Conor Joseph Rogers, Editor-In-Chief
Ideology: Republican | Writing from: Washington, DC
Though historically no stranger to independent politics, the Northeast is playing center-stage in a widening political phenomenon: the rise of third-party and independent candidates.
Current conventional wisdom dictates that it’s a bad couple years to be a moderate. Conservative Republicans cite moderate John McCain as the reason for their loss, while liberal Democratic activists have set their sights on Democrats they deem not progressive enough as their Tea Party counterparts set their sights on “RINOs.” However, In elections 2009 and 2010, five well-funded and well-known independents in Congressional, gubernatorial and mayoral elections all are either leading or mounting major challenges in the polls and all of them are from north of the Mason-Dixon.
In New Jersey, independent Christopher Daggett has recently broken 20% in the polls and now trails the major-party candidates by fewer than 15 points with only days until the November 2009 election. In Massachusetts, State Treasurer and ex-Democrat Timothy Cahill has launched a 2010 challenge against incumbent Governor Deval Patrick and is polling even with the Republican challenger and Patrick. In Rhode Island, Republican Senator turned Independent Lincoln Chafee has launched a 2010 gubernatorial bid – and is leading in the polls. On the congressional side of things, in New York’s 23rd district, Doug Hoffman – the Sarah Palin approved Conservative Party nominee – leads his liberal Republican and conservative Democrat challengers.
These independents join Independent New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) as high-profile Northeastern independents (Senator Bernie Sanders, Vermont’s decades-long socialist independent, gets honorable mention).
What is most remarkable about most of these candidates and officeholders is that they are newly Independent. Chaffee, Bloomberg, and Daggett have ditched the Republican Party for the sovereign center. On the liberal side, Lieberman and Cahill have both bucked their Democratic roots in favor of a centrist approach, while only Hoffman has embraced the ideological extreme and become the Tea Party movement’s standard-bearer in NY-23, dropping the GOP label in favor of conservative principle.
Perhaps even more significant than the fact that these independent candidates are polling high, are well-funded and are well-known is that they will begin to change Americans’ perceptions of what a third-party candidate is. Today, “third-party candidate” evokes thoughts of politicians (like Hoffman) that for are running further to the right or left (think Nader & Perot), but Bloomberg and Lieberman defied this stereotype in 2005 and 2006, and Daggett, Chafee and those like them stand ready to blow it wide open. These independents are moderates in every sense of the word: both politically centrist and moderators between the extremes of the two parties. High-profile moderates running in considerable numbers have not been seen in the United States in decades.
Taking this into account, while looking at the considerable drop in those identifying as both “Republican” or “Democrat” on the national stage, a serious dent in the two-party system seems to be emerging – if only in the Northeast.
Infamous political strategist Dick Morris predicted such a change in voting patterns in his modern-day Machiavelli re-write titled The New Prince. Morris hypothesized that as voters get more and more access to information via the internet and new media, their demand for ideological candidates will subside and they will begin to seek out candidates based upon the facts present rather than ideological formulas. Within this assumption, the rise of independents like Bloomberg and Lieberman makes sense in the Northeast – which is statistically highly politically educated and technologically reliant – while simultaneously emerging as a fiscally moderate and socially liberal voting bloc.
Though isolated to the Mid-Atlantic and New England, this phenomenon, especially if it is electorally successful, could have national implications. As the White House and Nancy Pelosi’s Congress move further to the left and the tea parties pull the Republican Party far to the right, the right collection of Independent candidates could seize on the center and mount a serious White House push in 2012. Every political junkie’s guilty pleasure, the billion-dollar Bloomberg White House campaign, could finally come to fruition – and he could have his choice of running mates from a number of Northeastern Governor’s mansions.
Though now just pure speculation, given the rocky relationship between many liberal Republican “RINOs” and conservative Blue Dog Democrats, a major faction of independents could prompt big names that are derided by both ideological extremes like Snowe, Collins, Lieberman, Specter, and the rest to “jump-ship.”
