You’d look at the list of candidates in this election or that, complete your due diligence, and be left with the rhetorical question: Can I vote for none of the above?
It’s not funny any more.
Perhaps not so much in local elections, but in national elections many people across America are feeling like the choices they have don’t include anyone they want to have elected.
When you are choosing a president, the leader of the free world, it’s not very inspiring to be selecting the candidate you consider to be least objectionable. And yet, with the loudest voices in politics dragging one party to the far right and the other to the far left, that’s what’s happening. Many of us are looking for middle ground with thoughtful bipartisan discussion rather than listening to angry extremist rhetoric.
And so New York Times Columnist David Brooks breathed some fresh air and hopeful optimism into the mix last week in a column describing the “No Labels” movement.
No Labels has actually been active for more than a decade. Among its leaders and members are Republicans and Democrats who plan to continue to be Republicans and Democrats. And yet they are worried that their parties will not choose presidential candidates who speak for and represent America’s vast middle ground.
“We share the same worries that tens and tens of millions of Americans share,” said No Labels Chief Strategist Ryan Clancy on the organization’s web site.
“We worry that the two major political parties might leave us with no good choices. We worry they might force us to vote for the least bad apple.”
As a hedge against that worry, No Labels is preparing, if they find it necessary, to put forward a third candidate for president in 2024, and they’re laying a lot of groundwork. They’ve staked out moderate positions on a long list of issues including balancing the budget; comprehensive immigration reform with stronger borders but with paths to citizenship; U.S. energy self-sufficiency while moving to cleaner energy; moderate policies on abortion; and more.
They are also working to get access to presidential ballots in all 50 states for a potential third candidate.
“Maybe we’ll get lucky and the two major parties will offer us two good choices,” Clancy says.
“Maybe they won’t. If they don’t we want to be ready to offer Americans the real choice they deserve.”
The thrust behind No Labels’ engine is unity, the concept that we’ll all be better off if we focus on what unites us rather than on what divides us.
Its values include government and citizens accepting mutual responsibilities; equality of opportunity including a good education and freedom from bias and discrimination; the fundamental right of Americans to think, speak, worship and assemble as they see fit; the belief that there is no such thing as getting something for nothing and therefore a balanced budget is essential; and the understanding that unity is critical because our divisions at home are exploited abroad by the Chinese Communist Party, Russia and other totalitarian regimes.
Still uncertain is the process that No Labels will use to choose a candidate if it determines doing so is important, but plans are to hold a nominating convention in Texas once the parties have selected their candidates. Details are apparently still in the works.
The No Labels approach ought to have a lot of appeal to voters who don’t connect with the far right or the far left, those who, as Clancy puts it, feel the election is too important to vote for the least bad candidate.
The major political parties, giving more priority to winning re-election and opposing the other side than to working together on important problem-solving, are largely responsible for driving the divisions that haunt our country today. No Labels, though, has already had an impact on this distasteful politics of opposition, spawning a “Problem Solvers Caucus” in which U.S. House members from both sides of the aisle are focusing on working together.
Who knows if No Labels will work, or if it will find a candidate who is better than the least objectionable, or if it can gather enough traction to make a difference.
But it’s a breath of fresh air in a system that seems still driven by discussions in smoke-filled back rooms.
An unusual player looks to slow America’s politics as usual
Passing Dreams
By Steve Andrist
By Steve Andrist
It used to be a joke.
You’d look at the list of candidates in this election or that, complete your due diligence, and be left with the rhetorical question: Can I vote for none of the above?
It’s not funny any more.
Perhaps not so much in local elections, but in national elections many people across America are feeling like the choices they have don’t include anyone they want to have elected.
When you are choosing a president, the leader of the free world, it’s not very inspiring to be selecting the candidate you consider to be least objectionable. And yet, with the loudest voices in politics dragging one party to the far right and the other to the far left, that’s what’s happening. Many of us are looking for middle ground with thoughtful bipartisan discussion rather than listening to angry extremist rhetoric.
And so New York Times Columnist David Brooks breathed some fresh air and hopeful optimism into the mix last week in a column describing the “No Labels” movement.
No Labels has actually been active for more than a decade. Among its leaders and members are Republicans and Democrats who plan to continue to be Republicans and Democrats. And yet they are worried that their parties will not choose presidential candidates who speak for and represent America’s vast middle ground.
“We share the same worries that tens and tens of millions of Americans share,” said No Labels Chief Strategist Ryan Clancy on the organization’s web site.
“We worry that the two major political parties might leave us with no good choices. We worry they might force us to vote for the least bad apple.”
As a hedge against that worry, No Labels is preparing, if they find it necessary, to put forward a third candidate for president in 2024, and they’re laying a lot of groundwork. They’ve staked out moderate positions on a long list of issues including balancing the budget; comprehensive immigration reform with stronger borders but with paths to citizenship; U.S. energy self-sufficiency while moving to cleaner energy; moderate policies on abortion; and more.
They are also working to get access to presidential ballots in all 50 states for a potential third candidate.
“Maybe we’ll get lucky and the two major parties will offer us two good choices,” Clancy says.
“Maybe they won’t. If they don’t we want to be ready to offer Americans the real choice they deserve.”
The thrust behind No Labels’ engine is unity, the concept that we’ll all be better off if we focus on what unites us rather than on what divides us.
Its values include government and citizens accepting mutual responsibilities; equality of opportunity including a good education and freedom from bias and discrimination; the fundamental right of Americans to think, speak, worship and assemble as they see fit; the belief that there is no such thing as getting something for nothing and therefore a balanced budget is essential; and the understanding that unity is critical because our divisions at home are exploited abroad by the Chinese Communist Party, Russia and other totalitarian regimes.
Still uncertain is the process that No Labels will use to choose a candidate if it determines doing so is important, but plans are to hold a nominating convention in Texas once the parties have selected their candidates. Details are apparently still in the works.
The No Labels approach ought to have a lot of appeal to voters who don’t connect with the far right or the far left, those who, as Clancy puts it, feel the election is too important to vote for the least bad candidate.
The major political parties, giving more priority to winning re-election and opposing the other side than to working together on important problem-solving, are largely responsible for driving the divisions that haunt our country today. No Labels, though, has already had an impact on this distasteful politics of opposition, spawning a “Problem Solvers Caucus” in which U.S. House members from both sides of the aisle are focusing on working together.
Who knows if No Labels will work, or if it will find a candidate who is better than the least objectionable, or if it can gather enough traction to make a difference.
But it’s a breath of fresh air in a system that seems still driven by discussions in smoke-filled back rooms.