Arnold, what do you think of the new “Alliance Party” taking form over at Walter Russel Mead’s site?
1. I find the Alliance Party more attractive than the Niskanen Center in trying to formulate what I might call a centrist-libertarian agenda.
2. Third parties face structural barriers that are well known.
3. In addition, a centrist-libertarian party has no momentum going for it. There are very few of us.
Most important, the major political parties have managed to convince most politically engaged people that there is a lot at stake in the current cold civil war between progressive elites and conservatives/populists. In that context, most people aren’t asking about a third party, “Is this the middle ground that I am looking for?” Instead, they are asking, “Whose votes is this party going to siphon away?” The center-left does not rally to Howard Schultz; instead they are wary of him. The center-right is likely to react similarly to the Alliance Party, if it ever gets beyond the 3-thinkers-with-a-manifesto stage.
The strange thing about some good ‘centrist’ party is 2016 both unpopular candidates were very centrist in nature. The Democrats literally ran a ‘Clinton’ for God sakes and Trump campaigned as a Midwest Democrat from 2004/2006. Really if Trump ran in 2004, he would have been a Democrat and would have very likely taken Ohio and the 2004 Electoral College even though he would have lost the popular vote to Bush Jr. in 2004. (Kerry did not lose Ohio by much btw and he was not especially good.)
So I think stating the Parties were not ‘centered’ in 2016 seems like an exaggeration IMO. And the centrist have the following problems:
1) How to define foreign policy. In terms of President this is the most aspect to me as this where the President has the most influence. And most centrist do a terrible job here. (Has Schlutz said anything useful here? Be nicer to Mexico and Canada?) And this area is not as Party defined. (Note Republicans talk that Trump is a strong Hawk but really he has been a dove here.)
1a) In reality, one reason why I think Sanders is better running in 2020 is he has really improved with talking about foreign policy and is more in-line with young Party voters here. (In 2016, he spent more time complaining about 1980s Central American policy when HRC was Arkansas First Lady than first term Obama/HRC issues.)
2) The most basic problem with Schultz is sounds like your CEO is running for President. And note I think this is one area Romney failed in 2012 as he simply sounded like CEO running. (Trump is different here.)
3) In terms of centrist and local community stuff is we live a global economy so what happens in China effects the community.
The Alliance Party makes some noises to which I am sympathetic but they have a lot of ideas to develop further before it will sound like they are doing more than talking out of both sides of their mouth.
Dr. Kling hits the nail on the head with his observation that the structural barriers to third parties are well known. Yet, the Alliance Party, justifying its bid for power on the premise:
“More than 41 percent of new voters register as independents. That is no accident. Every poll shows that the American people believe, correctly, that today’s major parties do not represent their views. Every poll shows that most Americans feel a sense of futility with making their voices heard in today’s political environment.”
only offers “A judicious application of term limits will remedy part of the problem, as will the addition of rank-choice voting and other election reforms.”
Oh. OK. Call me when a national election gets competently administered in the US.
Unfortunately nobody talks about Edmund Randolph or Elbridge Gerry much anymore. They anticipated the structural electoral problems that we face today and would have added measures to the Constitution that would have greatly advanced protections for subsidiarity.
A pledge to to support an Article V constitutional convention to replace the current constitution with the original Virginia Plan and make such other amendments as delegates may feel necessary, should be the first plank in any third party’s platform. Progress is impossible in the current anarchy.
“A judicious application of term limits will remedy part of the problem, as will the addition of rank-choice voting and other election reforms.”
This reminds me of an op ed Jeb Bush published after pulling out of the 2016 primaries, in which he offered three key ideas for addressing the country’s problems:
1. Term limits
2. Balanced budget amendment
3. School vouchers
If you want “purity” you can be a Green, or a Libertarian.
Milton Friedman was a lib-leaning Republican.
There’s less room for a NeverTrump “center Republican” party than there is for a Weekly Standard not Trump conservative news magazine. Tiny. Really tiny.
The PC-Klan socialist Democrats are so crazy, I am now a NeverDemocrat. Most Reps are, and an increasing of “independents” probably will be for the next few cycles.
This is the TV – Internet – viral meme age.
Ya gotta be a showman. Hillary was NOT.
Trump is, and he’s almost certain to win re-election if he keeps going and there is no recession. Who of these Dems will “break out” in the primaries and show support of Dem primary voters? Nobody now knows.
The Dems are a fractious mess right now, unified only in Trump-hate, but with “No collusion” after two years of rage, “Trump-hate” is not enough.
You’re right about the 15-20 % vote the Dems would get in a proportional system. But almost all of those votes will be in the primaries, too — until the Dems lose so much, so often, that more moderates take back over.
We rotate political power by region. The system is a known meta stable, when Texas has power, then California accumulates political reserves for the next election, New York is part of the rotation. There is no collapsed solution so over the eight year periods we get regional superposition. However the system no longer works as California has become a humongous boat anchor, the seventh largest economy in the world so something.
Consider a centrist California, a good old puritan, English law stable capitalist state. California would always dominate the elections, it would consistently pick up one of Texas or Florida, giving a California candidate electorial momentum.
A leftist California never works anymore, California lost its place in the rotation, that is new. The largest state in the union is electorially inefficient when it is on the tail end. There is always a majority willing to reject a single element in the tail.
It is a contradiction since California teachers union controls a nationwide network of campaign organization. In the regional rotation, since California is out of the running, Kamala is now kingmaker, she delivers the nation’s teachers because she leads California teachers.
That ‘Alliance’ document is totally vague and lame. Using the example of Macron is particularly out to lunch.
How about this one, “only the federal government can establish what money is, and manage its production and value.” Um, ok. But if people want to exchange another medium for the purpose of trade, is that going to be banned? If not banned, then is this supposedly key, core principle null?
I had never heard of the Alliance Party. So I clicked on over, and saw this:
“The idea that markets … predate the invention of government … is ahistorical nonsense on stilts.”
Next!