Disastrous National Convention

I knew there would be some lingering frustration from supporters of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the fiery, crusty "democratic socialist" who fought tenaciously to secure the Democratic Party's nomination against the ultimate nominee, Hillary Clinton.  However, I never thought the frustration would manifest itself in such boisterous rebellion against the Democratic National Convention, the Democratic National Committee, and Mrs. Clinton.

As I've written before, the Democratic Party enforces remarkable party unity, and I expect that many discouraged Sandernistas will ultimately, if not enthusiastically, support Hillary Clinton.  That being said, the Democratic National Convention has so far been much more contentious than I imagined.

It's certainly been more frayed than the Republican National Convention.  To watch media coverage of last week's convention in Cleveland, one would have thought delegates were on the verge of running Trump out on a rail and nominating John Kasich instead.

 

Aging socialist Bernie Sanders--beloved by 20-something, upper-middle class liberal arts majors everywhere

(Image Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bernie_Sanders.jpg) 

What exactly were the major "scandals" of the RNC?  Melania Trump gave a speech that contained one paragraph of broad, saccharine, generic platitudes that (admittedly) tracked very closely to a similar section of a speech First Lady Michelle Obama gave; Never Trump delegates essentially demanded a roll call vote by delegation; and Ted Cruz offered a non-endorsement of Donald Trump.  If anything, Cruz's non-endorsement actually did a great deal to bring Republicans together around their nominee, as did Trump's strong acceptance speech Thursday night.

Contrast that with the first two days of the DNC:  Bernie Sanders supporters booed when their hero encouraged them to vote for Hillary Clinton; the DNC stalled to avoid accepting paperwork that would have challenged Senator Tim Kaine's nomination as Clinton's running mate; the Sandernistas booed the California Congressman Nancy Pelosi--and Sanders again!--at a meeting Tuesday morning; and Clinton's team crafted a plan to drown out unruly Sanders supporters during Tuesday night's nominating vote.

Oh, and disgraced former Chairwoman of the DNC--and now honorary chair of Clinton's campaign team--Debbie Wasserman Schultz was denounced loudly by her own Florida delegation.

"[Sanders supporters] were listening to their messiah, and he'd been crucified by the very party and candidate at whose convention he spoke."

Add to this flurry of disaffection last week's Democratic National Committee e-mail scandal, which saw WikiLeaks release nearly 20,000 DNC e-mails--some of which demonstrate the open collusion between the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and reporters--and the Democratic National Convention is a tinderbox.

The Sanders movement has evolved beyond the control of its titular leader.  As I watched Senator Sanders give his speech at the DNC Monday night, I was struck by the number of people--mostly women, but some men--who were openly weeping as he spoke.  I also noticed the absolutely awe-struck gaze some of these (mostly young) people had.  They were listening to their messiah, and he'd been crucified by the very party and candidate at whose convention he spoke.

"For some Democrats, the cry of 'I'm With Her' sounds more like 'Long Live the Queen.'"

Clinton will now desperately try to regain the Party's composure.  Upcoming speeches from President Obama and other Democratic Party stalwarts will have to convince disaffected Sanders supporters that their favorite programs and policies will be advanced under a Clinton administration.  Senator Tim Kaine, Clinton's bland but safe running mate, will have to make the case that a Clinton-Kaine ticket offers the same progressive punch as a Sanders-Warren one.

Through it all, look to media commentators to downplay the divisions.  There will also be a lot of tut-tutting over the behavior of Sandernistas, and smug remonstrances to "get behind her."

The popular, populist, anti-establishment candidate--for better or for worse--won the Republican Party and staved off a full-scale civil war.  The corrupt, corporatist, establishment crony of the Democratic Party will have to do the same.  Fortunately for her, she already has ample media, institutional, and political support behind her, ready to quell any further rebellions.

For some Democrats, the cry of "I'm With Her" sounds more like "Long Live the Queen."

Ted Cruz - Conservative Hero, or Traitor to His Party?

On Wednesday, 20 July 2016, Texas Senator Ted Cruz delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, in which he congratulated his primary opponent and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on his victory, then urged voters to "vote your conscience" in November.  Boos filled the arena.

