Via Greg Sargent, Mark Schmitt at Democracy Journal intelligently eviscerates the threadbare whinging of “centrists” in general, and the Fonzi of Freedom’s new book in particular:
The last three years have brought the dysfunction of the political system into sharp relief, and, not surprisingly, the fantasy third parties and independent candidates-to-be-named-later have sprouted like mushrooms after a rainstorm. There’s No Labels, an organization that promises to recast American politics without partisanship. There’s Americans Elect, which seeks to secure a ballot line in as many states as possible and then use the Internet to nominate a presidential candidate to occupy it. The books have just started to appear, with The Declaration of Independents by the libertarians Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie the first of them. But just as in previous years, actual candidates willing to play the role of savior are scarce on the ground…
__
The refreshing thing about this year’s first entry in the category of books promising political independence is that it breaks the first of the rules: Its authors, both of Reason magazine (Gillespie edited it from 2000-2008; Welch is the current editor), are not successful lobbyists or political consultants. Welch and Gillespie “declare independence not just within politics, but from the politics.” Unlike the careerists of Americans Elect, they don’t much like politics, and it shows. Their purpose is to make politics small enough that we don’t have to give much thought to it, and can return to “the pursuit of happiness” through loose, decentralized activity, which is their real topic. Early on in their book, for example, we’re treated to a well-executed ten pages about the Velvet Underground and its influence on Czech dissidents in the 1980s—a fascinating subject, but one only tangentially related to American politics in 2011. (A later digression about the characters in a 1988 video game called Lee Trevino’s Fighting Golf is hilariously even less relevant.)…
__
Libertarians do have what Americans Elect can only dream of—a ballot line. The Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket generally appears on the ballots of 45 to 50 states. But Welch and Gillespie mention the party only twice, in passing, with no explanation of why they don’t see it as a vehicle for their independence. While the book promises an optimistic alternative vision of politics, in form it adopts the conventional argument for the mystical independent or third-party candidate. That starts with the Friedmanesque litany of “Amazon, iPod, drugstore.com,” but Welch and Gillespie extend that riff into the bulk of the book, with only minimal effort to connect it to politics. These chapters are mostly interesting case studies in various businesses or individuals who broke down established structures through individual initiative—free-agent statistical blogger Nate Silver, Southwest Airlines, microbreweries. These anecdotes have their own shortcomings—very few people have the nerve, genius, and luck to be Nate Silver, and the microbreweries struggle daily against the price-setting power of the two multinationals that control four-fifths of the American beer market. And here’s where the implied analogy to politics shatters: If you start a microbrewery that gains 1 percent of the U.S. beer market, you’ll become fabulously wealthy, but if you start a political party that gets 1 percent of the vote, you are, even in the best-case scenario, Ralph Nader. In 1996.
(Of course, a rude reviewer might wonder if Gillespie & Welch are not “successful lobbyists or political consultants” the same way Willard Romney is not “a professional politician” — it’s not that they’re too pure for the task, just that nobody’s been willing to pay for their talents.)
But do go read the whole thing; because Schmitt’s assembled his assault on flabby centrist thinking so tightly, it’s really hard to do justice by excerpt.
MonkeyBoy
All this hankering for an Independent party of independents ignores the fact that they are mostly low information voters that know little about political issues who often justify their lack of knowledge by declaring that both parties are equally bad and just made up of a lot of crooks.
Independents are the agnostics of politics. While in religious discussions there can be much discussion on what the true meanings of “atheist” vs. “agnostic” are, a lot of this ignores the fact that most self-proclaimed agnostics really don’t care enough about religion to have a well thought out position.
I myself am agnostic about many domains in the world. I really don’t care enough about professional football, professional wrestling, or the personal lives of celebrities to seek information on or discuss such things.
I guess the political solution favored by most Independents would be to just get rid of politics – a theme that appears often in moderate/centrist/independent bloviation.
nastybrutishntall
the most stupifying / exasperating thing about political discussions at the moment is that the most ardent and eloquent agitators for political change, the wonkiest people I run into, are inevitably libertarians, and though they always have their facts wrong, at least they all know the cracked Paulite glossary by heart and are willing to debate fundamental ideas (e.g. “it´s not a democracy, it´s a republic! austrian economics! kill the fed! gooooooooooold! also, drugs.”). Contrast that with the self-identified Democrats I know (very few anymore), who tend to have very little to say about what needs to change besides the fact that Obama hasn´t done it and we´re doomed. There is no unifying ideology, and no love for the Democrat brand. I think if the Dems are to survive, they need the energy of ideas in order to convey their message. Otherwise, voting Democrat = supporting incumbency for its own sake, or simply opposing Teh Crazy, a purely negative stance which is a weak motivator long-term (e.g. you can´t stay enthusiastic about something if its only virtue is sucking less than the alternative). So what´s it gonna be? Make it three things: 1) Single-payor; 2) public financing of elections and overturning Citizens United; 3) eliminating all tax advantages for the 1%. This platform gives us three prongs: affordable healthcare, corruption reduction, and tax fairness. It´s easy to communicate on a barstool / facebook thread, easy to put into an ad, and it´s something any sane, non-rich-bastard person will agree with. It also gives us something to shoot for, some kind of attainable, yet lofty-sounding goal, which gets us in the “ideas” market like the third-way or libertarian wankers, because these are actual ideas instead of cooked-up cognitive crumbs dropped from the crazy-bin of Ron Paul, or empty sound-bites synthesized from the soup of thintank fuckery.
