Small world indeed! I WISH I could have gone to Winnetonka. My parents made me go to St. Pius like my four older siblings, but they let me little sister go to Winnetonka. I went to Eastgate Middle School, and most of my friends went to North Kansas City High School. Any chance you worked at Worlds of Fun? (Or did that close long ago . . .)
I have a busy morning but will write more later about my thoughts (for what they’re worth!)on your No Labels piece. Have a great morning!
Worlds of Fun is absolutely still there! I never worked there, though I had friends who did. You might also want to know that Eastgate is no more, sadly. The school district changed to a feeder system, so there are now 4 middle schools and 4 high schools, with each MS sending all of its kids to the same HS. Pros and cons to that change, IMO...
Hi Michael! Quick follow up on my comment. I am a long time member of No Labels who helped start a grassroots Texas No Labels group. I disagreed with the links you included about No Labels. (You can stop reading here if you don't care about No Labels).
The link you included calling No Labels "putatively centrist" was an opinion piece, not a factual piece about No Labels. Thomas Edsall is the type of person I think of as having been in DC too long to have an understanding of the rest of the country. Edsall suggests NL is functionally an asset of the Trump campaign which it is not. Edsall also falls into the trap so many Democrats do regarding Harlan Crow. There are great pieces out there about Crow--he started supporting No Labels because the GOP had changed and he wanted Congress to function better, much as I did. Crow does NOT like Trump and is currently donating to Nikki Haley.
Suggesting something nefarious about NL not disclosing donors is hypocritical coming from Third Way and Lincoln Project which are both (c)(4)s who do not disclose their donors.
ThirdWay whose data you cited is run by Matt Bennet who DOES take money from corporations (NL does not) and works to influence on the Hill. There is some personal story there about Bennett's antipathy for No Labels, and I wish he'd disclose it. OR I wish he, MoveOn, LincolnProject etc. would spend their, time, talent and money convincing Americans that Joe Biden is a good candidate capable of doing the hardest job in the world for four more years. Personally, I worry Biden cannot beat Trump which is one reason I want NL to have ballot access. Ryan Clancy of No Labels worked for Biden when Biden was VP. The other founders of No Labels all worked for Democrats and, I suspect, think highly of Joe Biden as a person. No Labels has never drawn a moral equivalence between Biden and Trump; just noted Americans want and deserve better choices to lead the country for the next four years.
More than you wanted to hear about No Labels, I am sure! Keep up the great work with your Substack!
Thanks for the thoughtful reply! And appreciate your support for my Substack. So first, I should be clear: I do get the appeal of a group like NL (or the Greens or any other third party for that matter). A lot of people are frustrated with the two-party system and don't think either major party represents them, so I understand the urge to offer another choice, especially one whose mission is to bridge political divides (something I absolutely support and write about a lot).
I also think you offered some fair criticisms of the Edsall piece. I should note that I am not a fan of the Lincoln Project, specifically, at all. They have well-documented grift problems of their own, and I've just long felt that "#resistance" groups rarely offer anything constructive. As for the funding questions, we could probably go back and forth on the influence of donor money for all these groups, so I don't want to get bogged down on that here.
Let me just elaborate a little on two core issues I have with NL.
First, in 2016, they gave then-candidate Trump their “Problem Solver Promise” award, which I have never understood or forgotten. To me, it made very little sense for a group dedicated to promoting unity and overcoming divisions to give an award like that to a guy like Trump, whose divisive nature was pretty clear to a lot of people by that time. Including him in that just seemed like very poor judgment, even then (let alone in retrospect).
The more pressing problem I have, though, is regarding the logic behind NL's prospective 2024 bid. I know they say it's to provide the electorate with another option aside from the two highly unpopular major candidates. But this argument is predicated on two ideas I find contradictory: 1) They claim to not want to play a spoiler role that could end up electing Trump. 2) They don't plan to run a candidate *unless the polls show a close election.*
So it sounds like their logic is that if the election is super close, they would run a candidate because it's a sign that America isn't happy with its choices. But this is an org that is headed by political professionals like Jacobson, Lieberman, and Clancy who should really know better (and who, I should just note, have also been in DC for a long time!). Close elections are when spoiler candidates are the *most* impactful. I especially can't fathom how a guy like Lieberman, of all people, whose presidential ticket lost in 2000 thanks to a third party that siphoned off votes from them in a very close election, actually believes this. (I know he ran successfully as an independent Senate candidate in Connecticut, but he should know that that's very different than a national presidential race.)
