Now that Biden-Trump presidential race is set, the No Labels organization needs to decide whether it wants to risk America’s democratic values by pursuing the third-party strategy it’s been contemplating for the past year. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) understood this dynamic when he declared that he would not run for president as a third-party candidate. The issue now is whether No Labels understands the risks as well.
When No Labels was founded in 2010, it had the admirable mission of promoting bipartisanship as a means to encouraging commonsense solutions to America’s problems. This was a mission I actively supported for a number of years: I attended their meetings and hosted events seeking to recruit new supporters for their cause. Indeed, I loaned my name as director of an entity created by No Labels to assist candidates in primaries who shared their vision of bipartisanship.
But in recent years, No Labels seems to have become the victim of its own arrogance. Its leaders are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause that they developed a dangerous tunnel vision. Focused so intently on their view of bipartisanship, they sometimes seem to lose sight of the rationale for bipartisanship — the promotion of commonsense solutions.
We first saw this tunnel vision in 2016 when, before the New Hampshire primary, No Labels bestowed its admiring “problem solver” designation on candidate Donald Trump. In doing so, they ignored that Trump had already made clear that his campaign would be based on lies and the worst kind of bigotry. In fact, until the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, No Labels seemed reluctant to criticize Trump during his presidency, no matter how outrageous his conduct.
The group’s tunnel vision has showed itself in other ways, such as its insistence on balancing criticism of Republicans with criticism of Democrats, using false equivalences when complaining about the extreme wings of both parties. They have ignored a fundamental difference. On the Democratic side, disagreements with the so-called extreme wing of the party involve debates over policy ideas, and such debate is what defines a democracy. On the GOP side, we see something very different — a willingness to use misinformation to undermine confidence in American elections and in important government institutions, while being unwilling to condemn Trump no matter how reprehensible and dangerous his actions and rhetoric may be.
This stunted vision also led No Labels to oppose legislative efforts without regard to their merits, because they didn’t meet the group’s test of bipartisanship. For example, No Labels attacked the House Select Committee to investigate Jan. 6 because it was insufficiently bipartisan, ignoring that Republicans prevented the creation of an independent commission to investigate the events surrounding that day.
Now the group’s myopia is demonstrating itself in its third-party presidential effort. Its rationale is that a very significant part of the electorate does not want a Biden-Trump rematch. I agree. I strongly believe that President Biden should not be running and should have passed the Democratic nomination to the next generation.
But that is not where we are, and Joe Biden is not Donald Trump. President Biden has a strong record of bipartisanship. And whether you agree with his policy choices or not, that debate is about what policies best serve America. Trump, however, has made it clear that not only does he admire authoritarian leaders, but he will strive to be one if elected. And unlike in his first term, he will surround himself only with extreme loyalists unwilling to check his worst instincts.
No Labels Co-Chair Joe Lieberman claims he wants to prevent Trump from becoming president again. If those sentiments are genuine, the only responsible course for No Labels is to abandon its third-party efforts. Bipartisanship is important, but protecting our democratic values should be everyone’s top priority.
Richard J. Davis is an attorney. He was assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Carter administration and an assistant Watergate special prosecutor.