Raven
Damn, pretty intense for a dawn read.
Xboxershorts
It’s important to note that the Reason foundation is another one of those Faux libertarian wet dream think tanks that was founded via the Koch Brother’s laundry operations. The same Koch brothers who were expelled from the Libertarian party for bringing the Bircher madness into politics against Reagan the first go round.
Expelled from the Libertarian party is a decent enough excuse for not bringing up the Libertarian party….no?
Reason magazine is the epitome of I got mine, fark you.
Why is it that 3rd party feasability is only considered in public when it originates from the far right “new” center?
Cheryl from Maryland
All of these third party fantasies center around a transformational person, which I guess is what one would expect of a Randian pipe dreams. And that’s why they are just pipe dreams — to be elected and to govern, you need an organization with people to staff it, something that just doesn’t happen overnight except in certain silly books with railroads magically appearing.
JPL
@Raven: No kidding! Another depressing day on the site I guess.
How bout those Falcons! Of course Jacksonville couldn’t beat Indy last night but still a win is still a win.
Raven
@JPL: Hell yes, I watched the debate on the lil screen and the game on the big. Meanwhile I’m on vacation and sick!
Dr. Squid
For example, Samuel Adams has 0.5% of the beer market. My guess is that Jim Koch, not likely related to the evil Kochs, is absolutely rolling in it.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
I love how the Libertarian brand has fallen into disrepair. If Fonz and Welsh thought they had a winner, they would have worked the brand into the subtitle at least. Lately the internet Libertarians seem to want you to chase them around the schoolyard a bit before they declare themselves to be libertarians. The amusing part is outing them before they get through the spiel, its perfectly delicious watching them cry the beloved butthurt and deny their father.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
I love how the Libertarian brand has fallen into disrepair. If Fonz and Welsh thought they had a winner, they would have worked the brand into the subtitle at least. Lately the internet Libertarians seem to want you to chase them around the schoolyard a bit before they declare themselves to be libertarians. The amusing part is outing them before they get through the spiel, its perfectly delicious watching them cry the beloved butthurt and deny their father.
kay
It’s just all the same to me, and it comes from the same place. It’s the absolute worship of the business model, to the exclusion of all else in this country. There’s nothing wrong with a business model, but it’s just one method of organization. It’s not the ONLY way to look at anything.
We can’t run the country like Amazon, because it’s a country, not a business.
I know that sucks and it’s frustrating and it makes libertarians and the CEO of Starbucks cry, but tough shit.
They’re going to have to deal with the rabble. They’re going to have to get their hands dirty and mingle with the rest of us.
They don’t just hate “politics”. They have no use for messy, boring, infuriating process or grappling with the fact that we all don’t agree, so we’re going to fight with each other, and it’s not the end of the world if we DO fight with each other. There’s a reason libertarians don’t take advantage of that ballot line. Then they’d have to engage with (gasp!) people who don’t agree with them.
agrippa
What middle? There are a lot of ‘middles’. Libertarianism is not a ‘middle’. Libertarianism is an abstraction. It does not apply to the life of mortals.
As for ‘middle’, it is better to think of it this way ( in regard to issues): there are, broadly speaking, three groups of people: 1) it aint broke, don’t fix it; 2) we can do this, do that, take what we can when we can; 3) it is broke for good, we need to scrap it and make something brand new.
I think that it is useful to keep that grouping of people in mind.
chopper
@MonkeyBoy:
exactly. yeah, let’s put the ball in the hands of the people who don’t even pay attention to politics until 2 days before the election. that’ll put this country right.
El Cid
This is a key point from the article.
Most of the time, this isn’t so much about ‘liberal’ versus ‘conservative’ Democrat, it’s about class or economic power issues.
El Cid
@MonkeyBoy: Also, we need to keep emphasizing that “independents” (mainly defined by not registering for a particular party or using that term) overwhelmingly sort out between very liberal voters and very conservative voters.
Mathematically, there’s a LOT more to be gained by increasing the turnout of ‘regular’ Democrats and independent liberal voters than roaming around the $1 discount late night aisles for the confused and indecisive.