This is not to support or advocate for a President Bloomberg or a Vice President Chafee, but rather, to note the long entrenched two-party system faces its biggest challenge yet in New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut – and it’s coming from the moderate center that neither party can ever seem to fully win over. As Obama’s “big government” rating continues to climb almost as fast as Huckabee’s straw poll support, the perfect 2012 Independent storm could be brewing in the old North.
Excellent piece of journalism, Mr. Rogers
I must add that the conditions present (a liberal majority in Washington, plus a nutty conservative minority in the Palin camp) make this situation more likely than it’s ever been.
I’ll wait and see if more and more independents emerge in 2010, 2011 as a result.
Again, excellent piece, beats the pants off the story Politico did on this.
Though I agree with the content of the article, I have hesitation about the title. We’ve had moderates all along, but they’ve felt compelled to, at least nominally, be a member of one of the two major political parties. The new trend is that they do not have to give false allegiance to a party with whom they disagree, which is a step forward, to be sure.
Yup, I agree with Birm. great survey, intriguing speculation.
Just quickly, and to add to the line, I heard an observation on the radio today that as candidates advertise toward Nov. 3, they are doing their best NOT to identify their party. Has party affiliation in either one become alienating to the electorate? What do the pollsters tell us?
Or will they keep that from us, as Both Parties buy all that sexy polling information? Just a thought.
Thanks, Conor
O&D — from what I can tell, party affiliation is not weaker than what it was before. What has been observed, however, is not so much the radicalization of the parties (the Democrats have been promising national healthcare since Johnson; the Republicans have been promising “limited government” since Johnson, etc.). Instead, we have seen the reorganization of party membership, so, for example, liberal Northeastern Republicans of the 1960s are now Democrats, and Southern conservative Democrats of the 1960s are now Republicans.
For example, see Gallup, “Conservative Democrats, Liberal Republicans Hard to Find,” 2009 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/122672/Conservative-Democrats-Liberal-Republicans-Hard-to-Find.aspx).
Meanwhile, there has been no real increase in the number of independents, at least since 1988 (see Gallup, As “Independents Shrink, Democrats Gain,” 2008 — http://www.gallup.com/poll/108619/Independents-Shrink-Democrats-Gain.aspx).
And, though ideological self-classification is generally viewed with great suspicion within the political science community (I much prefer, for example, issue breakdowns, which better reflect the views of Americans), there has been no increase in the number of moderates since 1992 (see Gallup, “Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group,” 2009 — http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/Conservatives-Maintain-Edge-Top-Ideological-Group.aspx)
I see party affiliation weakening in our generation, which is much more issue-aligned than party-aligned. Straight party line voting seems to be a thing of the past, especially when it comes to candidates views on social issues.
I still don’t know how excited I would be to see Bloomberg in the White House though
Another interesting trend is the correlation between higher education and self-identification as a moderate. With a higher percentage of college and high school graduates in our generation we could be seeing more moderates winning in the future.
I suppose the polls Noah cites would lead one to expect a rise in non-affiliation (what we Californians call being an independent, because the ultra-right call themselves the America’s Independent Party) in this post-Presidential election year. People love to bash partisan politics after an election and act shocked when every single round of guys who promise “bipartisanship” and unity wind up to be just as big of party hacks as the last round.
That leads me to wonder, do people become more moderate? Or do the parties just become more comfortable going far to their respective sides? George W. Bush was elected on the idea of “compassionate conservatism,” but quickly retreated to policies like the USA PATRIOT Act within a year of taking office. Obama didn’t seem to even take a few months to pretend, although his agenda was rather clearly within the realm of classical socialism (note the difference from Soviet socialism) while we were still in the campaign period. Independent candidates have a long history of success in state-level and local races. However, I’m not sure if this can carry over into 2012. Ross Perot may still be in the people’s memory.
Also, it is worth noting that the system is rigged in favor of parties even at an institutional level. In many states, party-affiliated candidates get preferential ballot placement. In 2006, Lieberman created his own party just to avoid being an independent on the ballot and being relegated to a lower spot on the ballot. So, to be entirely truthful, he was elected as the sole Senator from the “Connecticut for Lieberman Party.”
