« Free Speech on Trial in the Court of Public Opinion
Now Hanging Of Saddam Hussein’s Half-Brother Is Controversial »
Unity08
Unity08 is a project to encourage the two parties to move back towards the center. The plan is to host an online political convention to nominate a bi-partisan presidential ticket from Candidates passed over by the major parties. Unity 08 will use its resources to get their candidates on the ballots in all the states. The idea is that the two parties will have to become more moderate or risk losing voters to this third ticket.
This all might seem like naive fantasy except for the roster of credible people attached to Unity 08. This month’s Atlantic Monthly Cover story profiles the group. Here are a few excerpts:
…The two-party system has worked well for 200 years and can continue to do so,â€? Bailey says, “but only when elections are fought over the middle. Our goal is to jolt the two parties into recognizing this, by drawing them into a fight over the middle rather than allowing them to keep maximizing the appeal to their bases at the extremes.â€?
…Bailey and his confederates envision their enterprise not as the establishment of a permanent third party but as a one-shot affair—a dose of medicine strong enough to bring the two parties to their senses.
…build a mechanism whereby qualified individuals of insufficient partisanship to win the Republican or Democratic nomination gain a legitimate shot at the White House, and trust that the best candidates will come.
…throw open the process to an online army of millions.â€? As soon as frustrated citizens have that kind of power, the possibilities for electoral upheaval are practically limitless. “It’s the perfect vehicle for voters to start a draft movement,â€?
…Roger Craver (one of the founders) is reputed to have raised more than $6 billion in small-dollar donations during a career in which he helped start or build many grassroots organizations, including Common Cause, Handgun Control, Inc., the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, and the National Organization for Women.
…When Unity08 formally launches its Web site this month, it will begin signing up delegates online. Any registered voter can be a delegate, and can join without having to give up a prior political affiliation. At the same time, the new party’s leaders will begin the process of qualifying Unity08 on all fifty ballots for the 2008 presidential election. The requirements for ballot access vary dramatically from state to state, so delegates and other volunteers will perform the work of gathering the necessary signatures. The party hopes to qualify for twenty-five ballots by June.
…By the time of their convention, a year and a half from now, the founders hope, the party will have signed up as many as 10 million delegates and will be well on its way to qualifying for all fifty ballots, making Unity08 a formally viable path to the presidency. Candidates could gauge their support, and lobby for more, by making traditional appeals and by participating online.
…Once the balloting has winnowed the field to four, each of the remaining candidates will have to choose a running mate from the opposite party: Democrats must choose Republicans they can work with, and vice versa. Independents can choose someone from either party, but in the spirit of unity, they must also name a senior Cabinet officer from the remaining major party—for instance, a Democratic running mate and a Republican secretary of state. Whoever is slated on the official Unity ticket will take on the Democratic and Republican tickets in November. “We’re not in this to play around,â€? Bailey vows. “We intend to elect the first truly bipartisan presidential ticket in American history.â€?
…Even if the Unity ticket doesn’t win, its creators insist, the mere fact of its presence could force the other parties to return to the vast, forgotten middle or risk losing the next election.
…Centrists in both parties, from Joe Lieberman to Chuck Hagel, are known to harbor presidential ambitions that have little chance of being fulfilled along current paths. If Michael Bloomberg really is considering a self-financed run as an independent, he couldn’t possible prevail in a four-way race against the Democratic, Republican, and Unity contenders—and he’s already been a Democrat and a Republican, so why not pursue the Unity nomination? If John McCain loses the Republican nomination, he’ll be too old to try again in four or eight years and would loathe waiting around—why not take a final shot at the White House? If Barack Obama concludes that his time is now and yet can’t stop the Hillary juggernaut, might he cash in his chips before his popularity wanes?
I have been invited to start blogging over at the Unity08 site to support this intervention aimed at our two major parties. I also hope to stir up some interest in setting our sites on the Congressional races where by helping to elect moderate candidates from either party we can help move the center of congressional political balance back towards the middle where debate and cooperation are more likely.
29 Responses to “Unity08”
Unity08.com has the potential to be a, if not the, major political influence in this country in the 2008 election. They’ve gotten mainstream press, have a strong design (process), are building their network (including you as a blogger, congrats) and have an experienced base of names behind the group (one of the premiere ones I know extremely well).
Most of the work still remains.
It is early but I have yet to see the real beginnings of a unifying message evolve that will appeal to the huge amounts of independents nationwide. And the network, while building, is still skeleton in form in regard to what will ultimately be needed to win.
An effort to strip moderate votes from the two major parties will only encourage the major parties to play more to the extremes.
Unity08 will jump in visibility when leading candidates realize they will not get their parties nomination. These Candidates will turbo charge the media attention and make distinctions about how they are centrist while the others are partisan. This can be an invigorating public dialog. Eventually all the candidates will have to move to the middle and talk about reconciling controversies instead of inflaming them.
