Dear David,
I love reading your stuff. And I think your appearances on the News Hour are wonderful. But I just think you think too much.
It doesn't matter if we have two or three or four political parties. We just need a charismatic person who really believes in democracy. We need a charismatic person who cares about unifying us. We need a charismatic person who can sell the idea that we are all in the same boat - ecologically, fiscally, socially and morally.
We need a charismatic person who can explain that if we don't join together as a nation and then as a species, we are doomed to a spiral dive of destruction.
We need a charismatic person who can be tough with our competitiors and cooperative with those who share our values.
These are not complicated concepts! We just need someone who can present them with enthusiasm and humility. We need someone who is honest - someone who listens to experts. We need a real leader with the ability and desire to learn.
New Parties? Nyah. Let's find new people.
12
Good Lord. David Brooks was a boll weevil in the GOP's intellectual cotton for 25 years, and now here he is giving horticultural advice.
5
Some issues can be decided locally but others would be at great risk. In our area, if decisions regarding environmental issues were delegated to local leaders, the environment would lose. Even now with the current administration we have challenges ahead for protecting our sensitive areas, but perhaps that will shift in the future, while the far-right conservation Republican leadership in our state will stay entrenched in attitudes that are not environmental-friendly. Polls show that a majority of Utahns support decisions that are environmentally friendly but leaders are deaf to those citizens. The environmental laws that have served us well for over forty years are under assault but perhaps they will survive to help keep our sensitive areas protected for another forty years. So, I do not believe that moving decisions on many issues to local level is better than keep those at the federal level even with all its problems.
3
David,
I can not believe that a man of your sophistication does not understand that under our voting system, running a major third party candidate will split the vote and assure the election of the diametrically opposite kind of candidate. We have the worst possible kind of voting system.
Probably the best voting system is the approval voting system where you vote for all the candidates you approve of. It is not a well known system.
See:https://www.electology.org/approval-voting
for an explanation.
A ranked choice system could also work, but it is much more complicated and time consuming. In CA's last primary, some of the offices had about 18 candidates. Try standing in a booth and rank all those without choosing one twice which would spoil your ballot for that race. If there are less than four candidates, it might be workable.
3
I just don't see a solution beyond breaking the USA up into smaller, like-minded regions.
California just surpassed the UK to become the 5th largest economy in the world, and we're the most populous state at the moment with nearly 40 million people.
And we have to put up with minority rule? In every branch? For the foreseeable future? I don't think so.
Something's got to give here David. This is way beyond 3rd parties.
5
Please get this guy out of here. Brooks go and give your brilliant advice to Republicans. Maybe they can get Spiro Agnew’s hologram to run as a Third Party candidate. The majority of the voters will not notice.
6
Is it really the case that government is dysfunctional? Or is it the case that it is impossible to govern with Republicans?
The democrats got stuff done in the (less than)2 years they had power after 2008. As soon as Republicans lied their way back to power, however, everything locked up.
Even post 2016 the democrats have been willing to allow budgets to pass and were willing to deal on DACA/immigration.
I'm sorry your erstwhile party is deranged and dysfunctional, but it's not a problem with the US as a whole. Give me a bone saw and a place to shove 60 million unwanted Americans and we can again have a country and a government that works within the constitution to promote the general welfare, not pursue maximalist ideological purity.
46
Mr. Brooks:
Mitch Landrieu is all show and no substance. I lived in New Orleans during his "reign". He did little, but took credit for much!
Go to New Orleans and investigate/see for yourself.
I shudder to think that the Dems would run him.
5
The problem with this is that we observe that the more local the governing body, the more it tends towards authoritarianism. City councils can, and do, pass practically any law or ordinance they want--even if it's a clear violation of constitutional rights.
I used to make this point by noting the President of the United States--the "most powerful man in the world"--can't make you put out your cigarette in a bar. But any old city council can ban smoking in bars, and most of them have.
Eric Garner was killed for selling "loosies," a violation of New York City law.
1
Smoking in public is not the best example. Your rights end where mine begin. So people being forced to exposure to proven carcinogens just for being at a restaurant is wrong. It is also a work place hazard for all those that work in a restaurant or bar where smoking is allowed. That would be like having an X-ray technician continually exposed to X-rays without protective equipment. People may have the right to smoke, but not to poison others, it’s actually less fair to say, if you don’t want to be exposed to carcinogens then leave.
2
Rather than offer my usual negative comments on Mr. Brooks' recommendations, I'd like to offer two concrete proposals of my own that might make the US government better:
1: Move the capital from Washington DC to elsewhere. Maybe a city already existing in the center of the country, or perhaps a new city. And leave the lobbyists, think tanks, etc. behind on the swampy ground of the old capital; and,
2: Establish an office like the old Roman office of tribune, who would have special powers and would be responsible for defending the interests of the poor and disadvantaged. The government structure that we have now, esp. Congress, is controlled by the rich and it is unclear to me how we can purge them in favor of representatives who really care about their people.
Do my proposals sound odd? They are unprecedented in American history, but many states have moved capitals for good reason and the tribune was vital to the welfare of a state that lasted 1,200 years.
What a lot of feel-good nonsense. In red states these "locavore" governments would simply reintroduce school prayer, ban the teaching of evolution, mandate guns for kids, clear cut every forest and pollute every river. We'd be back to Saturday night lynchings and church the next day. As cheering Trump voters have shown us all too clearly, that's really what they're made of.
11
We should get rid of the party system
1
The Italians have had over 40 premier's, including Berlouisconi - he and trump are similar. They also have a huge number of political parties and a strong movement to separate the north from the south.
Really David - having multiple parties would make some great tales - probably 20X our present leaders.
2
The wealthy oligarchs (who really and truly control our government) love the two-party system. The game plan is simple and effective - divide and conquer! And if that doesn't work, then mire the government in gridlock.
The simplest way to marginalize the wealthy oligarchs is to establish a system with 3 or more parties. Power would return to the electorate and governance would be based on forming majority coalitions.
The Founding Fathers had great challenges in forming a government but the one ideal they all clung to is a system that empowered the electorate. I mean, isn't that the essence of democracy? We have lost sight of what made America a beacon for democratic principles. America today is a country in turmoil because whether you're Republican, Democrat or independent, we all know the government serves only the best interests of the wealthiest people in America. We all know that the country can do more, and be more for everyone!
2
National politics needs a leader devoted to redistributing power downward.
That is called a 'Democrat". Plenty available to choose from.
7
Third parties got both Trump and Bush elected. Remind me again what political party Brooks still owes his allegiance to? Hmm....
3
Mr. Brooks, after decades of cheerleading for the Republicans, you now can enjoy the fruits of your labors--a Republican Congressional majority, a Conservative Supreme Court, and a kleptocracy run by Trump. I am sorry that your fruits taste like rotten prunes. But I am not about to let you decide that since what you have endorsed all your life is a catastrophe that you get to decide that you NOW have a better idea...a new alternative to your disastrous government. Thanks, but I will opt for a Democratic alternative.
7
Homogenous? When the troops in the military were still segregated? When blacks couldn't drink from the fountain set aside for whites, rent a hotel room, eat at a restaurant? When they had guidebooks telling them which places were safe to stop for gas and food and a room on a road trip?
Many of Brooks columns are just laughable. It's like he builds a model of a ship and then tries to figure out how to get it in the glass bottle. How this guy is still employed by the NYT is beyond me. This ain't baseball where a .300 average is commendable.
6
Localism means that the rich areas get to keep their money and the poor areas get no help. It also means local authorities competing with each other in order to attract business, so inequality gets worse in each locality.
Brooks' Republicans have failed him and so he is looking for an out. Unfortunately the blindspots that made him a Republican are still there; he doesn't understand the need for collective action at a national level. Thus his solutions are guaranteed to fail.
5
How about 4 parties or even 5? This would force parties to form coalitions that better represent the plurality if not the majority of voters.
What prevents this? Money. In America money rules. This nonsense about a liberal democracy is just that - nonsense.
Give me a couple of billion dollars in "campaign contributions" and even I could bribe my way into office. I will make one campaign promise - I will tell the peasants, the burgers, and the royalty whatever they want to hear. Who would I use as a role models? Why sociopaths of course.
1
I can barely read this op-ed. How many times have we tried a 3rd party candidate in the past years to only see it fizzle? And the fact is that virtually any 3rd party candidate will siphon off voters from the Democrats, leaving an even wider avenue for a Republican to prevail.
It is virtually undeniable that anyone who considers a 3rd party run will hurt all of those people seeking positive change in this country. Le's not be stupid at this crucial juncture of life in America. Or, as President Obama said, let's not do "stupid stuff."
2
I'm reading David Brooks with some sympathy but coming to somewhat different solutions. Having a "radical" may play to constant desires for change, and his idea of a radical may work better than a left-wing big-spender, but I agree with Tyler Cowen (author of The Complacent Class) that we are a complacent society where radicalism of any sort doesn't have the appeal that moves societies.
More localism is a good idea; it just needs rooting in democratic forms. Are the local "councils" Brooks talks about so rooted, or are they just another form of elitism that lacks the potential for real modeling. Maybe the referendum--like the one promoting progressive taxes on corporations to deal with climate change in Portland, OR, or those expanding Medicaid n states that haven't yet done so under ACA--is an underused instrument.
Having a third party candidate to navigate a middle, moderate way between the extremes of either party is a noble ideal, but I vote for the party that will respond with the heartiest "NO" to Trumpism, in all its corrupt Republican-reflecting forms. Only a vote for Democrats this fall and in 2020 will put us in a better direction. As a registered Dem in Iowa, I'll do my small part to steer our party away from those who don't have regard for worthy conservative ideas, but don't ask me to go off half-cocked tilting at windmills for any kind of misplaced idealism.
2
Brooks is running out of options.
So this radical new idea for a third party to run on is... State's Rights?
Yeah, let's let states go back to discriminating against women and minorities and allowing the white men like Pruitt who run them to keep enriching themselves. There's a revolutionary idea I'm sure millennials will get behind, David.
6
you have got to be kidding. i live in a part of texas that would go back to slavery if they had the chance. i am a white man saying this.
5
A third party? As a conservative Republican, at least the last time I checked, Brooks should be concentrating his journalistic energies on the future scattered, broken pieces left of the G.O.P. after the consuming wreckage of these Trump years. It is quite conceivable that there may be nothing left of the party, post Trump, well before 2020 with his impeachment, removal from office, and a mountain of collateral damage. Then there are the potential indictments of the Treasonous Fake President. This column reads like political escapism and fantasy, ignoring some very harsh future truths bearing down upon Mr. Brooks’s affiliation.
1
Poor desperate David. He cannot bring himself to say that the Republican party he grew up in has become the home or racists, bigots, oligarchs, science deniers and religious fanatics, so he espouses some miraculous third path. Dave, you either vote Democrat or slink back into a hole because there is no other way to stop the destruction of America
1
One word: BERNIE
1
I am a Democrat. I think reasonable, intelligent Conservatives should pull away from the Republican Party and start over. Let the Crazies burn out.
2
David needs a new party. We can call it the Koch Party.
1
"is there room for a third party candidate" NO
"The localism part means a radical decentralization of other powers, to the levels of authority people have faith in." What an interesting idea ! I wish someone had thought of that before - like the Founders of our country. In fact, they did ! The idea is called Federalism - and it was enshrined throughout the Constitution including in Article 1, Section 8 which lists the things that the Feds are permitted to spend money on - mainly things that only the Fed must do to protect everyone - e.g. military, courts, etc. And if you missed the point, the Constitution hammers it home in the 10th amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That's it. If you want government to spend more money, this is supposed to be done at the State level. There's a reason we are called the United States. The word "state" in most of the world means country.
We respected Federalism for 150 to 200 years of our history. As recently as 1970, our federal budget was only 15% of GDP - and half of that was for defense spending.
The simple truth is one-size-fits-all is never going to work for a country of 330 million. We have very different values and ideas about the scope of government. And that's fine. Let liberals run the blue states as they choose. But when a Dem is in the White House, he must have equal respect for those who disagree with this leftist view.
2
It's unrealistic to expect that the political viewpoints, wishes, and aspirations of 200 million potential voters can be shoe-horned into 2 political parties. Of course it's time for a third (or fourth) party in America.
First we need to have fair and verifiable elections. We get the Russians and other potential meddlers out of our elections. Maybe then we could think about having a third party.
If the last election proved anything it is that we are not a nation but a collection of cults some of which are very racist. We would now consider local governance as a solution to this most pressing issue. Does anyone believe we would achieve cohesion doing this?
Republicans would love to see a third party. It would ensure a Trump victory. For the rest of us, it would be a disaster!
1
Mr. Brooks, I've been listening to you for years as you try to appear reasonable and humane, but invariably your blind allegiance to the Republican party comes out -- I remember your glee about Sarah Palin's performance at the Republican Convention -- now there was a populist you could support! Now you're pushing for a third party when you are unquestionably smart enough to know that they don't work in our system, and would hand a second victory to Trump. You don't care, because you're all in with what he's doing to the court, his tax cuts for the very rich, and the elevation of white men over everyone else. You just don't like his manners. Tell me: what's so great about Republicans that you'll do anything to shield them?
2
The entire public space is corrupted by marketing. Pimps run the commons. No democracy can exist in the grip of manipulative, mercenary intent. Dialog is co-opted and redirected. Language is skewed (and skewered). The foundation of communication is rotted. No number of political factions will fix that.
1
"A Democrat like Landrieu would occupy all the non-Trump space and make a meaningful third-party run impossible."
There is a huge unacknowledged assumption here, isn't there? How about a third-party candidate who occupies the Trump spaces not defined by spite and ignorance?
So: Brook want to encourage a third party run, but only one that might basically divide the left and open the way for Trump and the GOP.
"A third-party candidate who shifted attention to local people actually getting stuff done might lose, but he or she would begin to define a new and more plausible version of American greatness."
Oh, and by the way, might benefit the side of political spectrum that Brooks has spent his life shilling for. What a coincidence.
3
If The Democrats want to win in 2020 they better not nominate Bernie Sanders , Warren or any of those other democratic senators who are running all over the place while pretending they won’t be running . We need a democrat who is centrist . Enough of those Bernie-like people with their far leftist nonsense.
3
yeah, but in this state, when i think of andrew cuomo the only thing that comes to mind is the posters years ago on the subway..."vote for cuomo, and not the homo". and as for C. Nixon, she is like an upper east side child prodigy who would fit into J.D. Salingers Glass family. I am addicted to imitating Andrew Cuomo. What does his little brother on CNN think about his brothers old school oratory style? C. Nixon knows she can influence stuff even if she loses. Cuomo is loving trump cause trump makes him look good. Bill de Blasio has improved with the help of Marcia Kramer. But, can't he get a sense of humor and say, "marcia, marcia, marcia"..?
“I believe in states’ rights”
”...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
America is reaping what columnists like you, Mr. Brooks, have helped sow...
2
Thanks for the advice, but I’ll pass. Start giving advice to the GOP Collaborators. THEY really need it.
3
Why is your example of a third party candidate a Democrat who would break off from the party, and why no example of a Republican who might do so?
1
Comrade Brooks, if we were a parliamentary type of government,OK. But we are not,and we do not need a second term of Trump,if he is not impeached. You would be better served to "update" the Electoral College. One man ,one vote. Then who is in office has a clearer mandate. Not getting these Republican twits who have to learn as they go or have aberrant beliefs that only come out when they attain office. Name the last time a Democrat won the Presidency & not the popular vote. I can name two Republicans in the last 20 years without looking at the last 240.
2
Mr. Brooks, you read too many books. Get out of the house and spend some time interacting with real people. You might learn something on your own, and not rely on the analysis of other people who read too many books.
I sincerely hope Progressives have learned their lessons about voting for third parties. The only thing we accomplish by doing this is electing Republicans. The last time they voted third party was Ross Perot in 1992. Democrats stupidly did this with Ralph Nader in 2000 and Jill Stein in 2016. Look how that turned out. We need to remain united and turnout in large numbers to get the current regime out of power.
But infrastructure, education, healthcare and climate change are pretty important issues that can't be addressed very well at the local level.
2
It is called subsidiarity. The federal government taking care of things locals cannot,leaving the rest to local control. I am for that,but not for a third party. The Republicans and Democrats have to get their acts together and nominate a leader who understands local concerns; yet is a leader on national and
international and defense issues. So far the 2 parties are totally inadequate.
Environmental laws also require a federal platform.
"Local control" of the environment is a code word for letting corporate oil, gas, mining and development companies come to rural counties, make a slick pitch for jobs, decimate the environment through resource extraction, and leave. The "local" folks are no match for the slick corporate sell. Basically "local control" means the country is chopped up into small bits and we lose our natural birthright as Americans. No thanks.
2
According to Brooks, the members of local civic/gov groups
"may have different racial, class and partisan identities, but they have one shared identity — love of their community. "
This is panglossian in the extreme and makes me wonder if Brooks has participated in local politics. In my experience a vast majority of the players are working hard to hold on to and build their political power, their economic interests, their real estate holdings, .... And, state and local laws and regulations are very stacked in favor of the locally embedded oligarchies. It's a complete mismatch between community interests and the entrenched interests of the local oligarchs.
As but one example, in any community in which a multinational has a large piece of real estate, the corporation's lawyers will easily quash local community-based land-use initiatives if they run counter to the corporations interests. No contest.
Agree that Washing is not working well. But that is primarily because one of the two major parties is beyond repair. Devolving power to the state and local level will not be a win for the common man/woman.
4
A third party is a feasible idea on the congressional level, but not at the presidential. Nevertheless, it would be a great idea, because if 20% of the House could be turned to the center, that block would rule simply because it could turn to either old party on all major bills, and cause a "bipartisan" majority. This way important legislation could be brought to votes and voted up or down, the way a congress should act.
1
With the awesome power now massed in dark money organizations, Citizen United and the federal courts turning radically conservatives.
I believe it is wishful thinking to believe that a third party national leader can wrestle power back for the people.
The above institutions will not give up power without a fight!
We don’t need a third party as much as we need campaign finance reform. Get big, and anonymous, money out of the electoral process and see what happens.
4
Brooks raises two questions: Do we need a third party and what would a third party stand for? Assuming Trump’s ideas and behaviors have captured the Republican Party, the choice may be between moving the Democratic Party in a new direction or creating a third party to facilitate a change in direction. The notion of “constitutional localism” seems too vague and ephemeral to launch a new party or move the Democratic Party.
A focus on work, family, and community may stand a better chance of arousing a significant base. The focus on work would be on meaningful and significant employment and paths to such employment for those whose income rests wholly or primarily on wages and salaries. Wages and salaries have been stagnant while employment is increasingly precarious. A family focus means understanding the worth and benefit of strong families. Community means both geographical and social community, perhaps more accurately phrased as civil society – strong intermediaries between the reality of the “market” and of central government on the one hand and the individual on the other.
We have the imagination and resources if applied correctly to recast our country to strengthen the overlapping practices of work, family, and community and make America a much better place, especially if we develop and practice respect for all persons. However, the market, especially capital investment, and the central government continue to monopolize our attention as if nothing else is significant.
Successful local initiatives involve strong families and religious faith as Tom Friedman has recently reported about.
But progressives have no use for traditional families and religion. Progressives exalt gay marriage, single Moms and banishing religion from every corner of the public square. Strong families and religion are seen as the basis of oppression of women, minorities and every other identity group in this country.
Sorry, progressives, there's no room for you on the localism train.
Brooks writes: "It’s no wonder that so many, especially millennials (the most diverse generation of voters in our history), have become disillusioned with federal action. "
Actually, Mr. Brooks, most of the millennials I've talked to aren't disillusioned with federal action so much a sthey are disillusioned with federal _inaction_.
49
@Mark Kessinger The point is we can't decide what actions to take. We have no national consensus anymore.
"We also need a national leader to tell a different national story. During the 20th century, a superpower story emerged. In that story, the nation moved as one, and a ridiculous amount of attention got focused on the supposed superhero in the White House. A third-party candidate who shifted attention to local people actually getting stuff done might lose, but he or she would begin to define a new and more plausible version of American greatness."
We need good, honest leaders with genuine concern for the well being of the American people. Those are the Barrack Obama's of this world who create such as the ACA.
We need another Barrack Obama. That is the Democrats strong suite: young, smart, charismatic; JFK, Bill Clinton, Barrack Obama.
The DNC needs to bow out and a more representative leadership is needed for the Democratic Party, rather than throwing in another corruptly led party. Democrats need to redefine, as a party working from the grassroots up instead of the other way around, what the mission of the party is. This time they need to do it without leaving behind the concept of democracy. Hiring childish comedians to taunt the legitimately concerned delegates at their own convention is not the way to communicate with the membership.
Third-party candidates generally act as spoilers. Ross Perot drained off enough conservative votes to hand the 1992 election to Bill Clinton. Ralph Nader’s 2000 damn-the-torpedos campaign sucked off enough liberal votes to throw the election to the Supreme Court, which then handed it to Bush. Absent Nader, Gore likely would have won Florida outright.
The most accessible solution is to force the GOP primary elections to be open rather than closed, so that they will quit nominating wingnuts (whether they win or not) for the general election. Pair that with the adoption of the National Popular Vote Act, at least for presidential elections.
The most rigorous solution is to dissolve the current form of federal government and adopt a parliamentary system like almost all the rest of the OECD. This would likely result in more political parties and governing coalitions. The notion of “checks and balances” was a reasonable response 250 years ago when the prevailing form of government was the divine right of kings, but now it is simply a recipe for gridlock and more recently the denial of objective facts.
Of course that reorganization means that partisan gerrymandering would disappear as a consequence of the new system of government. A side benefit would be the abolition of years-long campaigns for president. The obsolete Electoral College, with its emphasis on “battleground” states and its bias towards less-populated states would also disappear.
1
@1954Stratocaster Gore couldn't even win his home state. Can we stop blaming Nader? Get a candidate with a clue.
The Gore-home-state argument is passé. Trump didn’t win his home state either, but he won enough other states to be elected.
1
Without either getting rid of the Electoral College, or Congress passing laws forcing the states to select Electors who vote their conscience regardless of state party victory (don't allow a demagogue or nut job), the creation of a 3rd party will only rob democratic candidates of victory and just isn't viable without state level support. We also need to nationally fix gerrymandering, which is one of the only things keeping state legislatures in the hands of the GOP vampires.
I don't see how you're advocating anything beyond a more Jeffersonian style of federalism as it was originally understood by the framers. The states were thought of as sovereign nations, and were free to organize as they pleased within their borders. The broad oversight and regulatory powers of the federal government only had to become a thing to prevent rogue states from abusing the liberty afforded to them (see the reconstruction amendments and subsequent legislation like the voting rights act). Every time we've pulled back federal control, rogue actors have taken advantage of it to enact their agenda of forcing those around them to conform to their beliefs. Is efficient for the federal government to have so much control in a country of 350 million people? No. Is there a loss of personal liberty incurred as a result of having a central government that may be thousands of miles away? Yes. However, we have to deal with the reality presented to us, and historically, ceding significant control to localities in this country has often been taken as license to abuse the most vulnerable therein.
1
We need to think about why "big government" doesn't to do the jobs we expect of them very well.
Most of it boils down to money: 1) corporate hijacking of elected officials, and 2) the poor salaries paid to elected officials thus not attracting enough of the "best and brightest," choking funding of essentials (who is going to work for free?). And lets not forget --to save money the first to get cut is oversight.
Private business is even worse: essential issues not addressed because there is no profit to be made, reversed priorities to profits rather than protecting citizen's healthcare and the environment, and zero oversight.
Slamming "big government" is like complaining that your housebuilder sucks -- the same builder you restricted to a budget of $100.
1
I think Republicans are already heading in the "third party" direction... there is a de facto third party already, except they call themselves "independents" now. The ranks of "independents" are growing, and that growth is coming from what used to, long, long ago, be called "moderate Republicans", or "Rockefeller Republicans". The old middle-of-the-road fiscal conservatives, the socially-tolerant, responsible modest government crowd. Before Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, GW Bush, and Trump drove the Republican bus first off the right shoulder, then off the road entirely, and now they're heading fast for the cliff... Moderate Republicans have been bailing out of this out-of-control Republican bus for a couple years now. Start your third party, David. Call it the "RINOs". There are plenty already out here.
Environmental protection also requires a strong federal government. The City of Houston, which tends to vote Democratic, has gone to battle with Texas legislators -- and lost -- in its attempts to regulate emissions from refineries and plants just on the other side of our city limits.
1
One thing I wish is that we could go back to the conventions of my youth, when they weren't just weeklong parties to celebrate the nominee. To see multiple candidates and their supporters work the floor to gain support was glorious, and it felt more like democracy in action. It also made the convention coverage worth watching. But I guess that's just baby-boomer nostalgia talking.
1
Centrism is not dead. Believing in the value of moderation and compromise is not based on ethnicity it is based on common sense a trait that is unrelated to ethnicity. Localism works because people see a common need and rise to meet it. What we need is a third party which will leave the extremes at both ends and promote getting things done. The Republicans replaced the Whigs. No reason we can't have a three party system which will evolve into a new two party system.
2
Perhaps this country needs a third, fourth, fifth, nth party. The amount of money influencing both major parties has brought us to this point.
Trump fractured the GOP. The Democrats blinded themselves to Clinton's fundraising forsaking her poor campaigning decisions and obvious warning signs.
Splintering both parties may be the only way back to a sensible middle that can actually govern for the betterment of the people.
There’s no space for a vibrant third party. It really comes down to folks being for Democratic values or Republican lack thereof. What would a third party promote or advocate?? I doubt a party geared at attracting the folks in the “mushy middle” is a winning strategy. They’re so wishy-washy they wouldn’t know who or what their for until after they exit the voting booth - if even then.
