Pocketbook Issues Keep Arising
Jan. 14, 2024
The big issue in this year’s election is not abortion, even as outraged as many women (and men) are. It’s not climate change, no matter that it’s getting hotter and hotter. It’s not the fate of the Gaza Strip. Strangely enough, it’s not even the security of our own borders, though that concerns many.
All of these problems will surely factor into the outcome but the most recent public opinion survey commissioned by Our Common Purpose indicates the make-or-break issues are much closer to home.
It’s paying the rent, buying gasoline, making ends meet. It’s the cost of medicine, the cost of health care for those who can find it. It’s stretching the paycheck or the stipend from Social Security. It’s about getting by.
The economy ranked as the country’s largest issue in the poll, with 89% either calling it critical or very important. The poll, conducted for Our Common Purpose by Survey USA during the first week of December, surveyed 880 likely voters in the six key battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
The predominance of the economy is entirely consistent with other polls. Even so, how it stacks up against other major issues of the day still comes as something of a surprise. Abortion has been so argued about and climate change so worried about, but they take a backseat along with today’s other major policy questions.
The emphasis on the economy has left some commentators sputtering. Isn’t Wall Street running at all-time highs? Isn’t the joblessness rate about as low as it can go? Didn’t the country avoid the hard kerplunk of a recession?
Certain op-ed columnists will go to their death beds wondering how the numbers could be so good and the vibe be so bad. What they see as unwarranted pessimism has created what they call a “vibe-cession,” which they variously attribute to the lag time it takes for consumers to accept price increases to residual gloom from the pandemic to predictable partisanship.
The situation frustrates the President as well. Why isn’t he getting more credit for the series of stimulus packages that kept the economy from tanking in the worst days of the pandemic?
From a macro perspective, all of them are right. The economy is certainly humming along. But “economy” is a catchall term that can encompass any number of connotations and intended meanings.
When respondents to the Our Common Purpose poll were given an open-ended opportunity to list in their own words what they saw as other important issues, their most frequent response was inflation. In the words of one, “How we are gonna build the economy back to where a gallon of milk doesn’t cost $4?”
Mentions of inflation were followed in frequency by the cost and availability of health care, then by the generic response of “economy.” These and the variety of related concerns can be grouped under the familiar heading of “pocketbook issues.” Together they made up a near majority of the responses.
“Health, jobs, housing,” is the succinct summation of an older white woman, a Republican, from a small town outside of Atlanta.
“Everything that deals with our well-being,” is the way a young Black man, a political independent from Philadelphia, sums it up.
Their more micro perspective is where the op-ed commentators have it all wrong. Pocketbook issues almost always come front and center in an election, and there are plenty of reasons for it now, as anyone who has been in a grocery store recently will be quick to tell you.
Prices for food, rent, and gas are higher. Interest rates are higher. Meanwhile, the stimulus checks and other forms of assistance from the pandemic have long since disappeared.
Of course, those worst hit are the most vulnerable, but it’s not limited to them. Gallup began tracking the impact of inflation in November 2021. The number of respondents reporting at least some financial hardship kept rising in a succession of Gallup polls, reaching 61% of all households in May of last year.
That inflation has slowed in recent months is like saying a dangerous storm has passed without recognizing the massive damage it left behind. Higher prices didn’t suddenly go away. They’re now permanently affixed to every item on the shelves.
One measure of the stress is that credit card debt has now topped $1 trillion. The U.S. Government Accountability Office says that stimulus checks and other forms of assistance helped cardholders reduce their debt levels during the pandemic but inflation now has undone all that. Making matters worse, the interest rate on unpaid balances has ballooned above 20%.
In this age of economic disparity, once again the rising tide is not raising all boats. Solutions are hard to come by but the media, as well as the President, need to start by acknowledging the pain, rather than denying its existence, and then go on to forthrightly consider the ramifications.