What convention delegates were booing was not the admonition to vote their conscience--for many of them, that means voting for Donald Trump--but the lack of an explicit endorsement from Senator Cruz to endorse Trump.

 

Ted Cruz - not the Zodiac Killer, but almost in as much trouble.

(Image Source:  By Frank Fey (U.S. Senate Photographic Studio) - Office of Senator Ted Cruz, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25195114)

Immediately, two camps formed:  the majority pro-Trump camp, and the dwindling minority of Never Trumpers.  Within the former there are, broadly, two groups:  die-hard Trump fans, who have supported the candidate since last summer; and more tepid supporters who have given their support to Trump because they support their party's nominee, they won't support Hillary Clinton, they support elements of Trumpism, or some combination of the three.

The latter camp--I suspect--will continue to lose momentum now that the nomination process is complete.  Some of those voters will reluctantly vote for Trump for fear that a Clinton presidency will irrevocably shift the Supreme Court toward constitutional adaptavism and judicial activism.  Some will vote third-party, probably for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, or not vote at all.  A very small minority will vote for Clinton.

The kerfuffle highlights well the tensions inherent in party politics:  when does loyalty to party overcome adherence to principles, and vice-versa?

How these two groups have interpreted Cruz's speech is predictable.  For the pro-Trump/party unity crowd, they see Cruz's non-endorsement as a traitorous, duplicitous swipe at the nominee and his supporters, someone who went back on his word to endorse the winner of the primary process.

For the anti-Trump side, Cruz is a hero who stands on principle, even in the face of overwhelming pressure from his party to support explicitly the GOP nominee.  They argue that his pledge to support the candidate became null and void when the Trump campaign attacked Cruz's wife, Heidi, and insinuated that his father was involved in the Kennedy assassination.

The kerfuffle highlights well the tensions inherent in party politics:  when does loyalty to party overcome adherence to principles, and vice-versa?  To what extent should a voter temper his principles for the sake of political advantage, expediency, or compromise?

These are difficult questions, and they did not start with the 2016 election cycle.  Movement conservatives were frustrated, for example, with the 2008 and 2012 GOP nominees.  They perceived Arizona Senator John McCain and Massachusetts Senator Mitt Romney, respectively, as being inconsistently conservative.  Some conservatives refused to vote for those candidates; many did.  Some voted for them enthusiastically, reasoning that their flaws were better than accepting the progressivism of President Barack Obama, or changing their thinking to align with the candidates.  Others did so more reluctantly.

***

(Full disclosure--and a disclaimer:  I voted for Senator Cruz in the 2016 South Carolina GOP primary.  The analysis to follow does not represent an endorsement or criticism of Senator Cruz's speech or positions, but rather is an attempt--as fully as possible--at an objective analysis of the reasons for his position, and the consequences of it.  Angry advocates of both sides take note.)

So, which is it?  Is Ted Cruz a hero of the conservative movement, standing on principle at the expense of party unity?  Or is he an opportunistic traitor to the Republican Party?

It's a tricky question, and both sides have merit.  The pro-Trump majority is broadly correct that, having committed to endorsing the ultimate nominee, Cruz should hold up that endorsement, as many other Republicans have done, if reluctantly.  Take, for example, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who has endorsed Trump, but also been quick to criticize the nominee when his statement's violated Ryan's principles.

"...while Cruz didn't outright endorse Trump, he didn't not endorse him, either, and in no way maimed Trump.  If anything, he mostly hurt himself."

On the other hand, Cruz in no way denigrated Donald Trump, or even suggested that voters should not vote for him.  Given in any other context, his speech would have received uproarious applause and plaudits from conservatives.  It did not explicitly fulfill his pledge to support the nominee, but it did not seek to criticize or harm the nominee overtly.

Lost in this debate--and in media coverage of the Cruz incident--was one of the best moments of party unity and statesmanship, which came when former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich started his speech by saying, essentially, that Senator Cruz had encouraged voters to vote their conscience for the candidate most likely to uphold the Constitution.  As Gingrich put it, the only viable candidate for president who would plausibly do so is Trump.

