Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
No Labels continues to raise money, roughly $70,000,000 to date, according to founder Nancy Jacobson in a recent NBC interview to build the infrastructure so a ballot could be available to an independent ticket composed of one Democrat and one Republican to run for president in 2024. As the process proceeds, they are increasingly in the news being attacked by just about everyone.
Ironically, despite No Labels' mantra of not labeling each other as Democrats or Republicans but instead as Americans, they are being labeled more and more by members of both parties.
The speculation as to who the candidates might be grew last week as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) mentioned the possibility of running July 17th in New Hampshire. Former Utah Republican Gov. John Huntsman also appeared at the same event and wouldn’t rule out running, although he did say he would only do so if he thought he could win.
I had the pleasure of getting to know both Manchin and Huntsman and founder Nancy Jacobson quite well 13 years ago. As a businessman who never did much in politics up until then, my life changed when I became very involved with No Labels and served on its executive board. At the time I was frustrated with the suffocating partisanship that I witnessed as a bystander to our political process that I believe most Americans abhor. I became a spokesperson along with many others urging citizens to be more aware of what I called the political circus, so they could become less susceptible to the common fallacy tactics designed to mislead and divide Americans.
The No Labels initial tag line, “Not left, not right, forward” and their problem solving approach to governance were appealing to me. I received a positive response as I spoke to many citizens across the country urging them to sift through the barrage of exaggeration, innuendo, and half-truths that define the political fray every election year and vote for leaders with integrity and courage.
I advocated then as I do now a higher standard from our elected representatives. A new paradigm of politics; one based on civil political discourse, critical thinking and personal accountability can and should be demanded by the electorate of its leadership, and the time to do so is now.
No Labels was the perfect fit for my frustration. Their bi-partisan approach urging American leaders and citizens alike to declare their freedom from the anger and divisiveness that is ruining our politics and most importantly our country resonated with me.
Much has happened since 2012 for me personally and for our country.
In 2015, I came to realize there were many organizations working to reform our democratic republic, each working independently of each other with little interaction or coordinated agenda. For this reason, I, along with others co-founded the Bridge Alliance, a community of over 60 organizations with an extended network of nearly 600, all brought together to unify, support and amplify their respective impacts in the social and political reform space. We believe that our nation will be stronger if diversity becomes our operating system. While legislation will play a useful role, we also need leaders who understand the challenges of the diverse population of America. These leaders will help us see our nation is stronger for our differences, not despite them and will work to bring us together rather than further divide us for the sake of winning their next election.
And so today as I access the No Labels plan, I like many of my colleagues involved in the democracy reform movement are conflicted. On the one hand, I strongly believe that we must get beyond the Democrat and Republican duopoly that controls our country’s agenda and demand a new politics that allows room for people from different parties and with different beliefs to sit around a table and make the tough decisions everyone knows need to be made. And we need to trust in the intentions of the loyal opposition to be a differing perspective for the public good. No Labels and their caucus has been modeling this for more than a decade.
Yet, as in life, timing is everything in politics, so despite my strong belief in the need for change, I am concerned about the harsh reality that even though I believe in the many of reform principles advocated by No Labels I also believe that the election of Donald Trump as the next president of the United States would be a significant danger to the rule of law in our nation and to the defense and protection of our constitution. For this reason I do not support the No Labels effort
Nancy Jacobson, founder of and leader of No Labels, argues that this fear is unwarranted; that a ticket comprising a centrist Democrat and centrist Republican will actually win and promises that if No Labels doesn’t think this is the case they will abandon the effort. What are the specific criteria that will drive this Decision? When will this decision be made?
Furthermore for those who contend that the strategy will backfire and result in former President Trump getting elected she responds:
“As a Democrat? Categorically, that will not happen,” Jacobson said in response to a question over concerns that a third-party ballot could take away votes from President Biden. “This effort will never — we'll pull it down.”
Unlike many, I do not question No Labels’ motivation for its plan. I was very fortunate to work with Jacobson, Governor Huntsman, and Senator Manchin when No Labels was first created more than 10 years ago. I believe the motives are genuine and consistent with No Labels’ public mission to create “a national movement of common sense Americans pushing our leaders tougher to solve our country's biggest problems.”
In this our interests are aligned despite having differences as to tactics and timing. Due to the risks, uncertainties and unintended consequences, I would much prefer No Labels’ focus to instead be on independent candidates for Congress and the Senate in 2026.
U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."