Failing to do so, they risk missing the festering discontent that caught Hillary Clinton, pollsters and media observers by surprise in 2016. The same could cost Joe Biden the election in 2024.
–Richard Gilman
Making Our Case in USA Today
This appeal to our better angels, co-authored with Will Johnson, CEO of the Harris Poll, was just published by USA Today.
Not us vs. them: How Republicans and Democrats can unite ahead of 2024 (usatoday.com)
On the eve of 2024, here’s wishing you health and happiness in the coming year. It’s a year that likely will test our core principles as a country. Let’s resolve to rise above the partisan divide by doing what we can to find ways of working together.
Options to Biden-Trump Look Dim in Poll
Dec. 27, 2023
Those wishing to avoid another smash-up between Joe Biden and Donald Trump had better get their act together in a hurry. The only outside hope at the moment is Nikki Haley, and it’s a distant one.
Our recent poll shows that the upcoming Republican primaries and a nascent third-party presidential campaign that has nettled Democrats are thus far drawing little more than a yawn in the six key battleground states. This disinterest will come as a severe disappointment to those who are hoping somehow to avoid a reprise of 2020, or more pointedly are opposed to a second term for the past president or, for others, the current president.
The public opinion surveys done for Our Common Purpose have consistently shown that Americans want better for the country than what we have. But the latest iteration of the poll, focusing specifically on the 2024 presidential election, shows that our better angels don’t always win out.
Despite all the evidence of damage done by division – witness the dysfunction in Congress – and the good that common sense tells us would come of working together, we persist in hunkering down in our partisan trenches.
The poll, conducted by Survey USA in the first week of December, explored a series of what if scenarios with 880 likely voters. What happens if it’s again Trump versus Biden? What happens, given all the attention being paid to the upcoming GOP primaries, if the candidate ends up being someone other than Trump? What happens if a third-party candidate mounts a real challenge?
The top line shows Trump leading Biden by the razor-thin margin of one percentage point, 44% to 43%, across the aggregate of six battleground states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin). That’s a tad tighter than other polls have shown but some variation is to be expected with a margin of error of +/- 4%.
More concerning is that with more than 10 months to go before the election, fully 75% of the respondents (38% for Trump and 37% for Biden) say they are locked into their votes.
This even though many acknowledge they have concerns with their own candidate. While it’s Trump who is embroiled in legal problems, it’s Biden’s supporters who are more inclined to worry about their own guy with 11% admitting to serious concerns and another whopping 53% to some concerns.
They’ll be voting for Biden anyway because their concerns about Trump are even more pronounced. More than 4 of 10 of respondents say their vote will be determined as much or more by their concerns about the opposition candidate, this is equally the case on both sides of the fence, than by the considerable policy issues faced by the nation.
The striking thing is that despite their concerns they are nonetheless channeling their attention on the Big Two, rather than considering the alternatives.
If 75% are firm for Trump or Biden, that leaves only 25% who at this juncture could be classified as “persuadable.” They are either wavering in their support of one candidate or the other, aren’t decided, or couldn’t support either one if they were the only two in the race.
Out of deference to the sitting President, Democrats aren’t offering up any alternatives. but what if Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley were to displace Trump on the GOP side? The poll shows that in the battleground states, at least at the moment, neither fares as well as Trump. Both trailed by 8 percentage points in head-to-head matches against Biden.
The only ray of hope is that more voters – in particular independents – say they are as yet undecided about Haley. In the matchup of Trump versus Biden, 14% of independents say they wouldn’t vote and 11% are undecided. With Haley versus Biden, those numbers go up to 18% and 20%.
What about adding a third-party candidate to the mix? The poll shows voters in the battleground states aren’t much interested in that possibility either.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has declared as an independent, draws 12% support in a three-person field with Biden and Trump. Joe Manchin, who hasn’t declared anything but stands as perhaps the most prominent of the spokesmen for the No Labels initiative that has Democrats screaming spoiler, attracts a mere 5% against Biden and Trump.