Some may object that Newt's entreaty was a neat verbal trick, or point out the possibility of voting third-party (though Gary Johnson isn't viable), but it demonstrated his ability to think on his feet and his skills at diplomacy.  He was able to restore some sense of decorum and unity to the proceedings.

In short, while Cruz didn't outright endorse Trump, he didn't not endorse him, either, and in no way maimed Trump.  If anything, he mostly hurt himself.

***

That gets to another question, one that I think is equally interesting:  what, if anything, did Cruz hope to gain from this speech?  Some will say it was free of any political motivation, but that seems unlikely.  Call me a cynic, but I think Cruz has his eye on the future.

I suspect--and, naturally, I could be very wrong--that Cruz is setting himself to win over the support of conservatives who either won't vote for Trump, or will vote for him with deep misgivings.  He's also looking for those voters who are becoming more enthusiastic about Trump, but have lingering feelings that they've had to talk themselves into liking the candidate a bit too much.  If anything goes majorly wrong in a Trump presidency, these voters may turn to Cruz in four or eight years.

Whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump wins in November, Cruz will cast himself as the principled conservative who took a stand when the overwhelming force of his party's opinion pressured him to do otherwise.  In the event of a Clinton victory, Cruz will attempt to win the GOP nomination in 2020.  In the event of a Trump victory, Cruz is betting on Trump making enough mistakes that enthusiasm for him sours, and in their hour of need, Republicans will say, "this was the man with the wisdom to resist."  That's a much tougher path, as it is extremely difficult to challenge successfully an incumbent president for his party's nomination.

In both cases, it's assuming an awful lot, and if the reaction at the Quicken Loans Arena Wednesday night is any indication, Cruz miscalculated badly.  But politics is a fickle mistress, and the political scene could look very different in four years.

***

Will Cruz's speech galvanize the dwindling Never Trump forces?  Or will he spur more conservatives to support the party as a rallying cry against him?  Will he be blamed for splitting the party if Clinton wins?  Or will his gambit pay off, with voters of some distant election year seeing in him a man of principle?

These are interesting questions; ultimately, they are for the voters to decide.

Third Party Opportunity?

This election cycle, both major American political parties nominated figures with low likeability and favorability in most polls.  Many hard-left progressive Democrats despair that their party nominated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who they view as a political chameleon and corporatist.  Similarly, some Republicans, both of the movement conservative (such as National Review) and establishment (think Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham) varieties, are dismayed that GOP voters elected Donald Trump as their party's standard-bearer.

The question, inevitably, is "why not a third-party candidate?"  Indeed, the Libertarian Party saw a doubling of registrations after Trump secured the Republican nomination in May.  A number of dissatisfied progressives are turning to Jill Stein, perennial favorite of the Green Party (more interestingly, a significant minority of Bernie Sanders supporters are morphing into Trump fans).  If both major political parties have such negative figures at the helm, why not reject both and vote for a third party?

I received an e-mail today from a student with exactly that question.  Rather than discuss Hillary Clinton's vice-presidential picks--a topic I'll save for Friday, and which I need to research further, anyway--I'd like to address this young man's questions.  Note, this student is the same precocious young man who e-mailed me about Brexit last month.

Here's a screenshot of the e-mail, with a transcript:

 

Kids say the darnedest things.

Transcript:

With the somewhat radical left and right candidates in the major parties, how is Libertarian Gary Johnson not capitalizing on the 1/3 of independents and the rough 1/6 of soft Rs and Ds. He is somewhat centralist, having a neutral point of view and usually agreeing with the US population in policy issues. So far he hasn't garnered enough points to be in a debate, however with his support in the west, he is the former Governor of New Mexico, he might be in one soon. If Gary is able to get on the floor and be seen as the middle ground between Hillary and Trump, do you believe he could actual contend for presidency or would he just get walked over. Also, if he does garner some electoral votes come November, what candidate would he hurt the most? 

My L'il Politico brings up some interesting points, though I imagine there are many Democrats who would disagree with his assessment of Hillary Clinton, who strikes me as a chameleon who shifts policy positions with the wind; if she's part of the "radical left," it's only because that seems to be what the Democratic base wants.  Regardless, why hasn't Governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, garnered more attention, or done better at seizing the squishy middle of American politics?

