Party has seen divisions on immigration, with some advocating for stricter immigration policies and border security, while others have supported more moderate or comprehensive immigration reform efforts.

Americans would like more choices, but...

Many contend that the current two party system is making the government unresponsive to the peoples needs, and the country ungovernable. Despite, or perhaps because of, the poor recent track record of alternative parties, a sizable minority of Americans are supportive of the idea of having a greater choice of parties.

Nearly four-in-ten (39%) say the statement “I wish there were more political parties to choose from in this country” describes their views extremely (21%) or very well (17%). About a third (32%) say it describes their views somewhat well, while 28% say it describes their views not too well (16%) or not at all well (12%).

Lee Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and the author of “Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America.” This column from the Washington Post is adapted from his new report, “More Parties, Better Parties: The Case for Pro-Parties Democracy Reform.”

It’s presidential campaign season, so pick your panic: The No Labels organization threatens to run a centrist such as Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) as a third-party candidate, most likely only helping Donald Trump win. Philosopher Cornel West threatens to reenact the hopeless crusade of 2016 third-party candidate Jill Stein. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is threatening to use the open primary process to seize control of the Democratic Party the way the QAnon/MAGA crowd has taken over the GOP.

Like it (Jefferson and Hamilton) or not (G Washington), there is simply no way around organized parties in modern mass democracy. Something needs to organize power and arrange policy choices. And political parties are the most effective, transparent, inclusive vehicles for doing this. Unlike with other political organizations (such as lobbying associations), political parties’ success depends above all on votes, the only democratic metric in which all individuals count alike, regardless of their bank accounts.

Two Parties are Better than more

In the United States, the presidential system induces parties to seek majority support. No fractional party can elect its presidential candidate, and third parties in national politics have proved to be protest movements more than serious electoral enterprises.

Facing extreme partisanship and polarization, America’s two-party system has come under fire. Critics argue that the two-party system runs contrary to the founders’ intent and has created a political system that fails to represent the electorate, concentrates power for the elites, and makes compromise impossible. They say it’s time for real structural change. But others are more cautious. They argue that the two-party system is necessary to rein in extremes on both sides and promote the democratic institutions that are necessary to the nation’s political and social stability. Further, they argue that multi-party democracies around the world — including Israel, the UK, and Italy — are now struggling to maintain stability and should serve as a warning to Americans seeking reform at home.

The two-party system is said to promote governmental stability because a single party can win a majority in the parliament and govern. In a multiparty country, on the other hand, the formation of a government depends on the maintenance of a coalition of parties with enough total strength to form a parliamentary majority. The weakness of the ties that bind the coalition may threaten the continuance of a cabinet in power. The stability shown by the government of the United States has not been entirely due to its party system, it has been argued, but has been promoted also by the fixed tenure and strong constitutional position of the president compared to the premier in a Parliamentary system.

The two-party system moderates the animosities of political strife. To appeal for the support of a majority of voters, a party must present a program sympathetic to the desires of most of the politically active elements of the population. The uniquely American invention of the Electoral College force the parties to also appeal to the bread and width of the country, not just high population coastal urban centers. In the formulation of such a program an effort must be made to reconcile the conflicting interests of different sectors of the population. This enables the party, if expedient, to resist demands that it commit itself without reservation to the policies urged by any particular extremist element. In effect, the party is a coalition for the purpose of campaigning for office. In Great Britain and Canada differences in program and in composition between the two major parties have been perhaps greater than in the United States. Nevertheless, in all of these countries a broad area of agreement exists among the leading parties. With two major parties of similar views and of approximately equal strength competing for control of a government, it is possible for governmental control to alternate between the parties without shifts in policy so radical as to incite minorities to resistance.