1
@David Yeah, see, that's exactly the attitude that won Hillary the election in 2016. Oh wait...
1
Third parties are single-issue groups which fancy that their time has come or spoilers against one of the other candidate or party. Rarely, a fringe party or candidate might be pushed into prominence by a newfound relevance or popularity. Indeed, David Duke or his clone might be the POTUS, in a couple of election cycles --- if the current trends in the two national parties continue.
Bernie Sanders might be one too, but he realizes that patience and conversion of the Democrats and the country is necessary for achieving his goals.
1
We are a long way from producing a viable candidate in a federal multi party context in the US. While the Constitution makes no mention of political parties, the framers clearly anticipated they would arise, based upon their study of other governments, especially Great Britain. But they did not anticipate a two party system. They anticipated that a multitude of candidates would require the Electoral College to force Congress decide the winner. In my opinion, to replace the present pervasive two party system would require a more informed electorate, ranked voting, higher voter turnout and would proceed first locally, then state, finally federally. Thus, it will require a complete departure from the current system. Timing will be everything! The first few candidates who attempt to run as serious third party candidates will act sacrificially with respect to their policy careers.
David, glad you share my opinion of Mitch Landrieu; he's a winner, but can he overcome the establishment Democrats? I recall someone overcoming the Republican establishment in 2016 as he insulted himself into the White House.
Why aren't all of these so-called Moderate Republicans like Flake and Corker running as Independents? They don't seem to believe in anything other than the fact that they have no chance to be elected in today's Republican Primaries. Why is it the Democrats' responsibility to split their party to provide the "moderate" voice that Brooks and the Third Wave types seem to so desperately desire ??
4
The real issue with our democracy as I see it are two fold. The extreme conservatives who seem to think religion should be embedded in our laws and policies and the progressives who want the government to take care of everyone and make life fair. Neither is sustainable, both will destroy our country. Then we have the vision of what each of the parties stand for - Reps are supposed to be about small government and responsible living, but completely ignore that vision as they expand spending and government. And pander to corporate lobbyists. Dems are supposed to be about social networks and quality living through better education and services, but completely ignore that vision and they expand spending on freebies for able bodied workers and an abysmal public education system that takes away teaching from teachers, leaving the poor disenfranchised and incapable of self reliance. Seems that neither party has a solution or sticks to the vision that their party founders believed in. So, yes, give me a third party! One that is moderate, supports social networks for those truly in need for a period of time and one that shrinks the government spending and staffing. Government is inefficient, unregulated corporations are self-serving. Something in the middle, please?
1
It must be humbling to someone like Mr. Brookes to wake up and find your party has left you. Safe in the ever expanding harbour of right wing partisan lies, so many "thinking" conservatives took shelter in this now out-of-control cancer that has swallowed the party whole. No, Mr Brooks, a 3rd party is a fool's errand. It only strengthens the stronger parties by taking opposition votes that could be meaningful and tosses them in to the electoral winds. The responsible thing to do, is to pinch your nose, be an adult and vote for the party that is trying preserve the rule of law and democracy regardless. And the Democrats are that party today. To vote for anyone other than them, is a vote for Trump. Period. So many good people lose sight of this and refuse to support the lesser of two evils because they vote on emotion. I am not one of those. I left the GOP some 16 years ago and never looked back. I came to the realization that trickle down, states rights, opposition to a cleaner environment and the justifications used for war were all lies all in the service of nothing other than greed. I'm under no illusion that the Democrats are a bastion of high ideals, but they are better than the GOP. And that's all that matters for this adult.
2
We wouldn't need a third party if you and the rest of the GOP had long ago acknowledged , called out and held responsible the dangerous forces within the party . For years you, and the others refused to rebuke and disbar the radicals who pushed an anti woman, anti immigrant and racist agenda. The party never challenged or for that matter chastised those that propagated the libel that President Obama was not born in this country or that he was a muslim. IN fact, those lies and the spreading of them resulted in the nomination and election of Donald Trump. NO such thing as " centrists " in today's' GOP where Donald Trump reigns supreme and Representative Steve King has a home and carriers the parties support .
2
Mr. Brooks, with all due respect, the first order of business for the health of our nation is to stamp out Trump and Trumpism. The best and the quickest way to accomplish that is to support Democrats even if you don't agree with some of their policy positions. Once Trump is banished to Mar a Lago, we can start improving on our far from perfect two party system. But, first things first.
3
If my recollection of what is contained in the history books is correct, The founders had concerns that we were going to get somewhere near where we are now and contemplated outlawing political parties all together. It might not be a bad idea to at least go through the exercise of seeing what that would look like if we could clean up campaign financing at the same time. If nothing else it would take the party fig leaf away from candidates and office holders so they would lose the excuse of having to adhere to a party line when they take stands that are contrary to the public good.
This idea of localism sounds great on paper and in fact can do certain things well, but the idea that is superior to the state government or the federal government on a wide range of things fails muster. The problem with localism is it is local, and their narrow tunnel vision hurts when instead of being about us, it becomes about we. These governing councils make decisions based on their local need, and with things like let's say parks and roads and maybe even developing a town center, can work great. But for example, look at schools, school localism has led to the mess we have, where some rich school districts are spending moon landing size budgets for their kids while other districts are starved for resources; many of the anti government places, that would welcome 'localism', have some of the most dismal schools in the country (just take a look at the deep south or Texas, and compare them to the northeast, even with all our ills). If localism is so good, where are the schools so lousy?
Another poster hit the nail on the head, this is another retake on the articles of confederation, which didn't work, in a large part because of selfishness. The continental army was in desperate shape because the states and local government refused to support them with tax revenue, and they went without shoes, clothing and food because of it. You think if a disaster happens the good folks in Alabama would send money to help with a hurricane in Florida? Localism too often is selfishness.
When people look back at the historical period in which America was suffering under the very first American president beholden to a hostile foreign power, they'll see many articles discussing this unprecedented historical moment, and the impact it will have on our nation for years to come. And then they'll see a long series of inconsequential columns by David Brooks addressing minor, theoretical, tangential issues, trying to avoid the times in which he lives and which he helped create.
There are the bad guys, but more important are the enablers, who allow the bad guys to continue doing bad even after it's obvious what their intentions are.
2
Exactly, thank you.
People like Brooks have no shame and apparently don't realize that the readers of the Times have much longer memories than the average Trump voter.
The problem with the two party system is not that they oppose and cancel each other, the problem is that they are structurally designed to create a "national leadership" that needs to go further and further to their fringes to differentiate themselves. The current congress is a perfect example. Much of the GOP's "policies" would be anathema to a "Republican" just a few years ago. It's going to be the same when the Democrats take over.
National politicians are interchangeable. They argue one side or the other, NOT because they believe their policies are better for the people but because they oppose whatever the other side wants to do. That's no way to run a country.
No way. Lots of people fell for Nader, and we got Bush.
Lots of people fell for Bernie, and we got Trump.
The Republicans will hold their noses and vote for the Devil himself (as just witnessed in the last election) rather than lose power. Democrats are all over the place, trying to play nice, sure of our convictions, and look what happened. Disaster.
No way in hell I'll vote for anybody but a Democrat. The decent Republicans have been winnowed out or are too terrified to do a darn thing (which takes them out of the "decent" pool).
Stand up, Democrats and democratically minded voters, and VOTE. Vote like there's no tomorrow.There might not be unless we unite.
7
@sarasotaliz Unite by blaming 13 million people who voted for Bernie in the primary? That's exactly what's happening now. The DNC is spending money to defeat Democrats. Yes, we need a third party because the Democrats are worthless. They think that all they need is a new pithy catchphrase and they'll be swept into power. They don't feel the need to address what's going on in the country and the world.
This is a solution in search of a problem. For all of American history we have had strong local government, for better or worse. A stronger central government is what we need to coordinate far reaching economic goals, redistribute wealth, and promote justice.
2
What is the key difference between the conservatives and the liberals?
In the word “president”.
The former claimed that Obama Barrack wasn’t a real American.
The latter claimed that Donald Trump wasn’t a real American president...
What do they have in common?
Willful ignorance of reality...
The issue of health care alone is reason enough that I will not vote Democrat anytime soon (or Republican). We rewarded Democrats in 2006 and 2008 with the largest majorities in a generation. The result? They botched their campaign for health care, buckled easily and Democrats ended up passing the Republican Health Care plan, the Heritage Foundation Plan; i.e. expanded vouchers/subsidies for the purchase of private for profit health insurance. I.e. The Government funneling taxpayer money to for profit insurers, with no conditions to get a handle on costs.
Aside from that, Democrats didn't make any moves on negotiating drug prices nor importing prescription drugs, and they still barely mention this.
In other words, last time we put Democrats in power, they decided to double down on the bloated, wasteful, inefficient and expensive insurance system we had all along, and put taxpayers on the hook to funnel money almost unconditionally to big insurers and pharma.
Now look at where we're at in 2018. Health insurance premiums alone for a family of four are skyrocketing to $25,000 per $30,000 per year, nearly HALF of the median income in this country (an effective tax rate of 50%), and that's premiums alone excluding out of pocket costs.
Sorry. Your party continues to insist on GOP voucherization, not a public option nor universal, and I also expect Democrats will voucherize medicare (they already partly have with Medicare advantage) and ruin that as well.
1
@Joe Arena
Blaming Democrats for failing to pass a more progressive healthcare bill by not voting for them is the kind of logic that gave us President Trump.
3
@DebbieR I blame Democrats for not only failing to pass a progressive health care bill, but for deliberately passing a Republican health care bill. Why would I vote Democrat when I'll simply continue to get Republican policy? What difference does it make?
@Joe Arena it makes a great deal of difference to women, immigrants, and people of color and to the courts, for a generation, and to the environment who you vote for. The parties are miles and miles apart on those issues. I'm sure you know that. I often felt that Obama was pitching to the middle more than I wanted, but I now think he pushed for as much as he could get-- remember the Republicans stated their goal was for him to fail. The country is moving left on healthcare, but without a Democratic Congress or executive and with the courts packed with Trump appointees, it will be heavy lifting. Please don't sit this one out.
Millennials may have become disillusioned with federal action, but they still desire action on issues that only the federal government can provide.
Millennials want affordable health care. A patch work of state run health care is inimical to lowering the cost.
Another highly coveted issue more important in terms of generations is climate change. Millennials are smart enough to know that we cannot have distinct laws for environmental protection in Alabama and California.
Constitutional localism cannot regulate a myriad of other things, like trading in derivatives which caused the 2008 financial crisis.
And lots of local leaders would be refractory about things like minimum wages and abortion rights. Localism sounds like a recipe to break up the Union, or a Brexit for Idaho.
To get through this ordeal of change that is deindustrialization, and to move on to a society with a different means of production, we absolutely need a federal cadre of really smart, really wise people.
And that coterie will not be found pandering in red states to Ma and Pa Kettle who only see short-term and according to an ascientific good book.
3
Interesting idea by Brooks. Questions remain, like how does the role of Federal Government in immigration, environment, foreign affairs, civil rights, and indeed the Constitution itself, change to accommodate this "localism"? Before committing to this path some serious thought ought to be given to specific strategy, realistic goals and objectives, and unintended consequences. Even then, there is no chance that this idea could be functional by 2020
Alfred E. Newman for president in 2020. He sort of reminds one of G.B. II somehow. But A.E.N. is smarter and more intellectual.
Of course he wants a third party. Voters are now going to avoid the GOP like the plague. He wants to split the progressive vote just like Stein voters did in MI, WI, and PA, so that GOP can eke out a win.
I can’t believe he thinks this will fool anybody. He's stuck, since he obviously can’t advocate voting Democratic, and he doesn't want to support an imbecilic loser like The Man Who Lost The Popular Vote, either.
How come none of these frustrated Republicans don't just bite the bullet and advocate getting rid of Trump?
4
David Brooks always seems to represent the very worst in all of us. An active third party would split the vote and would put Trump back in the White House. I have a question for Mr. Brooks: Are you mad, cruel or just corrupt?
8
Are you trying to make sure Trump gets re-elected? Jill Stein gave Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvannia to Trump in 2016. I thought you were smarter than that!
3
No she didn’t. Vladimir Putin did.
The NY Times op ed page has long time GOP conservatives, now supposedly appalled at what their years of excuse making has enabled in Trump/GOP.
But the Times liberals stay carefully within certain limits, lest they appear too liberal---as defined by GOP/Fox News---and thus lose prestige and influence with the powers that be.
True liberalism has been non prestigious in our power and money -based politics. Is that starting to change?
Can the NY Times give us a few columnists with the full range of views we need in a democracy?
Easy to be anti Trump. But not to stick their neck out to criticizen centrist Dems who offer luke warm solutions to America's drastic problems.
1
I've always been imbued with the idea of wanting my vote to count. The corollary would be a vote for a third party candidate would not count. This principle was strongly tested in 2016!!!! I would have liked to vote for Bernie. But that would have meant throwing my vote away. I have never felt less like I had a choice for an election. Either HRC or an idiot. Holding my nose and voting doesn't begin to describe my distaste. I agree also with the idea that third party candidates steal votes from the leading candidate. Where do we go from here?
1
David, don't you realize that you just described Donald Trump?
We already have a third party, run buy a vulgarian with a penchant for paying off hookers while cheating on his third wife. He did a lot of the things Brooks is advocating here.
There's even a 4th party, or non-party, made up of independents who don't want someone to tell them how to vote, who prefer to judge candidates by their character and not their political debts.
The R's and the D's have merged into the corporatist party where money rules and getting re-elected is the only thing.
Either way, we have taxation without representation, something that we shook off once before. This time we will do it at the voting booth.
4
It’s always preferable to be straightforward but in this instance perhaps it’s not the best kind of communication. So yes, let’s devolve power downward. Maybe then we can stop the Republican Party from cutting Social Security, cutting Medicare, cutting Medicaid, raising taxes on everybody but rich people, encouraging Nazis, destroying the environment, gleefully taking away Americans’ civil liberties, taking away women’s control of their bodies, and encouraging Putin to fix our elections so he can place his asset in the White House. Wait, maybe devolving power downward won’t help. But maybe voting Republicans out of power, and hobbling their ambitions to turn the United States into a one-party fascist managed democracy, would be better. Of course that would need to mean that all the power evolved downward would want to fix hacked voting machines, which at the moment the power at the top will block at every opportunity, as they have for the past five decades. Hmm.... Maybe the answer is power at the top held by those who actually care about the health and welfare of the American people. Wouldn’t that be an interesting change? You know, this power downward idea looks pretty reactionary when you get close to it.
2
Kind of like white citizens council of the 1950s??? There is a reason the feds became a greater force in local affairs. The EPA is another example. Locals can be ignorant and self serving, protecting their power and privilege.
1
Brooks, GOP operative, politicians and your puppet master plutocrats created your voters, so they can continue to rape and pillage the nation. Your GOP cabal created fake outrage against the country’s common good, with Orwellian words like socialism or liberalism as a metaphor for social dictatorships in the Eastern Europe and Asia. Your fake outrage against liberalism conned them into voting for trickledown economics, empire building and unchecked military spending, etc., basically against their own economic interests.
Your deplorable voter realized that your militaristic plutocracy made them poorer while your GOP puppet masters got richer so they doubled down on their idiocy and won you the Whitehouse with a fraudulent buffoonish plutocrat who speaks like them. It appears that his criminal buffoonery is causing outrage among the majority of our population while causing a civil war within your own GOP.
In 2018, hopefully the political backlash will incite, the young, women, people of color and citizens who finally see your political con job and will move a reluctant America far more progressive than it would have been under normal circumstances. After Trump, America will belong to those who will move us towards other first world, progressive and successful countries in Europe and Asia. The country will be more like California than Texas. Statistics show that people who live in thriving social democracies are far more happy and content than our plutocracy.
1
Mr. Brooks - why don't you run for President?
2
I'm in.
This country needs a leader! A man or woman with the grace of Obama; the humility of Ford; the common sense of Feinstein; the ability to know and work with world leaders such as Bush 41 and Albright; the ability to empathize like Bill Clinton; a sense of fairness (Robert Kennedy, LBJ, Earl Warren, RBG) I could go on. We don't need the likes of Ted Cruz et al. Or anyone who refuses to appreciate the vulgarity that is Donald Trump. I am afraid for this County. Just turn on FOX today and watch the ignorant flock to the Elmer Gantry of politics. Disgusting.
3
David, I know you're in a quandary. You can't stand what the Republicans have become, and you can't bear to become a Democrat. But I'm afraid you're just going to have to face it. If you want Trump out, voting Democrat - and TELLING PEOPLE YOU'RE DOING IT - is the only way to go. Talk of a third party is a hopeless avoidance maneuver. Go on, you can do it!
3
We don’t need third party if Democrats would get 60-62 senators and 250 representatives in the House. That would be enough of the mandate to make major changes in campaign financing laws, restoring fairness doctrine, setting party-independent districting commissions and reforming lobbying laws.
Those changes alone would make at least 150 seats in the House competitive and restore sane public representation in Congress.
1
3rd parties are always bad in American politics. Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, the man who's last name was Johnson and donald trump have proven this without a doubt. If you want to the President of the USA you'd better go through the primary process. It doesn't matter if you're a Republican or a Democrat. You need to get up on that debate stage. A team that plays no regular season games will never win the World Series. The reason why MLB doesn't let them participate in the World Series is that the they would only disrupt the games if they were allowed on the field. trump did it the right way. He played in the arena. Brooks knows this of course but writes the column anyway because he became acquainted with a guy who wants to promote a book about some obscure silliness. Brooks should get on a bus to some unknown destination and leave his phone in his NY Times office. This article has nothing to do with anything going on in America. trump became president by running as an independent in the Republican primaries. That's how it's done. Johnson, Jill Stein, Nader, etc. didn't play and they lost. That's basic math.
"National politics needs a leader devoted to redistributing power downward."
Oh, you mean a Democrat, David? Much more likely from a Dem than a Rep.
YOUR party, by the way, gave us Trump, who is merely the logical outcome of the GOP sermons of fear and hate preached over the last 35 years, starting with Lee Atwater under Saint Reagan. At least Atwater, on his deathbed, repented his sins.
3
Why is a 3rd party necessary? Democrats are the big tent party. We made a big mistake last time with Hillary as candidate, and the country is paying the price. We have conservative Democrats and leftward leaning Democrats because we celebrate difference. The Republicans have unfortunately cast their lot with Trump, who might be in league with Satan. but it is only a temporary blip. They will soon be back to the party of no, as soon as Democrats win the levers of government.
2
America doesn't really need a third party.
It needs media it can trust.
Fox News and the NY Times represent two alternative visions of America. We expect some fake news from Fox. But the NY Times has gradually veered away from presenting the news, and presents predominantly editorial commentary on its front page.
Some of the articles presented are offensive, albeit not to the liberal elite. Many of the articles present stereotypes of conservatives. Yes, you can select inflammatory statements and demolish them.
But there is a more rational position held be many conservatives.
The country has grown by 86 million people since 1986, when the last Immigration Reform Bill was passed.
In suburbs of LA you can see the results. Roads that used to be adequate are now in periodic traffic jams. Long lines in stores. Condos sprouting like mushrooms replacing single family homes. Lack of water. Is it just a drought or too many people crowding into the desert?
Liberals claim that conservatives do not believe in global warming.
But global warming is caused by population growth and many conservatives want to stop illegal immigration precisely because the US is running up to limits of growth.
These limits have been known at least since 1972 when the first edition of the book Limits to Growth appeared.
China took population growth to heart and instituted a one-child policy.
The US now needs a one-child policy AND a complete stop to illegal immigration.
And chop the military budget in half, at the least!
2
This is the proposal of a crank. It is an evasion of the substantive source of our political malaise in four decades of growing inequality. It is the typical solution of every rich guy who confuses their own good luck with evidence of their must-share genius in all things. We have to talk about it because rich guys control most of the big megaphones in this society. Bloomberg makes us talk about whether he should be president. Gates squanders billions on gimmicky education reforms that most experienced teachers knew wouldn’t work. Musk makes us talk about going to Mars. Lord Brooks is not in the same tier as those guys, but he is plenty rich and has the Times as his soapbox.
All of this hugely distorts our national political discourse a hundred times more than all the troll farms in Russia. These sel-important gasbags need to be stripped of the weapon that enables them to national issues into their personal hobbies. I speak, of course, of their money.
At the height of the Eisenhower administration the marginal tax rate on the super-rich was 90%. There were too many loopholes, but we should be talking seriously about a return to such a progressive tax regime, if only to muffle the din coming from the collective pieholes of the super-rich enough to hear ourselves think again.
1
Mitch Landrieu would be an EXCELLENT choice for presidential candidate!
Brooks and the so-called "decent Republicans" lost all credibility in 2016 by not breaking away from Trump and the tea party nuts to form a third party. Until Brooks admits this, I am not really interested in his analyses.
1
The problem rests in thbe inherent nature of "first past the post voting systems" (which is what the U.S. uses). The mathematical operation of such systems will always devolve into two predominant parties. For an excellent explnation of why this is so, see https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo .
A third party might be viable in a parliamentary system because you can form coalitions to run the government, but it cannot work in a presidential system. A far better solution is a single open primary where all the candidates run against each other with the top two facing of in the fall. The failure of the two party primary systems should be obvious as it selects for fringe candidates and essentially chooses the winner in gerrymandered districts. The result disenfranchises voters in the middle even though they make up the bulk of the electorate and leads to a Congress and Senate that cannot compromise for the good of the country.
1
Third Party candidates in the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2016 did harm to the Democrat candidates and resulted in the election of the two worst presidents in our history — Bush and Trump.
My view is a vote for a third party candidate as president is a wasted vote. Do us all a favor and stay home on Presidential Election Day if you’re going to vote third party!!!
"As Mike Hais, Doug Ross and Morley Winograd argue in their book, “Healing American Democracy,” the current Washington-centric power structure emerged during the New Deal. In those days and for decades after, the country was pretty homogeneous, trust in big institutions was high and the federal government worked more effectively than state and local governments to build a safety net and break up local economic oligarchies."
Once Republicans drank the Kool Aid in 1980 with Ronny proclaiming "government is the problem" the country went down hill. Trump and the Russpublicans are the by-products.
2
She won the election he won the Electoral College. Fix that first and foremost.
4
@Suzy Sandor Hillary will never be President. She is a centrist Democrat in a party that has moved further left since the election.
Brooks keeps dropping hints he is a closet socialist.
He brings up two issues: third parties and localism.
3rd party discussions suffocate within the vacuum of the two-party system, a closed system which abhors competition. Parties are identity groups where loyalty matters more than policy. Discussions about parties are tribal. Both parties are tied to corporate wealth. So no matter which party is in power, real control remains in the hands of corporations.
A one-size-fits-all two-party system is a recipe for disaster in a diverse country. There are at least 4 political positions in the US: progressives, centrist Democrats, center-right Republicans, and far right libertarians/evangelicals. How can these 4 distinct positions fit under just 2 tents? They can’t without suppressing the voices of many. Bottom line: as long as our system is shackled by the tyranny of the two-party system – NOTHING will change.
Brooks’ 2nd point is “constitutional localism.” To Brooks it looks conservative i.e. individuals determining their own fates. But it is really “neighborhood socialism.” And “radical decentralization of other powers” is a challenge – how is localism coordinated on a national level without becoming an ineffectual patchwork? How is it funded?
And how far is Brooks willing to go with localism? Would he extend it to education? To healthcare? Would he be willing to have local communities oversee and control local corporations and business? Sounds like socialism.
1
Just another Republican ploy to dilute the number of people voting Democrat. Don't listen to him.
4
Implicitly in Brooks argument is a point we Democrats need to understand and act on; Today's US does not have a large enough single constituency with the same "progressive" ideas to match the Trump base. Democrats can get the support of Liberals on social issues, minorities on racism and immigration, the educated on fact vs fiction and ignorant Vs informed, environmentalists on climate change etc but there is no "coalescing" theme that will get them out to vote OTHER than Trump. So just as HRC was a (negative) coalescing factor for so many Americans in 2016, antipathy to Trump is the most effective rallying cry in 2018 and beyond. Having said that, Trump won because of his "personality" AND the resonating issues he raised. Similarly, Democrats need to be against Trump AND identify one or two issues which resonate with ENOUGH Americans. Critically, they are not the winning issues of yesteryear, nor the "free everything" message emanating from the Party's Left flank. Healthcare may be one but there too, the issues cannot be access (ACA) and nasty Pharma alone but must address the incentives in the system and that hitherto unAmerican perspective, the common good.Redistributing power away from Washington should be particularly resonant when issues such as education and healthcare are on the table with a "community" perspective.
I'd *welcome* another Ross Perot centrist party that would curry the centrist voters and completely destroy any Republican chance of winning an election ever again.
The "Reform" party of the 1990s demonstrated the true nature of the Republican party and the true hard shift to the left that the Democratic party wants to and SHOULD be taking.
The two party system in its current incarnation only serves to shift the nation to the right. The centrists vote republican because they fear the true nature of the liberal base of the Democratic party. The Democrats shift to the right for these voters, but fail to sincerely convince them because the ideology is simply incompatible.
A centrist party would peal all those center-right voters off the Republican party who aren't racist, religious, and so on ... they are basically single-issue voters ... Rockefeller Republicans who vote *purely* based on their misguided economic beliefs.
Hopefully one day those voters will come to realize that their economic ideology is flawed. Their fear of "socialism" has completely blinded them to the success it has brought to the strongest nations in Europe. The healthiest society makes the wealthiest society and until we mend our education, medicine, and ghettos we will be forever sliding towards the bottom.
