The Threat to Our Two-Party Democracy
Citizens, scholars, and pundits agree. As a nation, America is facing what could well be an existential threat – from within. We are in unprecedented times; our country is more divided than at any time since the 1860s. Anti-democratic elements have undermined our civic norms, and threaten to put an end to free elections and abandon our Constitution.
Many – perhaps most – political observers, as well as activists on the left and the right, argue that our two-party system is, at least in part, to blame for the current dysfunction.
Our view is different, more nuanced. And it comes from our varied and deep experiences in national politics over several decades and on opposite sides of the aisle.
The American two-party system, despite fits, starts, and flubs, has served us well for two and a half centuries. It has allowed us, with the notable and bloody exception of the Civil War, to settle most of our differences non-violently. It allows us to establish governing coalitions and bring stability to our complex and sometimes frustrating federal system of checks and balances.
Change in America is difficult, which was precisely the goal of the Founders. Our representative democracy works to harmonize factions and local interests, and – until recently – has forced parties to develop national messages that resonate with the broader public.
Finally, the two-party system makes national elections more coherent as two major parties, not three or four or five, battle to assemble 270 electoral votes. If that does not happen, a presidential election would be settled in the House of Representatives; and that would make January 6, 2021, seem orderly by comparison.
In sum, our view (one of us a Democrat, the other a Republican) is that while the two-party system is not perfect, it has worked pretty damned well.
However, that system and the broad, general stability it has produced are under attack as we look to 2024. No Labels, which claims to support “centrism and bipartisanship” and is painfully self-righteous in doing so, is planning to mount a third-party effort in next year’s presidential contest. The results could be catastrophic.
To be fair, history tells us that third parties in the U.S. can occasionally raise critical issues that the two major parties will not touch (the Bull Moose Party of 1912 remains the best example). The flip side is that third parties have also been destructive to the public weal (George Wallace’s bid in 1968 stands out in this regard).
But since the Republican Party replaced the Whigs in the 1850s, there is no precedent for a third party coming anywhere near winning the presidency. This was true even with a hugely popular figure like former president Theodore Roosevelt, or someone with a boatload of money and a major issue (Ross Perot and the federal budget deficit in 1992), or a regional figure who was dominant in one part of the country and on one issue (Strom Thurmond in 1948 and George Wallace in 1968 arguing for the maintenance of segregation), made a run for the White House.
Hugely popular Teddy Roosevelt won 27% of the vote in 1912, but only 88 electoral votes. Wallace, in 1968, was the last third-party candidate to capture a chunk of electoral votes (46). Perot peaked at 19% in 1992 but won zero electoral votes. Despite claims and fanciful thinking coming from the political operatives running No Labels, a third-party candidate cannot and will not come close to winning in 2024. There are no available political figures remotely comparable to Roosevelt, Wallace, or Perot today.
Nevertheless, a third candidate could influence the final vote in destructive ways, as Roosevelt, Wallace, and Perot all did. A well-funded third-party challenge in 2024 will be the political equivalent of fragging – lots of carnage with no constructive outcome. A third candidacy could play into the hands of determined and dangerous anti-democratic elements.
No Labels is hawking the notion that three-fifths of the American electorate would be receptive to the idea of a moderate centrist presidential candidate. They are cherry-picking the data. We know this because other polling leads to a different conclusion.
For example, Data for Progress recently released research results that showed Trump at 42%, Biden at 41%, and a “moderate independent candidate at 13%, with 4% unsure. We believe additional research will bear this out. The most troubling dynamic is that a third-party candidate helps Donald Trump. So, if you want Trump back in the Oval Office, sign up with No Labels. If not, then stay as far away as you can.
Rather than running a fool’s errand, the responsible course for Republicans, Democrats, and independent voters is to work for candidates in their respective parties who want to move this country forward, who actively embrace and want to strengthen our Constitution and the democratic republic it established, and who firmly reject far-out conspiracy theories and extremist rhetoric. Not all candidates currently running can make that claim. And the strength of small but cult-like and/or extreme constituencies of fringe candidates such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West are likely to be magnified in a multi-party national race. The 2024 presidential election is one in which we will benefit by having two major party candidates who firmly embrace our democratic traditions and norms.
Not only do we need to elect someone to lead our country in 2024, but we must build on the traditions and practices that have made the U.S. the oldest formal democracy in the world. 2026 will mark the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, one of our country’s most important founding documents. It would be appropriate to have as our president on that anniversary someone who appreciates and is sworn to protect American liberty, and who celebrates and is dedicated to maintaining this great achievement.
Frank Donatelli was political director in the Reagan White House and a former deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Les Francis was deputy assistant and deputy chief of staff to President Jimmy Carter, and later executive director of the DNC and DCCC.
This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
