Dislike Trump and Biden? 'No Labels' Is Even a Worse Choice

Picking Your Battles Is Wiser Than Losing All the Time

When I was an eighteen year old whippersnapper radical wannabe, the California Peace and Freedom Party looked like a dandy idea. Given that my other choices could have been (the voting age was still 21 back then) ‘Love Me I’m a Liberal’ Hubert Humphrey and ‘I Am Not a Crook’ Richard Nixon just about anybody with a different message was worth rooting for.

The Peace and Freedom delivered on the just about anybody part: Eldridge Cleaver and Dick Gregory were both candidates for president, depending on where you lived. Jerry Rubin, Peggy Terry, Corky Gonzalez, and Mark Lane (the Zapruder film guy) made the ballot in some states. There were another eight Peace and Freedom candidates who, depending on the state, were write-in candidates. The bunch of them got exactly zero electoral votes.

American Independent Party’s George Wallace picked up 46 electoral votes after barnstorming across the country, preaching about two four letter words hippies didn’t know: Soap and Work. His San Diego appearance was disrupted by a whole lotta disreputable types chanting those words back at him. I was there, scared to death of getting stomped by Rednecks, which didn’t happen.

Nowadays, the Peace and Freedom Party has supporters in more than a dozen American states, but only in California do they have ballot status. They have a very progressive platform including free universal health care for all, free education for everyone, preschool through university, and full immigrant rights; no deportations.

A fact of life is that they’re going nowhere as far as the national political scene is concerned, along with a host of other parties on the ballot here and there. In the politics world a magical political party rising from nowhere is called a unicorn.

Although the founding fathers disliked the idea of political parties, the Constitution left ideological affiliation around two basic platforms the only realistic political process. Elections were set up for legislators where there were winners and losers, and no consolation prizes for runners up. 

There is an alternative for the first past the post system, namely ranked choice voting. If you are truly against how both major political parties do business, this is one place where doing the hard work could actually make a difference. Opposition to this concept is strong in the institutionalist wings of both Republicans and Democrats, in part because their job security and the influence of donors would be affected. Here’s a link to local advocates of this concept.

It has been possible for a third candidate to get elected, provided that one of the political parties splits its loyalties among two candidates. That’s how Woodrow Wilson got elected president with 42% of the vote.

Another avenue for elected office involved taking over an existing party. The Whigs became Republicans in 1860, and the nutcases took over the GOP in 2016. There have been a couple of near-misses with the Democratic Party (1948 & 1972 come to mind) but the old guard prevailed in the long run.

Here we are in 2023, with most of us expecting a replay of the last presidential election. The Republican base has hardened behind Trump and Democratic activists support -for now- is a bit softer.

Ultimately I think the election could be decided by younger voters, who are alienated by many suppositions (labor, gender, climate change) underlying the way things usually work. Recent polling showing 88% (90% for strikers) support for unions in the under 30 crowd should have political strategists up at night. Additionally, unions are increasing in favorability with the overall voting population. 

***

A group of political insiders, (probably) funded by right wing donors, have taken it upon themselves to create an entity calling itself No Labels. Justice Clarence Thomas’ sugar daddy Harlan Crow is ready to cough up $70 million on No Labels.

They’re working on getting on the ballot for 2024 and trying to convince people that they’re the ‘reasonable’ people who will run the country through compromise. 

I seem to recall this guy Biden saying something similar; and it hasn’t worked very often, in part because one party is being held hostage by extremists who promise name calling and banishment for those who dare oppose them.

Heading up this effort are a couple of leftovers from the NeoLiberal era; and a rotating cast of unemployed political pros, many of who have quit due to working conditions within the organization. You’d think an organization seeking to ingratiate themselves with the voting public would tread lightly when it comes to sexual harassers, and make it a point to have a humane workplace.

From Politico: 

•  Interviews with 14 former employees—including five who left in the last few months—and four other people familiar with No Labels reveals a cutthroat culture, one where staffers are routinely fired or pushed out, have little trust in management, and believe the workplace environment can be difficult for minority and female colleagues. 

Setting aside the missionary zeal of its leadership, it’s the ideas and strategy (or lack thereof) central to No Labels that should worry progressives.

Yesterday’s Washington Post explored the playbook being developed to get the organization into public consciousness and on the ballot. A nominating convention is being organized with the aim of bringing as many as two thousand delegates to Dallas in April, 2024. 