We need to build the meritocracy we promised ourselves.
We should be leading the world in education, medicine, etc ... instead we're desperately clinging onto our grandparents' wealth.
2
@Noah Howerton Interesting. One could say that’s exactly what Sweden does. Much of Sweden’s wealth was built up at a time when the nation was radically free market. Socialism almost broke the country by the early 90s and now they have been able to maintain by shifting back to policies that are more free market and by balancing their budget and constantly examining government spending for waste. Sweden often ranks higher than the IS in economic freedom. It is not the anti-capitalist society that some Americans pretend it to be.
What we need is to fix what we have, not run off and start another party, or charter schools, or other problem avoiding fake fixes. We also need to shut down the liars so that we have shared information. The press needs to step up and state what we know to be true and what we know to be false without equivocation.
3
The initiative you’ve described would inevitably worsen Democrats’ chances.
1
To any Long Islander, this essay is laughable. Local government being more trustworthy? LOL. Just open Newsday, any day, to see which Town, County, or State official is being indicted lately. Our local governments have long been the seat of nepotism, corruption, and incompetence that make even the worst Federal departments look good. More faith in local government? You've gotta be kidding.
1
More than the economy or left or center, we need the focus of the 2020 campaign to be “Trump or Truth.” The choice is that stark.
3
Even the most cursory retrospective of third party presidential candidates illustrates the futility of this path. There is Lincoln, whose party has been coopted by rich white men, unless that's an inevitable outcome of it's creation by rich white men. Even T. Roosevelt, as populist as they get could only split the Republican vote ensuring Wilsons victory. Our existing political system herds all candidates into one of two parties or absent that, failure. A review of the recent past indicates the Electoral College has caused enormous turmoil and continued control by the white male minority -- we need an immediate constitutional appendectomy to prevent destruction due to spreading inflammation. As other more eloquent writers have proposed, we are in need of a full reconstitution.
1
@Mark All you need is 2/3s of state legislatures to call a constitutional convention.
Local governments ARE the problem in Kentucky. Kentucky devolved into 120 counties by the early 1900s, mainly due to political bickering. 1 in 6 counties in Kentucky do not have at least 10,000 people. 120 courthouses, 120 sets of judges, lawyers, elections boards, etc. etc. Poor public servants like the homophobic county clerk in Rowan County, Kim Davis, are all over the state. As a Kentucky journalist said in the late 1800s, Kentucky does not have the "intellectual talent" to run so many counties. It still doesn't and I imagine many other states are in the same position.
3
Yes, in the generality, but NOT in the specifics. A third party yes, but not one that distributes Federal power to states or lower government entities at the expense of the former and of voting individual citizens. Instead, LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM.
This would recognize that, as power will not permit a vacuum, our world of large international corporations and other ORGANIZATIONS (i.e. money) have/has come to dominate our government and our democracy, at the expense of voting INDIVIDUALS. Thus only a large central, i.e. Federal, government can and must control power, in order to prevent the chaos of competing small government entities, corporations and other organizations, while preserving citizen-power, and our democracy.
We need a party that will advocate less regulation and taxation of INDIVIDUALS, and more of both for ORGANIZATIONS, scaled, of course, by size and wealth; thus containing and limiting the domination of the voting public by large organizations and their money.
LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM - Harness the Power, Empower the People!
1
I'm agnostic on a third party,, but I think that Brooks misses the key form in which power needs to be devolved. The fundamental source of our political instability is economic inequality. Economic power is political power. We need to realize that all tax changes are redistributions not only of incomes and wealth abut of political power. Ever since the 1960s tax policies have been shifting power from the 90% to the 10%, and above all to the 0.10%. A party--any party-- with a clearly thought out proposal for meaningful economic redistribution would also devolve power from the wealthy and powerful minority to the disempowered majority.
3
Agree that the country is immobilized by partisanship but don't agree that it is immobilized by debt -- see Reagan, Bush, Bush and now Trump. Partisanship IS aggravated by low levels of trust in the federal government institutions but Localism may not be the answer. North Carolina, Kansas, Wisconsin and other state legislatures have effectively neutered Localism by restricting actions by municipalities regardless of local wants and needs. Under the current federal system there is only a remote chance of change in my lifetime -- a third party my be one of the few viable options.
1
"Local improvement can go only so far when national politics is a meat grinder. The good news is the solutions to our civic problems already exist; it’s just that ... these stories are lonely and disconnected. We just need to take these civic programs and this governing philosophy and nationalize them. We need to transform these local stories into a coherent national story..."
That's David Brooks in May.
I agree that reforming America has to start bottom-up. I agree that people need to engage within their local communities to change the way we do politics. I agree that if any movement promises to restore the American Dream, it has to be grassroots; more personal, more relational. I do NOT agree that we just give up on the federal government. I do NOT agree that we just let Washington D.C. descend into dysfunction. And I definitely do NOT agree that the only purpose of the federal government is to protect civil rights.
It was only two months ago that Mr. Brooks said we need energetic government that leads public infrastructure, education, and character-building projects.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting this column. I hope that's the case. Because it would be really sad to see an admirable centre-right conservative support the rebirth of city-states at the expense of the American project. The United States has brought in so many different people not by standing for decentralization, but by adhering to a collective, cohesive national story.
3
The best situation would be to have four parties (left, right, center left, center right). A system closer to a parliamentary one that allows coalitions to be formed , and gives more of a voice to the center.
2
Devolving power to more local institutions and individuals doesn't seem to be the answer. Local institutions tend to be dominated by local elites, and federal power, responsibly and justly exercised, is a necessary counterbalance. See, for example, civil rights legislation, workplace safety rules, pollution regulations, etc.; in other words, all the policies currently being undercut by the conservative program.
3
You fail to note that Bernie Sanders is still getting 63% favorability ratings (while Hillary is at 36% and Trump at 43%). He would have won easily over Trump.
How about Sanders as a third party candidate? Local issues are often really national issues.
2
Is Mr. Brooks is campaigning for a national leader to be the champion of localism? Doesn't that make localism national and not local? What if a locality prefers leaving the power balance where it is? Who exactly would decide when localism becomes inefficient and even dangerous and insane? Suppose one community decides that the half of a bridge in its jurisdiction should be repaired and the community next door, which owns the other half of the bridge, decides not to spend the money, nor to allow the other community to encroach upon its jurisdiction? If states and communities could be trusted to solve problems like crumbling infrastructure on their own without the feds forcing them to, Washington would never have expanded its reach as it has. If Oklahoma could be counted on to voluntarily institute the same laws concerning auto emissions as California has, protecting the health of people in every state instead of the wealth of the people in one, we indeed wouldn't need federal oversight. Local experimentation within the parameters of federal laws and regulations? Sure. Revisit the regulations to determine if they still lead to the desired goals? Sure. Trust local control of most everything? Sure...when all Americans agree to work for the best air quality, the best housing, the best education, the best health care, the safest infrastructure for all the people, not just themselves. When GHW Bush's failed "thousand points of light" become 320 million points of light and succeed.
2
Actually, state and local governments have huge debt problems and the federal government does not.
1
Localism is all well and good, but when you have a president and majority party that is hostile to its own citizenry, there is only so much local leaders can do. Also, the power of deficit spending supported by reserve banking cannot be matched. So sad that our country has been taken hostage by austerity and deficit and debt hysteria due to people like you, Mr. Brooks.
3
Here, 3rd parties are destructive. Under parliamentary systems in other democracies, they have multi parties and each stands for something clear to the public. They’re labeled conservative or labor or green, etc.
When the public votes for one of these parties they know better what they’re getting. And voters can express their true preferences in the 1st voting round, then pick from the top 2 winners in the 2nd round. Then they can form coalitions if any party gets a certain amount of votes.
Here, we must pick from the candidates offered us, approved by the top corporate donors. Politicians outside of their limits don't get financing. Thus affordable health care for all has been outside of mainstream politics, and we lag the modern world.
Our 2 parties include various factions, and we don't really know which policies will be dominant.
With more public financing and limits on private donations as is done abroad, the voice of the majority might influence lawmaking, instead of being ignored. And our politics might become more realistic, instead of being a Reality TV show.
5
The problem may be more particular and in front of our faces: the "state" and "county" make little sense as political units, not the party. The party has been divided along impractical units of states, which may be less the most pragmatic lines of division that they once were in our current economy. While super-regions (or mega-regions) and splintered states are not the viable answer to return the nation to a meaningful sense of local participation, perhaps the integrity and semantic unit of the state demands rethinking.
NOW the country is diverse. Hey...it was diverse back then, too. Wonder why you didn’t notice that?
2
The old third-party fantasy endures, particularly among people who think that electing the right President will be enough to move the whole system in good directions.
True, we're seeing plenty of evidence that the WRONG person does huge damage. But positive change would require a strong working consensus as to what changes are needed. Then, a President would need Congressional backing; what most third-party arguments omit is how that President could win over legislators, *both* of whose parties had been beaten by the new Chief Exec., and all of whom would still be beholden to interest groups and contributors who put them into office.
Then we'd need party organizations at the state, county, and local levels; a change from the electoral college and first-past-the-post election of House members (formats that do much to lock two-party politics in place); redistricting creating competitive congressional districts; rewritten political finance laws, many of which work to the detriment of new and third parties; realigned interests and elite networks in local communities; etc...
(All of the above are also reasons why Obama, whom I admire, could not meet the inflated expectations that greeted his election.)
Finally, before a third party became competitive we would see elections in which it is routed or, worse, draws off enough votes to elect a disastrous candidate (looking right at you, Mr Nader...).
Pick a major party, get active at the grassroots, change it for the better...
4
I WANT TO BE A REPUBLICAN
Growing up in the 60's, the people I respected were WWII/Great-Recession Vets/Survivors and were all Republicans (responsibility to self, family, and country). My first chance to vote in 1976 I voted for Ford. In 1980 I was a Bush supporter and believed his characterization of 'Voodoo Economics' (he's lived to see it become true!). The 'Rising Tide' didn't raise all ships, but greatly benefited those at the top while setting the country on a road to bankruptcy. His son and now Trump have expanded on that policy sending us deeper into debt (did I see Trump wants another tax cut!).
The current slate of Democrats like Warren (my Senator!) not only scare me with great spending schemes, but if nominated in 2020 will almost guarantee another term for Trump! The Democrats are not my first choice but a less destructive alternative.
We need a resurrected, economically responsible (not afraid to raise taxes, e.g. Bush Sr.), socially ambivalent (e.g. our Gov. Baker), middle of the road Republican Party to restore the country.
2
We have had many moderate candidates with practical policies to address modern problems and resolve the issues through compromise and cooperation with the other party.
I'm sure we have.
1
What good does it do to have a third party candidate? Even if that person manages to get the most votes, it will not be a majority of votes. And then that person, who has no broad mandate from the electorate, would be up against a congress consisting of members of the other two parties. That isn’t going to work.
We already have two third parties.
The first is Trumpism, which eschews the central value of Republicans, fiscal responsibility. This along with eschewing the formal civility that had evolved in political life, are down the drain.
Democrats have become the party of minorities, immigrants, both documented and not, along with racial and religious groups. Of course HRC attempted to capture the women's vote, but failed, as the baggage of her husband was too great a burden.
Now, in reaction to the extremes of the Trump-Republican party, Democrats, in a blink of the eye, are splitting off the Sander's-Socialist wing. This will have the same attraction to those Trumpists who ignore the limits of our political-economic system, but devoid of a charismatic leader who could mesmerize enough followers to win power.
What is needed is someone like Mike Bloomberg, who, unlike Trumps broken promises, will actually spend his own billions of dollars to run a campaign that could actually take on special interests. He may not have the flash, but he is a successful business man who had been a Republican, and also a Democrat.
The first step is to realize that our current two party system no longer has the essential cohesion for viability, especially Democrats- if they split.
Trump-Republicanism requires the singular star performer, as no one else has the chutzpah to pull off what he does with such ease that it seems almost routine.
We need politicians who represent us rather than giving the economic elites tax breaks at our expense. We need a party that speaks for us rather than one that is indebted to the ultra rich. Most of the ultra rich, individuals, families, and corporations, do not need tax breaks.
It's time that our tax dollars were spent on us, on improving the country's infrastructure, and on a government that functions rather than the joke we have right now. We have two parties for our choices. One of them is in the process of destroying America. The other one is not organized enough to stand up and say, with a great deal of force, what is being done to America without our consent or knowledge.
We are the governed. We need to vote and we need to consider who and what we're voting for. If we don't we may get what we aren't asking for: a dictatorship or an incompetent president.
@hen3ry: WE need to be adults, do our own research, pick our own candidates, & stay away from parties controlled by the rich (as both are now). A third will not help, will just be another bunch of rich fools. Either we are Americans will to stand on our own, which is truly frowned on now, look at the large number of Independents, many who are veterans, who crawled to trump & are now being flogged to death with the dismantalling of the VA (may not need it now, will later). And in MA we are no longer Independents, but, unenrolled, because a few organized into a party called ‘The United Independents’. Ridiculous name as take 100 true Independents & you get 200 sets of values & ideas.
1
The same people who rush to point out how well things work in Europe bash the idea of a real alternative to our political duopoly.
Not that it's ever going to happen here. The 2 ruling parties write the rules and sign the checks. The very educated and forward-thinking people who should welcome a rational change to our political system are stuck in an us-vs-them mindset acting like they never left high school.
We don't need additional political parties; citizens need to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons is most reasonable to enact while agreeing to the social contract. We need candidates that are financially self sustained, have integrity and practice servant leadership in order to promote America's financial sustainability thru self reliance. The servant-leader is servant first... It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions. The servant first leader must be driven to continually promote economic growth. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. We have to understand how we got here in order to lead. Finally, leaders must have no expectations of gratitude from citizens, have an elementary understanding of how Americans have gotten this far; through books they've read. Instead of reading "The Art Of The Deal", read "Democracy In America" by Tocqueville. This applies to Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and all future American political parties.
1
David Brooks makes a very valid argument, one that could have been made as much as 20 years ago when Bill Clinton embraced NAFTA, an idea that up until then had been a strictly Republican one. Even in 2008, Barack Obama ran on a platform of "hope and change", and was supported by many voters in no small part due to his candidacy representing a young, tech-savvy, worldly and comparatively pacifist challenge to the established DNC chain of succession.
One major problem with having a third party candidate though, is that if that candidate wins, he or she then needs to find like-minded persons to appoint to cabinet positions and to represent the country in matters of diplomacy.
Even Trump, who ran as a Republican but with a platform of positions that overlapped with Bernie Sanders' (and Franklin Roosevelt's), struggled to find experienced people who were in favor of his preferred combination of tariffs and other forms of economic protectionism, corporate tax cuts, and reduced low skilled immigration.
@ Middleman MD. What did I miss? I must’ve been sleeping. What positions held by Trump bear any resemblance to positions held by Franklin Roosevelt? Do you mean that Social Security thing? (Which Trump wants to cut.) That National Labor Relations Board thing maybe? (Which Trump wants to further neuter.) Or maybe you mean something like FDR’s executive order forbidding racial discrimination in employment. (Which wouldn’t work for Trump since he thinks other races are inferior.) Putting Trump and FDR in the same breath is not only insulting to Roosevelt, it’s insulting to the rest of us.
@ADN
Protectionist economic policies (of which tariffs are one part) as well as restrictive immigration policies, particularly for low skilled persons looking to come to the US were positions supported not only by FDR, but also by labor leaders and socialist politicians like Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas and Samuel Gompers.
Lost in much of the disgust that people feel for Mr. Trump is that the policies that Hillary Clinton represented in 2016 (like NAFTA, and aspirations towards open borders between the US and much of central America) were not stances or policies that would have been supported by Democrats, or socialists, or labor union members for much of the 20th century.
The last legitimate third party movement (i.e., one that produced a candidate who was not just a spoiler like Nader) was Ross Perot's independent run in 1992 and the much less successful Reform party in 1996. (Imagine what momentum might have been built if the party had not just been all about Perot!)
Until we have an actual democracy - one that actually embraces one voter, one vote - the discussion of expanding our paralyzed polical system beyond the broken two-party approach is moot. The Electoral College is an insurmountable barrier to democracy in the United States.
1
@Queen bee. The illegitimacy of the Electoral College will only get worse as Americans are increasingly concentrated in a few urban areas, giving a couple of hundred thousand people in a big empty state more power than 20 million in another. But that’s hardly the biggest problem with one-voter-one-vote. That problem would be two companies run by right-wing brothers making most of the voting machines in the country. And that ain’t never gonna get fixed. Somehow we manage to manufacture ATMs that almost never break down and dispense zillions of dollars a day with no problems. But we can’t manufacture a voting machine that’s un-hackable and re-countable. Sure.
What is labeled "moderate or centrist" are policies that DON'T serve the citizen majority, but instead serve the moneyed class. What does serve the public interest is labeled 'left wing".
Citizens' political speech can't compete with the 'free speech' of mega donors, thus have little influence on lawmaking for our interests.
For democracy to thrive in a capitalistic system, corporate monopolies must be regulated by elected govt. But instead, our govt is regulated by the corporations.
The results are obvious---America, more than other capitalist democracies, is blocked from progress in economic equality, access to health care, education, green energy policies and public safety from gun violence.
The mega donors even now are shaping our future elections. Then we line up to vote for the nominees that stay within the limits the mega donors set.
It's a system. And our media accepts it, reporting on the fund raising contest, instead of pointing out the need for reform of campaign finance to restore our democracy.
Trump is a nasty symptom flaring up, caused by our national disease of big money in politics.
3
2016 killed the the third party movement. Forever. The two major parties put up two abysmal candidates, and the third and fourth parties barely made a dent in the popular vote.
3
"National politics needs a leader devoted to redistributing power downward", says Brooks.
We didn't. At least we didn't before republicans elected trump.
And a quick question, Mr. Brooks: Based on the opening premise of your opinion piece, you seem to think that is needed only if Democrats fail to nominate a "Mitch Landrieu" type. Why don't you support the Democrats whole-heartedly? Is that too hard for a republican like yourself to do?
P.S. That was two questions but you seem to need some prodding. Try opposing the Russian loving republicans without conditions for a REAL change.
1
David until you and people like you walk away from the current GOP you are complicit. You are as consistent about attempting to blame both parties as trump is about lying. But it's not the Democrats who've been doing the separating. It's Republicans.
You don't need a third party, you need to turn the GOP back into Americans who believe in Democracy and a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Right now they're oligarchs helping oligarchs and you're still a member.
"But today, the country is diverse, trust in big institutions is low, the federal government is immobilized by partisanship and debt." As a lifelong member of the party that worked so hard for four decades to make this "dream" come true, David Brooks has no right to come here pretending he's just another level-headed guy looking for a way out of the mess. This man is disqualified.
1
The system works well when smart, honest, humble, compassionate leaders like Barack Obama are elected. The system implodes when we elect lying, misogynistic, narcissistic, grifters into office. No need for a third party. Big need for an informed, well-read, electorate. One party or three parties. Good people need to be attracted to the job, and win.
1
I've looked sympathetically at many third party candidates in the past and heve even voted for a few. This time, the clear and present danger posed by the poseur-in-chief and his party of yes-men (and yes-women) dictates that I vote for a yellow dog if s/he's a Democrat, and I urge other Americans to make the same pledge. Yes, there may be better choices than a yellow dog, but they won't be elected until enough people are fed up with the two parties we have, and that won't happen as long as there are yellow dogs who are willing to run as Democrats.
David Brooks and his fellow conservatives are trying to split the vote again. Give up--we're stuck with a two-party sysytem until we make some significant structural changes to our threatened democracy.
1
Brooks, the gateway drug of the far right. We need to redistribute power downward? What's the matter Brooks, did someone in your elite clique point out how you, the 1.1%, are losing out to the .0001%? Month vacations, great healthcare, making a mid 6 figure income not enough for you? YOU are a responsible party to Trump and the Republicans, who are in lockstep. Thank a bunch.
2
A non-two-party system only works in a parliamentary system where coalition governments can be formed. Our winner-takes-all system means that power is never shared with the second place party. Third parties only mean disaster for the non-majority. Remember the Bull Moose party and every other third party attempt from Teddy Roosevelt to Jill Stein.
This is typical Brookian sentimentality.
"Across the country, power is being most effectively wielded by civic councils — organically formed groups of local officials, business leaders, neighborhood organizations. The members may have different racial, class and partisan identities, but they have one shared identity — love of their community. "
"...such progress also requires energized local efforts in which people work across racial differences on common loves, like the future of their community’s children."
So Brooks thinks the typical Tea Party supporter, Trump voter, and Trump himself, are motivated by LOVE? Brooks joked on NPR about the Trump run for president. Trump gave a malignant opening campaign speech, and millions flocked to his banner. Since then, Brooks has been seeking for ways to explain Trump's victory and somehow retain his sentimental notion of America.
Brooks thinks that most Americans are mild-manner, reasonable people like himself and the people he associates with. He's out of touch with reality.
1
Everything after a Mitch Landrieu presidency is pure poppycock! Localism would not create a competitive national infrastructure. It wouldn’t marshal our national intellect to bring science to bear on our critical challenges. Local militias, acting independently, would not protect us from evil in the world. We need integrated markets and commercial mechanisms rather than a fragmented economy. Being from Louisiana, I suspect that for every Mitch Landrieu there would be hundreds of Bobby Jindals. The genius of our founders was their vision to create a more perfect union, continuously rather than Scalia’s origionalism. World class commercial enterprises have found that only teaming to continuously improve their processes, including their foundational processes, leads to success. Localism, which in business is called siloing, is the antithesis of high performance teaming.
2
Wow. What a guaranteed approach to assure Trump another term: split his opponents.
And also to send back to congress the enablers who are keeping him safe from impeachment or removal by a Congress that was fulfilling its responsibility to our republic.
4
Redistributing Power Downwards: Julius Ceaser tried that. He converted enslaved conquered people into Roman Citizens. Team means existing Senate Members lost their power. He also taxed the Roman elite to pay for libraries, harbors and public baths. This means Senate Members had to cough up a share of their wealth. As we know from the events of March 15, 44BC, members of the Roman Senate took the occasion to "recognize" Ceaser for his attempt to redistribute power downwards. When the most powerful emperor in history ends up with 44 stab wounds from Senators, why do we think some modern day hero will try it again?
We do not have true democracy with electoral college, two senators per state irrespective of population, gerrymandering and voter suppression
A third party candida will ensure Trump victory due cult status of his supporters. I do not have much hope
I think this is where I am heading.
Brooks (and, I suspect , Friedman) will get paid regardless of who is elected. Brooks and Friedman also know that it was third party voting which has caussed so many Democrats to fall to their dooms. G.H.W. Bush lost the election of 1992-a Republican!-because a third party candidate ran against him allowing the unknown, but Southern Clinton to take the WH.
In 2000, Gore, absolutely positive of victory refused aid from Clinton-then a well loved senior politician , only to have victory snatched from him by Ralph Nader-Nader then ran AGAIN in 2004, as if he had a chance and ensured the near collapse of the US. Obama won the election in 08 only because the country were amazed at GOP incompetence and death. Obama , after 8 years instead of supporting the victory of either Mrs Clinton or bis own Veep, did nothing-and many Democrats, assured they could not lose, voted for Communist, Green party, or, voted for non candidate Sanders.
Brooks knows the weakness and ignorance of many young Democrats: who think the USA works like a parliamentary democracy, and will always bite the lure of the sexy & smart new third party leftist. The "leftier the better".
FDR rebuilt the USA, by getting everyone-right, left& middle as well as black and white all to vote together! A Coalition!
Brooks knows this is the only sure road to victory, and he fears the possibility of a joining of ALL Americans to elect a Democrat. Third parties are Satan's road to permanent GOP control.
.....and here it is: Brooks's supposedly principled conservative take on what our election system needs that oh-so-coincidentally happens to decrease the likelihood that a coalition can be assembled to defeat the incumbent administration. Here's some advice back: STOP TELLING YOUR OPPOSITION HOW TO VOTE or what their politics "needs" for our society. You know what we needed just a year and a half ago? Enough courageous and principled republicans to vote the other way when an obvious demagogue hi-jacked their party. What we need now is for the outraged left to join forces with the disappointed middle behind a centrist/center-left candidate that can walk that line, and for David Brooks and his ilk to shut their mouths.
The Republicans have a responcibility to take their own party back from the brink. Trump has virtually destroyed the Republican party, or to be more precise, the Republicans have destroyed it themselves by supporting him. Any third party must come from the conservative side, because we now have no decent, law abiding, conservative party; just a gang of criminals that uses the Republican name as its alias.
1
Instead of a third party could we just have two instead of a single party and a cult.
No..... not unless you get rid of the Electoral College... they pic the president and they swear to their party to vote their party... will not work
2
Redistributing power downward should be the motto of the New York Times. This would involve having, as its opinion writers, spokespeople across the spectrum of opinion - not just from the liberal North-East of the USA, representing a narrow range of the general population.
<<To have a chance, the third-party candidate would have to emerge as the most radical person in the race. . . . . That person would have to promise to radically redistribute power across American society. >>
But, Mr. Brooks, we already had that candidate in 2016 and he won. How's that been working out for you ever since.?
1
We need a third party like a hole in the head. Job number one is to get rid of Trump, McConnell, Ryan and the feckless Republican lackeys who deserted country for their jobs. A third party is a idealistic dreamer's antasy. Ralph Nader gave us George w. Bush and Bernie Sanders sapped Hilary's Clinton's advantage.
2
Any third party re-elects trump. Period.
