Friends, my latest article reflects on the pathetic, abortive presidential pretensions of West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, and more fundamentally on the strange, stubborn refusal of American voters to consider any choice other than a Democrat or a Republican (both of which they despise). What a country, huh?
No Labels=No Hope for Victory...Or Does It?
Friday brought crushing news for allegedly conservative Democrats hiding out in the hills of West Virginia – a paltry demographic that may, at this stage, include only one person: Senator Joe Manchin. Manchin announced that he will not be running for president in 2024, as the “No Labels” candidate or in any way, shape, or form. Since even the people of West Virginia have been flagging in their enthusiasm for the last of the Blue Dog Democrats, this is no great loss, but it does raise the question: in this year in which the large majority of Americans express disgust with the presumptive presidential candidates of the two major parties, why couldn't a third party or independent candidate break through and win it all?
One is tempted to answer: because it's never been done, and indeed the Democratic and Republican parties have maintained a stranglehold on Congress and the presidency since the 1850s. This is puzzling, because few democracies, no matter how they are structured, have maintained stable two-party systems for so long. And yet, in America, the two parties enjoy so many advantages, in terms of perceived legitimacy, preferential access to the ballot, media exposure, fundraising, and the like that it often seems that the task of building a new party that could compete at the highest level is a fool's errand.
On the other hand, the fact that something is unprecedented does not mean that it is impossible. Few imagined that an actor could become president before Ronald Reagan made it happen in 1980, or that a brash real estate baron turned game show host could win the highest office in the land, but Trump proved definitively that it could be done in 2016.
In point of fact, we live in a time when robust levels of public cynicism (and poor knowledge of history and current events) make the violation and overturning of norms fairly easy. Witness the fact that impeachments at the federal level, which used to be extremely rare, are now almost yearly events, and are expected political maneuvers. Likewise, while it was once virtually inconceivable that a former president would face criminal charges, now President Trump is wrestling with 91 felony charges all at once! It would seem that, nowadays, when we decide to break with convention, we go all out.
Be this as it may, the biggest argument against a third party or independent run for the presidency has always been: why would anyone vote for such a candidate when they would have no chance of winning? Why “throw away” your vote? That is to say, Americans perceive third party and independent bids as futile, and they do not enjoy voting for candidates destined to lose – except, apparently, when voting for Democrats in a red state, or Republicans in a blue one, which they do all the time!
When one considers that a single voter, casting a single vote, has, statistically speaking, essentially zero leverage over the selection of the next president, the popular concern with a candidate's viability makes little rational sense, but it is, nonetheless, an important psychological factor that any ambitious third party or independent candidate would have to overcome. Either he/she would need to convince the American people that voting for a “protest” candidate – that is, a loser – was a respectable and principled thing to do, or he/she would need to convince voters that this time, unlike every other time, the third party or independent candidate could win the big prize. Changing such ingrained perceptions about American politics would be no easy task.
If we look at the polls, we see that, currently, when Americans are prompted to choose between Biden, Trump, Kennedy, Stein, and West – the declared candidates for president – they give, on average, only 13% of their support to Kennedy, and 2% each to Stein and West. Those are historically high numbers, when one considers the long-standing dominance of the two major parties, but they are nowhere close to winning numbers, so there is, as yet, little statistical evidence to support the idea that a partisan sea change is upon us, and the next president is likely to be neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
Probably the biggest hurdle that a third party or independent candidate faces is the fact that, absent a political vacuum that needs filling, new political constellations are speculative, at best. To put it another way, unless one of the two major parties collapses, it is hard to see why a new party, or a new political movement, would, could, or should arise to take its place, or to assume an important and permanent role in American politics.
We know that in 2020 Joe Biden and Donald Trump received, respectively, the most and the second most votes that any presidential candidate in U.S. history has ever gotten – and that in 2020 we notched the best turnout rate since at least 1960. While the public does not seem to hold either Biden or Trump in especially high regard, the ability of their respective party apparatuses to turn out massive numbers of voters on their behalf is not in doubt – and, in fact, seems to be improving with every comparable election cycle. The Democratic and Republican parties, in other words, are alive and well – and can afford to sneer, for now, at those candidates, parties, and movements that dare to challenge their dominion.
And so we confront the essential, inexplicable contradiction that looms over our country's political life: never have the parties themselves, the presidential candidates who they select, and the key institutions of our constitutional system in general, been less popular and esteemed by the voters – but, at the same time, never have those same voters been more willing to turn out to vote in huge numbers for the major parties and their candidates, and to write checks and to otherwise signal their loyalty and devotion to these immensely flawed and in many ways outmoded organizations.
If, as they say, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” then what level of madness is America's current political modus operandi: we do the same thing over and over again, expecting bad results, but hoping that, if we keep at it, we'll at least avoid something even worse. You would think that this strange species of political fatalism might be conquerable by the right kind of third party or independent candidate, no? No, apparently not. Or maybe yes. But probably no.