A big concern among organizers is preventing left or right wing caucuses from hijacking the effort. Another concern is creating exit points, where No Labels can simply shut down operations if its projections fail. This part of their planning is aimed at addressing arguments being made (mostly by Democrats) that a third presidential candidate will throw the election to Donald Trump.

• A bipartisan group of strategists who oppose Trump’s reelection, led by former congressman Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), recently formed a group called Citizens to Save Our Republic, with a mission to dissuade voters and potential candidates from supporting or joining the No Labels effort. Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist working with the group, said it was “remarkably reckless” for the group to just now be working out its nominating process.

• “Maybe before they tried to get on the ballot, it would have been good to have thought this out,” he said.

No Labels has a 30 point “Common Sense” policy paper filled with generalities like these, mirroring the rhetoric of the dirty energy lobby.

• #15. An all-of-the-above energy strategy is the best way to lower prices for American families.

• #16. To have cleaner energy, America needs to be able to build clean energy technologies.

Or “both sides” proposals that objectively would give comfort to a very small segment of the population:

• #26. America must strike a balance between protecting women’s rights to control their own reproductive health and our society’s responsibility to protect human life.

When it comes to climate change, it draws the conclusion that high utility bills are of more concern than the cascading “natural” disasters killing one billion people worldwide by 2100.

Markos Moulitsas summed it all up on last week’s Meet The Press:

• The fledgling “political party” doesn't have a message to sell. Their name literally says, “We stand for nothing.” Theirs is a more cynical pursuit: a bunch of washed-up, loser politicians grifting conservative billionaires out of millions, using ridiculous and easily refuted arguments to line their pockets and pretend to retain some semblance of relevance.

No Labels isn’t the only group aiming to play spoiler

The Wall Street Journal reports Heather Manchin (daughter of the West Virginia Senator) has founded a nonprofit organization called Americans Together and they’re looking to raise $100 million to support centrist causes. She’s leading the group and claims it isn’t tied to her father’s political prospects or possible campaigns. However, Major GOP donor and Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone told the paper that he’d read their pitch, spoken with the senator, and the effort has his support.

The longtime “up the middle” Third Way group (which includes Rep. Scott Peters) wants nothing to do with the No Label concept..

• It is common in politics to believe that the current moment is entirely unprecedented and an aberration from any previous time in our history. This attitude feeds into the belief that even though third-party candidates have never won in the past, now is the time that one might prevail.

• This belief is false and misguided. The vast majority of American voters still lean towards either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. While some like the idea of a third party, people want a third party that matches their particular belief set – some are leftists, some libertarians, some moderate. The most successful third-party candidacy possible would deny any candidate 270 Electoral Votes and would likely throw the election to House Republicans.

• Pundits spent years waiting for Trump’s base to leave him, either by abandoning the GOP and supporting Democrats, or by staying home on Election Day. But they won’t. The Trump base is far more loyal than Biden’s coalition.

• Anyone backing a third-party candidate should be clear eyed: they are not establishing a new political faction, because their candidate is not going to win. Rather, they are creating a spoiler who will help elect Donald Trump.

The Third Way group’s critique of the No Labels sense agenda is scathing, starting out with: 

• No Labels recently released its “Common Sense” agenda, a 72-page document containing what they call 30 “common sense” ideas from the political center. Our conclusion: just as their proposed third-party spoiler presidential plan dodges substantial questions on how they could actually win the 2024 election, this timid and vague policy plan dodges hard choices to move the country forward and openly evades many crucial issues.

I think it’s high time we add a new definition of “common sense” to our dictionaries, namely saying the term means gussied up nonsense designed to hide a real agenda. Most people these days have some awareness that politicians declaring “war” on anything means you should hold on to your wallet. (An example of how one might use these terms in everyday speaking would be anything to do with Carl DeMaio.)

I suppose I should close with some unkind words about the left’s attempt to get into the presidential election game with an excerpt from a Daily Kos diarist commenting on the futility of Dr. Cornel West, the Green Party candidate: 

• Ralph Nader is the 21st-century poster child for the law of unintended (hopefully) consequences. He ran on the Green Party ticket and stymied Al Gore — perhaps the greenest candidate to ever run on a major party presidential ticket. America’s environmental agenda was set back years, and the country had to spend blood and treasure to salve a weak man’s hurt over his father’s humiliation.