1
The fly in this all too cutesy argument is the ease with which small, local entities can be bulldozed by well financed private interests. The Koch brothers have proven that intense, manipulative and highly focused groups can work miracles from the bottom up. Look at the success of ALEC, with its market basket of ready-to-go legislation, some intended for the state level but much for the local level too. Please don't try to sell me on the idea that this won't continue with even greater intensity if Federal eyes are simply not there.
1
Decentralization or the transfer of certain authorities, resources and powers from the center to lower levels of governance with significant experience in the real world, both good and bad, is certainly a worthy idea in principle. In fact, the United States' federal system of government is one of the best examples of a system of decentralized and participatory governance in the world.
So, what is Brooks actually proposing that is different? Perhaps the NOTION of SUBSIDIARITY that moves the locus of decision making for a wider range of authorities from the States to local / municipal governments and even to other "self-governing" entities (think water districts, grazing lands, etc.).
It is definitely worth a national discussion, but first, is a single issue candidacy really enough to get someone elected? What about their views on health care, inequality, let alone a woman's right to choose? I personally doubt it. And, secondly, is the problem really about decentralizing power and resources in America? Or is it about the take over of Democracy In America but corporations whose organizing principle is CENTRALIZATION and corporate monopoly aided by politicians?
I'd rather see the idea of decentralization-cum-subsidiarity taken up by Democrats as the real rallying cry for TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK.
1
Maine's on the right track with ranked-choice. Once they establish that and get rid of racist moron LePage, they'll even join the developed world wrt democracy, which will allow sane third party candidates like Greens to mount a reasonable challenge to weak Democrats and vile Republicans.
But no "Libertarians", please. They're even loonier than the GOP in some ways, especially when they go full Rand.
1
We all saw that third party gig in the last election when Comrade Jill Stein sat in with Mike Flynn and the rest of the crew of Russians. No, we do not need to dilute the vote with a fake third party, we just need to strengthen those who believe in social justice. That would be the Democrats.
Great column.
David: Ladderism (there are rungs and every one has one) has been the problem with your thinking for decades.
The world is not set up with the Rankeian "Hand Of God", where God dispenses "downward" to the waiting hand of a man, so that that man can pass "down" the parts "he" wants "her" to know, and so on and so on until it all gets "down" to the slaves and the untouchables and others who are "barely included in our society" as Plato put it and everyone is happiest just "doing as they are told".
You really need to get off that Ladder.
Ladders are notorious for being unstable.
They are the easiest to shove over and those on the top rungs are the ones who fall the furtherest and get the most boo-boos.
No one focused more attention on the white supremacist in the White House than the columnists of the New York Times, and, yet they did so without ever mentioning that he was a white supremacist. How does that happen?
You had your chance at a "she".
Reap what you have sown.
There is no "future".
2
Funny how you seem to think that only the Democrats should split to form a 3rd party. Look into the mirror, David. Do you look like a Trumpist? No, you don’t. You should take the lead and form a new center-right party. Call it the Federalists or the Whigs. Have at it.
1
I swear I’ve read a thousand times in the Times that the little ignorant people already took power.
1
Sorry, Trump IS that radical candidate, although not of a third party. What we need is a third party of the middle, with white supremacists, antifa nut jobs, Black Lives Matter absolutists, One World/no borders idealists, and others not invited to join.
1
@Juvenal451
Thank-you for this comment. It is incredible how few people seem to see how both Trump and Sanders ran as nominally Republican and Democrat respectively, while functionally being third party candidates with positions on issues that were not in lock-step with party leaders.
Dear Mr Brooks,
Perhaps trust in national institutions is down as a result of forty years of anti-government, libertarian and neo-liberal propaganda spewing forth from conservative movement think-tanks and op-ed writers?
1
Yes, that all the Democrats need now is a third party candidate; since of course no one in the Republican Party is foolish enough to cross their Fearless Leader while their Party is actively riding the wake Trump is breaking toward his onrush toward lebensraum.
David, you must be daft. George Wallace in 1968, Gary Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992, Ralph Nader in 2000, Jill Stein in 2016, have only bled votes from a popular candidate they were closest to politically, and all but guaranteed the election to go to the least popular candidate.
Oh, I forget, you want Trump in 2020. Not daft, insane.
Stop giving advice to us democrats. Mind your business in your party. Not looking too good for you there. No one listens to you,huh?
1
Why can't I comment on this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/opinion/private-prisons-immigration-d...
I have a lot to offer on this subject. And I know that I spurred a Frontline and NYT report on the issue. So why can't I comment,
One of you needs to contadt me personally, or I'm going to keep attacking this tactic, of restricting comments on things that really need them.
1
Bernie woulda won!
1
Divide yourselves and be conquered, ye fooled.
2
Oh my God,are you serious?
1
Brooks is a dyed in the wool Republican Trump supporter after all.
2
Mr. Brooks ,the only thing a third party candidate will accomplish is the re-election of that vile person as president
Although I like the idea it's completely naïve like all of Brooks articles.
1
Oh David.
2
David!!!
Please !!
Not at this time .No No No!!!!!
Please refocus and encourage change in the electoral college.
It must be removed from every state or rendered useless through state legislation.
Get Citizen United outta here fast. It has corrupted our country.
Write about that issue.
We cannot play around with eccentric candidates.
We have one of those as president.
Trump is vain and crooked.
Crooked Trump ....... his opponents should repeat this mantra at every event.
Cowards please resign from office please!, or “we the people”
Are coming to a voters’ district right now near you to vote all of the demons out of office.
Talk up that David and why don’t you finally admit this currently isn’t the party of the Roosevelts. Republicans have left the room David. Those left are mostly ignorant white men who happen to be kinda wealthy and racist.
So I will not change my Republican voter status . Instead I will confront these “People of the Lie” in the voting booth.
Trumpian philosophy has permeated Connecticut Republicans.
Some running for governor embrace the NRA, yup!!!
One braniac has his mailers showing him dressed in full regalia flack suit holding a gun.
I must be able to vote in the August 14th primary.
In fact some dems. And independents should register for the opposition party so they can gather helpful info and make sure guys like “ flack man” won’t win primaries.
We know trump sold himself to putin. He shares all our most classified info. . Putin thinks we are idiots!
2
A third party would further fracture the American body politic. A third party would enable a successful radical party, left or right, access to power. A third party would weaken its mainstream party of origin.
A third party would look like a different version of Trump, and if all of those reasons don’t impress, remember that Hitler won in ‘32 with only 30% or so of the vote.
The only way a third party works to America’s benefit is if you make changes to your antiquated constitution. And that will never happen; you cannot even agree to dump the electoral college.
Leave it to Brooks to float a stupid, incomplete and ultimately destructive idea. Just like he has time and again.
1
Pardon me if I don't think David is being entirely disinterested here.
You're not fooling anyone Mr. Brooks. You want a third party to siphon off Democratic votes from independents and progressives so Republicans can maintain their neo-fascist grip on all three branches of the Federal Government. Your slavish 40 year record of being one of the most blatant and shameless cheerleaders and apologists for the Republican Criminal Organization is truly appalling. If you had any sort of patriotism and conscience you would be apologizing to your readers for helping to further the GOP's agenda of reducing Americans to serfs and helping them install the current sociopathic traitor in the White House. But as a Republican, I am sure the concepts of conscience and shame are unknown to you.
1
You still prefer Trump to a democratic. Disgusting.
Yeah, you guys first Dave.
Brooke's wants the Democrat party to split so they are weak.
Anything and everything to get a.Corporate / Republican lite in office right Brooksy ole boy?
1
We cannot afford to play around with third or fourth parties. This is how we ended up with a lying sexual predator bigot birther Russian asset in the White House.
Vote Democratic!
1
Dave, let me save you some time if you're thinking about reading the insults, I mean, reader comments on your Op-Ed today:
-- You are ignorant and stupid.
-- You are largely to blame for our current mess in D.C.
-- You are trying to con us.
-- You offer up terrible ideas.
-- You are barely tolerable.
-- You are a huge problem for all Americans.
That about sums it up. The rest are details and inventive insults about everything you think, believe, write, and stand for.
I thought you were just writing a think-piece as you are paid to do. But, no, you are slyly trying to make America even worse.
Wow. Was I wrong! I thought your piece was well-written and thoughtful, although I happen to disagree. If I had any comments I would direct them at your Op-Ed, not you. I'm obviously out-of-touch and don't know the rules.
How do you stand the heat? The serial hate-fests? You jump in the water and the sharks start ripping and tearing.
Being a rank coward with low self-esteem, I would, if I were you, have to seek another form of employment or, at least, another employer.
Hats off, Dave. You're a glutton for punishment or you have very thick hide. Which is probably also a negative. Your grandparents weren't so great either; in fact, your whole family tree was a grievous mistake of the highest order. (Now I'm gettin' the hang of it, eh?) Good luck at your psychotherapy sessions; the NYTimes should pay for those btw. Just sayin'.
Brooks is always the apologist of the right. He is always trying to put the softest polish to their crazy fringes —trying to make them seem reasonable: after all: see how reasonable he seems. A weasel in a philosopher’s gown.
Remember: we had a 3rd party in 2016 and that made all the difference.
Who is he to tell the Dems what to do?
2
With all due respect, I'm sorry to say what Mr. Brooks lays out here is the wrong prescription, for a problem that he is misdiagnosing.
Washington seems incapable of functioning properly in terms of moving the country forward in a direction that serves the broad public interest because for the last eight years, we have been living under what is effectively somewhere between a stalemate and minority rule.
When an energized minority (the far right wing of the GOP, energized by the deceptive klaxons of right wing media) engineered a takeover of Congress in 2010, they pushed the nation into a purgatory of stalemate in which a Democratic executive was hobbled by a Congress unwilling to pass anything legislatively that the executive wanted--even if what the executive wanted enjoyed the support of the majority (SEE: fixing versus "replacing" Obamacare.)
The election of Trump removed the impediment of a Democratic president--but that just ushered in the hell of minority rule--in which the rulers (A Republican Congress and Trump) are able to ram through legislation a majority of Americas don't support only by radically misrepresenting what the legislation is and will do (SEE: Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017)
The problem with Mr. Brooks' prescription--a Third Party option dedicated to redistributing power down--is that historically speaking, the most common result of a third-party candidate has been to divide the vote of the majority and hand the White House to a minority candidate.
I think it would be very interesting if a third party candidate along the lines of a moderate like John Kasich ran as an independent.
Surely he would siphon off votes from Trump and capture Democrats like me who are fearful of far left candidates like
Warren, Bernie, Gillibrand.
It's not so much that we need a third party, it is that we need a different voting system. Under a winner takes all system, as used by the majority of states, only the two large parties can ever compete. Smaller parties never have a chance and without election success they can never grow to become a larger party.
We need a proportional system that gives smaller parties a chance to get their candidates into Congress. Germany has a decent system that is fair and accurately reflects the voters' choices.
1
A nice thought, but democracy, at any level in any form, is doomed because it is failing to address the global existential crisis-- climate change-- while there is still time to do it democratically and in orderly process. Failure now will necessitate an authoritarian, top-down government to take effective, rapid, mass action to save lives, reorder the economy, convert to green energy and ensure domestic tranquility. We will have to go on a war footing to compel industry to to do the necessary energy conversions and design and manufacture the necessary products. There will have to be wartime rationing of fossil fuel and military conscription to turn back the tide of desperate migrants fleeing drought, rising sea levels and starvation. Even our military planners know this is coming. If we want to keep democracy, we should use our votes now to elect government officials, local, state and federal, who will pass strong laws and regulations now to reduce fossil fuel burning across the economy. If we don't, our children and grandchildren will either not survive or live under dictatorship.
2
WE do NOT need a "third party", Mr. Brooks. I'm sure someone as smart as you knows that move parties simply make it easier to buy off lawmakers.
WE have a third party - Independent Voters.
However, any Independent voter who votes for any Republican or other Koch brothers/Robber Baron paid operative is as demented and uninformed as they are.
WE THE PEOPLE will work/vote together to hire/elect Socially Conscious Women and men this November and in 2020 to save/preserve/restore true democracy in OUR United States of America - Social and Economic Justice for ALL Americans.
Tell your Robber Baron brethren to watch out because WE are coming for them with OUR votes and actions.
2
For decades, Britain has had a third party, the Liberal Party. It's never been anything but ineffectual because of its milquetoast approach to politics and its Joe Manchin-type members. It's always been that, a vote for the Liberal Party was a vote for the Conservative Party. It has always been hard right of center. So, a third party in the United States? By all means, so long as it doesn't follow Britain's Liberal Party approach.
I visualize three moves to help solve the hapless political mess we have developed-I say developed because it is a contrived plan to benefit the wealthy elites.
A combination of the Wyoming Rule, a ranked choice ballot and take money of politics. The parties we now have would simply not exist without the flow of wealth that surrounds them. It is their reason to exist. Forget all the noise to the contrary.
1
The American political system, in which we have single member districts, where the candidate with a plurality wins is structurally designed to discourage third party candidates. Unless we move to a system of proportional representation, any attempt to do this would fail. In a two party system, the best strategy is to work within one party or the other. In fact, it's the only viable strategy.
1
A third party is the only hope for the salvation of this country. The two-party duopoly is responsible for the polarization that's tearing us apart. It's us vs. them, with no common ground, no dialogue, and no cooperation. It's gotten to the point where, for all practical purposes, we're living in separate universes, specifically with respect to Trump. It all comes down to party allegiance. And as long as the choice remains one or the other, the pendulum will just continue to swing back and forth, with one side always feeling disenfranchised, perpetual animosity between the two, and never-ending gridlock. This is why a Democratic victory in November will at best only stem the bleeding.
How much deeper into disunity can we devolve? We're already effectively in a civil war. Unless we can produce leaders who transcend party lines and deliver a compelling message toward the common good, we are doomed to dissolution. In the meantime, the powers that be, on both sides of the aisle, continue to sell us out to the big-moneyed interests. I fear for all of us.
2
The idea of the rational / centrist third-party candidate has always appealed to me, but the rhetoric doesn't work in the heat of battle. It's hard to win saying things like "I believe in a balanced tax approach, that asks both the rich and the middle-class to pay into the nation's coffers fairly", or "we need to work on climate change as a real problem, but that means that we need a much higher federal gas tax" or "sure, #meToo is important, but let's also keep in mind that we need to be mindful of the potential for false accusations and unfair witch hunts." These statements work on the local level, where people listen and attend meetings, but fail when candidates are reduced to sound bites in the run-up to November.
2
Mr. Brooks describes much of the Libertarian party ethos - a smaller federal government, with more local public activism creating change and enabling practical solutions - with or without government.
There are 170 Libertarians in elected office already making a difference. Founded in 1971, it has been the third largest party for decades. While Democrats and Republicans are losing members, the Libertarian party is growing - especially with young voters. Find out more at : https://www.lp.org/
3
Just what we need...another trump term. Two things:
1. If somebody runs third party again, I'm gonna want to hang my shoe halfway up their behind. That's how Hitler got elected (37.27%) and how Duerte (Philippines, 39.01%) came to power.
2. Still looking for the answer to this question...Why was Jill Stein seated at a table with Putin and Mike Flynn?
4
Watching local governments hop like carp out of the water at an electrical barrier, for the prize Amazon dangles above them, location of their 'second headquarters,' gives me a lot of confidence in the solution you propose. David.
Sure, local units will be able to deal successfully for their people in a universe of global mega corporations...NOT.
Third party candidates ALWAYS produce victory for the candidate least desirable to the third party voters. The Republican cancer will kill the republic unless removed but the body politic is not even addressing the gangrenous Trump administration, much less the fatal condition that produced it, the GOP. Third party, hell we need TWO functioning parties for our system to work. Discharge planing is great, and necessary, but the patient is in denial, not even in the ambulance, much less in the ER, where it desperately needs to be.
2
How Jeffersonian, we all could live in small communities and live in perfect harmony with councils. But what about "To Kill a Mockingbird"? Local harmony only for the majority. What about education or infant mortality, very good in Connecticut very mediocre in Alabama. Central power has very real benefits. We went to the moon! We made in Interstate Highway system, Social Security, Medicare, Internet, Public Health Service, Pell grants, Navy seals that taught other countries and led to the dramatic rescue of the Thai soccer team. Central power is good, not bad. Perfect no, but our central power, unlike Russia's is about our people. It needs refining and control. DMV used to be an ordeal. Hours of being baffled like cattle from one window to the next, now it is half an hour and much smoother. Yes bureaucracy is annoying but a necessary evil for a country that cares about its people and loves law and order. It is being chopped at the knees by the Conservative Republican Oligarchs who only represent the wealthy and business interests. Trickle down is a fraud. Nonetheless, we need balance. So I agree with radical centrism, but you are letting the Republicans off the hook. They are the bad guys now. No third party unless the Democrats get to be the bad guys, then if they screw up, go for it.
3
A third party candidate who siphons enough Electoral College votes to send the presidential election to the House of Representatives, where each state gets one vote, basically guarantees a Republican victory because of the way that delegations are clustered. Therefore, the third party movement needs to start locally, and build from there. When state delegations to Congress are non-partisan or non-majoritarian, there will be something to discuss.
1
I despise political parties, but I wish we had many more of them.
There will never be more than two political parties in the US as long as political parties are recognized as the 'norm' of political practice. No third party can afford to exist in the (non)gap between the two (or single) 400-pound gorilla in the room.
We need to de-politicize elections by not publically funding party-oriented primaries.
We need to go to open primaries and rank-order voting (yeah, Maine!) or other ways of making second-choice selections meaningful.
I don't belong to a political party, and I never will until I can legally belong to more than one at a time.
2
If a Third Party Option comes into play - the votes AGAINST TRUMP will never succeed - because they will be split. Just GET RID of this guy - but the solution is not a THIRD PARTY.
3
"All recent presidential candidates have run against Washington, but on the premise that they could change Washington. Today, a third-party candidate would have to run on creating different kinds of power structures at different levels."
Isn't this what Trump, the third party candidate, is doing? We went into the election with three parties, and voilá, we're back down to two.
The right has always been about distributing power inward, to the identity groups that define its core, by disenfranchising "outsiders." The left used to be about distributing power outward, which included empowering people on the lower rungs of society. However, in the past few decades, the American party identified with the left has taken on many of the policies of the right while continuing to try to sell itself as a guardian of the people who are vulnerable to right wing politics. That has left an ever larger population without an attractive party with which to associate. We don't need a third party to fill the void. If the left would only return to polices that match its inclusive branding, that would substantially fill the void.
Proponents of a major third party should watch and think about the upcoming Democratic Primary in Wisconsin. Mike McCabe, who as leader of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, for fifteen years, needed to be non-partisan and independent. McCabe is running a strong and focused Primary campaign without Party support. His activity over the last several years has been to build and strengthen citizen action and political leadership at the local level, as Brooks calls for. This has resulted in more effective leadership and action in cities and towns throughout Wisconsin. That local action has elicited enthusiastic support for McCabe's leadership, which focuses on rebuilding State and Local government, from 'bottom' up. Both have been been in rapid partisan decline for years. If running as a third party candidate, McCabe would ensure the continuation of 'top' down money driven Republican control and decline of Wisconsin. It doesn't require a third party to save the nation, but it will require radically different citizen behavior, and more honest and effective leadership than we now have in broken politics driven by wealth, greed and unelected power.
1
Mr. Brooks, if you really in your heart of hearts want to HELP more than distract, in the most extreme crisis our nation has faced since the Civil War, please become a Democrat NOW. Your thinking and theorizing are of real value but at the moment, you are much better positioned to do good by declaring yourself a Democrat and writing and working to help them rout Republicans in November. There's no rule against this for a pundit; put citizenship first now. Thank you.
Third parties are useless or worse (remember Ralph Nader?), absent a parliamentary system. We need to get real and elect representatives who don't kowtow to money or bullies. Right now, that is pointing me to Democrats.
1
We had the option in '16-Gary Johnson. Got dumped on because he did not know where Aleppo was. Doesn't look quite so important now.
1
Sounds like a Libertarian to me.
3
And if that third-party candidate loses but costs the Democrat the election.....then we're looking at four more years of national suicide.
1
Mitch Landrieu, seriously? I don’t personally mind him, but New Orleans is an economic basket case and a violent city, leaving him no history of success to point to. Just as importantly, he removed the Confederate statues. That makes him dead to a significant segment of “white working class” America which is considered so important for Democrats to reach.
1
State and local politics have a reputation for being dirty and corrupt. Do the names Blagoyavech and Huey Long ring any bells? Alabama has a reputation as the most corrupt state in the union, and Michigan politics are something to behold, resulting in stripping whole cities of democratically elected representation and indirectly causing the Flint water crisis.
If we can manage to set enforceable minimum standards for governance at state and local levels, then we'll talk.
2
Cortez, not a Democrat but Green party, calls Isreal "Occupied Palestine". Any group or party that is anti Isreal is unelectable.
You can't go a day veiwing the media without the left attacking the Koch brothers and the right defending them. Trump was attacking them yesterday. Yeah but he's not one of us. You don't say? But every once in awhile?
Here in "Occupied America" we don't just need someone to do the right thing we need the right person to do it. "They" have us hating each other so much when we agree we don't even know it.
1
Good luck getting past the "me blue, you red" simplistic thinking of US voters. I fear Americans are too lazy to even research who is running, especially if they aren't team red or team blue.
Your party has become unrecognizable, so now you want a new party? Seriously, get your own house in order.
1
Localism + racial segregation (which is still a reality) = MAGA
2
Really, you think that a third-party candidate would be the solution for the enormous problems with the USA’s system of government? The problems are far bigger. The USA's system of government attributes far too much power to the president (think of the power to veto legislation and the appointment of judges). That is a flaw in the constitution from the beginning, but the problem has steadily grown over time, now culminating in the current unmitigated disaster. The revered checks and balances are simply dysfunctional. Congress has virtually completely abandoned its responsibilities. The Supreme Court has become just another partisan political body. The president has acquired almost dictatorial powers. The uneducated masses, who get their information from social media and Fox News, believe all the nonsense the president and his propaganda machines are spouting Trump’s labeling of the media as the enemy of the people is very effective. I remember many Americans saying that they could not believe how the civilized Germans could fall for Hitler. Well, the same thing is happening to the USA. And it is going to be very difficult to correct this mess. A complete overhaul of the constitution is the only real solution, but I am pretty sure that will not happen any time soon.
3
Distribute power downward?
That's Called Being a Democrat.
2
Do you want to give Trump a second term? Because this is how Trump gets a second term
3
We must go with the Democratic Party now. The GOP, in its death throes now, will soon be dead. It is already brain dead. After a mourning period, another moderate party, One that will cater to fiscal responsibility, social responsibility and some of the more traditional conservative values, could be viable.
Perhaps the large percentage of independent voters would stay independent or may choose a new party.
There’s one thing certain: In order to save our Constitutional American Democratic Republic, all Americans must vote in every election, particularly 2018 and 2020 and vote for Democrats.
Otherwise, this illegitimate regime, which no longer even resembles the GOP but is bunch of rich Criminals and thugs, will destroy our democratic republic. The GOP is already brain dead and decaying.
2
This is an ill-disguised plot to lure millennials away from the Democratic party and into a dead-ended third party candidate, who will never win and will ensure a Republican victory.
Another 4 years of Trump will spell doom for democracy, for the environment, for the independence of the judiciary and will cement the power of the reactionary right-wing, old-white-men oligarchy that will then dominate the country from a minority position for decades to come.
Millennials, don’t fall for this trap, vote for young, idealistic, honest progressive Democratic candidates and help us GET RID of these putrid old white men who are so desperately trying to hold on to power in the face of their inevitable demise. Let them rot and die, kick them out of power!
3
Who knows better about Democratic politics than a Republican?!?
I think you should let Democrats decide who to run, thank you very much
1
Less federal power and more local control was once a republican/conservative party plank. Some would say a defining difference between republicans and democrats was the view about whether policy is more effective if implemented from the top down or bottom up.
Our system doesn't allow for third party candidates who do anything but nudge the conversation. Dems should figure a way to become the party of local action, particularly in predominantly red regions. The republican party has abandoned this under Trump.
Let the Trumpicans be the distant Washington power grabbers who look out only for corporate profits and the rich and who seek to limit individual freedoms that disagree with their radical christian conservative desire to control people's private lives.
You would need to abolish the electoral college and really revisit the idea of one vote per each voter participan. There needs to be a constitutional convention to revisit the way we apportion too much power to rural America in states that are grossly over-represented. Territories should be able to cast votes, term limits for senators and representatives, big money out of all politics.
There is a sea of fundamental change needed before third parties woukd be viable in the USA. Nice try, but it's fantasy.
1
As usual, this is superficial nonsense. For decades it's been the same pattern. The right moves the goalposts insanely far to the right, the left shifts to the center, then David Brooks and all his friends wring their hands and say we need a new centrist party.
The center? That's the Democratic party. There's no left in this country. That part of the spectrum has been abandoned. There are a few people representing "extreme" left-wing positions like universal health care and a stronger safety net. But really, please stop suggesting that there's no centrist party.
You want centrist candidates? Vote Democratic.
1
"To have a chance, the third-party candidate would have to emerge as the most radical person in the race."
When I read the following graph in Mr Brooks' essay, I was reminded of watching Chris Matthews on MSNBC's election night coverage during the 2010 midterms. As a Tea Party congressional takeover was becoming apparent, Mr Matthews expressed almost in disbelief his feelings that he had been expecting some kind of third party or third way insurgency for several years, but that he'd always imagined that such an insurgency would come from the left. He was obviously surprised and dismayed that a "third party" was emerging from the right on that election night.
It's silly for Mr Brooks to fall into the same trap as Mr Matthews did 8 years ago.
We will certainly see third party or breakaway candidates in the elections of the next several years. And they will almost certainly emerge on the far right.