At the end of the day, I just think our laws have necessarily created a first-past-the-post electoral system that is conducive to there being two major, viable parties. This is why no third-party candidate in history has ever won the presidency (something else I would expect the NL brass is aware of). I absolutely wish it were different -- that we had some type of proportional representation system or employed ranked-choice voting to help give third parties a real chance. I think robust multiparty systems can help to depolarize societies. But in the system we've got, it's just hard for me to see how third parties in presidential elections have any practical impact aside from playing spoiler for the party who is more closely aligned with them ideologically.
In hindsight NL regrets “letting” Trump take the pledge in October 2015. It was not an endorsement and Trump had not shown the full scale of his toxicity at that point. Weak response but all I got! (I had a high schooler and middle schooler at the time so was not involved w/NL then.)
Agree about the role of money in politics—I just think it’s hypocritical for other (c)(4)s to criticize NL for not disclosing donor, and they’re technically not allowed to disclose. There has been discussion of changing the rules but right and left donors oppose it because of the vitriol in politics. I agree that Jacobsen, Lieberman and Clancy are all Washington insiders.
Thank you for what you said about the Lincoln Project. There are so many anti-Trump groups with lots of money and talent that could be CREATING something POSITIVE for this country. But those groups make lots of money by stoking justifiable anger. I’m involved in a group called Principles First that has an upcoming summit in DC. I keep hoping they do something to build a movement that stands for something.
I understand the concerns about helping Trump, and NL does as well. But it had to take action to get in the ballots in the states in case there is a good opening for them (anything can happen; eg, no one expected RBG to die when she did) NL can pull down their ballots line through late July and will do so if they think they’d end up helping Trump. I was disheartened by the vigorous and mean efforts by Third Way, MoveOn, Richard Gephardt (all Washington establishment) to stop NL starting last summer. State Democratic officials have tried to keep NL off the ballot, much as they are doing to Dean Phillips. Ends don’t justify means. I know politics is mean, but I wish it wasn’t. Jonathan Last at the Bulwark says ANYONE associated with No Labels should have their lives ruined and be shamed. I’ve made great friends in our grassroots Texas group. I’ve been on at least 50 calls with No Labels over the last couple years. Their intent is good and their main mission is still bipartisan problem solving. The last two Presidents worked with their own party in Congress to pass single party bills through reconciliation, even though Congress has been pretty much evenly divided for a decade.
Ok, running long, typing on my phone is hard, and I have a 1pm appointment. I’ll close by saying THANK YOU for the positive discourse. No matter how much people disagree (and I suspect you and I don’t disagree too much on policy), people should be able to have civil discussions then move on and remain friends, not enemies. If nothing else, the last three years No Labels has proven to be masterful at the positive discourse that looks for common ground.
I can sympathize with much of what you said! I’m sorry people have responded that way toward NL volunteers and advocates. I agree, it’s ridiculous that anyone can find excuses to justify behaving that way. And thank you, as well, for the exchange here!
What area of KC are you from? High school? I grew up north of the river in what is called Kansas City North, as opposed to North Kansas City, its own little town. When to St. Pius X High School. Will write more later about why I asked how long you had been in DC. Your piece about No Label shows influence of the shadow Democratic Party as Ruy Teixeira describes it.
I'm actually also from the northland! Went to Winnetonka HS. What a small world.
And sure, I think Ruy is very insightful and tend to agree with his critique of the shadow party. Curious how you see that tying in with my argument about No Labels.
Curious how much time you have spent in DC, where you are based, versus Kansas City. I too am from KC, lived throughout Midwest. I read a ton about politics. The longer you stay in DC the more your perspective narrows.
Nice to meet a fellow Kansas Citian! And thanks for reading. Yeah, I've been in DC for about a decade, though I regularly travel to other parts of the country (including back to KC).
I would push back a little against your last claim there -- I think staying in DC for a long time *can* narrow your perspective if you let it. I go out of my way to take in information and perspectives from a range of people and sources (both online and in person) to make sure I don't lose touch with the world outside of my little DC bubble. I think it's super important for everyone but especially political analysts not to get stuck in one information ecosystem.
But there's also a lot to be said for complementing all that with a robust understanding of the inner workings of DC politics and the campaign trail. I do my best to straddle both worlds to some extent to make sure my analysis stays well-rounded over time.
