David Ehrens, a faithful reader of this blog, sent me the
following comment in an e-mail [for reasons beyond my feeble powers of
comprehension, Google will not let him post the comment directly]: “I truly hope others will see it is time to
create an alternative to the Democratic Party -- perhaps one that can
coordinate and work with the Democrats, but one that will call its own tune and
have its own conventions. What say you?”
I have long had a dream of a truly progressive left party
[never mind a Socialist Party like the one my grandfather committed his life to
in New York City a century ago.] But the
structure of American politics, as we all know, works against third parties on
the national stage, although there is a long tradition of successful left
parties at the state level. Let us think
about this for a bit.
First of all, I don’t want to see us run third party
presidential candidates. The best we
could do is win enough electoral votes to throw the election into the House,
and there the Right has a structural advantage.
Recall from your high school Civics class [if you are old enough to have
had one], that when the president is chosen by the House, because no candidate
wins a majority of the electoral votes, the State House delegations vote as
units, a procedure that gives small states a huge advantage. I spent a few minutes on Google
checking. In 2008, when the Democrats
held the Presidency, a super majority in the Senate, and the House, the House
delegation breakdown was 25 Democratic, 21 Republican, and 4 split – barely enough
to take the Presidency. At the present
moment, the breakdown is 33 Republican, 14 Democratic, 3 split. I really do not want to throw the election
into the House!
What we need to think about is a fundamental realignment of
the electorate. The Republican Party is,
I am coming to believe, irrevocably sundered. The natural realignment would be for the Bernie
wing to split from the corporatist, elitist wing of the Democratic Party, and
woo to its ranks the non-college educated white working class Trump voters,
along straight economic interest lines:
attack Wall Street, raise the minimum wage, stop sending jobs overseas,
and so on.
BUT: This new third party, which would seek to
elect members of the House and local office holders and maybe a senator or two,
could not be a nativist, xenophobic, racist, misogynist, homophobic party. So the big question [what we oldsters used to
call the sixty-four dollar question, before inflation hit] is: Could an anti-elitist inclusive pitch win
over the Trumpettes to a socially progressive third party, or is their hatred
of everyone not like themselves really baked in?
The numerous reports of voters expressing a preference for “Trump
or Sanders” suggests that the answer may be a qualified yes. If so, then European-style coalition
politics, at least in the House, might be conceivable, at least if Bernie’s
hordes could gain enough traction to elect enough members of the House to
bargain with the Democratic Party.
Stranger things have happened.
4 comments:
I'd say that the new Bernie Party should appeal to the young (of all social classes), women, gays and minorities, but anyone over 30, be they working class or not, generally has their "hatred of everyone not like themselves baked in": it's part of their core identity (they define themselves by "who they are better than") and they will not change.
Bush was president in 2008.
But I believe the decision would have been made by the new House, no?
An article on the Web in something called The Stream says it's the newly elected House that would decide after their installation on Jan. 3. Reliable site? Dunno.
Post a Comment