The No Labels target voter is a moderate Democrat who watches too much Fox News.
Over the weekend, former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan appeared on a number of interview shows, where he denied he would run for president as a Republican, but hinted at being available for a third party. Friday, he tweeted something that sounded a lot like an endorsement of the No Labels view:
We have two very unpopular potential nominees, and both of them potentially face very serious legal troubles.
The word potentially does a lot of work here. Donald Trump is facing multiple felony indictments, and probably will be charged with several more in the next week or two. Meanwhile, it would be a huge shock if the special prosecutor investigating the classified documents Biden voluntarily returned to the government recommended charges. Beyond that, House Republicans have floated a number of conspiracy theories about Biden’s alleged crimes, but their evidence has a way of going poof when they try to back those claims up.
Practically the same thing, right? Two men with “very serious legal troubles”. Potentially.
You often run into these sorts of false equivalencies when you listen to No Labels people. Last Monday, Joe Manchin and Jon Huntsman made a joint appearance to tout the new “Common Sense” platform of the No Labels Party. (The two are widely expected to form a No Labels presidential ticket in 2024, though which would be on top is still undetermined.)
It’s easy to write off No Labels as a spoiler that could allow Donald Trump to regain the presidency with minority support, or to criticize its dark money support from people with unknowable intentions. But it has a story to tell that many Americans find appealing: Most of our country’s problems have simple common-sense solutions that can’t be implemented because the two parties are controlled by their extremist wings. We need a bipartisan coalition of moderates to break through the logjam.
So I decided to take No Labels seriously enough to read the “Common Sense” booklet that Manchine and Huntsman were touting. What exactly are these “common sense solutions” that only a third party can implement?
What I found, with only a few exceptions, are moderate Democratic positions that few if any Republicans in Congress would vote for. A handful of No Labels positions would give progressive Democrats heartburn, but might get a lot of Democratic support if paired with enough of the Democratic ideas in the booklet. My guess is that if the substantive proposals in the booklet were sent to Congress for an up-or-down vote, it would narrowly fail, getting the support of maybe 3/4ths of Democrats and a handful of Republicans.
This is what makes No Labels dangerous on the 2024 ballot: Trump voters will reject them out of hand, but a slice of Biden voters won’t.
The Biden voters who could be peeled off, in my view, are those (predominantly older) ones who watch a little too much Fox News and so have a collection of false ideas: that Biden is senile or “faces very serious legal troubles”, that election security is a real problem that voter ID laws can solve, that the Twitter files showed a serious government effort to silence its critics, that Biden will take away their guns, and so on.
Why aren’t there more moderate coalitions? Before I get into any of that, though, a history lesson: The reason moderate coalitions in Congress don’t come together to forge compromise solutions is that recent examples are cautionary tales, particularly for Republicans.
In 2013, four Republican and four Democratic senators formed the “Gang of Eight” to work out a compromise on one of the country’s most contentious issues: immigration. And in short run, they succeeded. They wrote a bill that passed the Senate 68-32.
Impressive as it was, though, that 68-vote bipartisan consensus contained the seeds of the bill’s eventual demise: It wasn’t really a down-the-middle vote. Instead, 14 Republicans joined all the Democrats. So when the bill got to the House, it was viewed not as a common-sense compromise, but as a Democratic bill that 14 Republican traitors had supported. So Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, never brought it up for a vote. In the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, one of the bill’s provisions — a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants — was labeled “amnesty” and became such a hot-button issue that Gang-of-Eight member Marco Rubio had to denounce his own bill.
Comprehensive immigration reform has been dead ever since.
That outcome is typical, because bipartisanship is not a bipartisan value: Democrats recognize the need to compromise to make progress (as they did numerous times to get the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed). But Republicans don’t. The reason a handful of Republican extremists were able to hold Kevin McCarthy hostage during the election of the speaker was that making a deal with Democrats to get the last few votes he needed was unthinkable. Democrats have cooties. Working with them is dangerous for Republicans.
So No Labels is right in that we do need more bipartisan compromises. But the two parties are not equally to blame. Democrats are willing to compromise, but Republicans aren’t.
No Labels positions that are suicidal for Republicans. No Labels wants to bring the federal budget gradually into balance. (So does Biden.) The Common Sense booklet (CS) envisions something like the solution proposed by the Simpson-Bowles Commission of 2010, which it describes as a “mix of modest spending cuts and revenue increases”. Of course, Simpson-Bowles failed largely because most Republicans in Congress had signed a pledge against any tax increases, no matter how many spending cuts they were paired with. So no compromise with them was possible. I’m not sure anything has changed.
The CS immigration position resembles the Gang of Eight compromise: more legal immigration, more judges to process asylum applications faster, and a path to citizenship for the Dreamers.
On healthcare: Let Medicare negotiate with drug companies.
On gun control: No gun purchases by people under 21. Close the loopholes in the background check system.