Chris
@El Cid:
True. Most of the “third party” guys out there don’t actually want a third party – what they want is the party they’re currently in, the way it would be if it wasn’t constrained by that pesky reality thing.
As for the indecisive moderates, which is what most people think when they hear “independent,” I think MonkeyBoy @ 1 covered that pretty well.
WereBear
The point of the “independent” is that they maintain the personal fiction that they choose on policy stances, and reserve the right to buck and kick if any political party wavers from what THEY want.
But as the divide between sane & crazy gets wider, the gaps in this thinking continually reveal its internal contradictions. It is far from the deeply-thinking mask that they project. It is a lack of commitment to principle; an utter ignorance of how things actually work; a shallow wish.
Barry
@MonkeyBoy: “I guess the political solution favored by most Independents would be to just get rid of politics – a theme that appears often in moderate/centrist/independent bloviation.”
Note that these ‘centrist’ and ‘independent’ movements don’t want to get rid of politics, they simply want to get their policies passed, and deemed the only ones to be considered.
MonkeyBoy
@Barry:
What they want to get rid of is the perception of politics, to appear to rise above it, such that their aims are not viewed as political but as just plain common sense. In actuality to let the policy fighting happen behind the scenes by the elite and have these political decisions presented to the masses as non-politics because the masses aren’t interested in politics or get easily confused.
Most everybody would prefer less of what they can’t understand – such as government and politics – and that is the appeal the centrists are relying upon.
Benjamin Franklin
@agrippa:
I separate folks into two groups, those that recognize a rhetorical question, and those who answer it.
The Muddle is that vast wasteland of sterile petri-dish gelatin waiting for some life to give it meaning.
Rick Massimo
This is where the so-called libertarians call off the horse. Cf. this:
The answer of every so-called libertarian I know to this point is some thinly disguised version of “If you don’t have the nerve, genius, and luck to be Nate Silver, then fuck you – you deserve to live in Dickensian poverty and die at 45 of an already-cured disease.”
MonkeyBoy
@kay:
Many people think that one of the top things that made Soviet style Communism unworkable was central planning. However every business relies on central planning to be efficient. It would be absurd for a business to make sell two different similar products for the same price and have the market.
A centrally planned organization such as a business has the potential “feature” of failing and disappearing if it is out of step with the market. This is related to “taking risks” which if successful lead to more profit while bad risks can lead to product or the whole business failure.
When people talking about running the government like a business they usually don’t mean central planning, risk taking, and the possibility of complete failure.
LongHairedWeirdo
Rude? I dunno. I’d guess that The Rude Pundit might suggest you’d just called them too ugly to be cheap whores.
Oh, sorry, wait.
“Would the Rude Pundit suggest that you implied that they were too ugly to be cheap whores?” – there, I added the Cavuto mark. That makes it okay; I’m just asking the question.
moderateindy
Well as a moderate independent let me explain my reasoning. First, identifying yourself with a party, and by that I mean having the R or D as part of your identity is a dangerous idea. It’s like being a fan. As a Bears fan i can be pissed about their performance and the like, but the tribalism of being part of the group clouds the judgement and keeps one from objectivity. Look at how many Republicans blindly followed W, even though he did things that would make them howl were he a Dem. Living most of my life in Illinois, it is hard to view the Democratic party in this state, as anything other than the truly corrupt distasteful entity that it is.
Moderate for me isn’t about being centrist, it’s more about temperament. I try to be more even keeled analytical and objective. I use to be more centrist. 30 years of conservative fiscal, economic, trade and taxation policies, have moved me much farther to the left. Why? because by actually analyzing the results of those policies it’s pretty clear that by nearly every metric one can apply they have been a failure, make that a disaster.
You see if I bought into the concept of being a Republican, and that was my team as it were, I would ignore the evidence and twist the evidence, or just plain ignore the facts, in order to protect myself from the idea that my team, and thus myself were not just kind of wrong, but completely off base, and bordering on total stupidity. I have many good friends who do this. The type of mental gymnastics they must do to defend their positions in the face of evidence is astounding. Though most simply go into deflection or pure denial mode. Barney Frank was responsible for the housing crash don’t ya know. Seriously, that is an argument I hear constantly.
Here is the problem with a new centrist party. The problem with our system is not the partisanship, though that doesn’t help. It is the money and the influence of the tiny percentage of entities that wield that cash and influence. Do you think that if a new party were to emerge they would somehow be insulated by that influence?
Let me end with this. At least most Republicans are “honest”, and I use that term very loosely here, when it comes to shilling for the moneyed interests,in as much as they tend to agree with those interests positions. Too many Dems on the other hand seem to go against their own principles and vote the way their corporate overlords want. I’m not sure which is more despicable, being a person that truly believes in such policies, or allowing your integrity to be compromised by money and power.