The Republicans are now the liberal party.
Welcome to 21st Century America.
Lost me at ‘time of the new deal’ = an homogeneous America.
Sure diverse voices are louder now , but there’s been some progress in civil rights since then. I find it difficult to believe that America has ever been anything but a crucible of different peoples.
1
It is interesting that the Republican Party started as a third party. It was organized because the Whig Party was not anti-slavery enough.
Maybe a new governance party could be started by disaffected Republicans who think corporations have too much power and Democrats who don't care for identity politics.
2
While I admire your thinking, I unfortunately don't see the thesis playing out in the fashion you're advocating -- a third party candidate winning (or being able to govern, if they did win). We haven't had a successful third party insurgency since the Republicans in 1856 and 1860, and that was as much due to the implosion of the Whigs and the inability of the Democrats to ultimately straddle the slavery issue. We've had multiple third party candidates polling respectable numbers, but they were largely driven by the personality/purse of the particular candidate (e.g., Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose insurgency helping to elect Woodrow Wilson, or George Wallace/Ross Perot/Ralph Nader in more recent times that others have mentioned). Maybe Norman Thomas and the 1920s Socialists were the last "party" figure that tried to field candidates nationally.
We may be in the middle of another political party realignment (which happens every 20-40 years), with the third party option being a symptom of the decay of the existing parties before allowing them to coalesce around "new" platforms/ideologies, but I don't see anyone rushing (unfortunately!) to return power to more local levels, regardless of ideology.
Nothing wrong with 3rd party politics. Cameron (in the UK) had the hard right tempered by his liberal coalition.
Both the USA and UK badly need a strong centrist party, because fundamentalists have taken over and to paraphrase - "We aren't going to take it anymore".
The idea of increased localism is very attractive these days; but it won't be able to deal with the increasing environmental problems we all face. Air and water pollution, droughts and global weather changes, energy and food restraints are all non-local issue which require some form of intense cooperation between local communities. Such cooperation has existed in the past: it was called "the Federal government"!
Hence, much as we should foster the growth of local "community power", we shhould not be giving-up on national and international problem solving.
2
It is astounding to see the negative reactions from so many NYT readers. But, then again, one should not be surprised by the continued bias and misinformation sourced here. In fact, Mr Brooks ideas for local action is consistent with the heart of what makes America great and always has been. To continue to expect the Federal government to solve all problems is ridiculous: it is tantamount to doing the same thing over and over and expecting (or wishing for) a different outcome. Local action actually can solve very many problems, including reducing racial bias, human impact on the environment, and improving fairness, democratic action, etc. Interestingly, the notion of protecting the rights of small states through the mechanism of the electoral college is one of the greatest concepts ever devised to protect minority interests. This is an excellent set of ideas for these times.
1
I am always amazed when a third party, which has never managed to place a member in Congress, put us a candidate for president. It is so clearly a destructive tactic.
A presidential race is precisely the wrong place for a third party. A strong third party movement needs to start locally, with the people. For example, the Five Star Party in Italy began in 2009, with comedian Beppe Grillo and a web strategist. Often misunderstood as right wing, its’ more populist and it is now part of the parliamentary government.
However, it may not be possible for a third party to ever take hold in our rigid two-party system. And if by some fluke a third party ever won the presidency without a supporting array of governors, and members of congress elected by the people, it would likely be a disaster.
1
Localism brought us Jim Crow, gerrymandering and vast disparities in funding for education. The issue is not local vs. federal, it is campaign financing. As long as the Koch brothers and other wealthy people can buy the candidates they want, government at all levels will not function for the benefit of most citizens.
3
David Brooks has never been willing to admit the role that his party, and conservative media have played in fostering and cultivating the paranoia and conspiratorial mindset that plague America today.
Long after it became obvious that hatred of paying taxes was and is the major motivation behind much of conservative opposition to everything, and that they were never going to make the mistake of allowing gov't to solve problems and usher in another progressive era, David still went on as if Republican objections to the ACA/Stimulus etc. were principled.
So now when it has become irrefutably clear that the Republican party had no core principles other than lowering taxes and letting the wealthy get as rich as they want, David continues to enable them by continuing to suggest that the Democratic alternative is not better. No, he simply recycles the old conservative argument "local solutions" - as if somebody has been stopping them up till now, as if Republican run states haven't been "creating" jobs by becoming tax havens for the wealthy and getting companies to relocate providing generous corporate giveaways.
Now he, and other conservatives, want entrepreneurs to move away from states with thriving cities and higher taxes to move to smaller cities, where they can lead the social change, as if those companies have any obligations other than to benefit their investors.
You can't get a leopard to change his spots.
3
Well, a third party would help the outnumbered republicans defeat the splintered democrats.
That’s because of math; the more parties, the harder it is to reach 50%. To change to a multi party structure, we’d need a parliamentary democracy, where leaders are responsible every day to their coalition or they are out immediately— a refreshing thought.
Til then, i’d rather suffer through the democrats, who appear to care about society, than the alternative.
Don’t dilute my vote (any more than its been)!!
3
Haven't we gone through all this already and ended up with Donald Trump in the White House? -- And wasn't he supposed to be the champion of the poor and working-class?
Don't get me wrong. There is absolutely nothing untoward about a having Third-Party option, it's just that now is not the time to toy around with that idea if there's even the slightest chance of it channelling off enough votes to guarantee another term of what we have now.
1
Thank you. The two intransigent national parties are the root of what is wrong in American politics today. Neither reacted appropriately to an electorate clearly demanding change in 2016. They cannot fix the problem because they are the problem ( Citizens United made it worse.)
We need not only a leader, but a movement.
1
Once again, Mr. Brooks seems to cloud the exigent crisis with a philosophical fog. As we know from bitter experience, third-party candidates hardly ever succeed but always threaten unintended consequences, viz., George W. Bush's presidency.
Some 2018 and 2020 Democratic candidates may be too far left for our tastes. But registered Republicans overwhelmingly support the disaster that is Donald Trump. There will be no third-party insurgency on the right. If the non-Republican vote is splintered among Democrats, Greens, and other third-party candidates Trump's presidency will be secure.
“A third-party candidate who shifted attention to local people actually getting stuff done might lose, but he or she would begin to define a new and more plausible version of American greatness.”
Brooks had a column to fill - and this is it. Unfortunately. A third party nominee guarantees a Trump win.
David Brooks mentions Indianapolis, where I live. Yes, our local government is working hard to solve problems, but it is often hamstrung by the Indiana General Assembly. Many state government officials, especially Republicans, proclaim States' Rights because they don't want the federal government ensuring that they protect civil liberties, yet they turn around and enact layers upon layers of legislation to prevent localities from fully serving their citizens. Some examples of local enactments prohibited by the State Government of Indiana: regional rail transit, gun control, banning plastic bags. The state also, notoriously, sought to abolish local ordinances prohibiting discrimination against LGBTQ individuals until a public uproar stopped that legislation. Our problems run deeper than one presidential candidate.
2
David, although I certainly enjoy your writing and your ideas, I just can’t help thinking that a large part of our dysfunction is that people don’t exercise their right to vote. Decisions of government at all levels including local often seem arbitrary to me with clear winners and losers that don’t always address the quality of life issues that motivate me. Then I look at the low level of voter interest and participation and I live in a state that now provides prepaid mail in ballots with easy voter access tied to driver license application and renewal. I would love to hear your thoughts on this which I think is one of the fundamental flaws of our republic. I served in the army and view voting as continuing service to my country, maybe there is something to the calls for universal service.
1
The problem with localism is that epochal challenges facing humanity as a whole (environmental, wealth disparity, misuse of resources, population growth) require to move beyond national interest, let alone local interests. In addition, localism will descend in "extreme localism" pitting wealthy neighborhoods against poor ones and making even harder to address income inequality. In this scenario, the "wall" will be build around wealthy enclaves. There is a true example of what localism and deregulation generated and it is the history or post Tito Yugoslavia.
1
A third party candidate has virtually no chance to win a presidential election in the current polarized political climate. Not because he or she isn't radical enough, but because of the way individual states are won. A majority of votes are not required - a plurality is sufficient. This gives rise to political advertising in swing states which warns that voting third party will favor the other major party, which in turn makes votes less likely to vote third party. As long as this system is in place, the two parties will dominate national elections.
Third parties could become viable if instant runoff voting were instituted (voters rank all the candidates).
3
I once saw rats jumping off a burning garbage barge in a movie. Somehow I am reminded of that these days. The Republican party has turned into the banana republican party. Rationality has been thrown overboard and the lunatics are in charge of the asylum even as the republicans steer a course toward Russia and Vladimir Putin. Brooks is hoping the Democrats will adopt the homeless libertarian and monetary policies of the republicans of yore. Even the Kochs are waving money in front of Democrats since the Tea Party that they empowered have taken over. Don't do it Democrats. Don't sell out before the elections have even happened.
2
Localism sounds like states rights rebranded. Watching state legislatures strangle abortion access and limit access to the vote makes me want a strong national government and president. Unfortunately neither party is able to offer that at this time, with Republicans refusing to govern, and the Democrats trying to be be moderate Republicans. I think that there is an unusual opportunity for a strong third party candidate who offers a progressive economic, social welfare, and environmental program, and a conservative, non- interventionist foreign policy; a pairing of a strong moderate Democratic governor (Hickenlooper?) and Republican governer (Kasich?), with an agreement to switch roles after two years, might attract enough funding and votes to win office and break the current two party log jam.
4
Historically, third parties arise when there is serious division in the body politic. And, it can be easily said that serious divisions exist today on many, many issues facing us.
The opening is there...
But filling that opening with a viable third party, a third party that can actually win at the ballot box, takes a great deal of time and a consensus view around which the party can coalesce.
I would think that David Brooks' suggestion of devolving power back to the states and the local governments is a great idea, and an idea that many moderates and most conservatives would be behind from the very beginning.
The liberal and the progressive, however, would fight the idea tooth-and-nail, and the result would be more division and rancor.
The concept of the states regaining the power that has been assumed by the federal government is supported by the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment: Powers not enumerated are reserved to the States and The People.
The opposition of the liberal/progressive might not be the biggest threat to a third party that wants greater participation of the States and the local councils in political decision making. The winners in that competition would be the incumbent politicians whose primary interests are protecting their own abilities to wield power and the bureaucracies that "administer" the policies decided by the incumbent politicians.
Deep State would HATE this with more passion than they hate Donald Trump
Good idea going nowhere.
Many Americans, like myself, would welcome a third party candidate. But there is so much money in our campaigns, and once in office our politicians immediately have their hands out for their next campaigns. The "elite" which runs our major parties and government is very real.
We won't get a viable third party or much change at all until we have massive campaign finance reform. And that must be foisted upon our leaders by the people.
1
Sad day when David Brooks has given up on the republican party. He knows Trump killed everything he values and is hoping for a savior to take the attention off of the destruction that the GOP is directly responsible for causing.
2
The Democratic Party impedes progressive advances. In addition to being humorous, Will Rogers’ quip states a fact. (I don’t belong to any organized political party; I’m a Democrat.)
Example 1: Well before any email or Russian issues came up it became increasingly clear that Hillary was losing. Instead of taking action the DNC did nothing till after the election when many apologists blamed Bernie for undermining her chances. They should instead have incorporated Sanders into the HC campaign, possibly promising a cabinet appointment or at least recognizing his clear and simple platform planks. As it was HC could only argue that she wouldn’t be as bad as Trump. True but not attractive.
Example 2: In California’s recent primary candidates could state their leanings (Democratic, GOP, Green,etc.) in the official Balloting information reference. The top two will appear on the November ballot. There were so many democratic-leaning candidates they split the votes. One of the two candidates for governor is a Democrat, the other GOP. If the Democratic Party of California had talked some candidates out of running the November ballot (vote for one) would have 2 Democrats, either one of whom I think would be good.
The Democratic Party has what I think of institutional inertia, i.e. a Two recent examples of such leaders are Obama and Sanders. If there are no more such charismatic leaders among all of us progressives we deserve our fate.
1
David Brooks can always be counted on to push the nebulous "centrist" agenda. While we suffer Trump's numerous assaults on the country and the constitution he proposes local councils. The only validity to his ideas is the feckless nature of both major parties--especially post-Citizens United. To restore democracy we need to end all forms of secret, private funding of politicians. Then even the dimmest person will see the evidence of corruption. We will sweep Trump and his criminal gang away and make both parties accountable. The problem isn't Republicans or Democrats. It's kleptocrats.
1
Brooks' thesis can be summed up simply, political life is littered with detritus vomited forth by citizens united. A radically polarized electorate has emerged that Trump deceives as though a populist when, in fact, he joins with the few to steal American democracy and the dream of the 'good life' for the many. We have no competently articulated and persuasive pragmatic center that does not bind opportunity for the innovators who create benefit for all nor marginalize even further the unfortunate. The 'few' rule by playing with racism and abortion all the while supporting a no obligation elite. We are not and may never again be a real democracy instead of the hollowed out remnants of FDR, over lorded by the elite. Whatever happened to compassionate conservatives? There seem to be none with a social conscience to be found. Only, those who deceive and mislead remain sheltering the powerful and entitled from a revolt that transformed France so many moons ago.
2
Sure, sure, a third party candidate might eventually be an answer, but first up are the 2018 midterms and the 2020 presidential election. Till they are both over, drop the distraction of a third party candidate, until after Trump and his minions have been purged from our government.
If you want Trump reelected in 2020, just keep pushing the third party strategy. Haven't we learned anything? Remember Nader in 2000? Stein in 2016?
1
I am kind of sick about hearing about the dysfunction in Washington and the need for outsiders. The dysfunction is within the electorate who elect officials who provide simplistic explanations for complex issues and displace blame on disenfranchised outsiders. Power to local communities sounds nice but their would be quite a variance on how districts deal with issues such as civil rights and educational reform. I dont have an answer other than making people aware of the need for shared sacrifice and understanding that instead of scapegoating Washingon we need to be aware that we pick our own poison. We have had our share of good national candidates who usually get bounces after the first few primaries for not catering to populist explanations.
3
Disfunction is in the system that allow minority’s of voters to control legislative and executive power
Forget third party until every single republican is out of our gov't and Trump is held accountable for his crimes. Republicans have proven to be an enemy of the people and this country. The last third party candidates gave us Trump and his criminal band of thieves. For now we need to stay unified and vote for the opposing candidate who can win.
2
Mr. Brooks, I noticed that you named no possible this party candidates. Doesn't "new localism' negate the national appeal of national candidate. Or rather, vice versa: does a candidate who can fire up the whole nation undermine the very premise of this localism you speak of? Her thesis is inherently contradictory.
"But suppose the Democrats nominate one of the senators who are now sprinting leftward to catch up with what they perceive to be the Democratic base." Notice this kind of condescending language will persist until 2020, that is, the incessant suggestion that the Democratic Party is internally divided, despite all evidence to the contrary. Unless you think the views held by a majority of Americans, say on healthcare alone, is not enough to bolster a strong base. And yet, if you read the "Letters" section of the Times, it appears our reader really are* on the fence about moving further "Left." Maybe that's because the only person advocating entirely commonsensical policies is someone who labels herself a "democratic socialist." The fact of the matter is the "far left" is far left because the center continues to be deliberately moved to the Right.
3
Dems are already too far left. Republicans are so far right they are no longer recognizable as conservatives. The opportunity is in the political center where compromise and reality have a real chance to come together. Brooks needs to get off his high horse and see the world from a different perspective.
David, if your party had not spent much of the last 30+ years preaching sermons of fear and hate (starting with Lee Atwater's antics in the '80s) we wouldn't have gotten to the point where Trump became YOUR party's nominee.
3
Needed is a tax on wealth to prevent billionaires who have inherited their wealth, like Rebeka Mercer or the Koch Bros trying to evade taxes and distort the Constitution of the USA. Failing a tax on wealth, the USA needs to tax capital gains as income.
3
Thank you for a deeply thoughtful article. Marches on Washington are a puny substitute for talking with your neighbors. This is not the way things were meant to be.
1
"That person would have to promise to radically redistribute power across American society." This idea will be emphatically and viciously demonized by Republicans as socialized power and in the same way they have demonized "redistribution of wealth" - while concealing the fact they are actively redistributing power and wealth from the rest of us to the wealthiest (national and international oligarchs) - like trillion dollar tax cut redistribution upwards last year and another $100 billion redistribution to the rich proposed before year end.
Crooked Republicans with all their dark and Russian money will simply bury any third party with character assassination, lies, persecution and threats just as they have treated their opponents on the Democratic party side. How is any party supposed to get its messaging out when it gets instantly destroyed through misrepresentation by extremists on both sides - but mostly on the radical right?
Take money out of politics, such that only small donations are allowed and those donations must be from LOCAL sources to the race - not from the adjacent county, state or country as was the case with trump's campaign financing. Races should be restricted to three months - and there needs to be a space where messaging of all sides can be clearly heard before the outsiders have a chance to trash it - by FOX News, Sinclair, Breitbart, Alex Jones, Limbaugh, etc.
Outright lies by candidates should be prosecuted, as it is in Scandinavian democracies.
2
A three-way race such as Mr. Brooks envisions, with a localist candidate draining votes from both the Republican and the Democrat, would be a set-up for another electoral disaster, possibly even worse than 2000 or 2016. This time none of the three candidates would likely gain a majority of electoral votes, and the House of Representatives would wind up deciding the election. On the other hand, imagine a two-way race in which Mitch Landrieu embraced a localist agenda …
Bernie Sanders almost won running like a third party candidate.
If we had a ranking voting system in place, I think more people would be willing to vote third party. As it is, I think a lot more people want to vote third party than actually do because they are habitually shamed for doing so by members of the two mainstream parties, and blamed when things don't go the right way--- i.e., people blaming third-party voters for Trump rather than, oh, I don't know, people who actually VOTED for him?
Anyway, with a ranking system, people would still be free to vote their conscience, but if, say, you voted third party and that person didn't get enough votes to stay in the running, then they would be eliminated and it would be time to look at your second choice-- who would, in all likelihood, be from one of the two primary parties. In this way, you can truly vote your conscience and not be bullied by peer pressure without the fear and anxiety that your doing so is going to allow a monster to slip through the gates.
2
Haha. Back in the day, it was known as “states rights”. And the “constitutional protections” for civil rights were known as “separate but equal”. Now that the Koch network controls local “governance”in a majority of states, power has already been placed in the hands of men who make Trump look like a the r eincarnation of FDR. Great idea. I suppose thats why 2/3 of the populace think things are going in the right direction locally. And what? No centrists? All along, and as late as last month, the “centrists”were the great majority of honest God-fearing Americans. Where have they all gone?
No big surprise here. Conservative David Brooks wants to split the Democratic party by suggesting the benefits of a third party candidate.
With the current disaster unfolding in America, I cannot even fathom how someone who calls him or herself an American patriot could vote for any Republican. At best, they are Russian patriots--certainly not American.
Young people have the most to lose with a continued descent into the hopeless, corrupt Trumpian abyss. The key for the Democrats is to get the younger voters to the polls to vote for their future.
They represent a very large voting block that favors Democratic candidates. The last thing Democrats need are more Jill Stein and Ralph Nader splinter party candidates, no matter how valid their positions. Solidarity now - fight over issues after Trump and the Republicans have been thoroughly defeated.
Trump's loyal base will support Trump whatever the price that they themselves have to pay. They live in a closed fake news universe. Trump fans are a lost cause, period. On the other hand, a good turnout by the 18-32 year old voters could put an end to the Republican one-party dictatorship that is trashing the environment, healthcare, and education and the respect other nations once held for our country.
Only about 46 percent of Millennials voted in the last presidential election. They must be inspired by strong, unified Democratic messages and candidates. They must know that it is up to them to protect the planet for themselves and future generations.
4
Any third party elects Trump, if he isn't in jail, or Bush II. We have seen this and against the centralized power, third parties guarantee the Big Two. Also, I overlay my hope for progress against todays Book Review's section discussing Flint, Fracking and Drugs. Today there is virtually nothing to stand in the way of Big Business aided by government lackeys who are paid off, when that business chooses to roll over the local institutions people have faith in. We are in a hard place!
1
The de facto third-party option of Bernie Sanders is part of what got us here. No thanks, David. Wreck your own party’s prospects this time.
What nonsense! Rep[ublicans seem to march in lock-step with whatever Fox News dictates, so a third party would serve only to further fragment the Democrats. If you really want to redistribute power make sure it adheres to the principle of one man one vote: end the electoral college; eliminate gerrymandering; eliminate a Senate that where the most populous states are punished and the least populous exert outsized influence.
Very well said. I agree
Nonsense.
America is not a Classic Ancient Athenian style democracy nor is America a modern British English style parliamentary style democracy.
America was and still is a divided limited power constitutional republic of united states with the people as the ultimate sovereign. But the people no longer resemble the homogenous white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men who owned property who were our Founding Fathers. Plus America is the heir to the Roman and British Empires diplomatic, military, political and socioeconomic super power status. Thus there is no viable third party option.
2
Two problems I have here:
1) Brooks is a Nasty Conservative Duplicitous Republican. That is, he is a Republican-to-the-Bone, but he knows enough to make the occasional whimper of protest to his party's current deplorable condition as a matter of good form, and as a teaser for readers of various persuasions.
2) Because he is a Republican at every moment in every regard, there is nothing in this world that frightens me more than when he says the word "Constitutional", as in "Constitutional Localism". Oh My God, dude, shivers up my spine.
Because we know what's coming...OriginalistFest
Oddly, making the case for Constitutional Localism, Brooks seems to have missed the point that the entire intent of our Constitution, is to remove prerogatives from the locals (especially local elites, local power centers, the very definition of today's Republican politics).
But let's take him at his word, lets see if he will allow States, counties, cities to, say, allow abortion, ban guns, increase taxes on the wealthy, remove the church from the state, control auto emissions, preserve monuments and remove others.
No?
We'll then, you see the problem.
It is also terribly odd that Brooks' third party will replace Democrats, when it is Republicans tearing us to shreds and flushing us down the loo of history.
2
What an astonishingly irresponsible column! Third-party candidate Ralph Nader handed the election to a terrible president, George W. Bush. Third-party candidate Jill Stein--with her corrosive attacks on Hillary Clinton--was a factor in her losing to our current calamitous president. For the sake of the nation, the global community, and indeed the planet itself, Trump must not win reelection and a third-party candidate who has any appeal to those who would otherwise vote for the Democrat's presidential candidate in 2020 would be a potential horseman of the apocalypse! So let us consider the possibility of a new party to replace the discredited Republican party--much as they replaced the Whigs--only after Trump is consigned to history's dustbin.
2
The Democrats do not need to split the non-Trump vote in such a formal way. Divisions within the party already threaten 2020. What we need is the demise of the Republican Party and a new second party without the historical white supremacist baggage. The GOP staged a coup. They made a plan to take over all three branches of our government and they succeeded. Even though they got Trumped and their agenda implemented a bit more crudely and quickly than they might have wished, they basically won the coup. They are seditious and they need to be disbanded. Sadly there is no one to do the deed. Harsh, but true.
1
David, this article is so wrong on so many levels...
But I believe that the worst part is this "localism" that you are trying to sell. At a time when unity and understanding are the real goal, you are looking for an excuse to keep dividing us. Sad!
1
No thanks to a third party candidate, not now. It's part of the reason we are in the fix we're in.
Panicked Republican voters will turn out in great number responding to the G.O.P. with its repeated, loud and shrill warning cries: Minority Groups deemed most feared per locality; “Our Women” being endlessly defiled by all the maddened rapists; Christmas is imperiled, AGAIN!!; Jobs, jobs, jobs, ad nauseam, and; SOCIALISM!!.
The G.O.P. will distort the definition of “Socialism” to their own purposes. If we wish to extol Socialism, we desperately need to define the term.
2
This article is definitely a sign liberals have capitulated. Meanwhile President Trump keeps implementing his agenda.
Every overblown article, half-truths, conspiracies and lies reported about him have failed. Demonizing conservative candidates with slogans they wanted to kill babies, no less, do not have the results they once did. President's Trump popularity increases with every wave of criticism and newly found sex exploit.
So, the solution let's try something different: A third party!
I say, go for it.
Are liberals capitulating on having an endless supply of new voters in immigrants? I hope so.
Once again, Mr. Brooks is in his pseudo-normal Republican costume. Yes, a third party, a great idea, to really ensure that Trump's 40% deplorables would re-elect him. The listings in this column of how government now longer works: these are the accomplishments of Republican administrations since Reagan, shrinking, harming the arms of federal government, until they really can't work anymore. The two newer federal projects: Affordable Care Act, and Consumer Financial Protection, have worked marvelously, until tampered with by other "Republicans" like Mr. Brooks claims to be.
What we really need is the end of the Republican Party and the founding of another party, perhaps more honestly representing the needs of the rich, without having to rely on the needs of racists.
People have the most faith in their state or local governments? They are the most incompetent and corrupt politicians in this country. In Albany prison terms have long been a revolving door and the Governor flatly refuses to fix NYC subways. Meanwhile we routinely hear of local officials embezzling money or otherwise being on the take. This column, like most of Brooks' writing, is fantasy.
1
A good idea Mr. Brooks - also a good renouncement of the operating principles of the Republicon party you have disparaged in the past, but have stopped short of trashing.
Rather than a third-party President who'd have no legislative backing (due to basically no party members) at state or federal level, why not this instead?
A centrist Democrat who realizes that "radical" approaches get no traction nationally, and who understands that Republicans control more state houses (and are stamping down on cities daring pass their own local regulations). One who understands that a lot of Republicans these days are tired of the far right takeover of the GOP. There are a lot of Rockefeller Republicans out there, who've been repelled by their own party but perhaps see the Democrats (fairly or not) as too focused on polarizing social issues rather than the core problems faced by all non-millionaires.