All we can say for sure is that Joe Manchin will not be the man to save us from ourselves.
Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480/106.9.
RAY TO DR. NICHOLAS WADDY
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of candidates, how about telling me/us what your platform would be if you were running for President. I'm serious when I ask this.
Let's take our Southern Border for example. What measures would you take to stem the invasion? That's for starters. You fill in the rest. I'm serious!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Joe Manchin should retire to well deserved freedom from the blood sport of American politics. He has done his country and his state much good by throwing well conceived monkey wrenches in Schumer's haughty pronunciamentos (alias "legislation). He's been a soldier and I think he would have found remaining a dem, as that party descends ever further into far leftist thralldom, unbearable. Georgia Senator Zell Miller, some two decades ago, declared "I didn't leave the Democrat party; it left me" and I'll bet that, having endured 'his party's" vindictive excoriation for his insolence, that Manchin has the same view. His departure probably swings his seat to the GOP, being that it represents eminently common sense W. Va. Good for him.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: In other news, the dems' sonorous lamentations over the death of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny accentuate their disingenuous contemporary antipathy toward Russia. To them Russia and Putin are utterly unjustified in engaging Ukraine and their brutal tactics condemn them out of hand. After their usual fashion they would probably excoriate anyone who expresses the conviction that Russia deserves any benefit of the doubt. But funny, isn't it: they willingly tolerate in their midst office holders who readily apologize, if not celebrate, the depraved Hamas invasion of Israel. Surely Hamas has manifested a degree of inhumanity fully analogous to that of Russia in Ukraine. Why have the dems not thrown the supporters of such neo nazis out on their ears?! Surely they could find it in themselves to afford Israel a little "affirmative action" yes?
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Perhaps though, this election could bring about a fundamental change in our polity. If the dems flame out, maybe those of good will who remain dems would be thereby convinced that the party is irretrievably captured by the antiamerican left and would leave it to stew in its America hating juices. Where would they go? They probably could not stomach icky Maga. The antiamerican left would, no doubt, hold to its still considerable power. Might we then see a viable third party consisting of emigre dems and exiled rinos?
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Recently I heard the term "cold civil war" being used to describe America's resistance to incipiently totalitarian far left outrages. I think it is apt. The degree of intense antipathy between the two sides is unparalleled since the 1850's . The '60s? The antiamerican left had the intent but not the means to destroy the country. So it settled in for a long haul enduring democratic inconveniences and undermining until the right moment to take over. Gee, what other totalitarian movement, in the '30s, did the same?
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary. Democracies do exist in this world. They are called People's Democratic Republics or People's Democracies.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I'm not worried, because I am now the proud owner of a pair of $400 'Never Surrender' High-Top sneakers. I'm a walking lie detector who can't be fooled.
What an excellent question, Ray! As president, I would have close to a zero tolerance for illegal migration, and I would give short shrift to "asylum seekers". Any who come through Mexico are perfectly safe staying in Mexico, so I say good luck to them there! Meanwhile, I've always believed that the key to stopping illegal immigration would be to cut off the flow of government benefits and, more importantly, jobs. No president, including Trump, has ever cracked down meaningfully on employers of illegals. If you did that, I believe the migration patterns would start to flow in reverse -- that is, the illegals would "self-deport", as Mitt Romney once said. They come here because 1) we let them stay, and 2) we let them live on the dole and/or make way more money than they would back home. Change this dynamic, and the problem goes away. No machine gun nests necessary.
ReplyDeleteYes, Jack -- by this time next year, Manchin will be in our rear view mirrors, and his seat will be occupied by a Republican, and the GOP will, in all likelihood, control the Senate. Even if Biden kept his job, that would greatly limit the further damage he could do.
Yes, the leftist disdain for brutality and even murder is highly selective. We've learned to expect that. The only real crime, for them, is heterodoxy.
Jack, I consider it highly unlikely that the Dems will "flame out". No recent election has indicated that their persuasive powers are ebbing. I view the GOP as standing on more tenuous electoral ground than the Dems, both because of demographics and because, post Trump, it's very possible than an unbridgeable MAGA versus RINO fissure could open up. And maybe it's high time it did.
Hmm. Cold civil war, eh? I don't find the comparison all that apt, because, like it or not, we live in a single, sovereign country -- plus, we're intermixed geographically. We literally live amongst, alongside, and on top of one another. We can stare each other down all we like, but at the end of the day one centralized government rules over all of us. It's inevitable that someday that one government will tip the scales and end the staring contest. such as it is.
Ha! Good retort, Ray. I can spot your Ray-isms a mile away.
Whoever "LiesExposer" is, I agree with most of what he/she has to say. Democracy is largely an illusion. The two parties are both, 90% of the time, doing the bidding of the rich and powerful. However, he/she should ask him/herself why, then, the powers-that-be are working furiously to stifle Trump, free expression on the internet, Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, etc. It's because these forces are NOT entirely controllable, and neither are the voters. And so an argument that is mostly true is not completely true -- and the difference matters!