Third Parties have it tough

The US governmental structure is rigged towards a two-party system. There are several factors that contribute to this, including:

First-past-the-post voting: In the US, candidates for office are elected based on a plurality of the vote, meaning that the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they do not have a majority except the President which requires a majority in the Electoral College. This system makes it difficult for third-party candidates to win, as they need to split the vote with the two major parties in order to have a chance.
Duverger's law: This political science theory states that single-member district electoral systems, such as the one used in the US, tend to lead to two-party systems. This is because third-party candidates are often caught in a spoiler effect, where they split the vote with one of the two major parties, allowing the other major party to win.
The two-party duopoly: The two major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, have a duopoly on power in the US. They control the vast majority of elected seats in government, and they have a significant advantage in terms of fundraising and media coverage. This makes it very difficult for third-party candidates to compete.

The US governmental structure could work with more than two parties, but it would require some significant changes. For example, the country could switch to a proportional representation system, where seats in the legislature are allocated to parties based on the percentage of the vote they receive. This would allow third-party candidates to win seats in proportion to their support. Additionally, the country could reform its campaign finance system to give third-party candidates a more level playing field.

Two Parties Attack any new Party

Both Democratic and Republican operatives have employed various strategies to limit the influence and success of third-party candidates in U.S. elections. While the specific tactics and methods can vary, here are some common ways in which both major parties have sought to maintain their dominance:

Ballot Access Laws: One of the most significant hurdles for third-party candidates is gaining ballot access. Democrats and Republicans have influenced state legislatures to enact stringent ballot access laws, such as requiring a certain number of signatures from registered voters, to make it difficult for third-party candidates to appear on the ballot.
Campaign Finance Laws: The major parties have shaped campaign finance laws in ways that advantage them and disadvantage third-party candidates. Laws that favor incumbents and well-funded parties, such as restrictions on third-party donations or access to public campaign financing, can limit the resources available to third-party candidates.
Debates and Media Access: Major parties have control over presidential and gubernatorial debates, often excluding third-party candidates. This lack of exposure can hinder third-party candidates' ability to gain traction and attract voters.
Gerrymandering: Both Democrats and Republicans have engaged in gerrymandering, which involves manipulating district boundaries to favor their own party. This can make it difficult for third-party candidates to win in districts that are heavily skewed in favor of one of the major parties.
Voter Registration Rules: Parties have influenced voter registration rules, making it easier for their own supporters to register and vote while imposing barriers on third-party voters.
Party Primaries: Some states have "closed" primaries, where only registered party members can vote in primary elections. This can limit the ability of third-party supporters to have a say in candidate selection.
Campaign Finance Reform: While campaign finance reform is often touted as a way to level the playing field, it can also be used by major parties to limit the fundraising capabilities of third-party candidates through complex regulations and restrictions.
Negative Campaigning: Major parties sometimes use negative campaigning to discredit third-party candidates and discourage voters from supporting them.
Strategic Voting: Major parties may encourage their supporters to vote strategically to prevent a third-party candidate from winning in a competitive race, arguing that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote.
Legal Challenges: Both major parties have, at times, used legal means to challenge the eligibility or ballot access of third-party candidates, alleging violations of election laws or regulations.

It's important to note that these strategies have been employed to varying degrees and at different times by both Democrats and Republicans, depending on the specific election and circumstances. Additionally, not all members of these parties support these tactics, and there is diversity of opinion within each party regarding third-party competition.

Robert F Kennedy Jr announced as speaker at hard-right CPAC event | Robert F Kennedy Jr | The Guardian

Robert F Kennedy Jr, the attorney, conspiracy theorist and political gadfly set to next week transform his run for the Democratic presidential nomination into an independent campaign, was announced on Friday as a speaker at an event staged by the hard-right Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.

Bipartisan No Labels in chaos with internal feud after McCarthy ouster

The political organization No Labels preaches bipartisan compromise and is seeking a third-party ticket for the 2024 presidential election. But the group also appears to be at war with itself.

