 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
The Myth of the Middle
Why we should be skeptical about the current mania for a third party that appeals to independents and libertarians.
Most of this, by the way, would have no effect at all on the federal deficit. Unlike the straight libertarian tonic, in which government would simply stop doing certain things, these hybrid, market-based solutions are likely to cost more, for comparable public benefits, than direct delivery of benefits through government. That’s true in health (single payer is cheaper than a subsidized private insurance scheme), retirement (Bush’s Social Security privatization by itself would have worsened the system’s long-term finances), and education (student loans through banks cost more than government loans, and a real voucher system would cost more than public schools). There may be good reasons to prefer market-based solutions in all these cases, but “we are so out of money” certainly isn’t one of them. All the verve of the first part of the book is lost in the final journey through the zero-sum choices of deficit politics and stale policy solutions that don’t even address the deficit.
In many ways, the alternative politics that Americans Elect, No Labels, and, to a small degree, Welch and Gillespie were looking for was embodied in the campaign and election of Barack Obama—a campaign that reached people who hadn’t been interested in politics, promised to transcend partisanship, and built an electoral coalition that reached deep into Republican territory such as Indiana. As the President points out even in his more recent “populist” mode, many of the ideas he’s embraced on health-care reform, deficit reduction, education, and job creation come from Republicans. But his presidency quickly became a very ordinary one, smashed on the rocks of economic crisis and obstruction.
If you see this as a failure or betrayal by Obama, the case for a third party is strong. Here’s Politico’s Allen again, with executive editor Jim VandeHei, explaining their online primary: “Voters have watched first George W. Bush and then Barack Obama promise to reach out to the other party—then not only fail spectacularly at bipartisanship but make the city’s divisions even deeper.” But the failure here was not principally Obama’s. Nor was it entirely the fault of congressional Republicans. It was the system as it has evolved, a system with too many veto points and too much entrenched power, and one in which money carries too much weight. It’s a system that can be reformed, in ways large and small, but a third party or independent candidacy, absent other reforms, won’t do a thing to the system. And the fact that many of the leading advocates for a third party or independent candidate are so deeply embedded in the system, and are its winners, should make us all even more skeptical about the fantasy.
I don't know how many times Obama "reached out" to the Congressional Republicans and virtual presidents like Sens. Olympia Snowe and Ben Nelson. If the GOP responded, it's news to me. So I'm not sure why Schmitt even says "not principally" Obama's failure. I have a hard time faulting him at all on this score. I have plenty of other things to blame him for, but in "reaching out" (to our great detriment, I might add) isn't one of them.
Dec 15, 2011, 1:13 PMWhat Schmitt also leaves out is that many of the "solutions" and policy prescriptions of the third party promoters are already being proposed... by Barack Obama. Small tax increases at the top of the income scale, cuts to earned benefit programs, etc...
Dec 15, 2011, 1:18 PMG and W have already had their president -- Jimmy Carter. By deregulatind, he made Southwest and micro breweries possible. I am absolutely not joking
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/76819/how-jimmy-carter-saved-beer
Typically semi reality based defences of Ronald Reagan's economic policies are based on the assumption that he did the things actually done by Carter.
Either they are huge Carter fans or they are totalhypocrite dweebs. I know how I would bet.
Dec 15, 2011, 3:55 PMI had no idea Duverger's Law had a name. Everytime I get into a third party conversation I patiently explain how the Electoral College process militates against it. Now I can just tell them it's Duverger's Law and tell them if they don't know what it is, to look it up.
Dec 15, 2011, 4:41 PMThe left end of the left is at least as much in thrall to the ignis fatuus of politics-without-politicians, or even better, a polity without politics.
President Matt Damon, anyone?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1648081
Dec 15, 2011, 6:25 PMI couldn't folllow any of this. Where's the part where everyone get's a pony?
Dec 15, 2011, 9:23 PMNo mention of the influence of the corporate marriage with both parties in maintaining the status quo. Publicly funded elections and strict lobbying rules would go a long way to righting many of the wrongs the duopoly has foisted on our citizenry. Obstruction of such reforms is assured by both parties, and by the howls of the soul-less zombies we think of as corporations.
Dec 17, 2011, 11:07 AMThe call for publicly funded elections and strict lobbying rules has been around for at least since Watergate. I have come to the conclusion that neither will happen. So I believe that candidates must make a Ulysses Compact and commit to removing large contributions and the lure of the revolving door between Congress and K Street. In fact, I believe this so strongly that I am running for Congress with such a compact central to my campaign. www.yaleforcongress.com
Dec 17, 2011, 6:00 PM"While Gillespie and Welch are coming from a different orientation than the insider-centrists, their substantive argument takes a similar form: We need an independent candidate because of, you guessed it, the deficit."
Uhh, you must have a different version of their book than I do, in my copy, they dont call for a third party solution to our political problems so much as call for an end to the politicization of every problem. Thats the point of mentioning southwest and beer deregulation, that we can survive just fine, and even thrive without the government looking over our shoulder at every moment.
You can disagree all you like, but you should at least comment on what they actually wrote.
Dec 19, 2011, 6:04 PMIt seems likely that those who are most discontent with the two (party) choices, will be the most avid third-partyers.
I would say the left may be disappointed in Obama's progress, but the right seeths with such hatred, to the point of alienating the center, that it is they who will be seduced by the siren of a third party savior.
Greater public policy debate, an energized electorate, and a divided right means a second term for Obama, and a reason to continue to hope.
Would you say that the third party as described at TBEPP.COM has an agenda, or is nonsense?
Dec 31, 2011, 5:04 PMTo Mark Schmitt, i just discovered your question to a post I had made in December; You were obviously at my site, TBEPP.com why didn't you write to me directly? If you have questions, be specific and without an answer. If my suggested solutions to problems are not collectively an agenda, what is an agenda?
And, why are they nonsense? Bear in mind the meaning of non-sense. TBEPP@mail.com
Post a Comment
Mark Schmitt is a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and former executive editor of The American Prospect.
Events
Democracy, Brennan Center Co-Host Money-in-Politics Event
On May 7, the Brennan Center for Justice, a New York City-based public policy institute, hosted a panel discussion co-sponsored by Democracy and Demos on money in politics, the subject of Democracy’s centerpiece symposium in the Winter 2013 issue.
News
Washington Post Interviews Kleiman on Crime Policy
In a March 28 post in The Washington Post’s Wonkblog, Dylan Matthews interviewed UCLA professor Mark Kleiman about his essay, “Smart on Crime,” in the current issue of Democracy.
News
Klein Cites Democracy Essay on Defense Spending
In his Bloomberg View column on February 13, Ezra Klein discussed the politics of military spending and highlighted a number of quotes from former Representative Barney Frank’s feature contribution to Democracy’s Winter 2013 issue.