Small world indeed! I WISH I could have gone to Winnetonka. My parents made me go to St. Pius like my four older siblings, but they let me little sister go to Winnetonka. I went to Eastgate Middle School, and most of my friends went to North Kansas City High School. Any chance you worked at Worlds of Fun? (Or did that close long ago . . .)
I have a busy morning but will write more later about my thoughts (for what they’re worth!)on your No Labels piece. Have a great morning!
Worlds of Fun is absolutely still there! I never worked there, though I had friends who did. You might also want to know that Eastgate is no more, sadly. The school district changed to a feeder system, so there are now 4 middle schools and 4 high schools, with each MS sending all of its kids to the same HS. Pros and cons to that change, IMO...
Hi Michael! Quick follow up on my comment. I am a long time member of No Labels who helped start a grassroots Texas No Labels group. I disagreed with the links you included about No Labels. (You can stop reading here if you don't care about No Labels).
The link you included calling No Labels "putatively centrist" was an opinion piece, not a factual piece about No Labels. Thomas Edsall is the type of person I think of as having been in DC too long to have an understanding of the rest of the country. Edsall suggests NL is functionally an asset of the Trump campaign which it is not. Edsall also falls into the trap so many Democrats do regarding Harlan Crow. There are great pieces out there about Crow--he started supporting No Labels because the GOP had changed and he wanted Congress to function better, much as I did. Crow does NOT like Trump and is currently donating to Nikki Haley.
Suggesting something nefarious about NL not disclosing donors is hypocritical coming from Third Way and Lincoln Project which are both (c)(4)s who do not disclose their donors.
ThirdWay whose data you cited is run by Matt Bennet who DOES take money from corporations (NL does not) and works to influence on the Hill. There is some personal story there about Bennett's antipathy for No Labels, and I wish he'd disclose it. OR I wish he, MoveOn, LincolnProject etc. would spend their, time, talent and money convincing Americans that Joe Biden is a good candidate capable of doing the hardest job in the world for four more years. Personally, I worry Biden cannot beat Trump which is one reason I want NL to have ballot access. Ryan Clancy of No Labels worked for Biden when Biden was VP. The other founders of No Labels all worked for Democrats and, I suspect, think highly of Joe Biden as a person. No Labels has never drawn a moral equivalence between Biden and Trump; just noted Americans want and deserve better choices to lead the country for the next four years.
More than you wanted to hear about No Labels, I am sure! Keep up the great work with your Substack!
Thanks for the thoughtful reply! And appreciate your support for my Substack. So first, I should be clear: I do get the appeal of a group like NL (or the Greens or any other third party for that matter). A lot of people are frustrated with the two-party system and don't think either major party represents them, so I understand the urge to offer another choice, especially one whose mission is to bridge political divides (something I absolutely support and write about a lot).
I also think you offered some fair criticisms of the Edsall piece. I should note that I am not a fan of the Lincoln Project, specifically, at all. They have well-documented grift problems of their own, and I've just long felt that "#resistance" groups rarely offer anything constructive. As for the funding questions, we could probably go back and forth on the influence of donor money for all these groups, so I don't want to get bogged down on that here.
Let me just elaborate a little on two core issues I have with NL.
First, in 2016, they gave then-candidate Trump their “Problem Solver Promise” award, which I have never understood or forgotten. To me, it made very little sense for a group dedicated to promoting unity and overcoming divisions to give an award like that to a guy like Trump, whose divisive nature was pretty clear to a lot of people by that time. Including him in that just seemed like very poor judgment, even then (let alone in retrospect).
The more pressing problem I have, though, is regarding the logic behind NL's prospective 2024 bid. I know they say it's to provide the electorate with another option aside from the two highly unpopular major candidates. But this argument is predicated on two ideas I find contradictory: 1) They claim to not want to play a spoiler role that could end up electing Trump. 2) They don't plan to run a candidate *unless the polls show a close election.*
So it sounds like their logic is that if the election is super close, they would run a candidate because it's a sign that America isn't happy with its choices. But this is an org that is headed by political professionals like Jacobson, Lieberman, and Clancy who should really know better (and who, I should just note, have also been in DC for a long time!). Close elections are when spoiler candidates are the *most* impactful. I especially can't fathom how a guy like Lieberman, of all people, whose presidential ticket lost in 2000 thanks to a third party that siphoned off votes from them in a very close election, actually believes this. (I know he ran successfully as an independent Senate candidate in Connecticut, but he should know that that's very different than a national presidential race.)
