A group out there is trying to elect a bipartisan ticket to the White House. They seem to be very well organized, very slick and very professional, with multiple well-heeled political consultants and donors in both parties supporting them. While all of this might seem like a good idea in fact, it’s an empty, meaningless gesture. Yes, they’re called No Labels, and they’ve been around for a while, but they’ve only recently started trying to organize around the idea of nominating a bipartisan presidential ticket. Before, they just generally encouraged the idea of good centrists in both parties working together. Either way, though, they’ve been better at earning grifters some money than actually accomplishing anything.
First of all, let’s be honest and dispense with the rudimentary presumption: This organization, now trying to become a political party in all 50 states, will never actually elect anybody to the White House. The last time a third party achieved success in the United States was in 1860, when the Republican Party elected Abraham Lincoln as president. Ever since then, third parties have just been a vehicle for loons and cranks looking to stir up the status quo. While that’s not necessarily a bad thing – the status quo is like a soup, it should be stirred often – it should never be an end goal. The best No Labels can hope for is throwing the presidential election to the U.S. House, where a major-party candidate will win.
That’s probably why many Democrats believe that they’re simply trying to peel away enough votes to deny Joe Biden a second term. While that may be simple paranoia, it might not be wrong, either – however, it’s probably not necessary. Given the current divided political climate in this country, any national election is bound to be at least somewhat close. That’s why suspect tactics – whether they’re blatantly illegal, like rigging the election outright, or simply shady, like supporting third-party candidates – are probably an unnecessary waste of time, but will probably balance themselves out when all is said and done.
While it’s true that the country isn’t enthusiastic about a Joe Biden-Donald Trump rematch, there’s little evidence that they want a vague bipartisan ticket as an alternative. Just take a look at the current state of both parties’ primaries: Neither man has a viable centrist opponent. Biden may essentially have a lock on renomination, but his current primary opponents are hardly moderates; instead, they’re taking various positions both far to his left and right. In the Republican primaries, no real moderates are running, either, just various conservatives vying to be the alternative to Donald Trump.
Given that landscape, the operating assumption of No Labels that a third party is needed might seem reasonable – but it’s not. Rather than being a gap in the market, it could be that almost nobody wants the product No Labels is selling – whatever that is. Essentially, No Labels is a reinvention of the Reform Party, the political party that arose from the ashes of Ross Perot’s failed presidential bid. They’re even repeating many of the Reform Party’s mistakes while adding new ones to the mix, creating their own future train wreck.
No Labels, unlike the Reform Party, has no platform whatsoever beyond bipartisanship. They aren’t taking any actual positions on anything – not gun control, climate change or abortion rights. They just want to get along. While “all you need is love” might be good song lyrics, it’s not good as a political strategy; voters have actual issues they care about.
Just like the Reform Party, though, they’re primarily focused on one thing: presidential politics. That’s always been a losing proposition, and it’s going to continue to be one. While the country is obsessed with who occupies the Oval Office, both parties have dedicated machines trying to win elections from school board all the way up to support that goal. No matter who sits in that chair, they need a team behind them, selling their policies to the Congress, the states and the public. Moreover, they need an actual candidate for the White House who people like – something No Labels is currently lacking.
So, it’s not simply labels that they’re avoiding. They also have no positions, no candidates and no priorities. They’re sorely lacking in a viable strategy and purpose, too. Given all of that, it’s reasonable to wonder why they exist at all. Really, they shouldn’t have been called “No Labels” – they should have been called “No Point.”
Jim Fossel, a conservative activist from Gardiner, worked for Sen. Susan Collins. He can be contacted at:
jwfossel@gmail.com
Twitter: @jimfossel
Send questions/comments to the editors.
