In this dialogue with Matt Miller, Ezra Klein channels a lot of political science to poke holes in Miller’s case for a third party. Via Facebook, a political scientist friend adds this:
Here’s a question for the third-party types: Why a third party, instead of capturing one of the two? Most third party boosters tend to agree with a lot of what the Democrats want, but not everything. Why not move the party in their direction, from the inside?In the 1940s/1950s, the Democratic Party wanted what most liberals at the time wanted, but they differed on some issues, most notably on race. Democrats were against civil rights, liberals were for it. But liberals worked WITHIN the party to change its direction, and they succeeded. And that change eventually worked its way through the entire party, from the presidency down through congress and the states. Why is that not the strategy, instead of the incredibly difficult “create a party from scratch” approach?
To which another political scientist added:
Not to mention the christian conservatives within the gop in the last 3 decades.
The answer to the question is usually that the major parties can’t do it, won’t do it, etc. Miller tries a version of this:
The risk aversion that comes with power means you won’t propose things even if you think in your heart they’re the right direction for the country.
Milller seems to assume that there are these unitary actors called “the Democratic Party” and “the Republican Party.” And, once in power (and here Miller is laser-focused on the White House, for no good reason—as Ezra points out), they suddenly get risk-averse and stop making hard choices. But in fact there are policy debates within each party and most of the ideas that Miller proposes—tax reform, for example—in fact have serious and devoted constituencies within one or both parties. (Although, as my friend points out above and as Seth Masket pointed out after reading one of Thomas Friedman’s third party fever-dreams, it’s interesting how much these ideas-that-no-party-is-courageous-enough-to-champion are in fact what leading Democrats have been pushing.)
Which is to say, the possibility of effecting change from within—within a major party—is hardly small. And it is larger than the possibility of effecting change from some nascent third party campaign. It’s amazing to me that Miller cites Perot in his dialogue with Ezra. Does he remember the spectacular decline of the Reform Party? Its presidential ticket got 481 votes in 2008!
Ultimately, I would like to hear Miller say why civil rights could be achieved via activism within a major party but his agenda could not be.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
How about http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=22213 ?
This book suggests that Perot and the Reform Party is a GOOD example, because it demonstrates that the major parties sought to capture those votes back. By moving their policies a little closer to those voters who voted Reform, the major parties (primarily the Republicans, that is) captured those voters back. The disappearance of the Reform party as an electoral force could, therefore, be demonstrative of its success.
But if this is “success,” it’s a pyrrhic victory, no? The GOP and the Democrats made a few tactical adjustments, the Reform Party imploded, and successive administrations took us further from Perot’s 1992 dream (and Miller’s 2011 dream) of lower deficits. The sorts of major policy reforms and broader systemic changes that Miller wants seem to require something more than the Perot example can provide.
See also Bernstein’s points today:
“Reagan-era budget politics was dominated by deficit politics (thus Gramm-Rudman, among other things), followed by a major and successful deficit reduction package during the Bush presidency — a package Perot opposed, just as he opposed the Clinton deficit reduction package in 1993. And histories of the Clinton administration stress the economic logic for deficit reduction (under 1993 circumstances, it would keep interest rates down and therefore spur growth), which presumably would have pushed the economic team in that direction regardless of Perot.”
The Democratic Party has always had Blue Dogs, DixieCrats, social conservatives, flag-wavers, religious, pro-military, pro-war types, America-Firsters, and now it’s got its share of neo-cons like Dennis Ross — just like the Republicans. In fact, the party is swimming in all these types right now. In fact, it’s getting hard to distinguish both parties.
It seems to me that there has always existed a group of Americans significantly to the left of Democrats, socially liberal, economically liberal , anti-war, secular in outlook, fiercely civil libertarian, and international in outlook. This group might be only 10% of the nation, but it’s a constituency that has never had a voice. It’s time for a party that represents it.