No one believes in history anymore. There has NEVER been a situation in which a minority third party was anything other than a spoiler in a United States presidential election – you can look it up. Of course everyone is frustrated with the current two parties but siphoning off progressive and moderate voters into a black hole of irrelevance is a huge mistake. (Ralphie Nader kool aid drinkers, are you listening?) Dissatisfied party members need to work internally to reform the current parties.
I have to admit I’m torn on the concept/movement embodied by Unity ’08. Part of me applauds it and wants to see it succeed. Another part fears that Jason Shapiro is right when he suggests this is a huge mistake that will only succeeed at “siphoning off progressive and moderate voters into a black hole of irrelevance.”
I also think Jason may be right when he suggests that “Dissatisfied party members need to work internally to reform the current parties.” Maybe that’s too simplistic, too much of a “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” philosophy, but I also think it may be the only viable, realistic approach in the near term.
The list of reforms necessary to mitigate and modify the two-party system, and the extremist pandering that system engenders, will require a high degree of not only grassroots involvement, but sustained attention — and sustained attention is not something the American electorate seems capable of devoting to any subject, a sin of which I’m admittedly as guilty as the next voter.
That said, I respect you, Paul, and wish you and your cohorts the best as you proceed on this journey. I’d like nothing more than to see you prove the sketpics wrong, including me.
God speed.
Jason Shapiro said: There has NEVER been a situation in which a minority third party was anything other than a spoiler in a United States presidential election - you can look it up.
I guess if you consider someone voting who they feel is best to hold the particular office, then yes indeed it’s just a spoiler. Of course there’s just a minor bit about the whole Constitution – thing (might want to look that up). Of course it is their legal right to privately vote who they wish for – but bah forget that.
We could just expand that to say any vote other than Democrat is a spoiler.
Sounds good to me. Your right on the money Shapiro.
The idea of fighting over the middle, moderate voters is really an idea of fighting over the suburb white voter.
Since the Democrats dominate the non-white vote in the United States, Unity08 impact the Republicans much more than the Democrats. In that, all in can do in ensure that dominance of the Democrats comes much faster than it will come anyway.
Unity 08 looks to bring a sense of civility and seeks to diminish the focus on the wings of the party, both of which are admirable goals.
I reluctantly agree with Jason Shapiro, though I am very sympathetic to centrist causes, and dislike the ideological bent of both parties’ extremes. The memory of Gore’s messy ordeal in 2000, because of Ralph Nader’s insistance on playing the spoiler, comes to mind. Yes, Nader had every right under our Constitution to run, but he couldn’t have been happy with the results of his decision.
I am also concerned about Unity08 diverting votes that cause an extremist to be elected. It would be my preference to work within the major parties to move them towards the middle. The debate is about how effect that influence. One point of view is to scare them by demonstrating the large number of voters who might support them if they moderate their platform, as happened in the midterms. If the GOP became the party of efficient government and socially less proscriptive I could see a bunch of folks migrating back to that party.
This was in today’s Washington Times
Unity08…
NewsMax.com, about as conservative as DailyKos is liberal, has floated the idea of a possible John McCain – Joe Leiberman ticket in 2008. Article highlights:
Lieberman increasingly has made appearances with Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who…
Catching up on some of the additional comments since mine earlier, I see many related points of view: natural skepticism mixed with hope that something like Unity ’08 will make a difference. Furthemore, as I read back over Paul’s original post, two things strike me, that I didn’t pay enough attention to the first time around.
1. If Unity ’08 succeeds at nothing more than advancing the voice of moderate voters, demonstrating to entrenched partisans that the disenchanted majority cannot be ignored, that the November ’07 mid-terms were not an abberation, then it will be a succcess indeed. In the end, it’s less about votes — gained or siphoned — than it is about making a point. And that’s the part of this entire dialogue that encourages me.
2. The self-characterization of the Unity ’08 organizers as “a one-shot affair—a dose of medicine strong enough to bring the two parties to their senses.” Maybe in its current iteration that’s a fair assumption, but I hope (and believe) the Unity ’08 organizers realize that it will take more than “a one-shot affair” to affect real and lasting change. Maybe their legacy might be a Centrist PAC, as Paul has prevously sugggested, supporting those consensus-building candidates from either/both of the major parties, and preventing a recurrence of what I see as the one negative result of the November midterms, namely, the ejection of moderate Republicans from the mix, tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bath water.
The Unity 08 project begs the question: what defines “centrism”? I am sad to say that policy choices do not seem to weigh very heavily.