There are red states that are trying to expand Medicare, because they see it as necessary. Cracks are ever-so-slowly appearing in the unwillingness to address climate change. A party that embraces deficit spending and Russia isn't appealing to many who used to be solidly in that party.
But Presidents rarely give power back, so if you want a third party, don't look at the White House, try coming up with a party that will fill Congress with people willing to take back what they've given away.
3
David Brooks doesn't mention Barry Goldwater's challenge to the Republican's mainstream, nor Ronald Reagan's cowboy mimicry of conservatism. From the other point of view, there was Bernie Sanders' alternative to Hillary Clinton which The Times studiously tried to avoid covering (and still does today as he tours with Ocasio-Cortez). And, after all, there are states that register decline-to-state and Independent voters, Libertarians and, more importantly, these non-Democrats and non-Republicans already outnumber the Republicans. So... it's a little late to be making these claims that we need a third party, inasmuch as we already have one. It's just not recognized by The Times and David Brooks until a candidate comes along who threatens the status of the two parties that are recognized.
1
Long ago, as a young Republican with libertarian leanings, I was smitten with this idea, however over time I've discovered some flaws. First is how a large business could take over a community and extort giveaways. Just look how NFL franchises hold communities hostage for new stadiums, or how recruiting a new industry often includes huge tax breaks, and there is the tricky question of controlling pollution, leaving a community with the hard choices between jobs and toxins. Large businesses also destroy a community when they move out, leaving a community without the jobs, income and property taxes, and the money to correct the mess left behind, like in Flint, Michigan, or across the river from me in Benton Harbor. We are reeling right now from the death of 9 members of a family in an extended-stay motel who perished from the lack of smoke detectors, and in turn the lack of inspectors to assure the detectors were in place and working. And when David points to my home town of Kalamazoo, he fails to point out that not every community has a wealthy Stryker family that invests heavily in the community to the point it will pay the college tuition of every student who graduates from Kalamazoo Public Schools. There are communities that would benefit from constitutional localism, but many that would suffer and increase economic disparities between wealthy communities and the impoverished ones.
1
This column represents the dying embers of the Conservative Revolution, 1980-2016, a revolution in which David Brooks marched as a true-believing party cadre. He can't acknowledge that his revolution was economically, politically, and socially destructive over the long term, so he keeps trying to save it by further radical measures. There is nothing wrong with America that a Democratic Congress and White House with, say, 16 years of control can't accomplish: return to Clinton-era tax rates; use the increased revenue to gradually balance the budget while spending more on health care, junior-college job-training, building a 21st-century economic infrastructure, etc. etc. It's not clear how much we will accomplish with the right-wing revolutionary faction in control of the Supreme Court, but we must try.
5
An argument that exists only in the abstract, I'm afraid. The problem isn't a need for a moderate candidate -- since establishment Democrats are already "moderate" compared to the electorate, and Republicans are actually further to the right. This is the result of gerrymandering. So the dysfunction of Congress isn't the lack of a moderate president (Barak Obama, anyone?), but rather a structural voting problem.
Also, Mr. Brooks doesn't bother to say what powers would actually be devolved to the local level, except to vaguely mention that civil rights need to retain some federal oversight. But what about taxation, welfare, etc.? I'm afraid that this would only lead to the poor states getting poorer and the rich ones getting richer, which would increase our national divide.
What's really needed is re-districting reform and campaign finance reform. The Supreme Court won't do it, so we need an inspirational leader who runs on these issues. That would be "radical." It would also be "local."
1
Multiparties would work without leading to perverse results if we replaced the present system of picking the winner. Go for an instant runoff system, ie let voters rank candidates by preference so that the most disliked candidate cannot win. With the present system a third candidate will most of the time steal votes from the one who would have gotten more than the one who comes in first.
1
As always, David presents a well thought out argument. But the whole premise is wrong. Our democracy needs fundamental change at its roots. What may have been an innovative concept in the 18th century no longer serves us today. The strong presidency depended on men like Washington who would not abuse its power and seek to be kings. Let's have a true parliamentary democracy in the United States. Make the presidency a ceremonial and symbolic office, and establish a Prime Minister who depends on the will of the people in a far more immediate way. In the end, such a move would encourage more diversity in governance as well.
1
This column is more propaganda for localism and the poll is biased to support the same result. This column supports the effort begun with Reagan theme to discredit the Federal government. It is consistent with the 10 year effort by the Republican party to tie the hands of government until it is under secure control by plutocrats. Localism is the cheapest way to control policy in the absence of clarity and facts normally provided by national or statewide media. Localisn today is controlled by factors of race, diversity. religious law, and media for the passive. Media for the passive is 80% Fox, Gannett, Sinclair and others who direct their passive watchers and listeners according to the directive of the day. It seems you have joined the wave to divide and conquer our way of government. In your travels to Houston, review the efforts here to discredit FEMA and the flood insurance program while forgiving the Harris County Flood Control District and local developers. Please note that localization absolves the local development community and distributes the remedial cost to everyone. If you mention climate change or development controls, you will not be asked to happy hour. Based on your push for local limits, I think you have joined Fox and the Trump re-election campaign. However, since your column requires reading and is part of the national news, it should have no impact at all on localism. People also ignored the exceptional analyses of the Houston Chronicle.
3
I agree that we need to amend our electoral process to allow for viable third party candidates. But it's rich of David Brooks to opine that we need a party that will redistribute power downward. One party (the Dmocrats) already does that far better than the party Brooks has supported over the years (the Republicans).
3
Other than the IRS most Americans have no dealings with the Federal government. Republicans and the press have managed to confuse government at the state and local level with the Federal level.
A third party is possible but only if one of the existing parties disappears. The US is a winner take all election system. It is why we don't have multiple party as is common in Europe. If that doesn't change a new party can come a long and eventually we will have a new two party system.
Sign me up for a moderate, centrist party. How I would love to vote for someone who could steer the country down the middle of the road. Someone with a view to the future and the real issues we face...national, state, and personal debt, water management, climate change, infrastructure deterioration, cyber security, money in politics, congressional irresponsibility. Instead we are caught in an endless whirlpool of debate around emotional issues like the 2nd amendment, abortion, immigration, and other "breaking news." Our institutions are failing us. Mr. Brook' s idea might be attractive until you sit in on the debate among candidates for local offices and discover there is no marvelous pool of talent competing for those jobs.
Actually, I'd prefer that the Democrats get their act together, with a coherent message that people can latch onto. They/we need to get beyond the centrist/leftist fight and settle on a consensus message, something beyond being the un-Trump party.
1
This article misses the mark by a mile. A third-party candidate would likely ensure the reelection of Trump, which would be a calamity!
4
A third party is not the path to devolving power. Instituting democracy in our representative government would put power in the hands of common citizens. A rotating committee of common citizens representing a cross-section of the population, with veto power over bills passed by Congress, would combine the best features of representative government with democracy. As the Decemvirs said to Roman citizens, "Nothing we propose to you, can pass into law without your consent."
While I agree a more Federalist approach to government is likely the right one in this moment there is one issue I see as a sticking point, borders. If left to it's own devices would California enforce its border with Mexico? Then non citizens gain access to the US and can move where they please making this an issue for other states, similar to how he EU is experiencing tension over the migrant issue. Devolving power more locally seems correct but only if there are borders all states can agree on.
Our electoral system cannot nurture a third party and an electoral college. If a viable third party arises, then the chance of any candidate crossing the 271 electoral vote threshold virtually disappears. As presently constructed, the addition of third party would simply throw every presidential election to the House of Representatives. The electoral college must be repealed.
4
What we need is something different than "winner take all" elections, much like most of the world does already. Condorcet recognized the non-representative outcomes that can happen when there are more than two choices with a simple majority winner. This would not require any tinkering with the Constitution, since it does not talk about how elections are held and the rules for being elected. Proportional representation would allow many parties to have a voice and forces compromise in order to govern.
4
A genuine third party success that has a lasting effect on the political culture can't be centered around just an individual presidential candidate.
It also can't be something that has no ideology other than "not the other guys".
Further, it can't be successful starting cold in one year. It takes years of trial and error, and repetition of a message to gain traction with the public. Ballot access fights alone need to be fought, which takes time and resources.
Mercifully, there already exists a third party wanting to dial down the power of the federal government. One based on ideals, constantly being refined through debate and discussion. One who has been running candidates at all levels, even gaining victories at the local levels. One who has put in the decades of work to gain ballot access across the country.
That party is the Libertarian Party.
If you're looking to "devolve power", to preserve civil rights, and reign in out of control federal spending, the Libertarian Party is your best hope.
2
David, this is the second column that I know of where you have used, "Bernie Sanders watch to tell us what time it is."
The median personal income in the US was just above $31K in 2016. Remember you basic statistics folks, median is the midpoint if all incomes were aligned. 50% above and 50% below. 70% make $50K or less. This is chided by politicians or worse - accepted and believe it is OK if 50% of the population can't make ends meet.
7
And who, or what, pray tell is going to put a check on the near unlimited powers that big business and wealthy individuals would have under a distributed power structure? The federal government is doing a poor job now. Just wait until the states and localities have to go up against them.
6
Get rid of the Electoral College and then we can talk. Even with a strong candidate, the chances of a third-party candidate (or any candidate, for that matter) achieving an Electoral College majority is small. Absent an electoral college majority, the majority party in the House, via the 12th Amendment, will simply pick their candidate as President.
7
I'm sure that the large banks, telecoms, internet providers, social media companies, amnufacturers, etc. would welcome the idea of being regulated by Idaho. This is a romantic notion, harkening back to an era that never existed.
I think it’s too late to build a third party up for any foreseeable election. What we are left with then is hoping that Democrats select a platform and candidates that don’t match Trump’s extremism. It’s time to put an end to the dangerous populism that has already possessed one party and is threatening to overtake the other.
While a great idea, in practice, the only way a third party candidate, at the national level, can win is after we change our voting system to allow for a run-off between the two top vote getters, ranked voting, or another different form of voting. Otherwise, I, and many others, will believe that voting for a third party candidate is either a wasted vote or simply a protest vote. In both cases, it's just throwing away a valuable right while allowing others to select the winner from among the two major party candidates. I know a few people who voted for a third party candidate in 2016, who abhor Trump, but feel ok about their vote and say "don't blame me". But of course, they are, in fact, to blame.
5
@G F Why not blame the people who actually voted for Trump?
This happened with the Bernie Sanders campaign. A third party is an unnecessary distraction, as Sanders recognized. All the democrats have to do is get out of their own way, stop tripping over their own feet, and recognize where the passion is.
@Aram Saroyan Bernie Sanders was one of the unnecessary distractions. He is also a populist extremist.
This seems to be a populist sentiment. His support was far wider than Hillary’s, who depended on corporate donors. He also would have beaten Trump—the democratic machine marginalized him, not the voters.
Maybe it is because there is no real left-of-center in the USA; when compared to successful European social democracies, everything seems right-of-center in the US.
5
The idea that there must be someone who steps up to "redistribute" power downward is EXACTLY the problem with creating an alternative to the yin/yang of our current 2-party dominant system.
No leader is EVER going to "distribute power downward" - that's not how power works and no one who has to battle through the mud and slime of modern politics is gonna say "Whew, OK, made it here - now y'all take this power I have."
No, a true "3rd-party option" can only come from having enough folks who are tired of the current political duopoly and start to take back the power they've consciously or unconsciously given to that duopoly.
And this is gonna require folks get educated, active, and take responsibility for making decisions on their own, rather than delegating that power to others who either con them out of it, steal it, or take it by force.
This won't happen until the Silent and Boomer generations are sufficiently decimated and replaced by more progressive members of subsequent generations.
2
I’m all for local involvement and restoring a sense of community, but the idea that this sort of thinking usually arises when folks don’t like who is in control in DC and then ebbs when their party wins it back shouldn’t be lost on anyone. And to anyone who thinks local is always better I invite you to consider the fun that can be the polictics of your local Homeowners Association or the zaniness filled zoning commission hearing when expanding multi-family housing is on the agenda.
2
The two party system is an artificat of our winner take all style of elections. A third party will always take take voters away from one party which ensures the other will win. You saw this to great effect in 1992 when Perot split the conservative/moderate vote with George HW Bush and Clinton won ( winning states like Georgia with something like 44% of the vote).
In order for a new party to emerge you need either a collapse of one of the two existing party ( as the current Republicans emerged after the collapse of the whigs during the 1850s) or a constitutional amendment changing our process from a winner take all to a proportional voting system.
As far as the problem, we've had 42 of the last 50 years in which there's been a Republican House, Senate or President. Any progress at making government work better or modernization has been blocked. In order to have the federal government work as it did during the New Deal, there needs to be Democratic control of the federal government for more than 2 years at a time. The GOP mantra since the 80s has been that government cant' do anything right. So they get into power and prove that. IF we elect people that believe government CAN do things well and CAN improve people's lives and put in place institutions and policies to achieve that then many of the issues and mistrust go away.
2
Excellent reply. Contains everything I would say, and more. We must go with the Democratic Party now.
If we all agree that money has an undue influence in politics now, I hesitate to hope that by going locally the influence would decrease. I would expect it to increase especially since the players do not have equal power. Reading “Strangers in Their Own Land” taught how economics on a local level has the power, through fear of job losses, homelessness and starvation, forces people to choose pollution and slow death over time to the immediate threats stated above.
Mr. Brooks how 'bout we concentrate on the 2018 congressional races and speculate about third party candidates at a later date.
Right now we can't assure an honest election process in 2018 given all the structural attacks on the election process by the Republicans. Perhaps your time would be better spent focusing on these issues?
4
As the Mayor of a mid-sized town in the middle of Michigan, I can say with experience that this article is not only true, it's inspiring.
We have so many local groups which transcend almost every line which divides America. They're doing wonderful things, and many people in the city feel like momentum is moving in the right direction. The first new school in over 50 years was approved by voters, a new street bond and several water/sewer rate increases to help bring our crumbling infrastructure up to date, and possibly even a new county jail. All of these efforts have been run and managed on a grassroots level by local citizens, with elected officials cheering them on.
I think most Americans have come to the realization that it's time to rebuild - not just infrastructure but the very souls of our community. To add to your point further about a third party being needed - the office of Mayor and of City Council here are (proudly) non-partisan, and we work together very well.
4
I'm almost cynical enough to believe that Mr. Brooks wants to guarantee Trump another term by splitting the Democratic party. Jill Stein won about as many votes as Hillary lost by in the midwest. Thanks for nothing, Jill. Bernie also split the party by refusing to cede. Thanks for nothing, Bernie.
And in 2000, it's likely Ralph Nader helped split the party and elect Bush. Thanks, Ralph. At this point, "redistributing power downward" would mean a big enough Democratic majority in the Congress (and in the states) so that they could radically change the system: get rid of gerrymandering for good. Update the electoral college to reflect changes in population, or dump it entirely or replace it with something better. Make the presidential primaries take place on one day so that small rural states like Iowa and New Hampshire don't have outsized influence on the choice of candidates. Admit the District of Columbia as a state. Put more liberal judges on the Supreme Court who will move society forward instead of backwards.
A third party will do nothing because we don't have a parliamentary system. It's all or nothing. I'm surprised Mr. Brooks can't see that.
7
Scott,
If you toss out Stein's 1 million total votes, then you would also need to toss out Johnsons 3 million votes. Yes? Trump wins by a larger margin in all contested states.
Why do you not mention the 7 million DINO voters that flipped to Trump?! You blame Stein, yet neglect the much larger % of your own party. WHY?
In Fla. Nader pulled in 97,000 votes. Approx. 24,000 were reg. Dem. Bush pulled in 308,000 Democrat votes. You blame Nader, yet again fail to mention your own party that flipped in numbers over 3-1.
Seems a little dishonest and partisan. Almost propaganda-ish, that is spread every election.
Punch down and Left. Never up and Right.
Scapegoat the hippies, embrace the fascists.
Got it.
Typical of Democratic Party.
1
Great idea, Mr. Brooks, if you want four more years of our current President. What you are saying is: split the Democrats into two separate parties — liberals and centrists — and then watch the Republicans cruise to victory. Ralph Nader did us that service in the 2000 election, and now you want a repeat.
Nearly all Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents agree on main goals. Examples: they all want affordable health care for all Americans, a living income for people who work full time, equal rights for all, equal access to good education through college age, less income inequality, a fair immigration policy, fair tax policies that do not favor the rich, the right response to climate change, etc. Democrats argue about how best to achieve their goals, especially about how quickly they can be achieved. The Republicans, on the other hand, don't want any of the goals just stated. The best solution is not a third party, but to elect every Democrat in sight, and then let them work out their differences after they are in office.
9
While well written and interesting, I am frustrated that David Brooks’ op-eds increasingly do not reflect reality. In a time when our national House is not only divided, but engulfed in flames, the notion of playing around with a third party committed to localism, seems unhelpful and not a tad far fetched. It’s like opining on the color of the curtains as you watch your kitchen slide into a sinkhole.
Believe me, I understand wanting to think beyond this presidency, the desire to think of a way out, the hope that we can find a pathway for democracy—but it makes me cringe to see this valuable journalistic space providing comfort to “escapist” politics. With our country so fractured, what we need is a leader who can begin healing us on a national level, remind us of our greatest moments, and instill hope for our future endeavors. The last thing we need now is a candidacy and/or a platform that further devolves us into the parochialism/tribalism that has been tearing us asunder.
2
Nice academic thesis this AM. Not a workable plan.
1) third party candidates have proven spoilers for the dems and let's hope they have learned to squash them more successfully. There would have been no Bush were it not for Nader. Had the dems told Sanders to run as a democratic socialist (his party), the democratic primary process would not have been so painful, nor the outcome so divisive. Had nobody voted for Jill Stein, we would not be in this disastrous situation.
2) false equivalence between the two parties must stop. For one, if 2 out of the past 5 elections had resulted in popular vote wins for the republican candidate but a loss in the EC, dems would have willingly addressed what was supposed to be a rare anomaly baked into our system, and discussed remedies with their GOP colleagues. The GOP by contrast laughs and calls us sore losers. For another, if interference from ANY foreign government let alone an adversarial non-Allie had led to the victory of a democratic candidate, dems would have willingly addressed this and worked with GOP colleagues on solutions to be enacted before the next election. The GOP by contrast did nothing, denies the significance of the intrusion, and has doubled down on tactics to continually throw national elections their way.
Mr. Brooks knows all this and yet writes this column. He does not want to admit how wrong he was about this administration and about the republican party. The democratic strategy is simple: win in 2018. Period.
3
karen,
Love it. Kettle calls out the Pot.
Gore would have won if the 308,000 Democrats hadn't flipped. But you blame the 97,000 Nader votes. Of which 24,000 polled Dem.
HRC would have won if 7 million DINO's hadn't flipped to Trump. But those 1 million Stein voters are to blame. Did you forget about the 3 million Johnson voters? Toss out both 3rd party candidates and Trump wins the contested states bigly!
But always, ALWAYS! Status quo, establishment, 3rd Way Dems. must blame their Left. Hate those hippies!
But pander to their Right. Love those centrist, moderate fascists!
Keep scapegoating your Left. Your future.
Keep losing. Again.
1
I prefer the No Party Option.
We now have the means to actually vet candidates directly.
The Any Party Process simply ties our candidates down with political obligations to the extent that by the time they're in office, they have to answer to anyone and everyone except voters.
I've got a better idea: Actual Representatives of voters. What a concept. And we can put them all in a thing we can call a House. And we can call that House the House of Representatives.
"Naaaaaahhhhhh." - Steve Martin
I agree with most of the article but I am uneasy with decentralization to the levels of authority people have faith in. The particular levels of authority for various areas of current federal governance are too numerous and various, prone to manipulations by the informal power structure, all of which would weaken cohesion within this incipient third party. This new coalition might have a greater chance of survival if focus was limited to changes in federal governance that would facilitate resolution at the level of regional governance on issues that have been intractable at the federal level such as immigration and gun control.
Since the two main parties appear to occupy the extreme fringes, a third party could develop to occupy the place where most Americans reside, the center. A win by the Democrats does not mean they have a mandate for a hard left turn for the nation and the same applies to a Republican hard turn to the right. Yet that is precisely what has happened over the past 25 years which leaves the great majority of people dissatisfied with their leaders. Who represents moderation, cooperation, and compromise? Seemingly, no one in either of the two major parties.
2
A third party, centrist candidate would still be owing to special interests and the “elite” (of which Trump belongs or at least wants to if they’d let him into the clique but that’s a whole other discussion). In all likelihood it would generate a candidate similar to the sanctimonious Joe Lieberman and would swing the election to Trump or as bad and maybe worse, Pence.
2
Only a tiny percentage of the public likes either the Democratic or the Republican party. But yet across the entire country only Democrats and Republicans are able to get elected.
People clearly hunger for alternatives, but corrupt election laws and regulations put in place by the two parties have created barriers that effectively lock out any other party or candidates.
And it all harks back to money. Power can never be 'redistributed downward' until this lock is broken, which in turn cannot happen until money is out of politics.
2
The appeal of devolving power to state and local government does not survive much actual work with these governments as a lawyer or citizen. They are generally less competent than the federal government and much easier to buy—you don’t need Koch money, just some local cement contractor’s.
1
My opinion is that until we have a parliamentary system, like every other industrialized nation, we're locked into two parties. The third-party spolers would be better spending energy as influencers, not contenders.
7
Radically redistribute power down?
Too many of the big, seemingly insoluble problems MUST be decided at the national and even international level. Brook's proposal is an unrealistic dodge from what must be done: Elect Democrats to every office, centrist Democrats are fine, because ONLY the Democrats have the problem solving (governing) capabilities this country desperately needs. The Republicans have proven themselves unable to govern. Major problems facing this country in health care, climate change, infrastructure, and immigration (to name just four) go unaddressed, with no viable solutions offered, despite the fact (because of the fact) that Republicans control every branch. They are divided among themselves and they refuse to compromise. And the latest indignity to working people: MORE tax cuts for the RICH!
11
Provided that certain fundamental rights are guaranteed to all, devolving power to the lowest possible level is a good idea and may actually be a great solution to our divisiveness at the national level. Why force legal abortion and New York's level of social services on Texas if it does not want them? However, I'm not sure that such a radical proposal is an election winner any time soon.
Most voters wish they had 3rd choice, but somewhere in the middle, not at the extremes. I would advocate for a moderate, solutions-based approach, perhaps like the modern whig party, but focus first on state and local governments and Congress, not the Presidency. If such a party can gain enough seats so that neither large party has an absolute majority, it could then form a coalition with whoever is more reasonable. And once they establish credibility, then they can pursue Congressional majorities and the White House.
Mr. Brooks' is correct we need a national leader who embraces local solutions to local problems. But I would offer a "no-party" alternative to the long standing notion of a third party. Ronald Reagan was wrong to suggest government is the problem. Political parties are "the problem".
In many places across the country we see local governments transitioning to a non-partisan structure. For example, our county commission is elected without regard for party affiliation. We have done so for many years now and it appears we have far fewer conflicts overall. Local services have improved, as well.
Furthermore, across the nation there are far more voters registered as "unaffiliated" than those registered with the two major parties. And the difference continues to grow. Shouldn't this tell us something?
In order to eliminate the toxic partisan gridlock that has long engulfed Washington DC we must consider eliminating partisanship altogether. And that can only happen if we put an end to corrupt political parties that treat government as one big football game while eschewing false ideologies as excuses for their existence.
2
We need to expand the house of Representatives so that we have at most 100,000 people per Congressperson. It was 30,000 per congresssperson at the founding, and each representative is too out of touch at 1 per 777,000. A larger Congress would be harder for the rich to purchase.
2
Did Obama not cheer on and encourage local politics, volunteerism, and activism? As a former community organizer Obama understood the power and importance of local gov and movements. I love it when conservatives talk about what kind if leadership is needed to fix america and then they go on describing the attributes of Obama without even knowing it.
8
Decentralization is hardly a new and radical idea–this seems more like Brooks yearning for the Republican party of a couple decades ago and reframing it as some novel third option.
Devolving power to the states (the federal government has no way to give power to localities, which are creatures of the state) might work out well in relatively well-run states like Minnesota, but try that in cash-strapped and shrinking states like Mississippi and something tells me localism won't look as good.
It's always tempting to look at your own region and imagine how much better you could do on your own, but in doing so you'd be leaving other Americans behind.
"The constitutional part means preserving the civil rights safeguards enshrined in the Constitution. The localism part means a radical decentralization of other powers, to the levels of authority people have faith in."
It all sounds so simple, and so obviously good, doesn't it?
But what are the "civil rights safeguards enshrined in the Constitution" ? It's not as if there's solid agreement on what this means. Just consider Roe.
"The localism part means a radical decentralization of other powers ..."
You mean a return to the easily-bought off, trivially corruptible local government that the modern federal government has arisen to protect people from? We didn't end up with powerful federal agencies by chance - we needed and still need them to be able to talk on the big players in our economy and society.
Yes, my local township does a sterling job of running its local affairs, but as other commenters have noted, so many of the problems we face as a nation cannot be addressed by hoping that 20,000 municipal governments, or even 50 state governments, will act appropriately.
Sounds like Mr Brooks is trying to wipe the stench of Trump off his hands. Sorry, Mr. Brooks. The only way to clean up the mess you ad your Republican brethren have created is but voting for a Democratic ticket this November.
4
So Mr. Brooks drank orange Kool-Aid and wants a second Trump term. After all, it was Jill Stein voters who threw Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan -- and therefore the Electoral College -- to Trump despite the nearly three million more votes for Hillary Clinton. Third party candidates are useful in that way.
