What is Unity08 up to?

Projects like this one seem to pop up about once a presidential cycle, but [tag]Unity08[/tag] is under the impression that it’s on to something different.

A group of old Washington hands has launched a campaign to remake Internet politics, taking a forum that until now has been associated with ideologues and angry partisans and using it to start a movement culminating in a [tag]bipartisan [/tag][tag]presidential [/tag][tag]ticket [/tag]in [tag]2008[/tag].

The group is called Unity08, and no one would accuse its founders of thinking small. They include Democrats Hamilton Jordan and Gerald Rafshoon, who gained political fame for their role in electing Jimmy Carter 30 years ago, as well as Doug Bailey, a media adviser to former president and representative Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich.). They are being joined by former Maine governor Angus King, an independent.

Their goal is to offer an alternative to the two major party choices — a unity ticket that will emerge after secure, online balloting that they hope will include millions of Americans. In an announcement statement, Unity08 said its efforts are a reaction to a system that has “polarized and alienated the American people” through partisanship and interest-group politics.

It’s like a [tag]third party [/tag]campaign, only instead of nominating candidates from outside the two party system, Unity08 wants to form a ticket with candidates from the two parties — one from each.

The group’s pitch sounds largely inoffensive: Dems and the GOP are “well-intentioned,” but ultimately “trapped in a flawed system.” Unity08 can take steps to address real problems by tapping into online activism, a centrist platform, and a [tag]bipartisan [/tag]ticket.

Unfortunately, the idea is not without flaws.

The first problem that comes to mind is the same concern I had a few weeks ago with the “Purple Party” idea — these guys want to vote for a Dem agenda; they just won’t admit it. Unity08, for example, explains that it wants to address “crucial issues” that the two parties aren’t addressing, including:

“global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.”

The group goes on to say that culture-war issues such as “gun control, abortion and gay marriage” should be placed on the back burner while government deals with more pressing matters. All of this sounds eerily similar to what Dems want to do right now.

Next, there are some practical concerns. As Unity08 sees it, a well-qualified leader from each party is going to abandon their party and take on their party’s nominee in a presidential election, while running with a member from the other party. I’m not sure who the group has in mind, but I’m hard pressed to think of a lot of people who’d volunteer for the gig.

Unity08 also offers an oddly mixed message. The group says it’s intent on focusing on “ideas and traditions which unite and empower us as individuals and as a people,” while in the next breath its website features an online game in which Howard Dean and Dick Cheney run over people with their car, accompanied by the message: “Gotcha! Another trip to Democracyland cut short by the parties and special interests!”

The whole thing comes across as a bit of a press stunt. I’ll concede that there are some serious people involved with the project — establishment types who are railing against the establishment — but it’s an endeavor that’s long on rhetoric, short on specifics, and more pie-in-the-sky than substance.

Interesting. I guess all movements are pie in the sky when they start. “Practical” ideas rarely inspire movements. But it seems evidence to me that politicians both underestimate and overestimate the Internet at the same time. I worry about any third party that might split the Democratic constituency. Let’s face it, Democratic ideas aren’t what is ruining the country.

  • Press stunt or riding the immgrant issue that came up exception? Why do I keep on thinking 501s and congressional investigtions along with retired operations officers like the one who started Moveon.org.

    Special interest?

  • If you follow the Biblical injunction that it is by their fruits that you shall know them, Angus King is an ‘independent’ to the same extent I am and Adele penguin.

    Nice polite Republicans, the lot of them.

  • From a philosphical level, I think this is great. But as CB notes:

    As Unity08 sees it, a well-qualified leader from each party is going to abandon their party and take on their party’s nominee in a presidential election, while running with a member from the other party. I’m not sure who the group has in mind, but I’m hard pressed to think of a lot of people who’d volunteer for the gig.

    Who, indeed. I think we can safely eliminate any candidate holding office after the midterms. That would leave some pretty odd bedfellows.

    A Tom Daschel/Rick Santorum ticket? How about Jerry Brown/Jerry Falwell? Jane Fonda/Pat Buchannon, anyone?
    Nope. I don’t see it getting off the ground.

  • Gary Hart and Warren Rudman?

    George Mitchell and John Danforth?

    Al Franken and Newt Gingrich?

  • Actually, there is something to be said for nice polite Republicans. Just not that many left.

