Column: Read the ‘No Labels’ before buying

A month ago The Boston Globe featured an article by Michael Scherer titled “Democrats meet with anti-Trump conservatives to fight No Labels 2024 bid.” Mr. Scherer reported on a meeting held on June 6 by disaffected GOP members and Democratic Party operatives who wanted to slow the building momentum for the “No Labels” party. Seven weeks later, publicity for the “No Labels” party is increasing and there is a sense that former President Trump may well be the beneficiary should the “No Labels” movement evolve into a third party.

An examination of the 1968 election illustrates why that might be the case.

In the late 1960s George Wallace was a political force. As governor of Alabama in 1963, he famously stood at the door of Foster Auditorium to block James Meredith, the first Black student to enroll at University of Alabama, from entering. That act personified his pledge in the inaugural speech he gave early that year when he declared: “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” a mantra he lived by when his political stardom was nascent.

In 1964, angered at the passage of Lyndon Johnson’s Civil Rights legislation, George Wallace challenged Johnson in the Democratic Party primaries. When it quickly became clear that he would not stand a chance against the then-popular and powerful incumbent, Wallace approached Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee, expressing his willingness to switch parties and serve as his Vice President. Goldwater rejected Wallace’s overtures, fearing his reputation as a racist would harm the GOP’s chances to win the election and hurt the party’s reputation outside the South.

Having been rebuffed by both parties in 1964, and unable to run for a third term as governor of Alabama, George Wallace decided to run for president as a third-party candidate in 1968.

Wallace’s campaign that year was based on his opposition to the “tyranny” of the federal government whose Civil Rights laws undercut Alabama’s “right” to maintain segregated colleges. His anti-government stump speeches also included gibes against “pointy-headed bureaucrats” and “intellectuals,” the biased media, and his belief that “there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two political parties.”

His populist anti-government, anti-integration, and anti-intellectual message resonated across the nation in that especially contentious year. Ultimately Wallace received only 13.5% of the popular vote, but he won the electoral college votes in Alabama, where he won the election outright, and Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana and Arkansas, where he garnered a plurality of the voters.

The voting demographics have changed over the past 55 years. In 1968, 42% of the voters identified themselves as Democrats, 28% as Republicans, and 27% as independent. By 2016, the year Trump won the presidency, independents outnumber both parties with 42% opting out of either party, and 26% of the voters identified as Republican. In the 2016 GOP primary race, Trump did not secure 50% support of the GOP voters until April of that year. Despite this lack of solid support, Trump won the GOP nomination and the presidency.

Since then, Donald Trump has wrested control of the GOP. Polls in late June of this year indicate that over half of Republican primary voters stand behind Donald Trump, despite the concerns many in his party express about his electability. Given that a January 2022 Gallup poll indicates that 27% of registered voters identified as Republican, Trump’s core national support translates to 13.5%, a figure identical to the support Wallace received in 1968.

But unlike Wallace, Trump has broad appeal outside the deep South. Moreover, in his 2016 victory Trump demonstrated his appeal to independent voters. Thus, should a third party appear on ballots across the country, Trump could achieve a plurality in enough states to secure an outright victory or put the final selection of the president or place the election in the hands of the House.

Some progressive news outlets believe such an outcome is the true intention of the “No Labels” movement. Due to a quirk in campaign funding laws, until the “No Labels” group names a candidate they do not need to disclose their donors, a factor that leads to endless speculation on the true motives of the group. A Politico article late last month listed some of the known “No Labels” donors and they included: Charlie Black, a longtime GOP lobbyist; Kenneth Gross, a former associate general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, a specialist in campaign finance who contributed more than $600,000 to the Trump Victory Committee around the 2020 election; and Harlan Crow, a GOP mega donor who was recently in the news for funding lavish trips for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The voters’ antipathy toward a Biden-Trump rematch is clear. USA Today polls show that neither candidate has majority support within their party’s ranks. But given the number of hardcore Trump supporters across the country it is easy to understand why anti-Trump Republicans and mainstream Democrats are nervous about having a third party on ballots across the nation.

In a perfect world where a majority of voters do not want a reprise of the 2020 election both existing political parties would offer voters a choice other than Biden and Trump. That is not the world we live in. But should a third-party result in Trump’s loyal supporters returning him to the presidency, most Americans will regret voting for the third-party candidate in hopes of finding a better alternative to Biden or Trump.