• Nader did not start the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he enabled Bush to do so. What was in it for him? Nothing — beyond 15 more minutes. And what did it advantage the Green Party? In 2000, Ralph Nader received 465,650 (0.38%) votes. In 2020, their candidate, Howie Hawkins, received 407,068 (0.26%) votes. The people have spoken.

• , since they actually succeeded in 2000, with Ralph Nader siphoning off enough votes from Al Gore to put George W. Bush in office.

My long view of politics has evolved into understanding that the best path to progressive victories involves holding your nose as needed while focused on organizing around specific issues recognized by the Democratic party. 

My argument for this stance stems from the fact that I’ve never seen outside the two party system types actually succeed at anything. Yes, Democrats largely folded in the aftermath of the Black Lives Matter movement, tried to sweep #MeToo under the carpet, and have a huge blind spot when it comes to predatory capitalism. But I believe persistence will yield results.

Chris Maisano expounds on the history of the left weaving in and out of the Democratic party in Like It or Not, the Left Can’t Get Away From the Democrats in Jacobin.

• Accepting these realities clarifies the actual strategic choices the Left confronts, and might even reduce the debilitating political neuralgia that continues to afflict the Left concerning the party question. The first choice is deciding whether pushing the Democrats’ realignment further to the left, so that it becomes the functional equivalent of a labor or social democratic party, is possible. If it is not, there appears to be just one realistic option left: acting as a minority faction in the Democratic coalition and working to leverage that position to the fullest possible extent. Partisan polarization centered on the presidency has squeezed out any room there might be for a third option, or any kind of break from the existing two parties — clean, dirty, or otherwise.

• In this sense, the Left could stand to learn from the radical right. Its representatives stopped agonizing over their relationship with the Republican Party long ago, faced up to the dilemmas of protest and partisanship, and set out to make history under circumstances, as one particularly notable socialist put it, not of their choosing but “existing already, given and transmitted from the past.”

***

Thursday’s Collection of Links You Should Visit

***

FEMA forced to restrict disaster spending because of low funds via Politico. The feds can no longer help out with rebuilding your home after pulling you out of a flood.

• Speaking to reporters at the White House on Wednesday afternoon, Biden stopped short of vowing that the federal government would provide sufficient disaster aid during the current hurricane season.

• “If I can’t do that, I’m going to point out why,” Biden said, without explicitly saying he would blame lawmakers for stalling or rejecting his $12 billion request. “How can we not respond? My God.”

• Biden added, “I’m confident — even though there’s a lot of talk from some of our friends up on [Capitol] Hill about the costs — we’re gonna do it.”

***

Top North Carolina judge faces potential sanctions for talking about racial discrimination Via Judd Legum at Popular Information

• North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls is being threatened with sanctions for criticizing the court's approach to racial and gender discrimination. Earls, the only Black woman on the court, is under investigation by the state's Judicial Standards Commission, a body largely comprised of conservative judges appointed by North Carolina Chief Justice Paul Newby. On August 15, Earls received a letter from the Commission informing her that she was under investigation on suspicion that her comments to a reporter violated that state's Code of Judicial Conduct.

• Earls responded on Tuesday by suing the Judicial Standards Commission and all 14 members in federal court, alleging that their investigation is a violation of her constitutional right to free speech. 

• The issue centers around an interview that Earls conducted with a legal publication, Law 360, that was published on June 20. During the interview, Earls was asked about a study by North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park that found "attorneys who argue before the state Supreme Court are 90% white and 70% male." The reporter asked Earls to explain why so many of the oral advocates who appear before the court are white and male when North Carolina has a diverse population and bar membership. 

***

Very Slowly And Then All At Once - Reckoning with our new climate normal By Jill Filipovic at Substack

• July was the hottest month in human history.

• It has gotten so bad that even some Republicans are admitting that climate change is real and is caused by human behavior (whether they’re willing to do anything about it is a separate question).

• It’s a strange thing, to be living through the predictions of what would happen to a ravaged planet. It’s a strange thing to realize that this is just the beginning — that this summer of disaster may be a turning point, or it may look, in a decade, like a period of relative safety and stability. It’s strange to know that the worst is yet to come, and that even those of us who are quite attuned to this issue are unable to fully wrap our minds around just how apocalyptic the future may be.

• I say might because there is still so much to save, and so many ways to stave off abject disaster. But we have to want to do it, and American politicians largely don’t want to do it.