In early August, Senator Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., announced more publicly than ever before that he is considering changing his party allegiance, and leaving the Democratic party to become an Independent. The resurfacing of this idea comes at an interesting time during the political cycle for Manchin. Not only could he be up for reelection against West Virginia’s Governor Jim Justice or Representative Alex Mooney, but the possibility of his realignment hints further toward a 2024 presidential run. Manchin has been in his current office since 2010. Before that, he was governor of the same state for two terms, and before that he was the secretary of state. Despite his long career in politics, at one point, it was not “incumbent” next to his name, but rather, “businessman.” Manchin founded Enersystems, a coal related company, in 1988 and served as its president until 2000 when he took office as secretary of state of West Virginia.
Manchin has always believed himself to be a centrist, and as the right and left pull apart, he is not enticed by the prospect of being pulled along with his democratic colleagues. A key player in providing Manchin a landing pad if he does choose to leave his party is the organization No Labels. In 2010, No Labels was founded by Nancy Jacobson, a former Democratic fundraiser, with the mission to isolate ideas from personas and parties in an attempt to remove the weight that “labels” generally add to legislative problem solving. Today, she says, having done the work to garner a ballet in all 50 states, No Labels could be “an insurance policy… if we come to 2024 and this country doesn’t want the choices that are served up.” But, Jacobson adds, “If the American public does not want [a third option], we stand down.”
This organization and the speculation around Manchin are attracting significant acknowledgement because more than ever, the American public does indeed seem to want a third option. Could that be Manchin? He was a part of No Labels’s beginning in 2010, joined again to serve as an honorary co-chair from 2013 to 2014 and yet again for a short period starting in 2017. He is the biggest legislative player with ties to the organization and, although unconfirmed, he would be the most likely to appear on the No Labels ballot if it comes into existence. Many are against that happening. Separate from the possibility of a spoiled election, which both Manchin and Jacobson vehemently deny could be a possibility, many political commentators believe Manchin is out of his lane and selfishly disrupting the norm of American politics for something that could never work.
However, it is certainly possible that people are considering the lane they think Manchin should be in, not the space where he actually exists — he is entirely unique. Only three Independents hold Senate seats at the moment, but despite caucusing with the Democrats, Manchin often acts as an additional Independent. He is usually the last holdout from the party as they try to pass legislation without Republican support. Just in the last month Manchin slowed the passage of an energy bill over cost concerns. In an interview with CNN, differing from the opinions of most Democrats, Manchin expressed that he was against the passage of the bill before it was scaled down financially because “Inflation is the greatest … challenge we have … in my state and around the country.”
It’s entirely possible his uniqueness is purely due to circumstance and his motivations match the rest of the Senate; pursuit of reelection. He serves in the Senate for a state that voted for Trump, still relies on the fossil fuel industry, and thus faults Democrats for shutting that industry down. However, Manchin’s independence within his party and his louder proponing of the valiant “best for America” story differentiate him from other senators — he appears to choose to care beyond his state, party and self: “We’re all Americans. Can’t we put our country first? That’s what I have always said. So I’m not going to make deals and I’m not going to make negotiations and I’m not going to vote because it helps one party over the other party or it’s good for the next election.”
Whether or not it will be Manchin through No Labels, altered functioning of our current two-party system or the incorporation of a third party would benefit American politics and the American people. Of all our high-profile legislators, Manchin seems to be the only one suggesting or unopposed to a more radical change. And yet, examining the history of our system, the change toward moderation is not radical. Since the country’s founding, it has become harder and harder not to pick one of two sides — the challenger party, whichever name it may take at the time, has generally diminished in effect.
Although they’ve differed in and swapped beliefs over time, since 1852, in name the “Republicans” and “Democrats” have held total control. This two-party domination has gone mostly without qualms and has worked quite well. However, one of the reasons for the fear of this system today is that the concept of a political-belief spectrum within Congress that comprises the dominant two parties has been lost. Pew Research Center conducted a study investigating the level of conservatism and liberalism among members of the House and Senate and found that “Five decades ago, 144 House Republicans were less conservative than the most conservative Democrat, and 52 House Democrats were less liberal than the most liberal Republican…” but that “the end of overlap [in either Senate or House] came in 2004”. However, it seems clearly impossible that the same overlap among the Democrats and Republicans that constitute the American people has disappeared. That leaves a mismatch between the represented and the representatives. Whether this realization has started to shock the American people, or there’s been more recent acknowledgement of the absolute size of the “aisle,” we’ve arrived at a moment that requires correction of the collaboration between the forces of Washington.
Even if real introduction of a third party may not seem the realistic way forward, especially among young voters, the desire for a different party is obvious. In another survey conducted by Pew Research Center last year, almost 40% of the public overall agreed with the statement: “I often wish there were more political parties to choose from in this country.” This brings us back to No Labels — they must know that more than ever support is there, and now is the time to push to fill that aforementioned third-option void.
There are three ways the No Labels party could positively affect near-term American politics. One, although highly unlikely, there exists the possibility that they win the presidential election in 2024. If that came to pass, America would have radically changed, putting strong partisanship to the side for collaboration — entirely achieving the goal of no labels. Even if they do not succeed in establishing themselves, by making their presence felt in the same race, they could still aid America. In a more realistic way, No Labels could gain prominence during the presidential race to effectively serve as a recruiter of necessary moderate individual forces in Congress. It has been shown that in a divided government, legislative production decreases, oftentimes to an unhealthy level. On the other hand, when the government is unified, unreasonable or wasteful things can hastily be put into law during a party’s time unchallenged. Thus, the middle ground is ideal. Within a divided government, such as the current Senate, we need people who will change their opinions but take some convincing to do so. In that way progress is possible, but has to be well earned from either side.
By bolstering the apparent popularity and real consideration of a more moderate agenda, No Labels could also change 2024 more concretely. Without introduction of a revolutionary force, it seems as though the dreaded Trump versus Biden matchup could possibly be back up to bat. If the No Labels organization became a serious party or platform, with a figurehead like Joe Manchin, it’s likely that moderate opinions would have a new breeding ground. If that were the case, it would put more pressure on Trump and Biden to either include those ideas, and the people outside of their bases who suggested them, or face the threat of replacement by a more appealing candidate.
Image by Hannah Tu is licensed under the Unsplash License.
