Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A No Labels ticket: Manchin-Huntsman?

Building an infrastructure so a ballot could be available and could be offered to a ticket. Convention in Dallas offers a ballot line and then stands back.

Opinion

A No Labels ticket: Manchin-Huntsman?
Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press; NPR

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.

Read More

Two Myths Fuel the Trump Administration’s Anti-Immigrant Scapegoating

Statue of Liberty with hand holding barbed-wire

Two Myths Fuel the Trump Administration’s Anti-Immigrant Scapegoating

On December 9th, US Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller went on another xenophobic rant. He claimed that, “If Somalians cannot make Somalia successful, why would we think that the track will be any different in the United States? […] If Libya keeps failing, if the Central African Republic keeps failing, if Somalia keeps failing, right? If these societies all over the world continue to fail, you have to ask yourself, if you bring those societies into our country, and then give them unlimited free welfare, what do we think is going to happen?”

Like so many in the Trump administration, Miller blames America’s failures on immigrants. Why is our educational system faltering? Immigrants. Miller claims that, “If you subtract immigration out of test scores, all of a sudden scores skyrocket!”

Keep ReadingShow less
Battling Gentrification by Showcasing the Windy City’s Rich Puerto Rican Roots

Fluttering Puerto Rican flag marking the entrance to the Paseo (Stroll) Boricua at Humboldt Park.

Photo by Jesús J. Montero for palabra

Battling Gentrification by Showcasing the Windy City’s Rich Puerto Rican Roots

Known for its eclectic charm as an urban oasis and cultural vibrancy, Humboldt Park in Chicago is home to numerous ethnic restaurants, cultural centers, and art galleries. It's no wonder many flock here. As in other big cities across the country, the Windy City has for many years experienced the harmful impact of gentrification. While geographic location varies, the recipe remains identical: while developers purchase/remodel properties seeking skyrocketing rents, longtime residents are continuously displaced. Those negatively impacted are also usually the same: working-class Black and Brown communities.

But one creative entrepreneur is determined to keep the essence of his neighborhood alive and thriving. For over a decade, poet, gallerist, professional tour guide, and Chicago native Eduardo Arocho has been enthusiastically sharing with visitors and locals alike his unconditional love and commitment to his rich Puerto Rican roots. As owner and founder of Paseo Boricua Tour Company, his is more than a "stop-and-drop-names" excursion. Part of Paseo Boricua - the economic, political, and cultural capital of Chicago’s Puerto Rican community - the tour is a culturally immersive experience where participants get to feel the warmth and sabor (flavor) of Arocho and his friendly people - even having the option of adding lunch reservations to support one of the local restaurants featuring Puerto Rican cuisine.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people with two books, open in front of them.

At Expand Democracy, scholarship is a democratic tool. How research on elections, representation, and governance shapes reform.

Getty Images, Pichsakul Promrungsee

Why Academic Work Matters for a Movement

When I began publishing research on elections and representation, I always imagined the audience as primarily academic - political scientists, methodologists, perhaps a few practitioners who hunt for new data. But as my work with Expand Democracy deepens, I find myself reflecting on how scholarship shapes the public conversation and why academic writing is not necessarily a detour from democracy but can be a foundation for it.

This essay reflects on that specific interaction: how academic work contributes to our understanding of democratic institutions, why it remains essential for reform movements, and how my own research aligns with Expand Democracy’s evolving mission.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less