Our Best Stuff on the Classified Document Scandal, the Turkish Election, and the Whigs

A little history with your news and politics roundup.

By
114
A photo illustration shows the Discord logo reflected in an image of the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Photo by Stefani Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images)

Hello and happy Saturday. I spent most of the week in our D.C. office, and it was a treat to see all of my colleagues. But, to be honest, I’m a bit less productive when I’m in the office: There are so many people to talk to, more meetings to attend, and I like to make Steve buy me coffee.

We’ve got a lot of good stuff coming next week, and I want to get a head start on that, so I’m going to keep this short (or try to) and give you, dear readers, a homework assignment. 

In Kevin’s Wanderland newsletter on Monday (summarized below), he wrote about the demise of the Whigs and the emergence of the Republican Party in the mid-19th century. We’ve seen some failed attempts through the years to establish new political parties in this country, but the most they’ve ever accomplished is tilting elections in favor of one of the major candidates. Ross Perot got about 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992 as a Reform Party candidate, but that mostly helped Bill Clinton beat George H.W. Bush. And liberals are still mad at Ralph Nader for the 2000 election. Nader, running under the Green Party banner, earned 97,000-plus votes in Florida—just a tad more than the eventual 537-vote margin that gave George W. Bush the victory.

For all the rumblings today about third parties—Andrew Yang, the failed 2020 Democratic presidential candidate and 2021 New York mayoral candidate, has his Forward Party, and a group called No Labels is trying to get on the ballot in a bunch of states for 2024—it seems unlikely that any new organization could emerge and land a candidate in the Oval Office as quickly as the nascent Republican Party did with Lincoln.

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
114
By
Comments (114)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Travis Monteleone

    This whole exercise unfortunately suffers from the "Leather Seats Fallacy", whereby an individual thinks "I prefer leather seats in my cars, so car companies would be better off if they only sold cars with leather seats". The fallacy lies in the individual assuming that their own preferences are shared by the majority of others, and that some market inefficiency or ineptitude from the car company results in a product that isn't actually meeting demand, instead of realizing, of course, that the majority of consumers simply have different preferences than they do.

    Comments like "Americans want..." and "Parties should..." suffer from this fallacy, because what Americans (or at least reliable voters) want is already reflected in the platforms of Republicans and Democrats today. Both of these parties pour tons of money and manpower into figuring out what the majority of voters want. A random person on the internet arguing that "Americans want a moderate option" is just projecting their own desire for a moderate option onto the American public, much like the man who prefers leather seats.

    This explains why the Forward Party and No Labels, despite embodying many of the moderate ideals suggested in these comments, have hardly any national name recognition or chance of actually competing with either major party in a national election.

    The solution for the middle, then, is not to offer moderate platform points (this clearly isn't working, and if it was, the Republicans and Democrats would simply use these points) but instead to run a meta-platform that highlights and pushes back against the subconscious biases that make the extreme platform points of the two major parties so appealing - namely negativity bias and tribalism.

    A party that focuses on bringing these subconscious biases to the forefront of the political conversation would be able to stand out and provide a reason why the two dominant parties have become so polarizing. The reason the two major parties don't offer moderate solutions is because moderate solutions aren't galvanizing (or enraging) enough. A moderate party that engages solely on policy points will lose every time. The only hope for moderates is to rise above the policy-level disagreements and wake people up to WHY polarizing policy is so effective. Once people recognize and step back from their biases, they can return to moderate policy discussion, but until then, moderates who engage solely at a policy-level will be doomed to failure.

    Collapse
  2. Dcallow

    Looks like Rachel wants to join my new Central Party. Our platform will be about as Rachel described, with serious attention paid to anti-trust, reform of patent laws that allow endless extensions, reforms to foster competition, and laws that prohibit political giving by anyone other than individuals. No PACs, no unions, no groups. And laws that make any movements on political districts and elections only by non-partisan commissions. Our whole domestic emphasis will be on fostering competition and restricting the growth of mega-groups, of whatever kind. And we shouldn't have to say it, but equal opportunity for all people, in law and in fact.