5
kjb,
Who drank the Kook-Aid?
Stein pulled in roughly 1 million total votes.
Johnson pulled in over 3 million.
Trump pulled in over 7 million DINO's.
But you ignore all else and blame Stein voters.
Status quo, establishment base is useful that way.
Never blame the party, always punch down and Left.
MMM....blue kook-aid. Tasty!
1
A third party has almost always been a distraction or worse a spoiler. Overturn Citizens United and get federal funding of campaigns, end gerrymandering for good it is only used to rig elections, and it's time for the Electoral College to end and go with the popular vote.
I believe local government is a place where people find they can be most effective, this is a trend that will continue as long as we have idiots running the Federal Government. On the other hand those same idiots might just have given voice to a more courageous activist that sees a third way to a brighter future.
1
Your “Washington-centric power structure” sounds a lot like Bannon’s “deep state” and your radical, non-binary savior a lot like what Trump presented himself as in 2016.
1
Maybe Brooks could focus upon the disaster that is the present GOP and how it was taken over by a few deranged billionaires who now run not only Congress and a majority of State Legislatures and a mind numbing brainwashing machine that re-writes reality for 40% of voters??
How can control be wrested from these rabid rich?
A new party is liable to be subverted just as is the GOP unless we can put a stop to these Oligarchs and Theocrats.
6
After reading umpteen book reports by David Brooks, it is clear to me that what he really wants is to write for the Book Review. I would be OK with that.
3
I can barely finish reading Brooks twice a week to get to the comments which are invariably so much better. Does that make me a bad person? Hats off again to Socrates!
4
This is what desperate Republicans write when they don't know how to regain control of their party from white nationalists and racists. The best thing for sensible Republicans (how many are there?) is for the Republican party to take a terrible thrashing in 2018 and 2020. No need for a third party, just do what needs to be done, vote against your party and maybe you can save it.
4
An interesting perspective. But missing from Brooks' analysis is the role of commerce. His solution would allow the insidious power of large companies to dominate even more our daily lives. In addition to (or instead of?) devolving political power to local entities, we need to radically downsize corporations. Having our economy dominated by mega-corporations subjects all of us to the stratagems of elites in NYC, SF, Houston, Atlanta, and LA who are sucking the soul and lifeblood out of our society. They are getting richer and richer while average America lies basically stagnant. They are also robbing the economy of the creativity and initiative that smaller enterprises can provide. Currently, the advice given to any high achieving business person is to grow big enough to sell the company to the players that actually control the market, then retire wealthy. What if small companies instead had a real chance to participate and fully develop in the markets they work in? We need to break FB, Amazon, Google, MS, Apple into small pieces, and while we're at it, why not also traditional mega-corporations like P&G? In addition to lower retail prices that greater competition would bring, this dispersal of economic power would energize second- and third-tier cities throughout the US, spurring growth and spreading wealth.
3
There’s already three Parties. The Democrats, the sane GOP, and the Trumpians. The last thing WE Dems need is another splintered party, Trump is the result. Nice try, Sir, but advice from a conservative for Democrats is akin to hiring a child molester as a babysitter. Seriously.
6
@Phyliss Dalmatian There’s actually only one Big Business Party, with 2 wings and one wingnut named Trump.
1
Such a candidate ran in 2016 - former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party nominee.
The Times ignored him.
4
@Charles
Not entirely. When Johnson failed, in a discussion of the 2000 Nader effect, to realize that ALEPO was not some sort of election-related acronym (American League of Election Pollsters Online?), Times reporter Alan Rappeport blasted him online for not realizing immediately that Aleppo is "the de facto capital of Isis". An hour later the Times "corrected" this to the effect that Raqqa, not Aleppo, is the de facto capital of Isis, and that Aleppo is the capital of Syria. Then an hour after that the Times recognized that Damascus, not Aleppo, is the capital of Syria.
Mr. Brooks, we need a two party system with the republican party relegated to third party wing-nut status where it belongs.
6
Distribute power "downward"? What axis is that? What are the units? Dollars? IQ? Whiteness? Godliness?
What's radical today? Might be honesty.
Not being bought and paid for.
A third party?
Just an excuse for David Brooks to condescend to us.
This is sooo boring. This kind of stuff is so dated in the current environment. It's so 20th century, and so uninteresting. The author is groping for old-style solutions to problems that he doesn't really comprehend. A third-party candidate running for president by extolling the virtues of people at the state and local level. Well, at least I've found a remedy for my insomnia.
"But suppose the Democrats nominate one of the senators who are now sprinting leftward to catch up with what they perceive to be the Democratic base."
Given the current center-right tilt of the Democratic Party, that leftward sprint is really just a movement to the center. David, perhaps rather than warn Democrats of their slight liberal shift, you might better use your times and words dealing with fact that your own party has real, live neo-Nazis and other white supremacist types seeking its nomination.
3
More Jill Steins!
More Jill Steins!
More Jill Steins!
Come on, purists! Join in!
1
Bill,
Sorry Bill, I can't be heard over the 7 million DINO's that flipped to Trump.
Those 1 million Stein "purists" ( propaganda slander if ever...might as well as call them Obama Boys Bill.) you scapegoat, are a footnote. An easy punching bag, by pandering centrist, moderate fascist leaners.
Gee this name calling is fun.
Come on apologist! Join it!
More boring corporatists!
More of the SAME!
Moderate, status quo for the loss!
1
Too soon.
1
Give us another Green Party Mr Brooks? Jill Stein caused enough damage by electing Trump. Heard from her lately?
3
Thank you!
Genuine, conservative Republicans really need to splinter from the Trumpistas.
In fact, not splitting from Trump’s dangerous idiocy is both hypocritical and morally dishonest.
1
Mitch Landrieu for President !
1
Now you’re talking, David.
Just stop, David. Let’s stop pretending that the Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame for the rot and dysfunction that are harming our country. Have some integrity and intellectual honesty already. You should be ashamed.
4
Who’s idea is this? “Healing American Democracy” with a forward by Vladimir Putin? Jill Stein was a useful idiot supported by Putin. “In Michigan, Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton by 10,704 votes, while Stein got 51,463 votes, according to current totals on the state’s official website.
And in Wisconsin, Trump’s margin over Clinton was 22,177, while Stein garnered 31,006 votes.
In Pennsylvania, meanwhile, Stein’s total of 49,485 votes was just slightly smaller than Trump’s victory margin of 67,416 votes, according to the state’s latest numbers.“
“The environmentalist, an advocate of better relations with Russia, has been a Kremlin favorite since her first run as the Green Party's presidential candidate in 2012. She has regularly appeared on Russian state-owned television, including RT, and famously sat across from Russian President Vladimir Putin at a 2015 gala dinner.”
Putin is delighted to read this column. So is Donald Trump, who knows that a third party is the only thing that gives him a chance in 2020.
5
Joseph,
Sure...toss out Stein voters.
Then be fair and toss out Johnson too.
Mich, Johnson pulled 173,023- Stein 51,463
Wis. Johnson 106,442 - Stein 31,006
Penn. Johnson 142, 853 - Stein 49,485
Trump wins these contested states by a larger number.
Shall we continue?
Fla. Johnson 206, 007 - Stein 64,019
Ohio Johnson 168,599 - Stein 44,310
It keeps going like this. Johnson pulled in 3 million votes. Stein 1 million.
Stop blaming a tiny % for another DNC loss.
Notice you and every other Democratic commentator always fail to mention how many DINO's flipped to Trump. Approx. 7-12 million Joseph.
Yet never a peep about them.
Always the hippie punch.
Democrats would prefer a fascist over a socialist.
Then wonder why they lose. Yet again.
1
Oh David! There you go again!
1
What is needed is not a third party, but two functioning parties. The GOP is radical and broken. It has painted itself in a corner and has no apparent route back to decency. Trickle down does not work and the GOP does not care. The planet is at grave risk from climate change, yet the GOP seeks to ring every last dime out of fossil fuels. Radical gerrymandering is favored over democracy. Dark money drowns out the voice of the people. Government by, for, and of the oligarchs is the philosophy of the GOP.
Once again, Brooks turns away from honest appraisal of his radical party. Before the GOP can be fixed--if indeed it still can be fixed--it must be swept from office at all levels of government. The fate not only of the social safety net and civil rights is at stake. The fate of the nation now hangs in the balance.
1
decentralization has advantages but we cannot take any risks Trump might win by dividing the positive forces in American life
This suggests that another Hillary-like Republican-Lite candidate would leave room for a true Democrat to run as an Independent.
There is a good reason why Bernie did not do that last time. It is summarized as The Bull Moose Party, when Teddy Roosevelt lost for himself and the Republican Party.
It is not a path to victory for a "radical." It is a way to assure an easy re-election for Trump. It is a way to assure that long before the election.
Hillary showed that a pretend Republican loses to the real thing. That is not a path to victory either. But it can get even worse, and a third party on the left would be even worse.
A new party? We need something to replace the Republican Party, which even its recent Speaker has said is dead and gone in all but name.
2
Trump is awful and the Rs are such enablers, voting Democratic is the only option. It's fascinating watching which conservative commentators can admit that and which ones can't
The Third-Party Option = Trump. There is only one option, a Democrat Congress.
1
Brooks conspicuously ignores that it is local Republican power that disenfranchises poor and minority voters through their fraudulent voter fraud efforts, and denies the near poor access to insurance with their refusal to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. His argument sounds a little like “states rights“.
A third party will only distort the results of the election. You are wrong, Mr. Brooks. Totally wrong!
The Republicans have put forth the most uncivilized, cruel, ignorant president of modern times, if not all times. Politicians have mastered how to promote a "third party candidate" to tip the vote in one direction or another. Thank you Jill Stein for this enduring devastation in the nation and the world.
Now here comes a Republican suggesting something that will benefit the cruelty they have engineered.
Realist,
Yes, those awful 1 million Stein voters.
Just don't look at the 7-12 million Democrat-DINO's that flipped to Trump.
No blame, shame, scapegoat your Left. Always hippie punch. Never to your Right. Always Left.
Fascist good, Socialist Bad! Got it.
1
David, We the People already lost the 2016 race (like the 2000 race) for the White House to men who received fewer votes than the men they defeated. And that was with protest votes from those Never Hillary, and Never Trump voters nibbling at the edges just enough to make the hideous Electoral College system hand victory to the losers.
Thus, while we already have the Independent Party of sorts, we have already seen how other countries with more than two political parties elect their leaders with less than 40 percent of the overall vote count. Throw in the religious groups eager to abolish the "Separation of Church and State" and we will have another doofus at the helm. For the past 8 years, even the so-called Tea Party has created enough mindless mayhem in the halls of Capitol Hill and many town hall meetings. We can't legitimized them.
What we need is a good cleaning of both the House and Senate. We have already read of the Russian influence from Maria Butina — the Kremlin shill — who played the NRA as pompous and maleable blowhards with too much influence on politicians and candidates.
The fact is, the former anti-Communist Republicans are now in the firm grip of Putin and his cyber-warfare tacticians. Trump is Putin's puppet and, with Republicans propping up our own autocrat at every turn, they have become Putin's puppet theater.
So to suggest that somehow a third party is necessary is more like theater of the absurd.
Clean up the GOP first. Later we talk.
Brooks intent is get the disenfranchised Democrats to vote for a third party candidate in 2020 so that Trump can get reelected. This is just another con!
Thank you, David Brooks. You have just given us four more years of Trump.
A third party candidate would be welcome if the Democrats pick a lightweight like Kirstin Gillibrand to lead their ticket. I would love to see a viable Independent like Bloomberg get in the race. That said, I will vote for a fence post before I will cast another vote for a Republican, for any office. The Republican brand is dead to me. An “R” beside your name is the kiss of death on any ballot this Independent picks up. No sir, any Democrat is more than qualified to help us get rid of the Republican stain that has spread across the country.
3
OMG please stop, David Brooks. The last thing we need, abetting continuation of Republican rule, is a third party that will move the country further to the right. Since the disastrous 2016, under Trump and his Republican enablers, damage, damage, damage, on every front, every day, in every arena. Elect strong Democrats this fall and in 2020. Get the shameless Republicans out.
1
In fact, I am all for localism. But please be more sophisticated. There will be white only communities established. Are you going to be OK with it? Actually, segregation is already a reality in this country. One would argue that localism has been running for a while already. I have been suggesting that African Americans may want to follow the footstep of the Mormon. To advance their interests, they will want to be the absolute majority in a state or two. Only after that, African Americans can finally control their own fate. The new America will have less NIMBYISTS because it is all about their own backyards. Segregation is a force to create localism. Let's just be honest with our deficiencies caused by human nature. So, we can all move on.
Thank you, David Brooks, for warning us about the red menace that is sprinting leftward in the Democratic Party, seducing us with promises of free healthcare and college education.
A third party Ralph Nader is what gave us George W. Bush in case you have all forgotten. We know how that turned out
Tom,
Yes we do.
308,000 DINO's flipped and voted Bush.
Gore & the DNC rolled over and played nice to the SCOTUS and lost the election.
Dems continue to roll out this trope about Nader and his awful 97,000 Fla. voters. (of which 24,000 reg. as D's.)
In case you had all forgotten. (or believed the propaganda)
Hippie's bad!
Fascist good!
1
Nonsense! Did we fail to learn our lesson regarding the Bernie enthusiasts who stayed home? Does Brooks want four more years of the Cheeto-in-Chief?
Bring back the Articles of Confederation!
1
@Alex Kodat Yeah, then the Koch brothers, plutocrats in general and corporate big business will really reign supreme, without any countervailing force.
1
Don't you get it yet Lord Brooks. The Movement Conservatism that you have served for years is dead. It wasn't worth much anyway. I would suggest that you quit fantasizing about how to bring it back from the grave and just vote Democrat. We are the only party of decency & adults left.
3
Completely irresponsible column. This is not the time for a 3rd party. Ralph Nader got us George Bush (who's looking mighty good in retrospect). We need every voter on board to rid our country of the cancer that is Donald Trump. We are a two party system, so if you want to get rid of La Donald, you must vote Democratic. Do not pay any attention to this nonsense. We can talk 3rd party later, when he is gone.
A plague on both their houses! I'm absolutely disgusted with our big business as usual democrats. The republicans no longer deserve to be called a party. I'm ready for almost anything.
1
David Brooks knows a third-party campaign is as unwinnable as a third-party presidency would be unworkable. More unhelpful nonsense from the Times' "reasonable" conservative.
Oh good. This is how we get 10 more years of Trump. After 8 years of unrelenting criticism of Obama, Mr. Brooks is now quietly getting ready to help the republicans with a “Never Democrat” strategy. VOTE STRAIGHT TICKET DEMOCRAT until this Trump cancer is in remission people!
2
This article reads like it was not written by David Brooks but rather by a student or intern. Mr. Brooks, you are one of my favorite columnists, but maybe it's time to stop juggling so many different responsibilities/activities, relax a little, and get back to basics. The nation needs you to be coherent, logical, and articulate--even in the heat of summer. So, take a nice, long vacation and while you're walking along a beach somewhere, think about how you can streamline your life and career. You deserve it.
Where in this piece does Brooks mention what his party (GOP) has been stealing for over three decades-MONEY?
Who's paying, here Dave? Sounds so warm and fuzzy I'd say we are playing touchy feely with the beloved "states rights." God, how well you bury it here!
As pointed out, local governments job is NOT to create national solutions for pressing national problems (immediate problems) like global warming and the collapse of the EPA.
Another nothing idea thrown out by Brooks with some intrinsic merit, but in reality masquerading as something that would really work. Voila! Bring it on, Chicago School "Boys."
Hilarious.
First step is third party in the House; then, third party in the Senate--Bernie and King, don't count, really DNC Politburo members--and then, a third party in the White House--a generation of determined work. But can be done.
1
Dream The Impossible Dream.
I commend Robert Brookes for getting out of the Republican right stinkhole, but where has he ended up? Several recent pieces have seemed so out of touch with reality that, honestly, I found myself wondering if a dementing process hasn’t started in his brain.
Don’t start this again.
Votes for Jill Stein from foolish disgruntled Bernie supporters lent a hand to the Donald Trump regime we’ve been forced to live with.
Mr. Brooks, say the words, “I am a Democrat.”
2
There is definitely a need for a viable third party: As Thomas Piketty has observed America has become a one party system on all but the fringe issues such as Illegal immigration, gender neutral bathrooms, abortion, and gun control; on one side we have the wealthy neo conservative, on the other side we have the neo liberals who have much the same agenda, increasing their wealth and support for military adventures that are at their ideological core. No where has this been mor3 strikingly illustrated than at a decent dinner party held by The Royal Kushners in honor of Uber hawk Nikki Haley and attended by both eternal hawk Henry Kissinger and A.G. Sulzberger, 37 year old publisher of The New York Times; politics do indeed make strange bedfellows. This is the third attempt to pass on this unusual and controversial little get together, it would go along ways to explaining the continual portrayal, day after day, of Iran and Russia being a very present danger to the West, the party was only missing Netanyahu.
2
Yea! You finally caught on, David!
Except that you are 80 years behind in Dem politics.
Politics which Dem pols forgot around 1972 and by the late eighties were traversing to become Repubs of the well-heeled sort while calling themselves Dems,
I read Socrates list of actions that if taken would restore democracy to my country of birth. That led to the following thoughts, reflections.
1) There was no reason to read any more comments.
2) Given a comment with this much content, the columnist should be asked to respond in a (as yet non existent) Commenters Forum, a place for columnist and expert response.
3) Democratic Party hopefuls should be giving us statements as well formulated as Socrates' on the areas presently of great concern.
4) What Socrates describes is pretty much what we have in Sweden, but in a multi-party system.
However, what should be "easy" is not easy at all, even in Sweden. I read Auschwitz-Bergen-Belsen survivor Hédi Fritz in DN newspaper today under the headline:
"Democracy in danger. The story warns us of dangerous inaction against Nazism”.
Subject: The story is that In Sweden, uniformed members of the NMR, a neo-Nazi organization, were allowed at the annual multi-party conference, Almedalen, to march, hold Nazi talks, and engage in violence against ordinary people. Hédi Fritz was seeing before her eyes what she saw in Germany as Hitler rose to power. And the Swedish police and government failed and continue to fail to act.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
2
@Larry Lundgren:With all due respect, Heidi Fritz is not a historian, and to have undergone, witnessed rise of fascism in Germany or anywhere else, does not make her an expert on the subject.Analogies between Trump's presidency and fascisms of the interwar period are misleading and inaccurate. So many folks cry fascism, but if asked to define it would be at a loss for words!Am reminded of a Sanders supporter at Iowa Dem. Party caucus who, when asked by a reporter to define socialism, scratched his head and replied:"That's a tough one!Hope no one at home is watching !" If you truly care about the US, why are you in Sweden and not here!
@Alexander Harrison - At this late stage in comments on Brooks I offer a briefer answer than I otherwise would.
I retired to Sweden for many excellent reasons, the most basic of which was a promise to my Swedish grandmother, made when I was a child (see seekonk.se). A larger reason was that I wanted to learn about Sweden first hand and in depth since I had been teaching courses offering Swedish examples when I was still a novice. With a deeper knowledge of Sweden I could then present information to Americans, off and on at my blog, almost every day here.
I am, however, not alone in moving to Europe to be free to think. Times columnist (new) Thomas Chatterton Williams moved to Berlin to be in a setting where he could focus better on writing a book about the archaic preservation of racial classification in the USA. Philosopher and artist Adrian Piper did the same as she explains in detail in 2 times interviews.
I did not even use the word fascism nor did Hédi Fritz
Larry L.
Well, this is one of Mr. Brooks’ more lame attempts to get Trump re-elected, the only possible outcome of a major third party run.
3
Warm beer no fizz
From your description we could call it the liberate the billionaires party aka the Koch brothers party.
Wendell Barry for President! And for Veep a naked play to lure away from the circled wagons a few stray Trump populists -- Jesse Ventura. America loves a great comeback story.
David you are a nice guy. Love you're writing. Yes maybe we need a third party, BUT NOT NOW! If I had to summarize all your columns on Trump it would be: HE'S A MENACE! Voting for a third party now is a vote for Trump. Yes the whole party system needs to be re thought, but right now it's all hands deck. For better or worse, the Democratic party is the only game in town.Trump once, a bad Hillary campaign, a mistake. Trump twice and the reputation of the USA is damaged almost beyond repair. The world would think we really mean it. Republicans are licking their chops reading this column. I suggest a chat with Thomas Friedman.
Don't worry about Mr. Brooks "Localism" thesis. Next week there will be new books to read, new and opposite thesis to fill his column with.
These ideas never last more than a week.
If we go to a local-centric system does that mean that those of us on the coasts can stop sending our tax dollars to subsidize the deadbeats and welfare farmers living off the federal dole in all those freedom loving red states?
1
Oy, not again. Let's see ... Jill Stein anyone? John Anderson? Ross Perot? George Wallace? And, let me also mention a man named Maurice Duverger. Anyone writing about political parties for an audience as large as this one ought to be familiar with his work. Clearly Brooks is not.
1
l am sick and tired to hear Hillary's emails or Trump's Russia connection or 130,000 dollars sex connection , there are no new faces or policy in either party so a third-party is well come to our country, he or she would have a fresh start, out of Washington's two evils , democratic and republican parties they do not care about this country any more
Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota for President
You know who is focused on redistributing power downward? Democrats.
Mitch Landrieu, now there's an idea - a white male governor from a southern state who appeals to African Americans. A sort of Joe Biden of the South?
2
We have that party: the Green Party.
The republiconvict party is to party of useful fools to the 1, .1 and .01 percent. Poor white folk gape at the parade of clowns who put on a show to "represent" them. The clowns then go to the bank during and after their congressional careers are over.
Any reform will be killed by the Federalist Society minions on the Supreme Court.
The most visible tool of ideological repression is evidence in Citizens United brought to us by the Koch brothers.
This is class warfare and the 1 percent won!
Your joking, right Mr. Brooks?
Republicans went for a TV cartoon huckster. They, your wacky base, abandoned conservative politicians and picked a black hat wearing, serial philanderer.
A third party is in play in Republican politics.
Your whole base has embraced racist, bigoted, hateful ideology, You/they are gleefully touting Christofascists zealotry and the associated scapegoating and treasure theft.
No, America needs many 3rd Party's. The current duopoly has already been highjacked and you don't/won't even acknowledge that your Republican Party is no more.
1
Brooks overlooks the obvious solution. Vote Democrat.
1
Mr. Brooks, with all due respect, you are off base. You need to come to terms with the fact that the republican party is vile and killing our country. Switch parties, it'll ease your conscience.
4
Just a few Brooks columns on this theme should be enough to squander those 75000 votes that were key in 2016.
Right; imply that a third party would be anything but the surest way for the forces of evil to win again. If anything, trump is third party, but chose not to run as such.
However, just as the Germans of the 1930s were susceptible to ‘third party’ invention, maybe the final destruction of the United States government can almost legally slide in from the side.
1
In theory, third parties are a great idea. In practice, not necessarily. In Canada, the third and fourth parties sometimes split the left of centre vote, allowing the Conservatives to win. Be careful what you wish for.
I believe the country is in dire need of a viable third political party. I also believe that a viable third party can only be built from the grassroots level into a national party not from the top down. The two party system is so ingrained in the American psyche that it will never happen.
David, you write, "Only 18 percent of Americans say the federal government does the right thing most or nearly all of the time." and we are talking about elected officials. The necessary corrections (See the excellent comment offered by Socrates) are both obvious but impossible because partisanship drives nearly any and all congressional action.
Throwing a third party into the mix is something to consider in twenty or thirty years because it will take that long to recover from the abysmal leadership of Trump and his Republican supporters. We need to re-float the Democratic ship first.
Nonsense. There is a return of local reformism but it is the result of the political stalemate in Washington. Its scope is limited and its impact spotty. The rise of power in Washington is the result of its financial power. The 20th century rise of the income tax and the power to borrow via the federal reserve account for its institutional preeminence. Local power can't compete. Claiming otherwise is to pretend a unified national utopian is about to arise from prayer meetings at thousands of diverse and competitive creeds supported by donations. A third party dream is similar fantasy.
In 1980 I was offered an interpreting assignment by LS which involved accompanying throughout the US Christian Blanc , then a close aide to the socialist Michel Rocard, candidate for the presidency in "la belle France!" We visited h.q.'s of 3 candidates, Republican RR, Ted Kennedy, challenging re election of Carter, and finally, John Anderson, independent third party candidate! Queried Blanc on his impressions of each of the campaigns, and he confided that Kennedy's people seemed most experienced, with Reagan's, headed by Bill Brock, a close second. Of the 3, Anderson's campaign seemed wracked by disorganization, Volunteers at his h.q.were disheartened, visibly depressed : a total flop! Anderson was not known for being organized, but what we saw was chaos!Forget about third parties Mr. Brooks! If the campaign of Anderson in 1980 is any indication, chances of a third party winning are virtually non existent! Years lecturing in groves of academe have taken a toll on your grasp of political reality. 2020 will see a contest between Trump and a far left progressive Democrat, someone hopefully resembling in idealism Henry Wallace, v.p under FDR for 1 term but then abandoned by HST after FDR's demise, and who incarnated a a humanitarianism which Truman, brought to power by the bosses, did not match. Would there have been the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki if HST had listened to Wallace rather than to James Byrnes? Possibly not!
The Constitution assigns political parties no role in government, and not all Americans have acquiesced to rule by political parties. In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned America against political parties. He said: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.” He added that “political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies among groups and regions, raise false alarms among the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.”