Of course, lots can change on the campaign trail or in the courtroom before November. Other polls show Haley gaining ground in New Hampshire. With a good showing there, voters in the battleground states likely will pay her more notice. That’s about the best chance there is for breaking up the Biden-Trump monopoly.
But for the moment anyway, voters in the battleground states appear to prefer seeing the two heavyweights, rampant distrust of Trump in the one corner and misgivings about Biden in the other, duking it out to the finish. As if this will settle matters.
Yes, there will be a winner, albeit likely a disputed one. Whoever wins, the animus will go unabated. We will squander the opportunity for the fresh start the country desperately needs, and instead double down once again on the partisanship that divides us. Sad to say, a good portion of the responsibility will rest with we the voters.
–Richard Gilman
Moderates Missing the Fire
Nov. 26, 2023
The extreme ends of the political spectrum monopolize the discussion, dominate the media, and give the everlasting impression we are a country divided.
We moderates, who logically should be the bridge-builders spanning the big divide, stand by largely powerless.
That’s not happenstance. We moderates come up short on leadership, a platform, and on passion. Each of these deficiencies is a topic onto itself, in totality involving much too much information to present or digest all at once. Let’s limit ourselves here to the question of passion, the least explored of the shortcomings.
Our Common Purpose devoted a good portion of one of its periodic public opinion surveys, this was conducted two years ago by Survey USA, to exploring whether personality differences line up with political differences. Are conservatives fire-breathing monsters? Are liberals warm and fuzzy pushovers? Are moderates milquetoasts?
The answers are to a degree reassuring. We are pre-conditioned by continuous vitriol and disparagement to expect the worst of those on the other side. But at least according to how survey respondents see themselves, we surprisingly track together more often than we might think. In fact, there is no appreciable difference between conservatives, moderates and liberals on 11 of the 27 personality traits that were examined.* Those of all political affiliations lean more toward:
Taking charge, rather than following others.
Getting organized, rather than taking things as they come.
Adjusting to circumstances, rather than doing as planned.
Hearing out others, rather than persuading them.
Smoothing things over, rather than arguing the case.
Assisting others when needed, rather than figuring it’s on them.
Even where differences emerge, those of varying political ideologies are not – in aggregate – totally opposite of each other. They all generally trend in the same direction, just to greater or lesser degrees.
So, for instance, each persuasion is more inclined to follow the news than not be interested. While liberals average +47 and conservatives +26 on the side of following the news, those in the middle come in at just +15. Moderates follow the news, but on average the interest is lukewarm.
This pattern repeats. Contrary to what we might expect, the biggest such differences – particularly involving traits that have a more direct bearing on political involvement – are not between conservatives and liberals, but with moderates. In contrast with those on either side of the political spectrum, those in the middle tend on the margin to be:
Less interested in politics.
Less interested in following the news.
Less likely to speak their mind and, in general, slightly less talkative.
Slightly more inclined to second-guess themselves.
More likely to wait to join in until they’re invited, rather than initiating.
Put this together and in aggregate we moderates profile as holding back. We are not just moderate in ideology. We practice moderation. At best this might be characterized as ambivalence. At worst, aversion. Only 17% of those in the moderate category regard themselves as heavily engaged with politics. That compares with 33% of the “very conservatives” and 45% of the “very liberals”. **
This finding sheds new light on why those on the extremes get all the attention. It’s not just that many of them are willing to assert themselves. They get to shout loudly as they want because there’s pretty much no one else in the arena. It also helps explain why so much attention is paid to so-called “swing voters.” We are docile sheep waiting to be enticed in one direction or the other.
For anyone wanting moderates to push their own agenda, these conclusions are not encouraging. The lower level of involvement could be one of those chicken-and-egg questions. Does the lack of passion explain the lack of leadership and agenda? Or does the absence of leadership and agenda give moderates nothing to be passionate about?
