A Tip of the Hat to Forward and a Rebuke to Democrats

A recent op-ed in the Washington Post announced the formation of a new American political party: Forward. The new party was formed by three political leaders, each of whom had founded or led an independent party or movement:

David Jolly is a former Republican congressman from Florida and is executive chairman of the Serve America Movement (SAM). Christine Todd Whitman is a former Republican governor of New Jersey and co-founder of the Renew America Movement (RAM). Andrew Yang is a former Democratic presidential candidate and is co-chair of the Forward Party. 

The new party is awkwardly titled “Forward,” which is a source of some inevitable confusion with one of its founding constituents, Yang’s “Forward Party.” (Even the Forward website https://www.forwardparty.com/ refers to itself as “the Forward Party.” Their Facebook page is: https://www.facebook.com/OfficialForwardParty) But confusing nomenclature is apt to be the least of the new party’s problems. Indeed, the discouraging history of third parties in America was explicitly reflected in the title of the op-ed announcement, “Most third parties have failed. Here’s why ours won’t.” The writers argue that the time for a third party has come, pointing to evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with both the direction of the country and the performance of our two major parties. The writers certainly have a point, but the challenges of creating a new and effective political party remain immense.

According to a Forward press release:

The new Forward Party is launching a national building tour this fall to hear from voters and begin laying the groundwork for expanded state-by-state party registration and ballot access, relying on the combined nationwide network of the three organizations. Forward plans to achieve legal recognition in 15 states by the end of 2022, twice that number in 2023, and in almost all U.S. states by the end of 2024. The tour will culminate in a national convention in Summer 2023. 

The announcement column in the Washington Post acknowledged that viability of the party might depend on significant reform of the electoral process:

To succeed, a new party must break down the barriers that stand between voters and more political choices. Accordingly, we will passionately advocate electoral changes such as ranked-choice voting and open primaries; for the end of gerrymandering; and for the nationwide protection of voting rights and a push to make voting remarkably easy for anyone and incredibly secure for everyone. 

Quite so, perhaps, but such such reforms will not be easy to come by, particularly by, say, the election in 2024.

The announcement column in the Washington Post was hardly greeted with a wave of acclaim. It met skepticism from pundits, indifference from Republicans and hostility from some Democrats. The latter expressed concern that the new party would damage them more than Republicans, but it is difficult to see why that should be. Although there are extreme elements in both parties, the Democratic Party is far more hospitable to moderates than is its Republican counterpart. Hence, the latter have far more compelling reasons to seek a new home. 

I do not have high hopes for Forward. Nevertheless, It deserves a tip of the hat because any individual or group who recognizes the dystopian condition of our polity, and attempts to do something about it, deserves recognition and encouragement. If Forward gets sufficiently organized to permit registration under its name, I will find that an attractive option. In terms of actual voting, I will vote for the candidate, Forward or Democrat, who has the best chance of defeating the Republican—unless the latter happens to be one of that rare and disappearing species, the Moderate Republican (sometimes known as a RINO).

Speaking of a dystopian polity, the latest depressing example is Democrats’ “strategy” of providing sub rosa support in Republican primaries for the Trumpiest candidates; the operative assumption is that such candidates will be easiest to defeat in a general election. The problems with this maneuver are manifest. As an August 3, New York Times editorial put it succinctly:

It is a terrible approach on two counts. First, it’s profoundly irresponsible: What if these election deniers actually win? And second, if Democrats believe that democracy is in danger and they need Republican support to save it — or at least a reality-based G.O.P. in our two-party system — then they have weakened their standing as defenders of democracy by aligning with those who would thwart it. 

Perhaps the single most painful example of Democrats’ strategy came in Michigan with the defeat of Republican Congressman Peter Meijer. Democratic ads identifying Meijer’s opponent, John Gibbs, with Trump gave Gibbs name recognition that he did not have and could not have afforded to purchase. His narrow victory over Meijer by a few thousand votes was the result. And Meijer, a popular moderate, was one of the few Republicans who voted to impeach Trump following the Capitol insurrection. His defeat was a loss for the country for which Democrats must accept major responsibility.

As the Times concluded:

Of course, Democrats want to hold on to their slim House majority. But selling out democratic principles to do it? That is a disappointing low for the Democratic Party. President Biden and party leaders should renounce this repugnant and risky strategy.

We are still awaiting that renunciation.