On Third Parties and Polling

In a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, 58% of respondents said that it would be good for the United States if there were a truly competitive third party. Only 23% said no.

Here we see a perfect example of the inherent flaw in polling. Polling is hypothetical. If we asked, for instance, "would you consider voting third party in 2008?" I guarantee that we would not see 58% of respondents saying "yes." And on Election Day, I guarantee that we'd see an even fewer amount of people actually following through. So, this poll would lead us to believe that 58% of Americans support the notion of a legitimate third party. However, I think it is fair to assume that they would not support an "illegitimate" third party (e.g. the Green Party, the Constitution Party, etc.). However, the only way for a third party to become legitimate is by gaining more supporters. And that's the problem with building third parties. No one wants to support a loser. I'm one of those people. Despite the fact that I may agree with Ralph Nader on many things, I would more readily vote Republican than vote Green.

So, in other words, people want an established third party, but do not want to work to establish a third party. How can we fix this? Well, first of all, the image of the third party has to change. We envision all of the wackos whose only goals are to legalize marijuana or to ban sodomy. But, we should look to Joe Lieberman. The only way a third party will be effective is if it is moderate. A liberal third party simply pulls votes away from Democrats, letting the Republicans win (remember 2000?), and a conservative third party would pull votes away from Republicans, letting the Democrats win. So, we need a moderate third party, pulling votes away from both parties, allowing itself to win.

Easier said than done, of course. But, I think Lieberman's victory last November might be cause for optimism. Seeing moderate politicians bite the dust in favor of ideologues is sad, even when I agree more with the ideologues. The moderate Democrat and the moderate Republican are dying breeds. Lieberman had to go independent, Lincoln Chafee lost his seat, in 2004 Arlen Specter faced an extremely close primary fight. I could probably count the number of moderates in the Senate on my two hands.

And that's absurd. Americans are a moderate bunch, but the two party system caters to ideologues. We desperately need a moderate third party to ease the constant political stalemate in Washington and to bring more rationality to our government. I think a Bloomberg independent run in 2008 might spice things up a bit. I don't think he'd win, but we need more moderates running as independents to get the American public used to the notion that independent doesn't mean crazy.

Don't get me wrong; I'm registered Democrat, and I'll probably always vote Democrat, but I think that a moderate third party (regardless of how I vote) would benefit our political system greatly. Of course, the electoral college would need some reworking (run-off elections?), but we can deal with that later.

Stay tuned

For a new contributor sometime soon!

Romney on marriage

Romney on marriage and those crazy Europeans who are destroying it:

He also criticized people who choose not to get married because they enjoy the single life.

"It seems that Europe leads Americans in this way of thinking," Romney told the crowd of more than 5,000. "In France, for instance, I'm told that marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up. How shallow and how different from the Europe of the past."

It should come as no surprise that he delivered these remarks at Pat Robertson's Regent University. I don't know who "told" Romney about these seven-year marriage contracts, but it's just wrong. Bradford Plumer has his theory:

There's an Orson Scott Card novel in which marriages actually are contracted out for seven years (don't ask how I know). And Romney is a big fan of sci-fi. So maybe that explains it. Except that most people don't, you know, confuse space tales with real life.

"When kids start experimenting with abstaining, it should be no surprise that things can get out of hand"

You may remember a few weeks ago that a report came out saying that abstinence-based sex-ed programs don't work. Well, Jon Swift knows why:

If these programs have in fact been a failure, I don't think it is because kids were being given too much inaccurate information. I think the real problem was that they were given any information at all. We need more ignorance about sex, not less. The word "abstinence" itself is probably too explicit. Once you tell kids to abstain from sex until marriage, you have already told them too much. When kids start experimenting with abstaining, it should be no surprise that things can get out of hand and that they will move on to actually having sex.

Kids who are told to abstain from something are naturally going to start wondering what they are abstaining from. Instead of then telling them what sex is in explicit detail, and then telling them not to do it, it might be better if teachers described sex using vague, confusing metaphors the way adults used to back when teens were not having sex. For example, instead of outlining the mechanics of sex, a teacher could say, "Are you familiar with the workings of the internal combustion engine?" After an hour of talking about pistons and carburetors and spark plugs and power strokes, the class would be over. Typical questions such as "Where do babies come from?" could easily be deflected by talking about storks illustrated by cartoons. Cute stories like this have worked for centuries.

Riots after Sarkozy victory...