"...Gary Johnson... won't be winning the presidency this year, much less any electoral votes."

There are a number of possible explanations.  As I've already stated, there was a brief surge for the Libertarian Party after Trump's nomination.  Of course, Trump received his own bump in the polls, a typical occurrence once a candidate has won his party's nomination nod (Clinton similarly benefited from the nomination bump in June).  I imagine that, while there was an initial boomlet for the Libertarian Party, traditionally Republican or Republican-leaning voters have gotten used to or come to terms with Trump's nomination, and are naturally returning to familiar (if somewhat altered) waters.

That, of course, would only partially explain why Gary Johnson--or any third-party candidate--won't be winning the presidency this year, much less any electoral votes.

Third-party candidates suffer a number of disadvantages in the American presidential system, most of them structural.  Unintentionally, our Constitution contributed greatly to the creation of the two-party system, a system which has endured, with only temporary interruptions, for most of the nation's history.  Despite George Washington's warning against the formation of political parties in his Farewell Address, the two-party system was almost an inevitability.

For one, most States require a simple majority for a candidate to win elected office.  Unlike Britain's "first past the post" system, which allows the candidate with the most votes to win a seat in Parliament, most States require an actual majority (50% + 1), and will hold run-off elections accordingly.  In effect, then, a third-party candidate of any significant ability or recognition only really succeeds in sucking votes away from the candidate he is most akin to politically.

In presidential elections, it is possible for third-party candidates to win electoral votes--just ask Theodore Roosevelt, who won twenty-two electoral votes in 1912, beating incumbent President William Howard Taft by sixteen votes, but losing hugely to Woodrow Wilson--but it is similarly difficult even to receive a plurality of votes (as I understand it, a "first past the post" plurality is all that is necessary in most States to win all of those States' votes).  Again, third-party candidates tend to wound candidates that are most similar to them on issues, or (in the case of TR in 1912) they completely supplant one of the major party candidates, only to go down with the ship.

 "[T]he two-party system was almost an inevitability."

Just look at the example of Ross Perot in 1992, a kind of spiritual predecessor to Trump in many ways.  Perot was the most successful third-party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Party ticket in 1912, and while Perot won millions of votes nationally, he didn't pocket a single electoral vote.  He did, however, drain just enough votes away from incumbent President George H. W. Bush to ensure that then-Governor Bill Clinton could win the States necessary to secure the presidency.

One can look at multiple examples from US history:  the Populist Party in 1892 (in 1896, they wised up, nominated the Democratic Party's nominee, William Jennings Bryan, and still lost to the Republican candidate, William McKinley); the Socialist Party in 1920 (Eugene V. Debs won a million votes--from prison); the Progressive Party; and on and on.  Third parties are victims of their own failure, too--voters vote for and donate to perceived winners far more than to perceived losers.

Historically, only one party has successfully moved from third-party status to two-party dominance--the Republican Party--and that was in the throes of the 1860 election on the eve of the Civil War, which saw the Democrats split into two (the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats) and the formation of the Constitutional Union Party.  In such an environment, it was much more likely for an upstart Republican Party (only six years old at the time) to win the presidency, and the Republican Party benefited in part from the infrastructure left behind by the old Whig Party.

"Right now, we're witnessing a major political realignment in both political parties."

Also, an important point that's easy to forget (the political establishment certainly did over the past year) is that political parties are broad coalitions, and they tend to reform internally or experience revolutions from within.  They are not monolithic, Stalinistic organizations (most of the time), and they strive (often with difficulty) to appeal to and to appease multiple interest groups.  These groups often coalesce around a shared set of values (for Republicans, it tends to be limited and/or efficient government; for Democrats, it tends to be an elaborate system of patron-clientele payouts to wildly disparate interest and identity groups), but there's never perfect unity.

Right now, we're witnessing a major political realignment in both political parties, although the Republican Party is certainly receiving more of the attention due to the nature of Trump's over-the-top personality and bombastic antics.  Notice, however, that Hillary Clinton (and the Democratic Party at large) has moved much further to left, especially as the progressive, social justice warrior wing of the Party has become louder and more aggressive.  In turn, that move to radical social justice has alienated many economic Democrats, who turned either to socialist Bernie Sanders, or to protectionist Donald Trump.