Mr. Rogers, first compliments, questions second.
Safe it say I am the junkiest of political news junkies and this is the best political piece I’ve read all day. Come to think of it, I haven’t seen anyone – the New York Times, Politico, Real Clear Politics, WashPo, ANYONE – flesh out the issue like this.
I’e been checking posts on this site for a good two weeks, now I see why you’re the editor.
Question: if this opinion (that the independents will rise out of a conservative Republican nominee) gets widely propagated, should we expect the Republicans to nominate someone a-la Huckabee?
Hard right’s frustration: Bush runs right, governs from the center or center/left(where’d that spending discipline come from? and…amnesty?) right gets ignored. Obama runs center left, takes office, governs, so far(look at the appointments! the priorities! the war!), hard left. Right AND hard right get ignored.
Congressional democrats fooled the voters, ran center, are now grouped far left.
People are angry. Hard right is crazy with neglect. Owning the low bogs of talk radio and the internet is not enough. Conventional parties know they’ve been shining on the public will too long.
Demo Party oughta play to who runs it, its hard left. Republicans oghtta play to the hard right. Then we’d have some fun!
Mr. Rogers:
Great piece, came across this site on digg, but looks like a great find — seems to be some lively debate going on around here.
Anyway, I’m going to echo the guy from Rosslyn – haven’t seen this anywhere else, not politico, other blogs, nada.
Nice pickup, will be forwarding this along.
Good piece Conor, maybe we can see a multi-party system in this country though it could prove just as instable as that of Europe’s many parliamentry states or even more unstable since we don’t have the need for coalitions to form an executive hence a lack of nescessity for forming a coalition.
But 2010 will tell all!
Thanks for the compliments on the article, I was too surprised that there had been less coverage of this phenomenon (hence the article.)
Noah, there’s been no large jump in those *registered* as independents, but when independents and non-affiliated are lumped into the same column, there is a spike as of recent. (Campell Brown/CNN just had a report on this the other night if you care to look deeper into it)
Colin: Perhaps you misinterpreted the title. I chose “moderates” because “independent” campaigns have existed all along – but as fringe candidates – the emphasis “here come the moderates” was done to emphasize the rise of those like Daggett, Cahill and Chafee – big names, straight down the middle.
Om: My personal prediction is that there’s going to be a large movement towards libertarianism by our generation. 10 years from now, we’ll be facing massive debt, and we are as a whole, quite socially liberal (or libertarian “get out of my life”)
I think the question is this: What is critical mass for the two party system? At what point do we finally realize there is a viable non-partisan or third party candidate for the Presidency?
And if it is a third party candidate, does it mean that it is not the fall of the party system, but rather the start of the sixth party system?
Colin — I think a look at the 1992 presidential election might provide some guidance. Until Perot dropped out of the race (he changed his mind shortly thereafter) most polls showed him with a plurality of the votes (Bush was in third, iirc).
Essentially, for someone to be viable on a national scale, they have to have lots and lots of money that they’re willing to spend on advertisements, especially expensive television advertisements. Once they get those, their name recognition will go way up, and, with it, their chances of getting into the debates.
The problem with polls, especially in a three candidate race, is that people answer polls differently than they vote. Their favorite candidate may by the independent, but when the time comes to vote, they jump to a candidate who they think can win.
Noah, your piece examining the idea of “stolen votes” highlights a major problem. I entirely agree with the sentiment that you expressed there, however I have serious concerns that the rest of the country does not.
If we look at 1992, which is the only real recent example of an effective independent campaign, we must ask one major question. Would Ross Perot have won if people thought he could win?
I would have gladly voted for Michael Bloomberg in 2008 over Barack Obama. But I just wonder how many people would be willing to do the same. Especially in the wake of 1992, when many people’s second choice to Perot was Bush, and by voting for their favorite, they got their least favorite.