Consider the candidates whose names are raised in the post. John McCain, for example, is not a centrist on economic policy; he is quite conservative indeed. Nor is he a centrist on foreign policy, as someone who has faulted the current administration for failing to be aggressive enough.
Nor do the candidates chosen agree with each other on the big questions of public policy that confront us today. Do you believe that Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama would lead us in the same direction on these questions: should Social Security be fundamentally changed by diverting revenues into the stock market? What should we do about Global Warming? How should we proceed in the Middle East?
My concern is that too much emphasis is placed in the definition of centrism on rhetoric and personality, and too little on the substance of policies that the candidates prefer. To select one more example, it seems very odd to think of Sen. Lieberman as a moderate. His views on domestic policy have been quite liberal, and his views on foreign policy very hawkish indeed.
To me Centrism is more about temperament than specific policy.
I am looking for those who identify less with a party platform and more with open-mindedness, mutual respect, civility, cooperation, collaboration, objective anaylsis of information, pragmatism, realism.
While on some issues a Centrist might be steadfast, I think that most viable solutions are a synthesis of ideas all along the political spectrum. Schwarzenegger manifests this point of view.
This vote centerist for the sake of a canidate emulating centerism is just as bad/dangerous as voting left or right for the sake of a canidate appearing to be of that ilk.
How about voting for a canidate because they are actually trustworthy? Or maybe if the canidate has an actuall thought in his/her head that make sense?
More political Balkanization this time from centerists amounts to protection of turf, and I find it to be just as bad.
The answer is difficult, yet simple. Work to reform the parties from within, and work hard to support candidates in the primaries that are more moderate in ideology and in tone. It won’t be easy to fight all the money that goes to more extreme candidates, but if the polls and primary votes overwhelmingly favoring center left candidates for the Dems and center right candidates from the GOP, then the parties will get the message.
Cstanley,
In the long run, how can the Democratic Party move to left of center when it already gets about 50% of its votes from blacks and Hispanics and with that percentage rising?
I do not see how a political party that has segments like the Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus that possible draw most of its candidates and positions from the modreate center.
It is much more likely that the Democratic party will move left with the chaning demographics of the United States and the moderates will go along because they want to have some say in policy.
superdestroyer- I think the Democratic party has moved towards the center. Look at their agenda for the first 100 hours put forth by that “San Francisco” liberal Nancy Pelosi. Most of it is rather tame and has mainstream support. Also many of the candidates the Dems ran in 2006 were moderates, not liberals.
BTW, I think the problem is bigger in the GOP, where just today a prominent member of the religious right, James Dobson, declared that he will never support the candidacy of John McCain, because he believes he would not advance the Christian agenda in the way Bush tried to. Only a certain type of Conservative candidate with the backing of the evangelical community will win the nomination for president in ’08. Doesn’t that greatly limit the choices- to someone like Sam Brownback who has little appeal to the public at large?
Superdestroyer- Are you afraid of the day when white Americans will no longer be in the majority? Not every minority voter believes in the welfare state.
Paul – I take your point that great leaders should be open to good ideas, from wherever they may come, and I encourage you to apply that standard to the candidates that Unity08 proposes. My view is that each has guiding principles from which they struggle not to deviate — and that those principles differ greatly.
Are you truly indifferent as between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain, such that if one were the nominee of his party and the other the nominee of Unity08 you would vote for the Unity08 candidate? And it would not matter which was which? I find that hard to believe.
Think of the issue most important to you – whether it is national security, economic policy, social issues, whatever. If the Unity08 candidate took a different position than the one you favor, while the nominee of a major party thought of it more or less as you did, would you really support the Unity08 candidate?
Where’s the beef?
As someone who voted for Ross Perot (twice, some people never learn), I welcome this effort because any new, mainstream voice in the debate is a worthy addition.
I don’t agree with Shapiro’s position because it seems to me that there are relatively few gains to be made by playing to the extremes – the available votes are in the middle. If those votes are threatened by a centrist candidate the edge parties will compete for them.
That’s good, as can be seen by the Democrat’s restrained behavior to-date.
Kim, it’s not because of any fundamental shift in the Dems major players’ beliefs or any lessening of their liberal vitriol. Rather, they simply haven’t forgotten yet what got them elected this year.
That’s why I think that it’s disengenuous to pretend that the Dems are not the party with a greater tendency to take from the haves and give to the have-nots. They are and we’ll see that if they can consolidate power in 2008.
Kim,
I believe that the Democrats are operating politically near the center because they can at least accomplish something there with a Republican in the White House and with more than 40 Republicans in the Senate.
In a few years, when a Democratic Party nominee is sitting in the White House and the Democrats have 60 or more seats in the Senate, the left side of the party will be able to do what it wants like gauranteed income, socialized medicine, mandatory “volunteer” service, etc.