On defense and foreign policy: a globalist foreign policy that values our allies in NATO and elsewhere. Some Republicans would agree, but not the America-first faction.
On culture wars: CS supports access to abortion, but not late-term abortions. It refuses to draw a firm line where restrictions might start. Trans rights are affirmed, along with more parental control over what children are taught about gender issues, whatever that means.
CS positions that Democrats won’t like, but could accept as part of a package. The biggest headache CS would give Democrats is on energy, where it prioritizes keeping energy costs low over replacing fossil fuels, and pushes for more nuclear power. Favoring clean energy is good, but keep developing fossil-fuel resources as well.
On Social Security, CS wants to means-test benefits for people who are currently in their 40s or younger. Whether tax increases are part of making Social Security solvent long-term is left vague.
The healthcare proposals nibble at the problem rather than going big in a Medicare-for-All fashion. Reforming the malpractice tort system is one proposal, which would offend a major Democratic constituency (lawyers) without accomplishing a whole lot.
The one piece of immigration reform Democrats would have trouble swallowing is reinstating the remain-in-Mexico plan for asylum seekers.
The education plan calls for more charter schools.
Voter ID laws, but with an emphasis on government responsibility for making IDs free and easy to get. (I have a hard time imagining what such a proposal would look like. Literally every voter-ID law I’ve seen has been a voter-suppression law.)
False equivalence. So as you can see, there are things to like and not like for both parties. But the two are not equal. A Democrat like Manchin could run on this package in a red state like West Virginia. Most other Democrats wouldn’t campaign for him, but he probably wouldn’t (and won’t) face a primary challenge.
Conversely, no Republican could run on this package without being thrown out of the party. Even in a blue state like Massachusetts (where I am now), it would be political suicide.
On the presidential level, No Labels is running in Biden’s lane. People who voted for Biden expecting him to be just a little more conservative may find them appealing. But on the flip side, I don’t think they’ll peel away any voters from Trump. Some never-Trump Republicans (like Huntsman and Hogan) may vote No Labels rather than stay home or leave the presidential line blank. But they were never going to support Trump in 2024.
The Weekly Sift 
Comments
Excellent piece. Minor nit: “peeled off”, not “pealed off”, please. (Ding dong bell?)
Thanks. I found one “peal” myself, but missed the other one.
as a progressive lefty- which to me of course would mean not extreme but the actual common sense position- yes of course the dems are way way another universe better than the fascist republicans- yet in the paradox we are in both parties are in fact not addressing actual needs- so unlike how you describe the no label view point that both parties are extremes on different sides- the progressive view is both parties are way too far to the right- two corporate parties -the dems may say better things and have better policies – but they dont fully fight for them and their policies are not good enough- the reason trump is viable to win is because of the weak right wing nature of the dems –
“red state like Massachusetts” should say”blue state”. But it’s also not clear to me if you mean it would be political suicide for a Republican in Mass or a Democrat in Mass.
It should read “blue”, and refers to a Republican in Massachusetts. Thanks for the correction.
Why aren’t there more moderate coalitions?
There were lots of them 60 years ago, why not now?
Our incumbency in congress makes average age close to 75 while approval rating is close to 25%. This indicates that even after Trump brought up voting percentage to closer of that of Abraham Lincoln it did not change much. It’s proof we are not voting FOR a candidate but AGAINST a candidate!
Who benefits from this situation the most?
1) The funders of incumbents / Big Biz Big Media Big Unions who controls their incumbent and write their laws that like Pelosi said “we have to pass before we read”
2) The unelected taxpayer paid elites who defacto decides and interprets what the law means and then implements and can’t be fired
3) The academic world of scientists and researchers that as accredited see funding increasing and power too as long as they stick to the inside crowd
The courts too but Trump managed strangely enough to appoint with senate approving three more times than Obama leaving a legacy for generations impacting soon the 1-3 beneficiaries.
Interestingly enough Israel now with no constitution have Supreme Court appointing their own cardinals or capo di capo like the Catholic Church or Mafia and the elected majority will not accept the subjective standard of “reasonable” and the last election losers are protesting to keep the left legacy like trump created a right legacy but based on constitution rather than subjectivity – even though within the law the justices see things differently
We are the only constitutional republic while European countries are all majority tyranny of minority election based democracies
EU however exercises its power more than feds on money blackmail of their countries than we on states
After a 50 year socialist agenda even 2/3 of Finland vote went against socialism because the results of 50 years put economy third in debt after Greece and Italy and schools and healthcare that were top still 10 years ago are faltering.
EU will be vast majority non socialist after German and French elections.
Denmark interestingly have big support for their high tax socialist model because the implementation is not government
We Americans pay taxes $22k/child in Nj to educate a child but school gets $9k
NYC has crumbling subways and rats yet taxrate is high for US
All this corruption is because common sense centrist majority do no longer exist and the proposed way is not genuine it’s naive or intended to spoil
We can easily afford – without corruption – a society offering citizen x affordable health care and better education and retirement but corruption must end
Steven Fulop mayor of JC a left of Obama Democrat but pragmatic ex marine and Goldman Sachs banker for 7 years did not raise taxes by squeezing out corruption to fund projects that gives him now soon a true majority mandate for governor – that is the way to true common sense !!