  • I found one. I’ve passed a campaign poster for US Congress for Michael Tenenbaum without ever really paying attention to it. Today I finally noticed that the slogan on it was “A Republican We Can Trust.”

    Wow, what does that say about Republicans running away from Republicans!

  • I remember similar noises in ’92 – both major parties aren’t connecting, need someone like Perot to get above party politics etc. But then Clinton, who was in third place as late as June, started fighting, exhorting, and connecting. The media were the last to catch on. Can we find a Democrat in ’08 who absolutely refuses to follow the mushy, split-the-difference story-line and instead takes control of the agenda? Here’s hoping.

  • I’ve given this more thought. Maybe we can use this to generate a Nader of the right. One from each party to form a “bipartisan” ticket? How about Pat Buchannon and Zell Miller?

  • If it were a truly bi-partisan ticket where both people were well qualified, how long would it take for the long knives to come out when it came time to decide which one would actually get to be the top dog?

    They’d be swiftboating each other before the champagne was uncorked. I’ll pass on this one, thanks.

  • I would gladly vote for any of the combinations in #6.
    Indeed, had we elected Hart-Rudman prior to 9/11, it is almost certain there would have been no 9/11. Moreover, the budget would almost certainly be in balance or in surplus.

  • Joe Lieberman called, he wants to know where he can sign up.

    Lieberman/Specter, anybody?

    (I AM kidding!!)

  • This is a crock. It would do for the Democrats what Ralph Nader did for them in 2000—pull away just enough votes to make victory more difficult. Instead, we should be encouraging Judge Roy Moore to run as independent in the South. The whole genius of the American presidential system is that we force people to make alliances prior to the election rather than after it, as in a parliamentary system. This way the people can be directly involved in the deals, rather than have them done secretly in backrooms.

    As for those nice polite Republicans who have enabled the Bush/Cheney agenda for so many years, let’s get rid of them all. By their fruits you know them.

  • Hamilton Jordan was an incomptent jerkoff thirty years ago – it’s nice to see that some things don’t change over time.

    I have to admit, it’s been so long since we’ve heard from him, I thought he was dead.

    Why is it the “well intentioned” are the ones who never get the frickin’ memo??????

  • It’s only a matter of time before the Republicans begin manufacturing phony “third party” campaigns designed specifically to siphon off votes from Democratic candidates. Most likely, these will be single issue campaigns against incumbent dems in swing states and districts whose views on a particular issue differ with the Dem rank and file. For instance, they might run a candidate with a platform based solely on abortion rights against Bob Casey Jr. in Pennsylvania in 2012. Or a colorful “Free The Weed” candidate in a district in which the incumbent Dem is a former prosecutor(though in this case, the candidate would have to be pretty ‘wavy gravy’, as a more staid candidate would likely suck up a few libertarian Repub votes). Such single issue campaigns would ensure that no Republican votes would be lost. Also these single issue campaigns would be taken less seriously by the media, and would therefore be subject to few questions about just who was funding them. These campaigns wouldn’t be designed to make a huge splash. Their only purpose would be to shoplift a few votes in a tight race.

    The RNC has already dabbled in this kind of shit, giving money to fringe candidates and trying to influence Democratic primaries. They just haven’t taken the next step and created a “liberal” campaign from scratch…yet.

  • Bit late to the party, but there is no denying their central premise that the electoral system is broken and that both parties are not addressing the big issues. If they help to force the big issues, front and center, then more power to them.

  • I’m sympathetic to CB’s point that this sounds like the Democrats as we’d like to see them under another name, as well as to the argument that this is unfeasible in many respects.

    But what an effort like this has over the existing Democratic Party is that it’s not beholden to the constricting and parochial interest groups who, year after year, help drag the Dems down. “Unity08” can push for real educational reform–merit pay, the power to fire incompetents, administrative reassignment, curriculum flexibility– without worrying that the teachers’ unions will exercise a veto. It could call for real progress in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies through a variety of tactics without worrying that the hardcore–and tone-deaf–abortion-rights crowd will throw a fit. It could urge emission reductions without fear of revolt from the auto workers. It could even recommend a Grand Bargain on the environment–opening ANWR to drilling, say, in exchange for much tighter CAFE standards and massive investment in alternatives–without fear of reprisal from the environmental lobby.