The fissures in the organization boiled over Wednesday night during a conference call after the ouster of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. The speaker's removal came when eight renegade Republicans found common ground with all 208 Democrats to get the necessary votes for his dismissal. McCarthy faced criticism from far-right members of his caucus after crafting a bipartisan budget compromise to avert a government shutdown.

Democrats Try to Knock Out No Labels

They want to engineer a Biden-Trump rematch by killing an alternative.

The Editorial Board

Every poll shows that Americans are all but screaming at the two political parties to offer a presidential choice other than a rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The group No Labels has been working to get ballot access for an alternative to meet that market demand, but Democrats in particular are trying to kill the effort in the crib.

President Biden said in a rare recent interview that No Labels has “a democratic right” to do this, but “it’s going to help the other guy.” Now comes a Super Pac trying to raise millions of dollars to assail No Labels, according to a fundraising pitch to prospective donors. What do these folks have against democracy?

Citizens to Save Our Republic, or CSOR, wants donations “to build bipartisan support for a campaign to get No Labels to stand down,” its solicitation email says. “If No Labels moves forward with a third-party effort we will wage a vigorous campaign in swing states, including millions of dollars in advertising, to show voters that No Labels equals Trump and the end of our democracy.”

So a group trying to give voters a democratic alternative is somehow a threat to democracy? We’ve repeatedly keelhauled Mr. Trump for his dereliction on Jan. 6, 2021, his fraud delusions, and much else, but it’s strange to say democracy will end if voters in 2024 cast ballots and elect whomever they want. Perhaps the hyperbole is no surprise, since CSOR looks like a Democratic operation. Its frontman is Dick Gephardt, who spent nearly three decades in the House and ran for President in 1988 and 2004.

Truth in labeling would be to call CSOR the Coalition to Save an Old Retiree, namely Mr. Biden. What the group wants, it says, is to “make the 2024 election a clean referendum on democracy, with one pro-democracy candidate running one-on-one against Donald Trump, the anti-democracy candidate.” It’s doubtful that Mr. Gephardt and company would breathe a sigh of relief for democracy’s sake if Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley ended up as the GOP nominee.

A slide deck to donors lays out the CSOR proposal: Raise $3 million as a budget through December. Try to persuade potential No Labels candidates, including Democrat Joe Manchin and Republican Larry Hogan, to rule out the idea. If No Labels picks a presidential ticket anyway, then the plan is to raise millions more and go to war.

CSOR cites private polling that says a three-way race in 2024 would break 40% for Mr. Trump, 39% for Mr. Biden, and 21% for No Labels. In that survey, the hypothetical alternative took 13 points from Mr. Biden and only eight from Mr. Trump. In 2020, the slide deck adds, Mr. Biden won five key swing states by 1.06 points, on average. According to CSOR’s polling, a third party “could cost Biden an average of 5.6 points in each.”

The truth is that it’s impossible to predict the effect a No Labels candidate would have. The group hasn’t announced its candidate-selection process, much less a presidential nominee. What if it chooses a prominent Republican, say, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu or Sen. Mitt Romney? The outcome at the ballot box in 2024 could be wildly different from a poll asking abstractly about an unnamed third candidate.

When CSOR frets that No Labels would eat into Mr. Biden’s support more than Mr. Trump’s, it pretends not to notice that this reflects the 80-year-old incumbent’s political weakness. If Mr. Gephardt raises $3 million, why not forget about No Labels and spend the money trying to convince Mr. Biden to stand down?

The reality exposed even in the CSOR poll is that 21% of the country is unsatisfied enough with Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump to contemplate taking a flyer on a ballot line that’s still in the process of being born. There will be third-party candidates regardless of whether No Labels fields one, as Cornel West is already declared and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seems to be moving that way.

The opening for this is the fault of the Democratic and Republican parties, not No Labels. Either party could gain an advantage by nominating someone new. If they fail to heed the obvious signals, blame them.

Search This Blog

State of The Nation