So, despite the low favorability ratings, Trump scratches an itch (as I heard one political pundit put it recently) that many Americans want scratched, even if many others are cautious of him.  Similarly, many voters view Clinton as a crook, a liar, and crony, but they feel safer voting for the devil they know than the one they don't.

***

But what of poor Gary Johnson, the lovable, doobie-smoking former Governor of New Mexico?  Surely he can fill the vacuum of dissatisfied voters who don't like either option, right?

Perhaps, but for the reasons listed above, it's very unlikely.  Johnson was an effective governor in New Mexico (he apparently vetoed more than even former SC Governor Mark Sanford), but since then his biggest claim to fame is that he talks openly about smoking pot (legalization, of course, is a big issue for the Libertarians, as it is for a growing segment of the Republican Party).  Like many libertarian-minded candidates (Mark Sanford, again, comes to mind), Johnson comes across as a bit of a weirdo.  There's no doubt he's an eccentric fellow.  Should this disqualify him from the presidency?  Probably not, but, again, voters respond to emotion and perception more than to policy or positions.

 

The face of a man who won't be President.

(Image Source:  https://johnsonweld.com/)

The Libertarian Party itself is a party for the dissatisfied--that's essentially why it formed in the early 1970s, when it had legitimate beefs with President Richard Nixon's heavy-handed imperial presidency and tendency to expand the size and scope of government--and the dissatisfied voted for Trump this year.  Trump has brilliantly co-opted the libertarian momentum that in years past went to Congressman Ron Paul or his son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.

This fact confirms for me a long-held suspicion:  despite grand talk of ideological consistency and purity, the Libertarian Party consists, rather, of large numbers of disaffected weirdos--much like the two major political parties--that care more about presenting a certain Ayn Randian "I-am-really-the-smart-one-here" attitude than anything else.  I've rarely met a serious, consistent libertarian.  Most hard-core libertarians I've known are positively insufferable (I've experienced this phenomenon with self-described philosophical existentialists and nihilists, too), or they're really just progressives:  they want total freedom to engage in society-killing activities but become all-too willing to use the power of the state when it suits their purposes.

For better or for worse, many of these individuals have moved to support Trump or Sanders.  But could squishy voters in the middle who aren't traditionally Libertarian move to the party?

Again, I think not.  Most of these voters will stick with what they know.  A few will move from one to the other of the two major parties, and a very small few will vote third party as a protest or as a legitimate act of conscious.  Those that want to give a middle finger to "The System"--a description that fits my perception of most self-described libertarians--are going to vote for Trump.

***

But what if Gary Johnson does well enough in the polls to get on-stage at the presidential debates?  That's a possibility, although I don't think it's likely at this point for the reasons stated above.  If he does, it would certainly help his profile, and he would likely win over some voters--especially those that lean Republican, or believe the Republican Party has left them behind by nominating Trump--but not enough to win.  It would certainly be healthy for the body politic to hear another set of ideas.  Regardless,  I would be surprised if Gary Johnson won any electoral votes in 2016.

However, in this scenario it's very likely that he could suck enough votes away from Trump that a Clinton victory would be assured.  Trump--or any Republican--has a very fine line to walk in the Electoral College, where the Democrats automatically enjoy a huge advantage thanks to California, New York, Illinois, and several other high-population, deep-blue States.  Trump needs to win several Midwestern Rust Belt states and Florida to have a shot; that shot disappears with a mildly interesting, somewhat conservative third-party candidate.

All that being said, I respect those third-partiers who are deeply committed to their organization, or who believe they must vote for a third party as an act of conscious.  Fortunately, our political system affords us this freedom.  However, the most effective way to impact political change is within the traditional two-party system.  Parties can be changed from within; after all, they are made up of normal people.  With a little dedication and a lot of hard work, people can use the structural advantages of the established parties to push for their views and beliefs.

In other words, why reinvent the wheel, when the wagon's already moving?  Hop on board, and have a say in where it's heading.