    I’m sure that many readers here will react with horror to these contraventions of Democratic orthodoxy… which is kind of the point. The large majority of the country wants to see solutions, not “principle” that, to the uninitiated, comes off simply as dogma. Like any established faction, the Democrats are limited tactically by their associations and alliances. These new guys, for all their likely weaknesses, are not. Don’t dismiss that out of hand.

  • Dajafi, the new guys, once they have supporters, will have to pay attention to the opinions of their supporters, just like the evil Republicrats. “Interest groups” are just voters you don’t like.

    The only reason they seem exciting is that, like Colin Powell in the old days, they’re a blank slate onto which all the disgruntled folks can project their hopes and dreams. Once they start actually taking positions or mentioning candidates, they can no longer be all things to all people.

  • KC, I think your take is understandable, but too pessimistic. You’re positing that the current model of interest-group driven politics is inevitable, and that ideas and character can never win.

    All the groups I talk about have valid cases to make, but my opinion is that their parochial interests get in the way of utilitarian policymaking–and further the impression that the Democrats exist to further the interests of those groups, not the common good. This isn’t just my view; it’s one of the major theses of the web activists Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong, who are obviously much more committed to the Democrats than I am. What they want to see, and what I want to see, is the Democrats freeing themselves from the interest groups.

    Where I differ from them is that I don’t think the Dems will do that, and I’m not even sure they can. Now, I’ll take “our” interest groups over the theoligarchy crowd every day of the week… but if a third force emerged that was really civic-minded and independent, I’d very enthusiastically support them. The mostly successful, largely non-partisan mayoralty of Mike Bloomberg here in NYC has definitely colored my thinking on this question.

  • Dajafi, I don’t understand how you think supporting a third party will help. Unless our electoral system is reformed to use instant runoff or some similar voting system (and probably to eliminate the electoral college), any third party will draw votes from the existing parties in proportion to how much its positions agree with theirs. Thus it hurts the party most like it and helps the one least like it. It’s unfortunate, but I don’t see any way around that.

    So I absolutely would not like to see a third party arising that embraced my issues, because it would virtually guarantee a Republican victory. If the third party instead favors positions that I disagree with (and that are held by Republicans), then by all means bring it on.

    Wasn’t 2000 enough of a lesson? Is the idea that if only we cause the Democrats to lose a few more times (and subject the country to a few more disastrous four-year terms of Republican presidents), eventually they’ll get better, or the third party will take over? I really don’t buy the idea that things will get better if only we make them bad enough.

  • That’s definitely a valid concern. I am hoping that the Republicans will fly apart as well. The irony to me is that if the Democrats–driven, I’d guess, by those same interest groups–nominate Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation, the Republican coalition is guaranteed to stay together… and a lot of us who would normally support Democrats will be desperate for any alternative.

  • I definitely agree with you there. Fortunately we’re still a long way out. I’m hoping she’ll look different two years from now, though at the moment we can’t see who will emerge to replace her. I do wonder where all the Hillary-supporting Democrats are who are going to vote for her in the primary, since I haven’t met many, but I suppose they’re hiding somewhere.

  • I’ve been reading the unity blog and posting quite a bit myself, and I see some problems with the whole idea.

    First, many people are using it as a platform for personal political agendas, several comments have tried to “rally the troops” on global warming and other causes. This project will not get off the ground if it gets overrun with ideologues. I for one, will not vote for ANY platform that seeks to take away my freedom to drive whatever I want in order to satisfy some agenda based on bad science.

    Second, Unity ’08 really is not organized nor does it have a tangible platform or core values. It seems to be telling people that we need unity for unity’s sake, rather than trying to bring about compromise on individual issues, which is part of the problem in the first place. It looks to me like they are hoping that people will spontaneously come together and it will magically work itself out.

  • I would have to disagree with you that Unity08 is not organized, because it doesn’t have a specific platform. With a specific platform, this early in the game, it would be impossible to stimulate the dialogue necessary for compromise. What is clear is that Unity08 does have an agenda. Just look at the crucial issue vs. important issue section on the website. Niether major party comes out with a platform before the official candidate declaration. The major parties have agendas.

    Unity08 is in a good place. I especially like the agenda they are pursuing. Our national debt, global competitiveness, medicare — these are critical issues that we do need to consider. We need to lower the debt, become more competitive, and fix our social systems. The fact that a potential party is highlighting these areas gives me hope that we might begin to make more progress in those areas.

  • Comments are closed.