Means-testing Social Security should be an absolute deal-breaker for Ds. I’m sure it would get some support, but it’s a horrible idea on the merits and I think most Ds would be adamantly opposed. As in “what part of no don’t you understand” as the *only* answer to “what would get your support for this.”
Hi Doug, great analysis, as usual. I’ve been reading your posts for years, and they always make a lot of sense to me and help me understand what’s happening in the news.
One nit in this item, though. In the next to last paragraph you refer to Massachusetts as a red state. Is that a typo or is there some development I’m not aware of?
Best, George.
Nope, its a typo. Thanks for the correction.
Hi, Doug, A small problem: “The Biden voters who could be pealed off…” Donna Carsten
Thanks for the correction.
The reason Democrats are mostly open to compromise and Republicans mostly aren’t is pretty obvious if you think about it. Democrats want to get things done. Republicans don’t like government, don’t think the government can do anything right, and especially don’t think government should be doing things that “promote the General Welfare” (as stated in the first sentence of the U.S. Constitution but conspicuously left out of the Confederate Constitution). The obvious tactic for Republicans to take is obstruction, which they are very good at.
If not compromising gets you what you want, why would you compromise?
I agree. However, we should at least make them pay a political price for this. Most Americans want government to get things done and disapprove of squabbling that achieves nothing. But if they don’t realize this is a Republican problem, not a both-sides problem, they’re not going to penalize the GOP.
This is why we need ranked-choice voting, or a similar system that lets people express a preference for more than one candidate. It eliminates the spoiler effect and makes it easier for third-party and independent candidates to compete.
The “moderate Democrat who watches too much Fox News” can vote for No Labels as their first choice, and another candidate as their second choice. If No Labels gets more than 50% of people’s first choice votes, the No Labels candidate get elected (as they should if they can convince more than 50% of the people to vote for them).
However, if there is the more likely outcome that No Labels gets only a small percentage of the votes, then there is no “spoiler effect.” Instead, for the people who picked No Labels as their first choice, their second choice candidate gets their vote.
Maine currently uses ranked choice voting. Here’s video about how it works there.
The problem with No Labels is that they swing for the fences (let’s try to elect a non-partisan President) without doing the hard work (changing the rules to end first-past-the-post voting). So their candidates, even if they won, would be doomed to irrelevance.
Also, Pew has identified nine distinct ideologically categories among Americans.
“despite surveys having found broad support for a third party outside the two major ones, the study shows that there’s no magic middle. In fact, the study finds that the three groups with the most self-identified independents ‘have very little in common politically’.”
We probably need a few “third parties.” And as gilroy0 says, we need to change the rules to “end first-past-the-post voting.”
Feel like you don’t fit in either political party? Here’s why
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/1053929419/feel-like-you-dont-fit-in-either-political-party-heres-why
Most, if not all, of the ‘solutions’ No Labels wants people to believe are “common sense” are anything but. What they are are pre-packaged compromises that substitutie political acceptance for comprehensive, coherent solutions.
Take adequately funding Social Security, for instance. First, the premise must be that all American citizens too old to depend on labor as a source of income be assured of sufficient income with which to live comfortably. This must remain as essentially a pension program, and completely protected from being converted into an investment program, for surely Wall Street will loot it the moment that were to happen. It’s old-age insurance, comparable to unemployment insurance, and must exist with the explicit protection of the federal government.
Second, it should be funded progressively, as eliminating geriatric poverty benefits all, and the swimming pool generally we call American society. To accomplish this, all that’s required is to lift the cap on income-based contributions. There’s absolutely no good reason (no “common sense” reason) that those making more than $160k / year should not have income above that amount taxed to fund the Social Security Trust Fund. They can most afford it, are most likely to also be able to augment benefits from it with investments, and will benefit from retiring into a lifestyle that isn’t surrounded by communities of fellow old-agers living in abject poverty.
That’s the “common sense” solution. But since it requires politics to be implemented, rather than back that approach, No Labels advocates means-testing, thus guaranteeing losing support for anyone who fancies themselves as a future millionaire (and who doesn’t?) and refuses to acknowledge the need to adequately tax the top 10% or so.
And that’s just Third Way Clintonism politics in a new wrapper. It’s pure politics. It’s gutless and cynical. And it’s the kind of dangerous vanity preening that could well allow America’s most notorious criminal another chance at really destroying American democracy, which is the ultimate goal of the Republican minority party, which is why wealthy reactionary authoritarians are funding this nonsense.
Trackbacks
[…] week’s featured posts are “The Party of False Equivalence” and “The DeSantis-approved version of American racial […]
[…] Labels:https://weeklysift.com/2023/07/24/the-party-of-false-equivalence/ The Party of False […]