    The Central Party will occupy the middle one-third of the political spectrum, and have right and left wings. A high priority will be placed on common sense, on solutions over ideology.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Kommisar89

    I with you Rachael on the new third party. I started out back in 1980 as a Republican and strong Reagan supporter. Buy the end of the decade I was a bit disillusioned by the increasing influence of the Religious Right/Moral Majority on the Republican party so after I got out of the Army and moved back to my hometown in the early 90s, I registered as an Independent and have been so ever since. Where you stand in terms of politics often depends a lot on where you stand physically (or I guess geographically). Compared to my relatives, friends and neighbors back home in the Deep South I'm pretty moderate. Compared to my friends and neighbors here in Colorado I'm pretty conservative. But a new moderate, center-right party would be just fine with me, at least in theory. In practice I'd be afraid that it would tip the elections in favor of the Progressive wing of the Democrats which would be disastrous.

    Collapse
    1. Kittyecws

      Or the extreme right.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Ericjbutcher

    Id add on clean up the corporate tax code. Way to many loopholes to allow many companies to get to zero or near zero income tax. They want a lower rate fine but you're all paying in then. No more shell games. Also immigration reform that makes sense, fills unfilled jobs and gets people out of the shadows and on the tax rolls. Not outright amenesty for those that snuck in but a legal status short of full blown citizenship. Both of these could help with funding entitlements which will still need some reform if they are to survive to the next generation.

    Collapse
  5. Thehunts61

    Hi, just writing to comment on your 'education policy':
    "On K-12 education, we’d preach the value of public schools, argue that states need to fund them better, work to mitigate the influence of overly politicized teachers' unions, and emphasize the importance of school choice."

    No thanks. The whole education paradigm is wrong, outdated and not very efficient. We adopted the basic model set down by Aristotle and politicized by John Dewey and his followers. After over two thousand years, it's time to review. There are many particularly good concrete examples in the USA and abroad (in private schools) that can show the way. On top of that, in today's world we could have superstar teachers teach all the kids who have access to the internet (over a given grade level, say sixth grade for sake of argument). If you've ever seen Sal Khan teach math you know what I mean. So no, the value of public education, as currently manifest in most American regions, is singular: it's public. If we settle for that, the rest won't really matter because we'll have an undereducated electorate with little hope for future growth.

    Collapse
  6. Jack H Wolf

    Excellent thought experiment Ms. Larimore and as a centrist coming more from the Dem side, who has trended conservative by virtue of standing still circa mid 70s as my side became the new moral majority and decided to go full new deal, it is essential that the moderates of both parties unite because the illiberal trend among the Rs and the woke trends on the D side make us more alike than our prior parties.
    The answer is that both sides believing in compromise, and rejecting the hyperbole that if the other guy wins we are going to hell in a handbasket, I can see lots of room for a third party made about compromises. Each side has issues they care about more than others and so one side gives on one thing and the other on another. And we all need to adopt the title of one of my favorite substackers Jeff Maurer who writes "I could be wrong" and grant our political opponents credibility and that we are just honest humans who might disagree rather than two tribes fighting to the death.
    As a nominal liberal I am OK with SS extending eligibility age to reflect the real world reality that people live and work longer than they did when the program started,. In exchange I would lower Mcr eligibility perhaps in a budget neutral trade as I think many people stay in jobs they dont like and avoid striking out b/c healthcare is unaffordable by age 60 for many. Yes, taxes might need to be raised, but sooner or later conservatives need to get on board with having health care for the remaining 20M Americans, under 10% who dont have it. And rather than just fighting the D attempts, Republicans could work to making the programs more frugal and better run which is more technical than ideological. That ACA, a program modelled on M Romney's Massachusettes plan, is now liked by all voters and my own Republican legislature in NC just expanded their Mcd, seems important that we finally just give all Americans healthcare. In Europe the conservative parties dont question this.
    On the environment I am less compromising, and I think this reflects my own conservatism in a generic reading of the word- cautious, preserving. The problem with arguments on the environment is they often devolve into arguments over whether the sky will fall or nothing will happen, where the future is unpredictable, but a wise person takes precautions. So if the stakes, lets say a catastrophic earth changing outcome are even miniscule, the pro life in me is to not gamble our 2 million year inheritance. The reality is that something short of catastrophic but more than nothing will happen, and it is not like we are donating our first born, but just need some short term subsidies for alternatives and some diplomacy (most increases in ff use come from India and China) until the market supports alternatives which in many places it already does. And nuclear. And consumption reduction as in all cars getting 50mpg+
    As environment is a bonafide for my liberal side, I remain conservative on all the cultural issues and argue with my liberal cohort that they need to accept a world where there are conservatives who rather not have their children in drag queen storytelling and it is the almost evangelical race obsessives like that came up with 1619 that has caused an equally worrying illiberal counterattack from the DeSantis wing. Liberals need to get back to advancing the interests of working people and stop being the new moral majority.
    I think there is a conservative case to be made for some degree of the social welfare state. It is beneficial that we have a party of frugal Republicans and compassion driven though often naive Dems. But, rather than get in endless arguments about whether government is good or bad, the Chesterton Fence would argue that with 200 years of social democracy in the most prosperous and free countries in the world, that some libertarian Ayn Rand universe is not going to happen.
    That does not mean we need to be profligate spenders with things like Build Back Better, or forgiving loans which people knowingly assumed, or free college for people to major in degrees that qualifies them to work at Starbucks, but that the constant droning about taxes are theft or the rich are deserving of the huge increase in assets moving to the top in the last 20 years, are as problematic as the left embrace of socialism (which is not Denmark, a prosperous capitalist social democracy). To pretend that taxation is not redistributive in that taxes are higher more on the rich and benefits more for the poor is to ignore that since Sumer this has been the case.
    As an incrementalist, we dont need to radically change the system, but the US once ranked pretty high on social mobility and income equality, and now has fallen far behind our OECD friends and a country of stark contrast between unimaginable wealth and people struggling with lower chance of moving up and down, is not good for people as eg studies show crime is much more correlated with income inequality than poverty.
    I propose nothing radical to change that, but higher estate taxes, capital gains, and lower taxes on the middle and make healthcare as unstressful as making the rent so that Americans can live without fear of becoming destitute from illness.
    I am rambling on, but again thanks for good thoughts
    It is time that the grown ups, Ds and Rs with some humility and caution can split the difference and become one country againShow less