Whichever, the absence of a countervailing force in the middle is not good for the country. We moderates have to find a way to overcome our personalities if we expect to build any bridges.
–Richard Gilman
Notes on methodology:
*Respondents were asked to evaluate where they put themselves on a 201-point scale (-100 to +100) for 27 traits. A particular trait would be shown at one end of the scale and the opposite behavior at the other end. For instance, “In group settings, I speak my mind . . . hold my tongue.”
**Respondents were placed into one of five categories – very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, very liberal – based on how they placed themselves on the same 201-point scale. They also rated their own engagement in politics. So of those who ended up in the moderate classification, only 17% gave themselves high marks for engagement.
Thank Goodness for Thanksgiving
Nov. 19, 2023
Thank goodness for Thanksgiving.
Gathering with family and friends, cooking and consuming way too much food, recognizing our many blessings, this is one day when we come together in communal spirit.
In one of its periodic public-opinion surveys, Our Common Purpose last year asked 2,500 respondents to decide which of a list of American institutions and practices unite or divide us. While 8 of the 28 factors were regarded as divisive, 20 were judged to be unifying to one degree or another.
Thanksgiving finished at the top of the list, tied with the liberty we enjoy and a grouping of our patriotic holidays.
True, not everyone is a fan (one of every 10 respondents find Thanksgiving to some degree divisive), and all of us could do without the dreaded annual encounter with Cousin Vinny.
But at least for this one day of the year, the great majority of us are on the same page. It’s another small reason to give thanks. And to pray for more of the same.
Happy Thanksgiving!
This Is “Democracy”?
Nov. 5, 2023
This is what democracy is about, crowed several ringleaders of the recent unpleasantness in the U.S. House of Representatives.
For one, the new Speaker himself said of his election: “Democracy is messy sometimes, but it is our system.”
Well slow down, Mr. Speaker. If you believe what happened in the House is democracy at work, you better go back to civics class.
It’s democracy when in January a small band of ultraconservatives hold hostage the large majority of their fellow Republicans, not to mention the House as a whole, by denying their votes to Kevin McCarthy until he coughs up a bunch of promises and concessions?
It’s democracy when eight of these ultraconservatives buck the wishes of the majority of their Republican brethren to orchestrate the subsequent ouster of McCarthy?
It’s democracy when Rep. Steve Scalise wins majority support within the Republican caucus to replace McCarthy, but has to withdraw when in contravention of congressional tradition, the loser won’t throw his support to the winner? And the loser then gets rewarded by becoming the proposed Speaker, only for him to lose once again on the House floor?
It’s democracy when in the next go-round Republicans select Rep. Tom Emmer as their candidate, only to have him withdraw because once again the losers won’t go along with the wishes of the majority?
In the end, the hell-raisers bullied their colleagues into electing an ultraconservative as Speaker of the House. The path they took was dysfunctional, divisive and disregarded the basic rule of democracy. The first two of these have been amply described, but it’s the third that could cause long-lasting damage.
Beyond the overall axiom of the people, by the people, for the people, nothing about how we conduct ourselves is more basic than the majority rules. This simple and clearcut principle applies to our elections and how governing bodies operate. It applies when the U.S. Supreme Court hands down 5-to-4 decisions that carry far-reaching implications. It even gets applied to many instances of everyday life.
It works because people accept that the majority rules, even when it hurts. That is up until now.
The new Speaker’s own involvement in seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election result has been well documented. As it turns out, that was just the start of what is becoming a pattern.
Rather than respect the process and accept the results, a certain cadre of elected officials are willing to do whatever they can to subvert and resist majority rule until they get their way. Niceties such as honoring the time-honored norms and traditions of Congress or abiding by the wishes of their colleagues are of little concern.
Our Common Purpose strives to strike a balance between the two political parties. Generally speaking, neither has it entirely right and neither is entirely wrong. Our common purpose as a country rests somewhere between the two.