David: The Democratic Party most certainly includes social and economic liberals, as well as those who are anti-war (or at least several recent wars) and civil libertarians. This doesn’t describe every Democratic politician at the federal level, or perhaps even most. But within the party and its affiliated interest groups these views are well-represented. My point is that if you want this hypothetical 10% to have a voice, you are more likely to get it by agitating within the Democratic Party than by forming a third party.
It wouldn’t really work though because your faction has to deal with other factions within the Democratic Party. And all those factions have voices too, they have to be dealt with, which will dilute your agenda. You have to “compromise” your ideals. This means that you will make the platform of the Democratic Party more screwed up, not less.
Side, the basic assumption being made here is that if your ideology is overall good then one aspect of your ideology must be good as well, so you must do whatever it takes to get that aspect of ideology into power, even including working with the Democrats/Republicans. The problem is that it neglects the possibility that an ideology is good ONLY IF all aspects of said ideology is enacted, and that piecemeal implementation of the ideology does more harm than the status quo. For example, if we move towards a society that has super-low taxes but still massively pro-war, this is not good because we’re adding to the deficit. Or if we move towards a society that removes government intervention but still have super-high taxes, we’re choking off growth from both the demand side and the supply side. (This is the real problem with compromise, it means everyone’s angry.)
I’m the original “Facebook friend” quoted above.
I think it’s odd that we find this unworkable because there are other constituencies within the Democratic Party. What constituency could have been more hostile to civil rights than southern Democrats?
If the the problem is compromise with other factions, then the republic is doomed. Policy-making is compromise. We have only one national policy. That is, we either regulate banks or we don’t. If a small constituency has or does not have a voice is less important than whether that voice translates into policy. What matters is whether that constituency can make compromise in its favor the policy. That could be done by shaping the platform of a party, meaning you compromise with those in the party to make your goals the party’s goals, and then you use the party’s discipline to advance them. Or it could happen by shaping the policy goals of the entire country, meaning you have to compromise with everyone. Both of those strategies seem difficult, but surely using the party is easier than going it alone.
Compromise is not bad. The problem (that I see not being addressed at all) is that compromise could produce an objectively worse outcome than having no reform occurs in the first place. This is not a world where if you have a good policy, then anything that moves society towards your preferred policy must be good. That’s utterly facile.
We live in a complex world, with many interlocking parts, and if one idea gets implemented piecemeal, in a manner that leads to horrible loopholes and problems that lead to worse outcomes, then what was the point of the “reform” in the first place? It was certainly not to make the world a better place.
The solution to this dilemma is not to reject compromise or to form a third party. It is to reconsider the role of political activism and incremental change in the first place and understand that your very participation could lead to disastrous harm (and that you must be held responsible for that). If the problem is that your policies is going to get diluted down to being actively harmful to the nation, then the solution is either to abandon said policy and find a new workable one that won’t be diluted, or to just accept the status quo as being better than the possible alternatives.
Re-reading your post I see that you said “We have only one national policy. That is, we either regulate banks or we don’t.”
If you are a single issue voter, and if you have a policy of regulation that won’t be diluted via compromise, then I can see working within the two-party system as a successful policy, but that’s only because you’re focused on one single issue. There IS no compromise occurring here, you’re in favor of regulating[1] banks no matter what; it doesn’t matter about homosexuality, national debt, militarism, civil rights, role of religion, etc. If the banks are regulated properly, then you are happy. You aren’t giving up anything to the other side, because you have nothing else to give up to the other side.
My compliant seems to be more directed towards “coherent” ideologies such as libertarianism, which cares about more than one specific issue. Considering how we are dealing with a “third party”, I’d assume such a party would at least be based on more than one issue (though they are exceptions: see the Prohibition Party).
[1]Or not regulating, if you lean in that direction.
By only one policy, I mean that we can’t simultaneously regulate and not regulate. We can, of course, have many flavors or gradations of regulations. But we have to make a decision. We can’t let the people who want one thing have what they want, and then others have what they want, and everyone goes their way. That means compromise, in that everyone must abide by the same collective choice. Someone has to lose (on that issue). But you can do that precisely because there are other issues, and you can trade among them.