The Democratic Party’s Undemocratic Opposition to No Labels
The Democratic Party’s Undemocratic Opposition to No Labels
Margaret White
By opposing No Labels ’ effort to secure nationwide ballot access for the 2024 presidential election, the Democratic Party is failing to live up to the central premise of the word “democratic” in its name. It is suppressing democracy.
The Democratic Party is doing this in two ways. The first is by attempting to literally keep No Labels off the ballot. We saw this when the Arizona Democratic Party took No Labels to court to try to invalidate the ballot access that had been granted by Arizona’s Democratic secretary of state. Fortunately, a judge rejected its claim on Aug. 9 and No Labels will be on the ballot in Arizona in 2024.
The party's second method is more insidious. It has created a political culture in which anyone who refuses to back President Joe Biden is automatically accused of supporting the presumptive Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump — and, by extension, the rise of a “dictator.”
No Labels agrees our democracy is broken, but we don’t accept the premise that the only way to fix it is to pledge blind fealty to one party.
One can reasonably disagree with this strategy. One cannot, without engaging in the most profoundly dishonest intellectual contortions, characterize a movement based on such a strategy as “radical,” “insincere” or “undemocratic.” Doing so is disrespectful to America’s vast commonsense majority, which craves problem-solving and is profoundly dissatisfied with both Biden and Trump.
It is also flat-out undemocratic. There is no way of spinning this that doesn't make it undemocratic, by the literal definition of the word. If denying a political movement access to the ballot after it has met the legal requirements for appearing there is not undemocratic, then the word has no practical meaning.
Yet we are told that we must ignore this hypocrisy at the core of the anti-No Labels campaign because the threat to democracy Trump poses is too great to be ignored. This reminds me of a famous dialogue scene from the play “ A Man for All Seasons .” In it, in a fictional conversation between British leader Sir Thomas More and a young lawyer, one character defends allowing the devil to benefit from protection under the law.
to read more .....
The Democratic Party’s Undemocratic Opposition to No Labels (msn.com)
They are petrified of one man.
I am sick and tired of people using any tool (legal or illegal) to defeat this one man.
I do not think that Trump should be president again, nor do I desire four more years of Biden but that is not the point. No one should be against an additional choice for the people to consider - that is the point of democracy, letting the people decide.
Until we collectively pull our heads out of our asses, we will be faced with the choice of a dementia suffering fool who never had enough brain power to light an LED, and a narcissistic jackass with so many character flaws it's hard to keep track.
The truly said part is the partisan idiots are so stupid and entrenched en party dogma will tell you a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for the other guy and not MY guy.
I largely agree with the points you made and I think more people would agree if those points were presented with less vitriol and personal attacks, just my opinion
You want something moderate, kind of a throwback to when the country was more united and civil. I have a relative who feels the same way. He was the first person to tell me about "the no labels party."
So, Robert, where is your candidate?
[Deleted]
Telling that a moderate scares them so much.
I think democracy itself frightens them.
And I would offer that there are those on the right that have balked at and opposed democratic process in recent years
As well as those on the left. Case in point, the Democrat Party of Florida is not even going to have a primary but award all it's votes to Biden. Not a very democratic process if it's not left to the people to decide.
According to Wikipedia, several states canceled their Republican primaries and caucuses in 2020. The states that did not hold GOP presidential primaries in 2020 are:
That doesn't disprove my post, it only supports Roberts post. As we well know (at least we should), the party in the Oval Office when the incumbent is running for re-election does all sorts of things to support it's incumbent.
Roberts post only pointed out where Republicans were opposed to the democratic process, and I countered where the Democrats are just the same.
The bigger problem IMO is the two-party system that we are currently stuck with. There's too much power and money tied up in the current system and we have the fox guarding the chicken house with the setup. I don't know what it's going to take to change the system but it has to be done by the people as the politicians will not willingly give up that power and money.
Old news, how does it relate to the question athand?
I would go a step farther and say that the problem isn't only the two party system, but rather the bigger problem is the two current parties and the zealots of both right and left
I completely agree.
If there is a democratic process, the no labels party should be able to put a candidate on the ballot. They did the leg work throughout the states.
The Iowa Caucuses are 2 weeks away. Where is the candidate?
There is absolutely no reason to believe that a No Labels candidate could win the election. Under that for sure circumstance, what is the goal of No Labels? To advance a message? That can be done without a presidential candidate. To be a spoiler ?
Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992 , and with that relatively high 3rd party total he won exactly zero electoral votes.
A No Labels candidate would almost certainly hurt Biden, for one reason. Most Trump voters will not consider ANYBODY else because a lot of them are in the cult.
You may be right that Biden would lose votes to a No Labels candidate, but so would Trump. I think there are Republicans that do not want Trump in the White House but would never vote for Biden, but very well might vote for a center right moderate. But regardless of those points, the American people should not be denied the right to at least consider a No Labels candidate when they go to the polls.
Thanks a very good perspective on the why or why not of the issue
A valid point. In a true democracy the No Labels Party should have no problem getting a candidate on the ballot.
Modern elections are won & lost by the narrowest of margins. Moving a percentage point up or down can make the difference. So both the Dems and Reps will keep working out ways to give them an edge. Be that keeping people off the ballot, gerrymandered maps, or brow beating people into submission.
No matter what they do it's on the individual voter to make up their own mind. I'm fully behind the idea of No Labels and will all come down to who they run. A No Labels mayoral candidate won last fall in a city next to where I live.
What states could No Labels win? I dont think there is a single state where someone could predict a No Labels win.
Totally agree, but the choice should be on the ballot
Who it is or their politics is not relative to the point that the No Labels candidate should be a possible choice for voters.
Perhaps JR isn’t pro-choice at all.
The point I offered for discussion is far in the rear view mirror and this become I love/hate Trump vs I love/hate Biden which has nothing whatsoever to do with the need for a third party candidate (in this case No Labels) to be on all ballots in November 2024
I thank everyone who participated in my first discussion here on NT in a very long time