How predictable that Brooks would choose now, a few months from an incredibly important midterm election, to suggest that people…not vote out the party of destruction.
Despite the disaster of this Republican government, Brooks can't bring himself to support the only logical alternative in our deeply-entrenched 2-party system, the Democrats.
Nope! Instead, he suggests that people choose the option that has never worked in modern history.
Ridiculous.
Re your "Third-Party Option", David Brooks -- a non-starter unless it's a labor party. You know like we all do that the Republicans are holding democracy hostage. We, who clearly see the threat of a judge who protects and defends the American elite, are hoping that Brett Kavanaugh will be borked during his confirmation grillings. Our Executive Branch has been ashcanned since Trump won the 2016 election. Donald Trump's loyalists -- blinded by their idol's fools-gold buffet -- still revere the master demagogue. Propaganda is king.
All the working class voters who revere Trump are up a creek with no paddle. Two parties have caused the trainwreck we're seeing in our country today. The Republicans deride everything green (even the Earth itself). America needs a labor party. Intelligent working class voters need a champion of democratic values and a fair deal. Not a megalomaniacal would-be tyrant who is betraying Democracy by Republicans.
What utter rubbish.
The unmentioned problem is that "localism" means starvation. In communities across America, schools can't be properly funded because they depend on property taxes and citizens are under unsustainable tax burdens already. States are forced to cut spending on higher education, partially because they don't want to, but more because they don't have the resources.
Does Brooks think small communities across America will develop a vibrant health care system? Shall we fund a new Social Security system out of the contributions of fast food workers and owners of small farms and businesses?
What we need is leaders who have the courage to redistribute America's vast wealth. This "localism" nonsense is just a different version of Brooks's thousand points of light approach to social distress.
What has happened in America is simple. The "drown government in the bathtub" movement has succeeded primarily in drowning ordinary citizens. Brooks suggests giving them more power to do what? Without a progressive tax code and a national commitment to equity and social justice, the "local power" will be impotent and limited to finding local ways to survive the indifference of the plutocrats who run the country.
Drivel. Ross Perot and John Anderson are two names now in the dust bin of also-rans, the place where all third party candidates eventually end up. We just need to make better choices when participating in the nomination process.
If David really wants to create more opportunity for other candidates, then he should be campaigning to get the money out of the system.
Oh David, you ninny, we've been talking third party for decades, but what has happened? Bupkis. And for good reason. I, a lifelong Dem, am not going to go third party no matter how farther to the Left the candidate may be compared with the party's "establishment"pick.
This is what happened in 2016. Many of my friends went gaga over Bernie. They thought he was the bee's knees. But when he lost to Hillary, as he should have since he was literally a DINO, a Democrat in name only, his supporters, my friends, lifelong Dems, were so incensed, they cursed Hillary, and blamed her for "rigging" the primaries.
I am as old as dirt, as are many of m friends. At the time I considered them to be politically astute. Yet, when Bernie lost, and yes it was in the cards he would lose because he didn't play by the "rules", it was Hillary who took the brunt of my friends angst. These lifelong Dems of decades simply did not understand the basic bylaws of their party. Till this day, I am astounded at their ignorance.
The political system is messed up enough without more tinkering with it as you suggest, David. We have been a two party nation for too long to remember. Any third or fourth or fifth candidate sounds good on paper but then there's reality. I am not going to dilute my vote by casting it for someone who doesn't have a chance at winning, ie. Nader. Former Mayor Bloomberg figured that out. That's why he's still a billionaire. In the real world, the choice is binary.
DD
Manhattan
1
Let the governors select one of their own to be president and spare us. And term limit everyone including the supreme court.
Third party is a dead idea. Forget it -- it is the surest (probably only) route to Trump's re-election.
Despite our 13/14&15th Amendments having duly reinvented our "four score and seven years," the accompanying enforcement this Constitutional tripod had required was sadly lacking for a century. Had Ulysses S Grant's then "New Localist" bent on saving the union successfully disenfranchised the demagoguery still presiding despite abolishing slavery, Reconstruction coulda/shoulda policed the very reform and integration Mr Brooks now renders imperative. Therefore, the "New National Story" has already been told at our centennial when Custer's 'Last Stand' sadly hadn't precluded OTHER 'Little Bighorns' from Trumpeting. Regardless whether there's any reason why anyone "would/wouldn't" think its read has been read.
Mr. Brooks has proposed an excellent campaign strategy for Trump reelection. A third party can only serve as a spoiler as long as the Electoral College elects the President. The posited candidate will draw voters from the opposition, not the incumbent. There are too many quixotic commentaries these days. Hhard-nosed electoral politics and pragmatic voting are the only remedies at the country's disposal. Dreaming ideslogues are an illness not a cure.
The Brooks Formula: 1. find a piece of social science research that raises important questions about structural inequality. 2. praise and paraphrase it so that its implications for a necessary redistribution or reassertion of popular sovereignty, presuppose: 3. strong top-down leadership. David Brooks is the place where questions about the status quo go to be repackaged as affirmations of the status quo.
1
Long after the quo has lost its status.
Brooks' nostalgia for the Robert Putnam-type social capital, whose loss he often laments, has led him astray. Local activism is high, but it is as often a protest against local policies, such as policing practices in minority neighborhoods, or, in the suburbs, pro zoning regulations that preserve wealthy neighborhoods and keep out both low-income apartments and sober living residences in the guise of "local control", as it is for anything that brings people together. The underlying problem in Brooks' idea is two-fold: too many of our problems are national, such as greenhouse emissions, healthcare, immigration, and the opposition candidate is Trump, a strong leader who has brought out a desire for a rival that can displace him and right the country. We've had two presidents in a row who enacted policies through executive order and people have come to expect the president to be able to single-handedly change the course of the country. The recognition that the governing mechanisms in Washington have broken down—because of the influence of money, and because daring proposals only come from right-wingers who want to tear down people and programs— needs to be a central part of a candidate's platform, but he or she also requires some daring proposals of their own and voters need to be able to "drain the swamp" of their current do-nothing representatives. An activist progressive philosophy can lead local participation from the perspective of a revived Democratic party.
Sorry David. That has been tried. Ralph Nader tried for years to focus on the needs and rights of the population and received only criticism.
The concept of “third party” hinges solidly on the the supremacy and perceived legitimacy of the two entrenched dominating parties. “Third” party candidates and positions are viewed as pesky mosquitoes — temporary annoyances to the supreme duopoly. Third-party politics are destined to fail, and generally serve as spoilers.
Until we can collectively and creatively imagine a truly democratic, legitimate multi-party structure of governance for ourselves, the existing antidemocratic, binary, winner-take-all model of electoral representation — a dismal and out-dated relic of a faded era — will maintain its stranglehold on the country and take it to its grave.
1
No. Please no.
Two major parties are more than enough.
Particularly considering the most major of those two parties can get enough votes and still can't get a President elected.
Let's fix the chaotic ones we've got before entering into another voting inferno.
1
One of the reasons that power shifted from state and local governments to the federal government is that many state and local governments proved to be corrupt and ineffective. Another reason is that once upon a time, Americans decided that they wanted things done. They wanted a TVA to bring the wonders of electricity to rural areas and a national highway system.
In economic terms, the federal government is our version of Europe's Customs Union. Conservatives like the individual states to control economic issues because that insures low taxes and minimal spending. No state really wants to tax its citizens more than the state next door. But since states have to balance their budgets, that means that they will naturally tend to follow policies that reduce spending -- mostly, for example, by not having a safety net and allowing local governments to tax themselves and spend on their own schools. Rich local governments can spend more on their own children while the parents of children in poor neighborhoods can't. Oh. Remember that States Rights was the cry of localities who wanted the right to suppress and discriminate against their own black and brown citizens.
Localism sounds like a great idea as long as the goal is to balkanize the United States and reduce everyone's incentive to work for equality and fairness.
1
Trump is essentially a third party.
His problem is he had to pick one of the existing corrupt parties to run under and is now stuck with the dead wood that both parties are made up of.
2
I don't think anyone more radical than Donald Trump will be in the race.
Brooks will say anything and do anything to get a milktoast republican lite Corporate Democrat type president over a true progressive that will give Americans the FDR we should have had in 2016.
Mr. Brooks, you write that a third party candidate "... would have to argue that the Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of a Washington-centric power structure that has ground to a halt."
What you're really saying is that a third party candidate must lie to be a viable option. Democrats haven't been part of the Washington "power structure" since 2010. Republicans blocked every initiative of the Democrats' and Pres. Obama's, at every turn. Republican Senators shirked their duty to vote on Pres. Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
No, Mr. Brooks, you can no longer get by with the false equivalency. You own this. You need to accept responsibility for your role in supporting this party.
But you sidestep the real problem, and that is that race is the driving factor in Trump's success. And race is the driving factor for Congressional Republicans toadying to him. And frankly, you're embarrassed about this. At least in the past, your candidates used dog whistles. Now they're straight up, unapologetic racists. So you try to manufacture some other avenue to attempt to justify a third party, in an attempt to find a "clean" way to leave the Republicans.
But understand this. Your silence before November 2016 enabled the Trump presidency. We don't need a third party. You just want to wash your hands of a racist, bigoted party that you supported for decades. And so your talk of a third party is nothing but a distraction. But understand this -- some of us aren't taking the bait.
3
There is no third-party option. There hasn't been a viable third-party option in America for 150 years.
The only way we can defeat the grifter is to unite around the Democrats.
Anything else will re-elect the grifter.
I'm sure you know this, David.
2
Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin? Please review the goals, policies and leadership skills of Barack Obama and compare with the current occupant of the White House and get back to me.
4
No. Job #1 is to get Trump out of the White House. Can't be splitting the vote.
Don't even think about it.
Remember, Job #1.
4
"A third-party candidate who shifted attention to local people actually getting stuff done might lose ...."
Um, you buried the lede. Brooks should have just written "hey, political pundits are bored by all this Trump-treason stuff, why not give us something new to play with?"
Yes, please split the Democrat's voters so that the Republicans will win forever.
2
More foolishness from Brooks, who seems dedicated to the appearance of being a thoughtful alternative to the bifurcation of the country even as he proposes things that will keep the status quo.
A third party means one of the two main parties will win. The only question is which one. We know that the Trump Cult will turn out no matter what, we know that he won delegates with pluralities rather than majorities and that he lost the popular vote but is in power anyway.
A third party will split the anti-Trump vote. This third-party nonsense does his work for him.
Either Mr. Brooks is an ivory tower conservative or a secret Trumpian. What he isn’t doing is offering us a way out of this nightmarish, incompetent and corrupt presidency.
Is David Brooks trolling us? The idea that a third party presidential candidate (even if they could win) would be able to redistribute federal power back to local jurisdictions is absurd by any measure. A single existing party with a majority would have significant problems trying to pull of that feat and he's suggesting that an outsider that eschewed both parties would have that ability?
This is the thing. Donald Trump is only able to do what he is doing because he has a completely compliant Republican controlled congress. If they didn't march in lockstep with him, much of the obscenity that has been his presidency would be stymied and blocked. When Bernie was running everyone was saying that his policies would never get implemented because he wouldn't have the backing of congress and yet David is arguing that a third party candidate could convince the two parties to relinquish their power for the good of the people?
The least I expect from the NYT is an attempt at honesty and here we have a opinion columnist offering a fantasy which is framed as a possible way to right many of the country's wrongs. Talk of a third party option in these days to achieve the David's suggested end is not helpful and would usher in a second Trump term.
1
“To have a chance, the third-party [candidate] . . . would have to argue that the Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of a Washington-centric power structure that has ground to a halt.”
Mr. Brooks' obsession with narrative is typical of today's distant observer. Stories follow action; they do not precede it. Before we have a narrative, we will need a hero for our times. Absent heroism, there are no stories, there is only propaganda.
Has Mr. Brooks admitted yet that he created this mess by voting for Trump?
And so it starts...David working his way to subliminally elect another Republican.
His political "wisdom" is really thinly a veiled strategy to--not so much elect a Republican as to defeat the left's candidate--that could have been written by trump himself. That is if trump had David's brains.
1
Biden/Landreiu is a winning combination
A coastal cannot win unless her name is Nikki Haley and she is paired with John Kasich who will not take second banana to a woman.
Biden and Landrieu are my picks
Or Biden Hickenlooper
Definitely Biden
3
Right now, a vote for a non Republican/Democrat assists the other side. Just ask Jill Stein voters. Many people will vote *against* Trump - or the Democrat - without regard to how horrible their party candidate is, since a third-party vote is wasted and their hatred of the other party is real.
I call it the "Roy Moore Principle". When Alabamans were forced to choose between a Democrat and a pedophile, it was a toss-up.
More false equivalence. Yeah, sure, the Democrats have done nothing for you — aside from voting rights, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, the ACA, fair housing, the clean water act, the clean air act, title IX, NEPA, Dodd-Frank, the minimum wage and the 40-hour week, Pell grants, social security, Fannie Mae, equal pay, OSHA, the Brady Bill...
Yeah, nothing.
4
Ah yes, the state governments that have brought us bans on abortion after 6 weeks of gestation, and still hold on to statutes banning abortion even in cases of rape, incest or risk to the life of the mother; is this Mr. Brooks' way of endorsing reversal of Roe v. Wade? See also the state efforts to clear voting roles of black, Hispanic and poor citizens by requiring the very forms of photo ID's that are hardest for those person to obtain, or have authorized pharmacists to refuse to sell contraceptives in order to assert their right to impose their religious views on the choices of others. Or the states that forbid localities to enact laws protecting LGBTQX persons from discrimination in housing, employment and business services, or requiring local police to act as deputies to those folks at ICE who enforce Mr. Trump's Neighborhood values on helpless children at the border. And, yes, those local police who go without accountability under local prosecutors who wave off killings of unarmed black men. And there's that great state statute called 'stand your ground" -only the white party that gets to stand his ground, not the black fellow who get shot. The subsidiarity principle has its place in moral theories of government, but there does need to be a balance -- you want a weak central government, move to Haiti. There is much good going on locally - consider the mayor of South Bend, as well as NOLA. But Indiana - 1st home of "religious freedom" to discriminate vs gays - Nah!
Let’s just start by getting rid of megalomaniacs Trump and Pence, then find a rational person....
Move to the center, Democrats. Highlight the issues where you have an advantage.
1. Health care -- Is the GOP really set on pulling the rug out from under millions of Americans?
2. Assault weapons -- Is the GOP planning for the next civil war? Go bare knuckles on this one.
3. Central American immigration -- surrender on this one. Repeal the Wilberforce Act. You can always reinstate it when you have an election or two to lose.
4. The Supreme Court -- Stolen! Stolen! Stolen!
5. Climate change -- Light a fire under your supporters.
So you really, really, want Trump reelected? Because that's the only place this line of thinking leads.
1
This is Brooks' transparent attempt to recycle Reagan, who repeatedly tore down the Federal Government as a way of appealing to regressive and, yes, racist State and Local power centers. Time to grow up, David, and admit we need BOTH a local and federal governmental framework that is inhabited by a diverse coalition of mature adults that values economic and social justice throughout our society and seeks to build a more sustainable and peaceful world across this fragile globe. Time to cut the GOP loose, David, join the Democratic Party, and be part of the solution to our complex challenges. Your 3rd Party hail Mary is a typical beltway conservative ego trip arising out of the ashes of the horrific Trumpenstein your Party carefully nurtured to life over the past 40 or so years of coded rhetoric.
5
Who would be stupid enough to vote third party in 2020?
2
Sounds like a great plan to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
2
Such utter nonsense.
Barack Obama was precisely the left-of-center candidate, and President, conservatives like Mr. Brooks love to love. . . .in theory. His practical, non-ideological approach to governance is exactly what they call for in columns like these as predictably as a digital watch. And yet somehow in practice a conservative Democrat like Barack Obama is never quite good enough for them. Or rather, never quite Republican enough.
Mr. Brooks spent a career building today’s Republican Party. When he calls for a third party today, what he really means is a Republican Party minus Donald Trump. How does that sound to everyone?
Johnny could only sing one note
And the note he sings was this
Ah!
Poor Johnny one-note
sang out with "gusto"
And just overlorded the place
Poor Johnny one-note
yelled willy nilly
Until he was bleu in the face
For holding one note was his ace
Couldn't hear the brass
Couldn't hear the drum
He was in a class
By himself, by gum!
1
Hey! All you Wigs, Know-Nothings, and Mugwumps attention!!! There are job openings for you in a new third party.
Ok! Enough joshing. Yes, both parties are suffering from the lack of unity, clarity of message, and direction and yes the stage is set for a third party or parties, but fasten your seat belts it will be a bumpy ride while one of the two major parties dies and a new party is born.
It is coming, but will it be extreme right vs. extreme left? My hope is for a New Deal for those under 40 created by those under 40. As a pre-baby boomer, hence somewhat aged and politically experienced, it is time we gave up on the boomer screw-ups and enjoy a new generational takeover of American politics. Wish I could be here to see it--what turmoil, upsets, and just plain fun.
My sense is that Mr. Brooks is a "normal" conservative that correctly abhors Trump, but hasn't yet decided what to do about it.
In terms of the immediate future, 2018 and 2020, a viable third party would likely be a gift to Trumpism. So, that aside and as far as I know, neither Brooks nor most other fellow "Rinos" (e.g. Douthat, Stephens) have revealed their immediate plans to thwart Trump. The real (non-hypothetical) options are limited. Will they in practice revert to voting mostly Republican (currently the party of Trump), stay home, vote "3rd party", or go Democratic? What say you, Mr. Brooks?
I suggest that the only one of those above alternatives that is likely to be effective is the last. Overcoming the malady is the first priority; Brooks' proposed rebuilding of the body politic comes later.
1
The reality of the two-party cabal in the US political life is such that it would take many billions of dollars to put a third party on its feet.
Much as I would like to see revival of anything, be they Whigs or Know-Nothings, I am not at all hopefull.
I am rather pleased he mentioned Mitch Landrieu as a possible candidate.
1
A third party Mr. Brooks will not help nor fix our democracy that has been ambushed and being held captive by those that thrist for power over the majority.
This self-serving entity of sub-par human beings wear all sorts of labels. This entity has been larking in the dark for a very long time. A third party will only add to the mess.
The fix?
To begin…..Get rid of the electoral college, Go back to paper ballots, limit campaign contributions, stop partisan gerrymandering.
Nothing will begin to bring our democratic form of governing , of, by and for we the people back to the middle until we vote out this GOP in November. The grip they have on we the people will only grow stronger for 'They' are not done yet.
1
You won't have a viable third party or any other options but our corrupt two-party monopoly until you enact ranked-choice voting and take the fear and threats away from that monopoly against those that would dare think and vote outside it.
2
Absolutely agree, David!!
If you and your anti-Trumpsters are serious, then you'd be all over getting a credible Republican to siphon off votes from the monster.
But instead, you'll go to Bumsteer, North Dakota and pontificate about the dignity of the last of the cowboys and their disintegration as part of the true spiritual American ethos.
Put your power to work and get this danger to our democracy on the road to oblivion.
1
Hi David - how 'bout pitching for ranked choice voting? That, more than anything else, would accelerate the well needed movement towards 3d party. or 4th? Thank you.
Ross Perot, who was 100% right about NAFTA, would have won as a third party candidate if he hadn’t revealed himself to be a nut. ‘Course, that didn’t stop Trump.
3
I wish all the pundits elevating Mitch Landrieu to national stature would check his record more closely—in particular, his role in last summer’s needless flooding, and, of course, crime.
Landrieu’s major talent is in crafting his image for the national stage, while neglecting more mundane difficult problems at home. He has his book about removing the monuments and lots of attention, even from David brooks, but we need democrats who can get things done not simply project an image. It pains me to point this out, but it is true-dat.
2
The false equivalency this article peddles is one of the biggest problems this nation faces. How can you you possibly still argue in 2018 that Democrats and Republicans are both the same, and both to blame for Washington's troubles?
"That person would have to argue that the Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of a Washington-centric power structure that has ground to a halt."
Are you out of your mind? Republican blind obstructionism under Obama was unprecedented. Remember 14+ months over Garland, remember that THEFT of the American people's will?
REPUBLICANS are the problem and the reason for polarization, and that was even before inflicting the shame that is this current administration upon the world.
4
Your superman president inspired a whole generation of republicans to create federal dysfunction. It's actually become amusing to watch you avoid that fact.
1
Localism will only work in a Parliamentary system where the Prime Minister/ President can be removed with a vote of no confidence.
Trump wouldn’t last long had we had a Parliamentary system of government. The Muslim ban on his first days in office would be his end.
1
It's rather apparent that Brooks has recently faced his midlife crisis (or it was shoved in his face?), and he can no longer abide by the values of what his beloved Conservatism has become. (Or, as we on the Left have been saying, what it actually has been all along.)
Lately, he's taken to waxing eloquently and extolling the virtues of community organizing, diversity, consensus building, neighborhood organizing, civil rights, police reform, etc. He's even written columns about how "It Takes a Village...."
Gee, don't those things sound suspiciously like the things that us dreaded Liberals stand for? Wasn't Pres Obama derided for being a "community organizer?" Wasn't Mrs. Clinton mocked for that book title?
But poor Mr. Brooks can't seem to reconcile all the cognitive dissonance that this raises for him. After all, his career and self-identity was all built on being a Conservative, and creating false narratives about what Liberalsim "is"; he can't seem to stomach the idea of admitting that perhaps we unpatriotic Liberals might have been right about some things!
So, he sidesteps the cognitive dissonance by latching onto (and sometimes inventing) new, lofty-sounding semantics, such as "localism," merely as a way of avoiding having to admit that he deigns to support some values of Liberalism.
We don't need a third party! Rather, we simply need Conservatives to stop acting irrationally, and stop the knee-jerk demonization of anything that's associated with us Liberals.
1
If there’s a left leaning third party candidate in 2020 trump will be re-elected.
Republicans like Brooks have undermined the federal government in the eyes of the citizenry - since the time of Ronald Reagan, their rhetoric has centered on the idea that government is the problem, that the government cannot be trusted and that the government is a waste of your tax dollars and a burden on your economic freedom. Backed with the money of the Kochs and other corporate patrons, and armed with its own tv news network, the right-wing has succeeded in convincing the American people of this dangerous proposition - that the central government created by our Constitution - by our Founding Fathers - is the problem. What, after all, was so wrong with the Articles of Confederation?
David Brooks is the mild voice of polite reason on the right, but he us not to be taken seriously. His good-old days notion of a homogeneous America in the pre-civil rights era of the New Deal fails to account for the many Americans who had no voice in our politics then. His yen for a transfer of power to the local community echoes the kind of states rights rhetoric of the right-wing racists of the 1960's. The poison of white supremacy is ascendant on the right, as we see in the president himself. Who can blame Brooks for having fallen under its influence?
It really is time for the NY Times to offer us something better than the nonsense we get from this guy.
4
I have always liked watching Shields and Brooks on the news hour, and thought he has made good points. But lately I think he is doing damage by making "seemingly" reasonable "suggestions" take take thought to see how these align with the goals of the administration. Clever David, clever, or maybe you are just thrashing, looking for anything to avoid the inevitable conclusion; your Republican party is distroying our democracy.
1
Asked by LS in 1980 to be interpreter for Christian Blanc, French political operative, aide to Michel ROCARD, socialist candidate for the presidency of France. We visited headquarters of 3 of the 4 major candidates, that of RR, Ted Kennedy and finally the h.q. of John Anderson, running on an independent ticket with Barry Commoner, a well known environmentalist. Conclusion of Monsieur Blanc, who later was named to head the R.A.T.P. in the presidency of Mitterand, was that RR's campaign staff under Bill Brock had it all together, and likewise for the Kennedy people, who, Blanc inferred, were the most experienced, campaign hardened. In contrast, a visit to Anderson's h.q.was disappointing.Folks appeared disorganized, almost to this observer, clinically depressed.No one seemed to be doing anything. Anderson was nowhere to be found. Press had built him up to be someone he was not, a serious candidate. Third party movements seldom if ever succeed, and their platforms are co opted inevitably by the 2 major parties. In France in 2008 JM Le Pen was thought to have a chance at the "quinquennat," before Sarkozy co opted Le Pen's anti immigrant appeal, started sounding like his opponent on campaign trail, and Le Pen's chances of becoming
'chef d'etat" took a nosedive."Distributing power downward" Mr. Brooks? Good luck with that one. To paraphrase V.S. Naipaul in "The Return of Eva Peron:" Those who are on top have always been on top, and are not taking any chances!
Once again, Mr. Brooks attempts to divert from the obvious that so many readers point out easily. We know that Mr. Brooks always tries to make an intellectually-based diversionary argument away from the simple, non-GOP policy obvious solutions. You've missed the mark yet again, Mr. Brooks.
If radicalism is the factor opening up opportunity for a third party, why the exclusive focus on Democrats?
1
David, you are still deaf to our youth. They are the future, you do know that.
Having said that, we love Mitch Landrieu, he is what the doctor ordered.
1
There's already a third party in national politics. It's the Russian-Republican party.
1
The largest solid plurality across the country is Trumpism. With any 3rd party, trumpistas win. (See Maine)
This just cements Mr Brooks as a egg head writer with no sense of political reality as so well pointed out my many of the responses. He must secretly want Mr. Trump to be re-elected or thinks it is worth another term for this President just to make an esoteric political science point.
1
I see Mr. Brooks’ concern, which is why I’m shocked he doesn’t know about...therefore doesn’t write about...the Article V convention of states to amend the Constitution so as to take power away from Washington D.C.
D.C. pols will never reform from within. They will never voluntarily give up their wealth and power. So Article V is the only answer. Our Founders put that in there in case we got to the point where we are at now: Too much centralized power in the federal government.
1