... although they must not be anything to write home about because they haven't cracked the front page on BBC.com or the Guardian. It looks like Segolene's warning came true. (Although since this is France, predicting riots after an election is like that the sun would come up in the morning, or that Roger Clemens would return to the Yankees).

A Conservative Darwinism?

The New York Times has an interesting article regarding a philosophic link between Darwinism and conservatism. While liberalism has a somewhat utopian vision of human nature (we're all equal, and so on), conservatism seems to recognize what I suppose some might call "social Darwinism," perhaps without realizing it. After all, many Americans are quick to note that Nazism was a byproduct of social Darwinism, but when we really think about it, so is a free market economy. So is support for traditional gender roles. So, oddly enough, conservatives, who tend to reject Darwin in a biological sense, are more Darwinian than their liberal counterparts.

So what?

That's where this article is lacking. It raises an interesting point, but it doesn't answer the most important question: so what? It attempts to. It states:

Policies that are in tune with human nature, for example, like a male military or traditional social and sex roles, he said, are more likely to succeed.

In other words, acceptance of a Darwinian understanding of human nature would strengthen conservative positions. Instead of saying "tradition is good because it's tradition," conservatives might say "tradition is good because it represents the truth of human nature."

But again, so what? I don't think anyone would be swayed by the latter. I can't see a liberal buying into the argument that men are "naturally superior" to women or that the poor are naturally weak and do not deserve government assistance.

But that's the thing: the Darwin debate isn't really about Darwinism. It's about religion. Acceptance of Darwinian biology by conservatives will not help them when it comes to social policies. It will simply harm them when it comes to support from their base. This isn't a debate about philosophy, or even biology for that matter. It's about religion. Plain and simple.

Sarkozy wins

Nicolas Sarkozy will be the next president of France, with 53% of the vote. Segolene Royal has conceded defeat. I hope that Sarkozy can shake up the French political system and pass some needed reforms. In any case, this is a good day for the United States because he's very pro-American.

I wonder if we'll see any of that violence Segolene was promising...

UPDATE: From Sarkozy's acceptance speech:

Sarkozy added that he wanted to tell his "American friends that they can rely on our friendship ... France will always be next to them when they need us."

He did make clear that friends can sometimes differ and called on the US to lead the fight against global warming.

French election update: Segolene pulls a Cheney

Nicolas Sarkozy is in the lead over Segolene Royal 54.5% to 44.5%. Segolene is warning (or threatening) that violence will occur if she loses.

"Choosing Nicolas Sarkozy would be a dangerous choice," Royal told the radio station RTL.

"It is my responsibility today to warn people of the risk of his candidacy concerning the violence and brutality that would be unleashed in the country," she said, suggesting that unrest was especially likely in the volatile suburbs that were the site of rioting in 2005.

Classy. It's sort of a French version of Dick Cheney's charge that giving the Democrats control of Congress would lead to another terrorist attack in the US. Sarkozy's response:

"She's not in a good mood this morning," he told Europe 1 ratio. "It must be the opinion polls."

How far can the Republican candidates distance themselves from Bush?

I agree with Fz's point below that the Republican aren't doing themselves any favors in '08 by refusing to criticize Bush. However, it's important to distinguish between the general election and the Republican primary. I would certainly admire the political courage of any primary candidate who'd dare to pull a Chuck Hagel and give Bush some frank criticism. Unfortunately, this would be political suicide in the primary. Bush is still popular with the Republican base. The candidates have to know that embracing Bush now will hurt them in the general election, but they have no choice.

On the Bush - '08 Correlation

Below, DC states that Bush is dragging the '08 Republicans down with him, echoing sentiments expressed in the article to which he so kindly linked us. I would like to elaborate on this, and perhaps relieve Bush of some of the blame that DC (perhaps unintentionally) throws his way.

Bush's approval rating is going down as the poll numbers for the '08 Republicans are going down. I do not object to an assumption that there is a correlation. However, I think that Congressional Republicans and the '08 candidates themselves are as much to blame as President Bush. It is not as if these candidates are saying "Ah jeez! Why does Bush keep doing these terrible things?" They are saying "Bush! What a great guy!" It is as if they were aboard the sinking Titanic and were going on about how it is unsinkable. Yes, as the leader of the Republican party, Bush has blown it tremendously and has caused his party undeniable harm. To keep with the metaphor, he is effectively sinking what Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove had hoped would be an unsinkable Republican Party.