For the next couple of election cycles, the Republicans may be able to remain competative based upon the telegenic nature of their candidates or even a candidates personality. But in the long run, all of the demographic changes in the United States give the Democratic party almost certain dominance.
I think individuals like Dobson are a boogie man that the left like to beat up on. Even at the height of the “Republican Revolution” very little that Dobson and similar groups wanted was put into legislation. I doubt that if the Democrats control all three branches of government that groups like the Congressional Black Caucus will be as poor at inacting its agenda.
I look at it as a sort of “Lieberman Option�’ a candidate looses a party nomination to a better financed, more extreme, candidate but has somewhere else to go and make a run. Will this let more extreme candidates take over the two parties? Maybe, but on the other hand a party like 08 with candidates rejected by both parties might make an attractive and viable alternative, at least some of “your� parties people would be in government rather than a winner take all election. Considering how the parties have changed we might be seeing the beginning of a new era in political reform similar to the end of the big city bosses that used to drive politics in the past.
But isn’t politics about responding to what is electable? If the Democrats are behaving in a more restrained manner because they fear a loss if they enact new taxes —then that’s responding to the electorate. If they run more moderate candidates because they know those with a purely ideological bent will lose- then that’s responding to the electorate. I don’t care what makes them respond to centrist pressures- I just care that they have responded. If they move back to the left and the GOP moves back towards the center, then I will look at Republican candidates again.
Reponse to Grognard at January 16, 2007 at 5:38 am
If you actually look at the facts, Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont spent the same amount of money — and Ned Lamontran on a couple of basic issues — opposition to the Iraq War, which is inline with both CT and Dem CT public opinion and generalized distrust and disgust of George W. Bush which again is inline with local, and national public opinion. OOOHHHH a politician who is actually running on major themes that have broad public support both within his party and then in the general voting population.
Lieberman won the general election by a combination of becoming the de facto Republican nominee, spinelessness on the part of national Democrats from making the consquences of him breaking party rules insignificant, and lying like hell in that he wanted US troops out of Iraq ASAP and saw a significant drawdown by the end of the year. And then on Nov. 8 started to support a significant escalation. Combine all of this with the power of incumbency and pork and he won.
So please get your facts straight
There are so many interesting comments that it is difficult to keep track of them.
After seeing the story on ABC this morning (Sunday Mar 18), I was compelled to check out the website. I applaud the stated goal of loosening the grip of the extreemist groups of both major parties. Their list of “urgent” vs. “important” issues that separate the substantive vs. hot-button issues is very compelling.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Dammitman and others regarding the definition of “centrist”. I’ll go further by noting that there is no clue as to what unity08′s position on any these supposedly urgent issues would be. Under the urgent/important definition, Newt and Hillary would be a viable “centrist” ticket by simply ignoring gun control, abortion, and a few other emotionally charged issues.
I will say this – the internet and marketing savvy of these guys this early in the game is impressive. Using Sam Waterston as the front man is genius (I have no reason to doubt his true commitment to the cause).
Unity08 will make a difference, however, it will probably be as a spoiler that forces the spoilee toward the center while allowing the unspoiled and probable winner to continue to live in the fringes. It will all depend on who signs up as delegates, which will depend largely on the spin of the marketing. Oh, and if you don’t think that the fringe elements of both parties (you know, those whose grip is to be loosened) are not already signing up en mass to try influence the outcome, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to show you…
The lasttime we had a chance for someone who embraced the snae middle was, yoyguessed it, “United We Stand” Perot. Whether I agreed with him or not, We needed a third party. Not the Lib-s, American-, or non P-. or gren- , but someone who will keep us sane and safe. We could threaten the power groups of the world, but that’s O’K’.
I would really like us to be the “Thinking Party”.There definitely is room for a “no ego good for all” people, no power groups with all the ‘isms’, only leaders. We’ve tried Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, but we have never really tried lessaire faire pure open market with a government only duty is to run the affaires of local, county, state an country business as a referery so that there’s only minimal government. I know idealism is a fool’s thinking, but we need some like we never needed it before.
I’d like to respond to Jason Shapiro’s earlier points, because it was so well articulated, but I think there were several holes:
1. I’m an independent– Which party should I seek to reform from the inside?
2. Even if I were registered with a party, unless I were a committed party activist I wouldn’t know where to start. “Regular folks” influence the political process by voting.
3. Unity08 is not asking people to leave their party. You can even nominate someone from within your own party to head the ticket.
4. Although I support the goals of Unity08, come November I intend to vote for the person I feel will make the best president, period. And I don’t intend to be ashamed of that.
5. Regarding history, look at the current field: a woman, a black guy, an hispanic guy, a mayor, a mormon, a guy who would be the oldest president in history, a unity ticket, and, um, John Edwards. I’m taking bets that someone is going to make history.