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Jeff Younger

      I miss the days when Reagan & Tip O’ Neill would hammer out agreements over a couple of scotches in the Oval Office. It’s crazy that compromise - something every happily married person is probably adept at - has become synonymous with political treachery by the bases of each major party. That results in either nothing getting done when the executive and legislative branches are held by opposing parties, or huge swings in domestic and foreign policy whenever the party in power (of both) switches. One can debate the damage on the domestic side, but with respect to foreign policy, I see it as potentially catastrophic and worsening by the day. As a conservative who favors a strong military and alliances built amongst other free, democratic governments, I find the shift among the GOP populist (aka Trump) wing toward isolationism (and cozying up to monsters like Putin) unfathomable. I could never join ranks of the Democrats (now beholden to woke ideological conformity), but the nutters of the Trump tribe (MTG, Gaetz, Boebert, et al) are making me seriously reconsider my allegiance to the GOP. Perhaps a nominee not named Trump might pull the GOP back from the brink, but if the paint-chip-eating window-licking Putin fanboys prevail, and DJT is the nominee, I’m gone. I’ll ride out the rest of my days as an independent.

      Collapse
      1. Jack H Wolf

        I hear you. Short of a successful third party which is about as likely as a mule winning the Kentucky Derby, I only see cross party alliances working.
        There are enough old school Rs around to keep our support for Ukraine for the time being though I dont know if Trump gets elected and it seems like we are going to get a 2020 repeat.
        There have been various groups, the problem solvers, the gang of 14, that tried to do bipartisan work in the Congress and occasionally it works, but I think reps are too afraid of being primary challenged.

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Billehrich85

    I would start the Lockesmith Party. Our first principles would be that government should be excellent at protecting your life, liberty and property. Nothing beyond that is mandatory, but is certainly negotiable. We would also believe in free markets and free people. Gee, I wonder where the Locke and Smith parts of that name came from?

    Collapse
  8. Timgoff17

    • Comprehensive immigration reform – legalize the illegal immigrants, cut off any federal services to future illegal immigrants, increase legal immigration, e-verify
    • All of the above energy policy – approve more nuclear, eliminate any energy mandates or subsidies
    • Term limits of two-six year terms for senators and six-two year terms for representatives
    • Simplify the tax code to maximize economic growth – eliminate the corporate income tax to give competitive advantage to US businesses
    • Free trade to maximize economic growth – end any farm subsidies
    • Mitt Romney Family Security Act
    • Repeal Obamacare, with market-oriented replacement in place
    • Social security reform – including the option to privatize a portion
    • Campaign finance reform – eliminate giving limits, maximize transparency
    • Pro-life, pro-family, pro-immigration to maximize population growth and minimize risk of demographic collapse
    • Reduce federal social safety net (leave it to states) to maximize incentives for people to re-enter the workforce.
    • Eliminate federal student loans entirely and leave it to the private market (tuition prices will drop, university administration would thin out, etc.)

