My friend and Diary of a Republican reader Tom Brown recently argued for a third party as a solution to our currently dysfunctional system.
"Mike, I think a 3rd party would absolutely be the best outcome for the country as a whole. In the short term it would be good for Democrats, but I'm not sure it would in the long term. But it would be GREAT for the country in the long term I think. Here's my thinking (which I first saw an outline of in the WaPo a few days ago, but I'll steal it!)"
"Imagine this thing comes down to the wire and 25 or so non-insane GOP members break off from the party and become independents and force a vote on a clean CR and a clean debt limit raise for 1-year. Now say a half dozen or so do likewise in the Senate. Both groups form a new party: "The Conservative Party" (TCP). The TCP is conservative, but interested in governing, not grandstanding. Perhaps they could take the speakership away from Boehner? What do you think? Perhaps the Dems would vote for a member of the new party as a nod to the conservative majority in the house, but the idea is to form more or less a governing coalition between a small band of governing conservatives and the Dems. Obama deals EXCLUSIVELY with this new party as the conservative opposition and they are able to negotiate some good deals for their districts and states. As their influence and popularity grows, more in the GOP want to jump ship and leave the dregs for the Tea Party. Perhaps even Boehner jumps ship to the new party. The small contingent in the Senate is able to prevent most filibusters because their #1 stated goal is to govern, NOT to simply obstruct Obama."
"I think such a party would be thought of as heroes. Now the Tea Party has a dilemma about how to primary these folks if at all. In the long run I think this new party would pull support away from both the rump GOP and the Democrats. Bad for the Democrats, but I'm more interested in a functioning government than the well being of the Democratic party. Essentially the Dems and the TCP could govern between them, and the Tea-Party-GOP is left out in the cold on a national level. If the TP-GOP wants to be a force to recon with in local and state races... so be it, but shut them out of national affairs. The TP-GOP is now more "pure" so perhaps they'd like it too. Who knows."
"Mike, I think a 3rd party would absolutely be the best outcome for the country as a whole. In the short term it would be good for Democrats, but I'm not sure it would in the long term. But it would be GREAT for the country in the long term I think. Here's my thinking (which I first saw an outline of in the WaPo a few days ago, but I'll steal it!)"
"Imagine this thing comes down to the wire and 25 or so non-insane GOP members break off from the party and become independents and force a vote on a clean CR and a clean debt limit raise for 1-year. Now say a half dozen or so do likewise in the Senate. Both groups form a new party: "The Conservative Party" (TCP). The TCP is conservative, but interested in governing, not grandstanding. Perhaps they could take the speakership away from Boehner? What do you think? Perhaps the Dems would vote for a member of the new party as a nod to the conservative majority in the house, but the idea is to form more or less a governing coalition between a small band of governing conservatives and the Dems. Obama deals EXCLUSIVELY with this new party as the conservative opposition and they are able to negotiate some good deals for their districts and states. As their influence and popularity grows, more in the GOP want to jump ship and leave the dregs for the Tea Party. Perhaps even Boehner jumps ship to the new party. The small contingent in the Senate is able to prevent most filibusters because their #1 stated goal is to govern, NOT to simply obstruct Obama."
"I think such a party would be thought of as heroes. Now the Tea Party has a dilemma about how to primary these folks if at all. In the long run I think this new party would pull support away from both the rump GOP and the Democrats. Bad for the Democrats, but I'm more interested in a functioning government than the well being of the Democratic party. Essentially the Dems and the TCP could govern between them, and the Tea-Party-GOP is left out in the cold on a national level. If the TP-GOP wants to be a force to recon with in local and state races... so be it, but shut them out of national affairs. The TP-GOP is now more "pure" so perhaps they'd like it too. Who knows."
I think the key is that you have to ask yourself what you hope to achieve with a third party. If you desire a more conservative outcome or a more liberal outcome, etc. I remember during the Summer of 2011-right during the peak of the absurdity in Congress over the first game of debt ceiling chicken, many at places like Firedoglake and Naked Capitalism-but especially FDL-were talking about a third party. This imagined third party was to be considerably further Left than the Democrats. So their desire was really to move political discourse sharply to the Left. Despite that all the people writing comments at FDL seemed to love the idea of this it won't nowhere.
Usually liberals think a third party is a good idea because they assume a third party would make the government more liberal and conservatives think it will make things more conservative. Tom seems to be thinking of a party of displaced pragmatic conservative Republicans. One reason I'm not too excited about a third party is that when you look at countries with the 3 parties-like Britain-the results aren't too exciting. While I too sick of our dysfunctional politics here in the U.S. I don't see much in Britain that impresses me even as they have 3 parties and e coalition government between the Conservatives and Liberals with Labor locked out of Downey Street.
What the Liberals have done as they've served as nothing but a rubber stamp for Cameron and the Conservatives who they are allegedly sharing power with is make people wonder what the need for them is at all. Until the early 20th century Britain had just the Conservatives and Liberal and then in the 10s and 20s Labor basically took the Liberals spot on the totem pole consigning them to just spoiler. This was their first time in power in many years and after this it may be many more years again after this sorry performance.