However, in this case there is nothing to be shared. The dynamic we are witnessing, this new order of things, is entirely one-sided. The militant wing of the Republican Party is threatening to turn democracy on its ear.
Sorry, Mr. Speaker, the lesson your backers are demonstrating is not democracy in action. It’s how to disregard democracy’s most basic rule except when it suits them. That’s not our system. It’s a threat to our system.
These outliers might be regarded as heroes by some. The rest of us should regard them as a dangerous menace, both for the damage they have done to the House and for the tactics they are teaching others at all levels of government and across all of society.
–Richard Gilman
Give ‘Uniparty’ a Chance
Sept.22, 2023
Cooperation, collaboration, compromise are dirty words to some.
But if you want to really get their blood boiling, just say “uniparty.” That’s their epithet for the Republicans and Democrats who have a few ideas in common, share some common goals, and on occasion even work together for the common good.
The very thought sends them into a deep dither. In the minds of hardliners, the mainline factions of the two political parties are virtually interchangeable, tools of the deep state that controls the nation’s capital and thereby the nation.
“Uniparty” is not a thing, it’s a putdown.
Steve Bannon reincarnated the term (originated perhaps by Ralph Nader back in 2000) in support of Donald Trump’s 2016 “drain-the-swamp” campaign against the Washington establishment. From that time period, here are a couple of opinions quoted in Politico magazine:
Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation wrote in an editorial for Reason: “The two parties – actually the two divisions of the Uniparty that represents the permanent regime – agree on all fundamentals.”
Alexander Marlow, editor in chief of Breitbart News Network, said in an interview with Ann Coulter: “I’m becoming more obsessed with this Uniparty in Washington, where the Republicans and Democrats seem to be fusing together.”
These quotes are now a little long in the tooth but that does not mean the idea has gone away. It reared its head again this summer as ultraconservatives raged over the bipartisan agreement to increase the debt ceiling.
The New York Times reported hardliners “railed against what some far-right lawmakers refer to derisively as the ‘Uniparty,’ the group of mainstream Republicans and Democrats, including party leaders, who have routinely banded together to do the necessary business of funding the government.
That task is now front and center as those very same far-right lawmakers hold hostage the spending bills for the fiscal year set to begin on Oct. 1.
The disparaging aspersion of “Uniparty” is directed at those who try to keep government on something approaching a steady course. In the minds of those who want to dramatically alter that course, nothing could be worse.
The rabbit hole is a dark one. Those who descend into it conjure up the hidden forces of the “Liberal World Order” pulling the strings, warn that solutions to this problem will have to come from outside the ballot box, and almost eagerly anticipate the eventual downfall of the nation as we know it.
The supposed pawns in this scheme, according to something called the Freedom First Network, are the Democrats and Republicans who “pretend to be on opposite sides of the aisle but other than the radical progressives such as ‘The Squad’ and the America First patriots like most in the House Freedom Caucus, the majority work well together in the murky middle.”
The sentence, difficult as it is to parse, shows why those on the far right are so caught up in warning about something that doesn’t exist. The extreme elements in the House of Representatives wouldn’t be able to control the proceedings in Congress, as they are now doing with the federal budget, if the majority in the murky middle could actually bring themselves to work together.
Members of the murky middle call it a “two-party solution.” Middle-of-the-road Democrats working with middle-of-the-road Republicans. Middle-of-the-road Republicans working with middle-of-the-road Democrats.
Unfortunately for us, politics as usual prevents this from occurring any more often than a blue moon. Lawmakers who are willing to work across the aisle are up against political tradition, parliamentary rules of the House, and threats of political retribution.
It’s time though to turn the tables. Rather than fleeing from the supposed boogeyman of the Uniparty, we should be embracing the notion. If the majority in the murky middle would work together on constructive solutions, we could short-circuit a lot of the extremist shenanigans that are stymying the legislative process. Even the name Uniparty is palatable. Maybe we can turn the connotation into a good one.
