Now, while I like Joe Klein more than many of my blogospheric peers, I also know it's true that he's sometimes susceptible to the siren song of centrism. So when you try for a sweeping bipartisan movement and he slaps down the idea, you probably should pack it in. In a post titled "Bad Idea", he writes:
New York Mayor Bloomberg's idea for a summit meeting of aging moderate poobahs to discuss an independent third party seems a bit moldy to me. Not that I'm opposed to centrism--as regular readers of Swampland know very well, I'm sort of an aging moderate not-quite-poobah myself. But there is no real potential for a moderate third party this year, and no real need for it, either. [...] Every four years, we get a group of high-minded Mugwumps who are just shocked and appalled by the messiness of the democratic process and yearn for something more pristine.
I love it! He goes on to explain why this is true, citing reasons more detailed (but similar to) mine, and I couldn't agree more.
There's been another bump in the talk of a third party run for president, mostly focused on New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg. It's pretty irritating, and it's largely led by media and political elites who talk a big game about democracy but seem to be horrified the actual process of it. Basically the people who promote "unity" or "coalition" third party presidential runs either don't understand the US electoral/political system, or they don't think it caters to their very particular desires, or both. Really, few things make me crazier than this stuff, for two reasons:
First, there are almost *never* actual policy positions proposed on these issues. Anybody know what, say, Bloomberg thinks about immigration? Choice? Guns? And let's not even get into how just a few years ago, every single talking head on my teevee told me no one could ever again be elected president without extensive foreign policy experience, but what might his views be there? It's insipid. Further, the third party possibilities proposed by the elites (as opposed to those who actually get votes, like Perot), tend to be Republicans who are . . . acting like Democrats. Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger are two prime examples: anywhere but NY and CA, these guys are Dems, and it's not like they're implementing a conservative agenda. But ultimately that means they wouldn't have any kind of national constituency. More after the jump...
The second reason it makes me crazy is a little more personal. You see, the people who support this kind of foolishness tend to be overwhelmingly like me, at least demographically speaking. In other words, the privileged: white, upper middle class, male, coastal. It's embarrassing! This is a group that largely wants everything to stay just as it is, except for maybe helping people in need a little better. To them, Edwards is a Commie and Hillary is too "polarizing," but all of the Republicans are insane. But fundamentally, they all agree with Democratic *positions*, they just don't like to be associated with the actual constituencies of the party (the great unwashed! /eye roll/). Despite being billed as some radical solution to all the "gridlock," what these people most want is for virtually nothing to change. Anyway, the whole thing is about filling air time on the 24-hour news channels, but seriously, if in 40 years I start pontificating about how we need to bypass the electorate by installing a billionaire "centrist" technocrat, somebody please kill me (or at least send me this post).
The man lost us two elections, he deserves to be roasted on a spit.
Speaking of spoilers, there's been talk about whether Bloomberg entering the race, should he, hurts the Republicans or the Democrats. A journalist friend of mine says that Bloomberg could force Hillary, should she be the nominee, to spend money in NY and NJ, something she hadn't planned. But I think Bloomberg (and Hagel?) do something else. They give Republicans, who are mighty uncomfortable voting for a Mormon (and a flip-flopper who's simply pretending to a conservative), a reason, and cover, to walk. Sure, they'll SAY they'll vote for Romney if he's the nominee, just like voters said they'd vote for African-American Harvey Gantt against Jesse Helms. But when they get behind the curtain, Romney will be toast.
Bloomberg never was a real Republican. But he's done with the GOP according to the "City Room" blog at the NY Times:
Michael R. Bloomberg, a longtime Democrat who switched to the Republican Party to run for mayor of New York City in 2001, announced this evening that he is changing his party status and registering as an independent. Mr. Bloomberg maintained that “my plans for the future haven’t changed,” but his decision — the first change in party affiliation by a sitting New York City mayor since 1971, when John V. Lindsay switched from Republican to Democrat — immediately set off intense speculation that he will enter the 2008 presidential race as an independent.