If there were a third party that would likely mean that one oft the two parties would diminish in importance and influence. Would this make the overall discourse of our politics different? Still the main problem I have with a third party is that we already have a moderate, conservative, Centrist party-the Dems. Seriously, at this point, the world's oldest party-which the Dems are-as they elated their first President, Thomas Jefferson, way back in 1792 is the world's oldest by a considerable amount and at this point their piratically the Whig party.
I mean any conservative-with a small c-would have to consider the Dems the ultimate prototype of a conservative party that knows how to weather social changes in a seamless way with a moderate economically redistribution agenda. I define 'conservative' here in the sense I think Garry Wills did in his fascinating book, Confessions of a Conservative.
If pressed to define it, I would define it this way: a conservative is one who tries to minimize and defuse social conflict as much as possible. Now this is not about trying eliminate social change-far from it. A true conservative is not nearly so stupid as to think that even if he wanted to he could follow a faux conservative like William F. Buckley and 'stand athwart history and yell stop!'
No, a conservative understands it's fruitless to spit into the wind and when the current rages one gets much further riding with it. Social change is inevitable and not a necessary evil but a necessary good. In this sense I'd say that Obama is a conservative President-though not in the pejorative sense of Jane Hamsher and her boys and girls over at Firedoglake.
Garry Wills wrote another book about 8 years before Confessions which was called Nixon's Agonistes where he declared Nixon the 'last liberal'-he meant his in a perjoarative sense I don't entirely share.
He did have a great chapter in the book entitled The Center Cannot Hold. What he was writing about is the failure of the liberal Democrat coalition at the time to weather the storm of the political divisions within-the the disappointment of Black activists after the success of civil rights, the peace movement against the Vietnam war and the rise of the "New Left' and the 1968 Chicago riots on the one side and the rise of the Right on the other. All this led to Nixon's triumph in 68, so as Wills said, the Center could not hold that time.
However, what was quite poetic was Jonathan Alter's book about Obama and his 2012 campaign called The Center Holds: Barrack Obama and His Enemies.
I haven't read the book yet-with the emphasis on yet-but I wonder if Alter was aware of Will's book and had this in mind when choosing the title. The title's subtitle-and his enemies-funny enough references Buckley who wrote of McCarthy and His Enemies in the early 50s.
Back to he question of a third party, I'm pretty happy with where the Democrats are. I don't want a party much to the Left of them though which is not to say there isn't room for improvement in some areas and a party that somehow was less conservative than the Republicans but more so than the Democrats just not crazy... I just don't know that there's much of a market among the electorate for that. If you're a rational conservative minded person just vote for the Democrats.
My guess is that the GOP which has long since decided that they are dead opposed to learning anything but would rather simply keep repeating the same behavior again and again hoping that somehow the result will change is going to have to have a few more bad election cycles before they finally give it up. This would not be facilitated by a third party if anything it would delay it.
Excellent post. Agree with most all of it. Modern Dems are pretty conservative.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that a third party would really help at all.
We tend to separate social and economic issues and being a social liberal is cool and being an economic conservative is cool, which I think is where most Dems are. Quit the stupid marijuana war, the war on gays and the war FOR oil. Only spend the money you can collect in taxes and borrow (balanced budgets) but try to urge folks to appreciate the need to help those on the fringes.
I wonder any more if its possible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative though. Being socially liberal costs money.These economic paradigms which make us believe we can afford something because we have to borrow or tax arent very helpful to the socially liberal causes. I think we need to throw that paradigm out and completely forget it. So we really do need to move left on how we view money and spending I think so that we can support the socially liberal views that really are taking hold everywhere now. We have got to stop the excuse of "we dont have the money"
Oh, believe me Greg I'm not an economic conservative in the sense of the 'we don't have the money for it' crowd.
ReplyDeleteI was using the term conservative pretty broadly here, not really referring to any particular position but more in the long view. An adoption of the Dems' platform over time will lower social conflict and disillusionment by making sure the American Dream is real and widely sharted while not getting into these absurd cultural wars over gays, drugs, etc-ie, by being social liberals.
I define 'conservative' as over the long haul trying to defuse social conflict as much as is possible-while realizing it's not possible to do this 100%. The modern conservative Republicans aren't at all conservative in this sense as they seek to increase social tension and conflict as much as possible and actually attack our government instiittuions that have a wide social consensus of agreement on.
I once read that a conservative should acept any institution that's been around for 50 years. I wouldn't entirely leave it there as social change is necessary, just because something is new doesn't mean its not needed.
However, the Tea Party is the opposite of this definition of conservative as they continue to fight the New Deal which has been around since the 30s and obviously there is a large consensus of support for.
Agreed that the modern definition of conservative in America is very Orwellian
DeleteIndeed, for me we havve the money for whatever we decide is economically, socially, and politically necessary.
ReplyDeleteIf necesary just print the money for it.
ReplyDeleteI wasnt accusing you of being in that crowd Mike, far from it. I'm merely pointing out what I think are the obstacles to the socially liberal agenda that even many modern republicans will say they are for.