With the House careening toward a government shutdown, or in desperation a last-minute stopgap measure to put that off a while, responsible lawmakers of both parties need to step forward to do the right thing not just at this moment but at all times. The House’s Problem Solvers Caucus, made up of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, did just that yesterday by putting forward a bipartisan compromise that would fund the government through Jan. 11.
By the very definition of the concept, the Uniparty could represent a novel, across-the-aisle approach to legislating. And working together in that fashion is what most Americans, according to all the polling done for Our Common Purpose, want to see.
–Richard Gilman
Lots of Risk in No Labels Bid
Sept.3, 2023
The possibility that the bipartisan No Labels might field a “unity” candidate for president in 2024 is producing two contrasting storylines.
- One version is prospective victory, or close to it. No Labels says there is both a need and an opportunity for its candidate, claims a majority of voters are open to the prospect, and maintains it won’t go forward unless polling shows it can win.
- The other version says trouble ahead. With democracy thought to be in peril, this is not the time for a quixotic bid by a third-party candidate that could easily muddy if not muck up the result.
These competing scenarios are weighed in this the second of a series about the ambitious plans of No Labels. There is still more to written on the subject, about what is being said and what isn’t, but we’ll save that for a different day.
No Labels claims no decision has been made on a presidential run. It plans to announce its intentions at a convention it’s setting up immediately after the March primaries. Meanwhile though it is busy getting on the ballot in as many states as possible, and is out there selling its viewpoint.
“The most powerful forces in both major parties,” No Labels argues, “are still driven by ideology and identity politics instead of common sense. The dominant leaders in both parties can’t or won’t break us out of this vicious cycle.”
Rather than being stuck with a Trump-Biden rematch, it claims 59% of voters would be open to considering a moderate independent as a third-party candidate.
Whoever that might be, or even how he/she will be chosen, is a bit of a mystery. Joe Manchin, the independent Democrat senator from West Virginia, and Jon Huntsman, the former Republican governor of Utah, were the frontmen at No Labels’ coming-out party in July but I’d guess any number of possible tickets are being considered.
Let’s though be realistic. With an announcement scheduled just six months before the election, whoever the candidate is would have to be shot from a cannon to make a dent in public awareness. Ross Perot, for instance, entered the 1992 race in February of that year. He leveraged his near celebrity status as a business tycoon into the most successful third-party candidacy of recent times, and still he ended up with only 19% of the popular vote.
If victory turns out to be a hill too high, we’re left to worry about the second scenario. Given the high chance that the disputes over the 2020 election will be repeated in 2024, a serious third-party candidacy can only mean unintended trouble.
No Labels is doing all it can to downplay the concern. “The Spoiled Logic of the Spoiler Argument,” its website contends.
For proof it turns to none other than the aforementioned Ross Perot. His candidacy didn’t harm anybody or anything, goes the argument. The support for Perot, a middle-of-the-roader, came from conservatives, liberals and moderates alike. And anyway, it wasn’t nearly enough to affect Bill Clinton’s lopsided victory over incumbent President George H.W. Bush.
The Wall Street Journal has a different view, blaming Perot for dividing the GOP coalition. Nonetheless it’s hard to assign much if any direct responsibility to Perot because the outcome wasn’t even close. Clinton took 370 electoral votes, Bush 168, Perot himself had 0.
The stronger case of a third-party candidate spoiling an election, despite No Labels’ arguments to the contrary, is the role played by Ralph Nader in 2000. We have short memories but the drama of that particular election will come back to you quickly.
Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush ran neck and neck in the national vote total, 48.38% to 47.87%. The Electoral College was equally close, with everything coming down to a to-and-fro battle for Florida’s 25 electoral votes. The state see-sawed back and forth all night, with Bush’s eventual margin of 537 votes so slim that by state law a recount was required. The ensuing legal battles over voter confusion and hanging chads went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court, itself split 5-to-4, had the final say in giving the presidency to Bush.
