Third Party Strategy and the Cult of the Executive, Part II

Democrats are among the least independently-minded voters in the United States.  Compared with self-described Republicans and Independents, Democrats are generally the most likely to believe all or most of what they hear or read from any given news source, and they are least likely to consider voting for any candidates other than those endorsed by their party.  The denunciation and denigration of third party and independent politics and activism is, of course, a favorite pastime of liberal Democratic bloggers, but few things in the mainstream media arouse their ire and incomprehension as much as incessant speculation about the possibility of a viable Independent candidate for the presidency.  Content in their ideological and political chains, they find it difficult to believe that others might desire ideological and political freedom and independence.  As you might know, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently stated that an Independent president would be superior to a Democrat or Republican.  From the Washington Post:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent who has considered running for president, declared Monday that an independent has a better chance at succeeding in the White House than a Republican or a Democrat . . . at Harvard University on Monday he endorsed the idea of an independent in the White House. "I think actually a third-party candidate could run the government easier than a partisan political president because the partisan political president - yeah he's got half the votes, but he can't get the others - whereas the guy in the middle may very well be able to get enough across the aisle," Bloomberg said. 

Matthew Yglesias thinks such talk is literally "madness."  (See also this article at the WaPo.)  Responding to the "endless discussion of a Michael Bloomberg third party presidential bid," the reliable Democratic party ideologue and proponent of the two-party state tries to "get at the core madness of this talk."  He asks: "Just what do people think a third party president would do?"  In answer he writes:

The question that needs to be asked about all these notions is what kind of legislative coalition is President Bloomberg supposed to be governing with? . . . I bet a third party president would initially impress people with his bold truth-telling and lack of need to cater to old bulls on the Hill. But it would swiftly become apparent that the constitution hasn’t been repealed, that the only bills that pass are the ones members of congress will vote for . . . 

Yglesias is right.  But the answer to his question is rather simple.  People think a third party president would have the exact same magical powers they believe every president has, because they have been indoctrinated into the Democratic-Republican party's cult of the executive.  Many Independents likely believe that, if an Independent were in the White House, he or she would be able to wave the president's imperial wand and solve the nation's problems at will.  In other words, their thoughts on this issue would be virtually indistinguishable from those of most Democrats on the eve of Obama's inauguration or those of Republicans on the eve of George W. Bush's.

As I've argued before, though, one of the greatest benefits of an Independent President might be its demonstration of the weakness of the presidency.  Imagine, if a combative Independent president were opposed by Congressional Democrats and Republicans at every turn, it might be very difficult for him to simply start a new war or expand an ongoing one at will, for instance.  Congressional Democrats and Republicans might suddenly recall that there's a document called the Constitution, which specifically gives the power to declare and fund war to the Congress rather than the president. 

Nonetheless, having argued that an Independent president would be hamstrung by a partisan legislature, Yglesias inadvertently makes the case for the election of third party and Independent candidates to the US House and Senate in his conclusion.  He writes:

members of congress all belong to parties. The only way you’d be able to get anything done would be to find a way to work within the party system somehow. The point is that most of the stuff people like to decry about American politics—the venality, the small-minded partisanship, the bickering, the corrupt deals—happens in Congress. Wishing for a different president doesn’t address any of it.

In the comments to my recent post on the necessity of an immoderate moderatism, Cranky Critter coincidentally concurs with Yglesias's diagnosis and makes the case for an Independent coalition in the House and Senate.  He writes:  

I REALLY hope that we don't see a big showy viable moderate or independent candidate for President in 2012. Such an effort is likely to use up all the available air in a way that gives one big flash, and not a sustained burn.

I'd be much happier if the idea of an independent coalition centered on congress, on forming a viable caucus that was disruptive to 2-party dominance. After all, it's in congress where most partisan behavior really manifests.

Indeed.  But the question of whether to focus attention and resources on high-profile executive and statewide offices or on local executive and legislative seats, is an important and perennial strategic issue for advocates of third party and Independent politics.  At Green Party Watch, Ron Hardy recently addressed the issue at length in an election wrap-up post on Green Party gubernatorial candidates.  He writes:

In the post election chatter, some have questioned why Greens bother to waste the resources to run for Governor when the odds are so stacked against them . . . I would argue that running a green party candidate for a high profile state-wide race has several benefits . . . First, it has the potential to influence the dialogue by putting Green Solutions out front . . . Second, it has the potential to raise awareness of the Green Party statewide . . . Third, it gives all the Greens out there someone to vote for . . . Finally, political parties run candidates. That is how they are defined. If the Green Party doesn’t run candidates, they aren’t a political party . . . 

As Independents are not a party, however, this changes the calculus here to some extent.  Ideas?  See also Third Party Strategy and the Cult of the Executive, Part I.