Mislabeled

No Labels has become a false flag Trumpist operation

I was an early supporter of No Labels, the political action group that supports the Congressional Problem Solvers caucus. In January of 2013, I wrote in Time Magazine:

On Jan. 10 I witnessed a public act of humility by 24 members of Congress, equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. The event was sponsored by a centrist group called No Labels. It was revolutionary not only in its humility but also in its agenda. There was no agenda. They simply agreed to start talking to one another.

It seemed a no-brainer, Sanity Caucus central. A bipartisan moderate group in a hyper-partisan House of Representatives. No Labels’ founders included friends and fellow Sanityists like Bill Galston of Brookings (who has since resigned from its board). And, in some ways, it worked: the Problem Solvers have doubled in size in the past decade, riding against the prevailing partisan tide. They do more than just talk now; they have a modest agenda, which I pretty much support. They were part of the ballast that made the recent Debt Ceiling legislation possible this spring.

But it’s time to separate the Problem Solvers caucus from No Labels, the group that helps fund the campaigns of its members—because No Labels has gone rogue, perhaps fatally. No Labels is now promoting a Third Party strategy in the 2024 presidential campaign, which may be the most nefarious electoral ploy since the Russians secretly worked to support Green Party candidate Jill Stein in 2016. According to Tara Palmeri in Puck, No Labels is raising $70 million to launch this effort. It plans a nominating convention next April in Dallas. The rhetoric is as attractive as ever: We’re in a political rut. We need a fresh wind, a new political alignment. It’s time for the real American majority—the non-extremists—to throw their weight. It’s time for Sanity to prevail…yes, you’ve heard a lot of the same sort of rhetoric from me (but also a deep appreciation. of the job that Joe Biden has done as a moderate President, which is never acknowledged by No Labels).

I believe the No Labels campaign is shady, and quite possibly a false flag operation backed by Republican billionaires. If it succeeds, the result will be the same as it was in 2016: Donald Trump will win.

Caveats are required here: Trump may collapse under the weight of his own evil in the coming months. President Biden may just collapse. Any attempt to predict American presidential politics is usually a fool’s errand. But, let me repeat:

If No Labels proceeds with this effort, and the electoral dynamic remains as it is, Donald Trump will be your next President.

The facts are manifest. Third party candidacies don’t work, not even when you have a certified national hero like Teddy Roosevelt running, as he did in 1912. Actually, let me amend that. Third parties can work in one way: they can throw the election to either the Republican or Democratic candidate. Actually, let me amend that too: In recent elections, third party candidates like Ralph Nader and Jill Stein have thrown elections to the Republican candidate. (Ross Perot’s third party vote in 1992 was evenly split between George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.)

This effect was particularly dramatic in three states—Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—in 2016. Those were the states where the Russians focused their secret efforts to defeat Hillary Clinton. Let’s take a look at the differences between 2016 and 2020, when there wasn’t a significant third party effort:

Third Party Vote 2016 2020

Michigan 5.7% 1.5%

Pennsylvania 4.4% 1.3%

Wisconsin 6.3% 1.7%

In 2016, Trump won all three states. In 2020, Trump lost all three states. If the electorate remains pretty much the same in 2024, a No Labels effort will yield the same result as the Russians did in 2016: Trump will win.

That would be a disaster, perhaps the end of our democracy. No plausible centrist could ever be involved in such a scheme. Joe Lieberman’s involved, but he’s not a plausible anything anymore. West Virginia’s coal-dusted Joe Manchin is mentioned most often as a potential candidate—he made a special guest appearance on a No Labels phone call this Spring. Could he outpoll Jill Stein? Probably. Could he win the election, or even a state? Hell freezes over.

But I wonder: Who is behind No Labels and why are they doing this? Has No Labels become a different entity from the Problem Solvers caucus? If so, what do the modest, cautiously admirable Problem Solvers think of this reckless tactic? And finally, where’s the money—and there are significant bucks involved here—coming from? Why is this group so intent on giving moderation a bad name?

The answers are murky. The guiding spirits at No Labels are Nancy Jacobson and Mark Penn, who are husband and wife. Penn was Bill Clinton’s pollster until he was replaced by the execrable, but successful, Dick Morris; apparently the bad blood between Penn and the Clintons hasn’t cooled. Indeed, in 2016 No Labels gave Donald Trump a “Problem Solvers” award, the functional equivalent of an endorsement in his campaign against Hillary Clinton. (That—like Stalin’s show trials in the 1930s—should have been enough to cause reasonable people to jump this ship.)

There has been some dismay expressed by members of the Problem Solvers, especially Democrats. But the vast majority of the caucus has sequestered itself in purdah, apparently. They’re not talking, and for the most predictable of reasons: PACs and donors affiliated with No Labels provide funding for their reelection campaigns.

Worst of all, we don’t know who is putting up the money for this effort. Well, we do know one name: Harlan Crow, the sugar-daddy who has funded the leisure adventures of Clarence Thomas and the campaigns of other Republicans. Indeed, Crow told the New Republic in April:

“I support No Labels because our government should be about what’s best for America, not what’s best for either political party. That’s also why I’ve supported candidates from both sides of the aisle who are willing to engage in civil discussions to move our country forward.”

Ohh-kayyy. Not sure I believe that. Rumor has it that other big time Republicans billionaires like Nelson Peltz and Steve Schwartzman are in on the scheme. But we don’t know for sure. Why? Because No Labels, that paragon of good-government, won’t release its list of donors. It should, immediately. In fact, no self-respecting moderate should give another penny to No Labels until we know who’s behind this questionable effort. And furthermore, no reasonable moderate should give another penny to a member of the Problem Solvers unless that candidate repudiates the No Labels campaign.

Once again, I’m a strong supporter of many of the Problem Solvers. Some of them are also members of For Country, a bipartisan military caucus with 30 House members. I advise and contribute to the With Honor PAC, which supports For Country. I know these people. They are, I believe, among the best leaders our country has to offer.

Which makes this skeevy ploy by No Labels all the more disheartening. In a world without Donald Trump, I’d be willing to entertain a centrist alternative to the two existing parties—though I’m well aware that in this mature democracy, politics has become routinized, the parties represent the most likely coalitions, even if the system has allowed their fringes too much heft. I’m an incrementalist. I’m for groups like For Country and, until now, Problem Solvers, that can counteract the crazies in Congress. But I’m not a suicidal centrist.

I’m not sure why No Labels has decided to play this dangerous game at this perilous time. It is infuriating to see a putatively “centrist” group empowering the forces of authoritarianism. But No Labels is doing just that. Until Donald Trump has been removed from the scene, we have no choice but to support the one candidate who can beat him, Joe Biden. I wish there were a younger, more vigorous alternative, but Biden is who we’ve got. And if Biden loses to Trump, we may not have our country anymore. .

And also…

That great academic and human clown-car, Cornel West, needs to release a list of his third party candidacy supporters, too. West could do in 2024 what Jill Stein did in 2016: he could pick off black votes in Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. In fact, the margins are small enough that even without a No Labels candidate, West alone could throw the election to Trump. We need to know who’s backing him. Better still, he should back off and return to his lifetime of overblown rhetoric and assorted fol-de-rol.