ReplyDeleteWe must attack and change our monetary paradigms before we can ever hope to truly affect our social paradigm. That is backwards to me and shows how, to too many people, money itself is the object rather than a tool to achieve an objective.
I think headway is being made but many Democrats stand in the way too!
Oh no I agree. I think the Dems are learning but slowly. It's true that many in the party don't understand monetary policy either. Some are at least learning though.
DeleteI actually consider myself an economic liberal actually. My small c conservatism is more philosophical and over the long haul. There is an awful lot of economic ignorance that is a major problem
I consider myself conservative as well (small c) I think *conservation* is important and I think we should move slowly (cautiously) when considering military options. We have completely warped conservative to only be about removing govt and elevating religion to replace it.
DeleteI think of today's Tea Party Republicans as really being the opposite of conservative. They're very rash and radical and again and again seem to want to rather than mitigate social conflict, intensify and exacerbate it.
ReplyDeleteThis is because they still can't accept many of the social and economic changes that most of the country has long since accepted.
Agreed. They have a very narrow set of principles that they hold strong to and are very passionate about them. Admirable on a certain level but they also suffer from closing out outside information that might allow them to learn and adapt their views. Its admirable to believe strongly in our govt following the constitution, its not admirable to only take the sentences of the constitution to say ONE thing, which just happens to be what you believe.
DeleteHowever the consitution is subject to different interpretations.
ReplyDeleteBoy, my last comment didnt read how I meant it at all.
DeleteI agree that the constitution is subject to different interpretations, but that the Tea Party wants there to be only one........THEIRS!
It sounded like I was accusing you of pigeon holing the constitution..... which I did not mean to do. I was accusing THEM of that.
Sorry mate
Yeah my trouble is that they think they have a mainline to God so to speak-both figuratively with the constitution but literally too, of course!
ReplyDeleteWow, I've got to pay more attention over here... I never know when one of my comments is going to get made into the subject of a post. :D
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm letting it get to my head. Thanks for article Mike, and for the counter argument. I will have to go through it in more detail (your counterargument that is)... and your and Greg's comments.
But right now I still think we'd ALL be better off if the GOP split. I agree there's no reason for the Dems to split. If it were only the Dems, then it would be a good idea if they split. You gotta have the "red team" over there arguing against you. But you need one that's interested in stability and governing.
All I'm saying is that we've traditionally had that in this country: two viable pro-governing parties. We don't have that now but it's not because a majority of anti-Dems don't want it: it's because a powerful minority of anti-Dems are nihilists, and the non-nihilists are afraid of them. It's a shame.
Yet in most of U.S. history we've had one strong majority party and one kind of junior party. Between 1800-1860 the Dems were totally dominant holding onto the White House and both Houses of Congress 56 out of 60 years.
ReplyDeleteThen between 1860-1932 the GOP had all 3 houses 42 out of 72 years and the White House 56 out of 72 years. Then with FDR in the White House the Dems were dominant holding the White House 28 out of 36 years while having the House all but 4 years during that time.
After that you had the GOP's Southern Strategy and you've had divided govt since then. However, the rule has usually been one party is stronger. Even this better time you imagine we had in the past with two viable parties was only really a dominant Democratic party and a pretty well behaved Republiican party as it realized it's views were in the minority-conitnued opposition to the New Deal.
Usually we've gotten big things done in this country not through bipartisanship but the opposite-the New Deal passed because the Dems had overwhelming majorities; in the 1860s we got rid of slavery with the Southern Dems basically disenfranchised.
So you don't usually have two parties that are equally viable or at least not two of roughly equal strength.
What we need now is not bipartisanship but a big and strong enough Democratic majority that can impose its will.
ReplyDeleteI've got no complaint about an all Dem gov in the near term, but I'll take actual bipartisanship as a backup. What we've got now seems a distant 3rd best choice.
DeleteChecks and balances is in our blood as a nation (I think). It's an enormous benefit to know we are able to turn to the other guys if Team A is screwing up (even if we never do). If Team B, however, is dominated by a bunch of wild-eyed, paranoid, neo-Confederate bomb throwers, it helps none of us (even the bomb throwers, though they're too blind to realize it).
That's why I'm rarely in favor of the GOP nominating bad candidates. It may help the Dems, but why take a chance? That's why I always am open to changing my party at each election (yes I'm a RINO right now... I wanted to vote in the GOP primary last time: and I didn't vote for the worst candidate either). I guess every state is different. Actually I may stay a RINO because I believe CA parties have the following rules now: Dems let anybody vote in their primary, but GOP is closed. I'll have to look into it I guess... but yes I change back and forth.
Why would anybody do anything else? :D
We'd have a lot less scary GOP nominees if we all became Republicans.
Like I said Tom, my reading of history is that most accomplishments have been achieved by a big partisan majority. Endinog slavery, the New Deal, etc. Your idea seems to evenision to decent parties who are trustworthy but that's never really been the way things have gone. Usually you have at most one party you can trust at all.
ReplyDeleteI just don't think the GOP will come to its senses till it loses more elections-unfortunatley they learn slowly.
ReplyDeleteHa, OK, you might be right.
Delete