Any of this sounding familiar? Does it foreshadow in any way what was to come 20 years later?
The drama might not have happened were it not for Nader, the consumer activist running as the Green Party candidate. Nader was no Ross Perot, garnering just 2.74% of the national vote.
He performed even worse in Florida. Even so, his 1.63% share of the Sunshine State represented 97,488 votes, far more than the 537 votes that separated Bush and Gore.
This review is not complete without also mentioning New Hampshire. Its four electoral votes were the difference between Bush’s final tally of 271 to Gore’s 267. Flip tiny New Hampshire and flip the entire election. While the results there were not as close as Florida, Nader’s 22,198 votes were still more than Bush’s winning margin of 7,361.
If the liberal-minded Nader hadn’t been on the ballot in Florida or for that matter New Hampshire, how would his backers have voted? Did he spoil the presidency for Gore?
We don’t know. Exit pollers found that Nader supporters were equally divided in their sentiments toward Bush and Gore. But frustrated liberals had to blame someone. The fallout toward Nader was so severe that Public Citizen, the non-profit organization he started in 1971, was forced to disavow any remaining connection to its founder.
That’s the moral of this tale. We don’t know. IF No Labels decides to field its Unity ticket in 2024, IF the ticket doesn’t come close to winning, IF the major parties run neck and neck as they did in 2000 and 2020, how will the Unity candidate factor into the outcome? We don’t know.
No Labels admits as much in trying to downplay the concern. Its website emphasizes that it will enter the race only if “there is a viable path to Electoral College victory” and rather huffily asserts:
“The spoiler charge is being peddled by people who want to scare the public, sow doubts, and limit Americans’ choice at the ballot box. It is premature to make these assumptions because we have no idea who the candidates will be or where the country will be in November 2024. There is no way to know how a No Labels ticket would affect the race and anyone who claims otherwise is just spinning.”
Exactly. We don’t know. IF 2024 turns out to be neck and neck, the losing side – whichever side it might be – will find it easy to scapegoat No Labels, and the entire nonpartisan movement, for spoiling what otherwise would have been the will of the majority. And we won’t even know how valid that blame will be.
No Labels deserves considerable credit for all it has done to build up bipartisanship when it is so desperately needed. The Wall Street Journal says “its members are patriots who want to spare the country from a campaign that offers four more years of the last two polarizing Presidencies.” Maybe the No Labels brain trust is correct in believing the bipartisan ideal can be fully realized only from the White House.
These though are difficult times. Well-intentioned acts can have unintended consequences. No Labels has to pick when the intervention it has in mind has the best chance to succeed and will play to best effect.
One can conceive of that in 2028. It’s harder to see in 2024. There is already too much at stake.
–Richard Gilman
Part I of this two-part series can be found by clicking below on Next Article.
Please direct comments to ourcommonpurpose@gmail.com
No Labels Ups the Ante
Aug. 27, 2023
No Labels has taken a label for itself. From now on it wants to be known as the “Commonsense Majority.”
The new brand doesn’t roll off the tongue quite like Democrat or Republican, but it’s a good path to take.
And that’s only part of it. No Labels also has now introduced a 70-page agenda laying out what it says is the will of the American public, and the early stages of a game plan to field a candidate for President.
“Americans have the ability and the responsibility to demand a restoration of common sense in the 2024 election,” No Labels writes. It claims its agenda “is the blueprint for how to do it.”
This is the first of a two-part series reflecting on those plans.
Today: the agenda.
Next week: the potential run for President.
The “common sense agenda” offered by No Labels begins with the assertion of five “foundational beliefs” that it says many politicians have forgotten.
We are grateful to live in a country where we can openly disagree with other people.
We care about our country more than any political party.