At the end of the day, I just think our laws have necessarily created a first-past-the-post electoral system that is conducive to there being two major, viable parties. This is why no third-party candidate in history has ever won the presidency (something else I would expect the NL brass is aware of). I absolutely wish it were different -- that we had some type of proportional representation system or employed ranked-choice voting to help give third parties a real chance. I think robust multiparty systems can help to depolarize societies. But in the system we've got, it's just hard for me to see how third parties in presidential elections have any practical impact aside from playing spoiler for the party who is more closely aligned with them ideologically.
In hindsight NL regrets “letting” Trump take the pledge in October 2015. It was not an endorsement and Trump had not shown the full scale of his toxicity at that point. Weak response but all I got! (I had a high schooler and middle schooler at the time so was not involved w/NL then.)
Agree about the role of money in politics—I just think it’s hypocritical for other (c)(4)s to criticize NL for not disclosing donor, and they’re technically not allowed to disclose. There has been discussion of changing the rules but right and left donors oppose it because of the vitriol in politics. I agree that Jacobsen, Lieberman and Clancy are all Washington insiders.
Thank you for what you said about the Lincoln Project. There are so many anti-Trump groups with lots of money and talent that could be CREATING something POSITIVE for this country. But those groups make lots of money by stoking justifiable anger. I’m involved in a group called Principles First that has an upcoming summit in DC. I keep hoping they do something to build a movement that stands for something.
I understand the concerns about helping Trump, and NL does as well. But it had to take action to get in the ballots in the states in case there is a good opening for them (anything can happen; eg, no one expected RBG to die when she did) NL can pull down their ballots line through late July and will do so if they think they’d end up helping Trump. I was disheartened by the vigorous and mean efforts by Third Way, MoveOn, Richard Gephardt (all Washington establishment) to stop NL starting last summer. State Democratic officials have tried to keep NL off the ballot, much as they are doing to Dean Phillips. Ends don’t justify means. I know politics is mean, but I wish it wasn’t. Jonathan Last at the Bulwark says ANYONE associated with No Labels should have their lives ruined and be shamed. I’ve made great friends in our grassroots Texas group. I’ve been on at least 50 calls with No Labels over the last couple years. Their intent is good and their main mission is still bipartisan problem solving. The last two Presidents worked with their own party in Congress to pass single party bills through reconciliation, even though Congress has been pretty much evenly divided for a decade.
Ok, running long, typing on my phone is hard, and I have a 1pm appointment. I’ll close by saying THANK YOU for the positive discourse. No matter how much people disagree (and I suspect you and I don’t disagree too much on policy), people should be able to have civil discussions then move on and remain friends, not enemies. If nothing else, the last three years No Labels has proven to be masterful at the positive discourse that looks for common ground.
I can sympathize with much of what you said! I’m sorry people have responded that way toward NL volunteers and advocates. I agree, it’s ridiculous that anyone can find excuses to justify behaving that way. And thank you, as well, for the exchange here!
What area of KC are you from? High school? I grew up north of the river in what is called Kansas City North, as opposed to North Kansas City, its own little town. When to St. Pius X High School. Will write more later about why I asked how long you had been in DC. Your piece about No Label shows influence of the shadow Democratic Party as Ruy Teixeira describes it.
I'm actually also from the northland! Went to Winnetonka HS. What a small world.
And sure, I think Ruy is very insightful and tend to agree with his critique of the shadow party. Curious how you see that tying in with my argument about No Labels.
Curious how much time you have spent in DC, where you are based, versus Kansas City. I too am from KC, lived throughout Midwest. I read a ton about politics. The longer you stay in DC the more your perspective narrows.
Nice to meet a fellow Kansas Citian! And thanks for reading. Yeah, I've been in DC for about a decade, though I regularly travel to other parts of the country (including back to KC).
I would push back a little against your last claim there -- I think staying in DC for a long time *can* narrow your perspective if you let it. I go out of my way to take in information and perspectives from a range of people and sources (both online and in person) to make sure I don't lose touch with the world outside of my little DC bubble. I think it's super important for everyone but especially political analysts not to get stuck in one information ecosystem.
But there's also a lot to be said for complementing all that with a robust understanding of the inner workings of DC politics and the campaign trail. I do my best to straddle both worlds to some extent to make sure my analysis stays well-rounded over time.