The fruitless search for a viable third party alternative
No Labels and the fantasy of a moderate ticket
No Labels got serious last year. The choice between the octogenarian and the near-octogenarian isn’t good enough for the American people, they believed. So they went to their well-connected, deep pocketed backers to support ballot access for their as-yet-unnamed candidate, someone who would offer a viable, moderate alternative to the tired options the Democrats and Republicans were poised to put forward.
If you’re not familiar with No Labels, it’s a 14 year old political organization that is about as establishment as you can get, featuring a “problem solver” caucus of members of Congress (mostly moderates from both parties) and leadership that has over the years boasted among its ranks Joe Lieberman, Larry Hogan, Benjamin Chavis, and Pat McCrory. Its braintrust once included William Galston, who served in the Clinton White House and has a distinguished career as a writer and thought leader at the Brookings Institution.
As campaign 2024 moved into its primary phase, No Labels received criticism from respected journalistic sources. The complaint was that the moderate alternative they wanted would only serve to help Trump by taking votes away from Biden. As their effort dragged on they were deserted by some of their longtime associates, and others disassociated themselves from the presidential plan. Ultimately they ended the ballot access effort as they could not find a candidate “with a credible path to winning the White House.”
Wallace and Perot: consequential third party candidates
In the last 60 years there have been two notable third party campaigns. George Wallace’s in 1968 was one. Suggesting there wasn’t “a dime’s worth of difference” between the two major parties, he went on to receive about 14% of the vote and win five states. His 45 electoral votes didn’t affect the outcome, but they certainly had the potential to deny both major party candidates a majority.
Wallace ran again in 1972, this time in the Democratic nomination contest. He did quite well and even won some primaries, ending up with about as many votes as establishment liberal Hubert Humphrey and eventual nominee George McGovern, even though an assassination attempt in the middle of the campaign left him with crippling injuries and forced him to drop out of the race.
Save for that assassination attempt, Wallace’s right wing populism might have been a viable option that year either by taking over the Democratic party from within (sound familiar?) or by running again as a third party candidate.
Ross Perot’s 1992 run — a mix of a cornpone version of Trump’s “only I can fix it” and a rather wonkish fiscal conservatism — had him at the top of the polls in the spring. Even after what can only be termed an erratic period, when he dropped out then back in to the race (the reasoning was confusing), he still managed almost 20% of the vote in the fall. Clearly he had tapped into something, if only perhaps dissatisfaction with the major party candidates.
But no one, including Perot himself who ran again in 1996, has done nearly as well since. In this century third party efforts have been on the ideological fringes — e.g., Greens and Libertarians — or, as we’ve seen this year, a conspiracy theory fringe.
Clamoring for a reasonable third choice
In the fall of 2017 I persuaded a moderate Republican congressman to meet with a group of students from an elite college who were studying in Washington. One suggested that the congressman didn’t fit well with Trump’s Republican party. This elicited questions from other students (paraphrased here): Isn’t there a demand out there for a third party? Since so many people call themselves independents — some polls show as many independents as those affiliated with either party — why hasn’t a third option developed for, ya know, reasonable people?
The congressman contended that there was actually no significant market for a third party. Most people were satisfied with one or the other of the two parties, he said.
Is there a market for a third party?
Was the congressman right that there isn’t demand for a third, moderate option like No Labels envisioned?
Consider the existence of so many “independents.” Early this year Gallup had independents at 43%, as compared to 27% for both Democrats and Republicans. Doesn’t that mean something?
Philip Bump of the Washington Post says no, noting that most self-proclaimed independents vote consistently for one side or the other. Pew agrees, putting it this way: most independents lean toward a party, with “‘true’ independents tend[ing] to avoid politics.”
Apparently many people feel it’s more socially acceptable to tell a pollster that they’re independent, even though they’re not in fact on the fence when it comes to casting a vote.
Another point: both parties have plenty of true believers, but even those politically-engaged voters whose views don’t check all the Democratic-liberal boxes or Republican-conservative boxes seem to be pretty happy with their home party.
Why is that? We hit upon the answer in addressing another issue in the last post.
For Republicans, at least half of their stalwarts fit into one of two categories:
economic conservatives who love the party’s deregulatory agenda — and whose relatively moderate social views don’t matter as much to them; and,
those whose populist position on immigration vastly overshadows their liberal views on government programs.
These people overwhelmingly — and maybe even enthusiastically — support Trump given the issues that really matter to them.
On the Democratic side, it’s a similar story. A large contingent in the coalition has social views that aren’t liberal, but what matters to them is the commitment Democrats have to civil rights and government programs. That commitment easily overrides any misgivings they may have on cultural questions.
Bottom line: the conflicted seem mostly satisfied with their party of choice. And the wavering voters are relatively small in number and by and large disengaged and without resources or political experience.
Back to No Labels
In short, the afore-mentioned Republican congressman was right — there is not a substantial market for the middle ground approach that No Labels hoped to put forward. The group approached Deval Patrick, Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Manchin, Chris Christie, Brian Kemp, Liz Cheney, and others. They all said no. Most surely perceived that the effort would help Trump’s cause, but maybe they also understood the hopelessness of the case — that a “sensible center” candidate is probably just one of those inside-the-beltway fantasies that doesn’t jibe with the reality of our politics.
What we are left with is the usual type of “third party” options — Jill Stein, Cornel West, RFK Jr., etc. — who are, at best, spoilers.
It sure does seem there should be a path right up the middle. Macron pulled that off in France, though who knows where in the political spectrum he is these days.