But, there is an escape, or at least an attempt at one. The Republican candidates could strive to make clear meaningful differences between themselves and Mr. Bush, rather than simply heaping loads of praise upon him. Of course, I do not deny that there is some "guilt by association." Bush and the '08 Republicans are in the same party, and I think that is meaningful to poll respondents. And to a large extent, attempts at distinguishing themselves would not do much good. However, given these overwhelming numbers, it would be nice to see the Republican candidates fighting to distinguish themselves from Bush rather than trying to make us believe that he is the greatest President in American history (perhaps second to Reagan, if that debate the other night was worth anything).

Because we're sure as Hell not buying it.

If the Republicans want a fighting chance in '08, they're going to have to engage in that thing they hate the most: Bush bashing. And if they don't, if they go on thinking that their Republican Party is unsinkable, I blame them, not Bush.

Who would've thought? Me saying that Bush isn't blameworthy...

Newsweek: Bush's approval rating at 28%

That's the lowest in a generation, and he's taking the GOP's 2008 candidates down with him.

Hate crimes

GJ in the comments:

Hey, there's nothing wrong with a little L Ron. At least he didn't say Dianetics. Imagine the response if he had picked that great American novel.

By the way DC, this article doesn't have to do with your post, but let me know your opinion on Bush threatening to veto this:
http://www.abpnews.com/2130.article

The article is about how Bush plans to veto an extension of hate crime protection to gays. I basically take the Andrew Sullivan position on this issue. I don't think we should have hate crime laws, but as long as we DO have them, the only reason not to include gay people in them is bigotry. He explains more eloquently than I could here.

As for Bush, it's pretty clear that he's doing this to throw a bone the base. Everything I've read suggests that Bush, like Dick Cheney, is personally very tolerant and accepting of gays, which makes his pandering on the matter even worse.

The straw that broke this camel's back

Ok, Mitt, I can accept that you switched your views on abortion, gay rights, and campaign finance reform. People change. But now you're backing away from your embrace of Battlefield Earth? I'm sorry, my friend, but that's one flip-flop too far.

An alternate take on the Middle East

Given the centrality of the Middle East in the recent debates, from the war in Iraq to what to do about Iran to protecting Israel, it's worth taking a glance at an alternate take on American foreign policy. This article by Edward Luttwak in the American Prospect has made a big splash. In it, Luttwak argues that the Middle East should essentially be irrelevant, that the threat of terrorism is overblown, that the fear of the armed forces of regimes like Iran is ridiculous ("Mussolini syndrome"), that the Arab-Israeli conflict is neither solvable or likely to explode in the near future, that our oil supply is safer than we think, and that we it is a pipe dream to believe that we can easily change these ancient societies. Therefore, the best course is to leave the region alone.

Thanks to finals I don't have the time to give this article the long review it deserves. But I will say that I agree with Luttwak's central thesis that the Middle East should be less central to American foreign policy. America would be better served in the long run by leaving the region to its own devices. However, I am unconvinced by his argument that Middle Eastern oil is of declining importance, and I don't believe that a disengagement from the Middle East is possible unless we make a serious effort to reduce our oil consumption. By serious I mean a steep carbon tax, not sideshow distractions like subsidizing ethanol or tax handouts for oil companies. If we don't make a serious effort to reduce the carbon intensity of our economy, we may as well resign ourselves to getting involved in all sorts of sticky situations in the Middle East, and the rest of the world, over the next few decades.

A Bit of Polling Analysis

Giuliani's in trouble. Big trouble.

Despite being the most popular candidate from either party in the race (he enjoys a high 60% - 38% favorability rating), he is now tied (at 45% - 45%) with Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical match-up. Clinton, though, only has a 50% - 49% favorability rating. To make things even more interesting, let's look at the "would definitely vote against" statistic. 34% of respondents would definitely vote against Giuliani, but a whopping 48% of respondents would vote against Hillary. As a side note, they share a similar "definitely vote for" statistic: 29% for Giuliani and 30% for Hillary.

So why in the world is someone so seemingly likable tied with someone so seemingly polarizing? It seems that the undecideds (i.e. the 22% remainder who neither said they would definitely vote for nor against Hillary) are swinging toward Hillary, which is bizarre, given Giuliani's whole "America's Mayor" edge.

I don't have a ready explanation, except for this: Americans are fed up with Republicans, even the moderate, likable ones with an unassailable flag to wrap themselves in (after all, no one will call Giuliani on it when he references 9/11 out of nowhere). I know it is early, but these sorts of poll numbers bode well for the Democrats.

Thanks to Rasmussen Reports for the polls.