I’ve always found the idea for third parties interesting on a poli-sci level, so when I saw that New York magazine ran a big, multi-part feature this month on “The [tag]Purple Party[/tag],” I was anxious to see what the basic pitch was. I came away a little confused.
Writer [tag]Kurt Andersen[/tag] explained that he tends to vote for [tag]Democrat[/tag]s, but does so unenthusiastically. At the local level (he’s in NYC), he’s backed moderate GOP mayors like Giuliani and Bloomberg, but said he could “never” be a [tag]Republican[/tag] unless [tag]Chafee[/tag]-like moderates managed to take over, which he conceded will not happen.
Andersen insists he’s a “moderate” without a party — Dems on the left, [tag]Republicans[/tag] on the right. He wants a new party to bridge the gap.
We are people without a party. We open-minded, openhearted moderates are alienated from the two big parties because backward-looking ideologues and p.c. hypocrites are effectively in charge of both. Both are under the sway of old-school clods who consistently default to government intrusion where it doesn’t belong….
Fine. What does Andersen want in a [tag]party[/tag]? His lengthy feature spans several thousand words, but the gist of his pitch is a party that’s fiscally responsible, supports single-payer health care, will fight a genuine war on terrorists but recognizes that the war in Iraq was a mistake, takes the separation of church and state seriously, and is pro-environment, pro-choice, pro-trade, pro-science, and pro-diversity.
When listing some of the people Andersen likes who’d be welcome in his new “purple” party, he mentions [tag]Barack Obama[/tag], [tag]Bill Clinton[/tag], [tag]Jon Stewart[/tag], [tag]Oprah[/tag], [tag]George Soros[/tag], and [tag]John McCain[/tag] (“The one who ran for president in 2000, not the one running for president in 2008,” Andersen says).
Reading over the piece more than once, I kept coming to the same conclusion: Andersen doesn’t need the “purple” party; he needs to realize he’s just a regular ol’ [tag]Clintonian[/tag] [tag]Democrat[/tag].
No, no, Andersen says. He’s “depressed” about the Dems because they don’t seem willing to “reform” entitlements; they “oppose” charter schools; they’re insufficiently pro-trade; they’re tacitly “anti-business,” and, for reasons that are unclear, he’s convinced they’re anti-military.
However, what makes so much of the great middle of the electorate most uncomfortable about signing on with the Democratic Party is the same thing that has made them uncomfortable since McGovern — the sense that the anti-military instincts of the left half of the party, no matter how sincere and well meaning, render prospective Democratic presidents untrustworthy as guardians of national security.
What on earth makes Andersen believe this? He says it’s a “sense” that he has, but includes no examples or evidence of any kind.
I don’t mean to pick on Andersen; he’s worked hard to craft a provocative thought piece. But I’m afraid his argument lacks a certain coherence.
He’s obviously disgusted by practically everything Republicans do and stand for, but he’s loath to back the Dems because he’s stuck with an image of George McGovern in his head. Did he sleep through the Clinton era? Did Al [tag]Gore[/tag] and/or John [tag]Kerry[/tag] in any way resemble the caricature of the wacky quasi-socialist, pacifist liberal that keeps Andersen from backing the Dems earnestly?
I’m not reflexively opposed to the idea of a third party; I just want a description of what this third party would believe and stand for. The difference between Andersen’s “purple” party and a Clinton/New Democratic party is, as far as I can tell, indistinguishable.