We respect hard work and believe it should be rewarded, but we also believe America should help people who cannot help themselves or fall on hard times.
We want a well functioning government that addresses our common problems and empowers every American – no matter who they are, where they are from, or what they believe – to reach their full individual potential.
We know America is not perfect. But we’d rather live here than anywhere else.
No argument with any of that. These statements are entirely consistent with the polling done by Our Common Purpose showing that most Americans agree about basic concepts.
But No Labels – a well-heeled operation with lots of members, influential connections and some big donors – does not stop there. It goes on to attempt to apply this approach at a totally new level of detail. It posits 30 big ideas that, while still somewhat general in nature, venture into a level of specificity well beyond that attempted by Our Common Purpose.
That’s a big step forward. However, one can question to what extent these 30 ideas generate the same widespread agreement as the basic concepts listed above. Some of the 30 could be labeled self-evident, some are unrealistic, one idea about budget reduction seems inconsistent with multiple other ideas, one or two might even be misinformed. While No Labels makes repeated references to all the polling it has done, the blueprint provides few specifics as to who favors what and in what numbers.
Those important quibbles aside, the agenda is comprehensive and ambitious. It’s as if Santa Claus were handing out legislative gifts. There’s something for everyone in the 70-page blueprint that is divided into 10 sections: the politics of problem solving, being responsible, border security and immigration, public safety, America’s youth, energy and environmental security, protecting America, democracy, empathy and equality, and opportunity.
No Labels is perhaps most strident in the section on being responsible, meaning that the federal government needs to be more fiscally responsible. Idea 2 addresses the solvency of Social Security, and warns we’re only making matters worse by kicking the can down the road. Idea 3 spells out what Washington must do to stop spending “so much more than it takes in.”
And to its credit, No Labels does not shy away from the big issues of our moment in history, including abortion, gun rights, border security and climate change. In each of those cases, it seeks to balance interests in an effort to find the middle ground.
Abortion: Idea 26 proposes we “find a sustainable and inevitably imperfect compromise that balances the belief of most Americans that women have a right to control their own reproductive health and our society’s responsibility to protect human life.” The blueprint notes that most Americans do not support a total ban on abortion and at the same time do not support unlimited access to abortion at later stages of pregnancy.
Gun rights: Idea 10 acknowledges that Americans have a constitutional right to own guns, but contends that “society also has a responsibility to keep dangerous weapons away from dangerous people.”
Border security and immigration: Idea 6 recommends we do more to secure our borders, including “even physical fortifications in some areas,” and reform the asylum process. Idea 7 then goes on to urge we attract more legal immigrants to fill out the workforce and provide a path to citizenship for the dreamers.
Climate change: Idea 15 supports “an all of the above energy strategy,” meaning that we should continue to explore for fossil fuel resources, rekindle nuclear power, and improve the regulatory and permitting process to provide essential minerals and metals to build clean energy technologies.
The very nature of acknowledging the trade-offs that are involved will frustrate the diehards. The New York Times noted that the No Labels platform “has something for everyone to embrace – and just as much for both sides to reject.”
But that’s what we have to do if we are to move forward. No one recognizes this more than No Labels, which has been promoting cooperation in Congress for more than a decade. In fact that’s the beginning and the desired end of this entire exercise.
The blueprint begins with Idea 1 stating “America can’t solve its biggest problems and deliver the results hardworking taxpayers want, need, and deserve unless Democrats and Republicans start working together side by side on bipartisan solutions.”
Together the 30 ideas represent a daunting mission. The prospect of achieving all 30 goes beyond belief. Accomplishing just one would be impressive enough.
Maybe, however, putting them all on table is the best approach. Tempting as any one offering might sound to any one individual, it’s tough to sell them one by one. No Labels has come to the conclusion that it must offer a full menu and a presentable leader if it is to attract and serve the common sense majority it is touting.
–Richard Gilman
Next week: the potential run for President.