    Collapse
    1. Paulwilliams1040

      If you're doing term limits, which we already have (they're called elections,) the term limit for President of the United States should be one four year term.

      Collapse
    2. Jack H Wolf

      Seems more like a Libertarian wish list than something in a centrist compromise. Right leaning will never except legalize illegal immigrants beyond perhaps DACA and left will never except pro life it that means making abortion illegal.
      Liberals, or for that matter most Americans if talking about Soc Security or Medicare, will not accept reducing the social safety net. ACA is popular and market replacement just means that some 20M less AMericans will have health care.
      Not that I dont agree with some of this- getting out of student loans, higher legal immigration, but I dont think this is any compromise that is going to bridge any divides and more represents Libertarian views which appeal to no more than 10% of Americans.

      Collapse
    3. Robert Penigar

      That's an excellent platform for the 1%, but not so great for the bottom 70%.

      The MAGAs are bitter and aggrieved, and that platform will make them more so.

      There's a limit to how much the masses will take. We're getting there.

      Collapse
  9. Lippinmail

    Yes, let’s imagine what a new and improved third party would look like. I’ll start by endorsing your choices with the following caveat.

    I identify as a moderate or independent because I think rigorous thinking requires an individual to be a conservative and liberal at the same time. Conservatives usually favor individual freedom; liberals usually favor social cohesion. But they can flip. Regardless, both are necessary; policies need to find the balance between “to thine own self be true” and fairness to all/trustworthy institutions. To our individual AND our social sides. Each policy proposal should be vetted from both sides.

    That is why I think “moderates,” who are willing to listen to both sides, are actually stronger thinkers than extremes, who ty to avoid accountability for their own excesses. I reject the “mush in the middle” designation.

    I think our third party can find common ground starting from your policy proposals. I’ll throw one of my own into the discussion. On immigration: tighten border security and find a way to let dreamers stay. Maybe a third party would be refreshing! Or at least a voting bloc that one or both parties need to serve.

    Collapse
    1. Jack H Wolf

      Very good thoughts Lippinmail and as I call myself a conservative liberal I like the idea that each side has a piece of the puzzle more than one is right and one is wrong which seems unlikely in a historical sense. And compromise as a way of making better policy.
      As to John N below I think that is just bashing conservatives and not helpful. When you just say, 'no you are the bad guys' I dont expect meaningful discussion.

      Collapse
      1. Lippinmail

        Thanks for this!

        Collapse
        1. Jack H Wolf

          btw check out this FB group I help administer if you are inclined Intelligent Conversations Between Liberals and Conservatives.

          Collapse
          1. Lippinmail

            Thanks for the tip.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      John N.

      "Conservatives usually favor individual freedom..."

      Except when the individual is a pregnant woman.

      Then "conservatives" are all about making health-care decisions for that woman, rather than her making them for herself.

      Collapse
      1. Paulwilliams1040

        You're confusing conservatives and right wingers.

        Collapse
      2. Lippinmail

        Yes, that is one of the flips I was thinking about. It always makes me a little sad when people don't seem to learn from the flips that the principle they respect in places they favor also needs to be respected in places they do not favor. That's what makes it a principle rather than a bias. I suspect this is an important reason why the abortion issue is hurting Republicans.

        Collapse
    3. Johnwheeler5293

      I am in. Sign me up.

      Collapse
    4. Mary Stine

      You've nailed it!
      Years ago my Texas cousin and I discussed forming an alternative 3rd party.. we felt a reality check was needed for both the others and settled on calling ours PCSP (Plain Common Sense Party). Rachel has hit upon a lot of our talking points.
      But you've cracked the nut of the problem.. actually being willing to listen (respectfully!) to both sides.
      However, in today's world I think we'd need to change the name to RFI (Reality for Idiots). I'd hire Kevin Williamson to oversee the mission statement.
      A good beginning would be demanding that every state fully enforce the gun laws already on the books and stop letting offenders slide on these.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    David Burke

    “On K-12 education, we’d preach the value of public schools, argue that states need to fund them better, work to mitigate the influence of overly politicized teachers unions, and emphasize the importance of school choice. “

    And slap down the parents with their hair on fire a bit.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Rachael Larimore vertical-nib Author

      That too, believe me.

      Collapse
    2. Johnwheeler5293

      Yes!!!

      Collapse
Load More