OCTOBER 26, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

There is a movement afoot in the land, but I don’t mean the one amid the tarps at Zuccotti Park. Instead, it’s a 148-person operation headquartered in a tenth-floor office on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington decorated with sleek posters that proclaim, “Make My Vote Count” and “Open Up The Ballot.” Hanging in the reception area is a framed op-ed column praising the movement, written by the man who is its Marx or Engels: Tom Friedman.
This is Americans Elect, the latest attempt to challenge the country’s two-party duopoly from the political center. Next summer, the group will hold an online convention to nominate a bipartisan ticket for president and vice president. Scoff at your peril: Americans Elect is more than halfway to the 2.9 million signatures it needs to be on the ballot in all 50 states. And it has money. It was founded by Peter Ackerman, who made his fortune at pre-bankruptcy Drexel Burnham Lambert, where he earned $165 million in 1988 after helping to finance the leveraged buyout of RJR Nabisco. Boosting the group’s prospects is a 2010 court ruling involving the organization Unity ’08, which tried to create a similar third-party bid during the last campaign. That decision allowed groups like Americans Elect to disregard the $2,500 limit on presidential campaign donations. Thus, it raised two-thirds of the $30 million needed to obtain ballot access largely thanks to the contributions of just 50-odd people giving at least $100,000 each.
This is enough to cause angst among those seeking the reelection of Barack Obama. Democrats suspect that Americans Elect, with its self-described appeal to the “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” part of the spectrum, will pull more votes from Obama than from the GOP nominee. And they can hardly be reassured by the anti-Obama pedigree of some of those behind Americans Elect, including pollster Douglas Schoen, a so-called “Fox News Democrat,” and Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who famously dismissed Obama as an “elitist” after the 2008 primaries. Elliot Ackerman, the founder’s son, who is helping manage Americans Elect after several tours with the Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, did nothing to assuage such concerns when I met with him and the group’s CEO, Kahlil Byrd. Someone, Ackerman said, recently challenged him by saying, “‘Think how much this would hurt President Obama if Hillary Clinton ran with Jon Huntsman.’” Ackerman’s boyish face broke into a grin. “Our reply was, ‘I don’t think that would hurt President Obama. I think that ticket will win.’”
In Americans Elect’s diagnosis, Washington’s dysfunction is the fault of ideologically hardened parties held captive by interest groups and the parties’ outer wings. Exhibit A, Elliot Ackerman told me, was the debt-ceiling debacle, in which “Obama, despite all of the supposition that he is this post-partisan independent president, couldn’t substantively put entitlement reform on the table, couldn’t do it, couldn’t sell that with his party base,” while Republicans refused to raise taxes. But didn’t Obama offer major entitlement cuts, including a raised Medicare eligibility age, as part of his rejected “grand bargain”? Well, regardless, Ackerman said, he hasn’t been able to get the big things done, even when Democrats held the House. Byrd, a Republican who worked for Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, a Democrat, noted derisively that Obama’s hopes for moving his jobs agenda had been reduced to encouraging a letter-writing campaign. Said Ackerman: “If he can’t govern with control of the House and control of the Senate and being somewhat of the post-partisan executive he says he is, isn’t that indicative to us that there needs to be some type of systemic change in the way we select our leaders?”
What is needed, Ackerman said, is a new leader who is “able to govern in a manner that’s unhinged from the far left or far right of his party” and thus “encourage defections of Republicans and Democrats to come to solution-based governance.” If the run for president generates momentum, then the movement could spread to lower levels of office, predicted Byrd. “This is a vehicle that will be with us cycle after cycle,” he said.
The group’s leaders avoid suggesting nominees, but some of its self-disclosed financial backers are less coy. Gerald Blakeley, the former chairman of Boston real estate giant Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, told me he is a former Republican who voted for Obama but is sorely disappointed in him. Whom would he prefer? Michael Bloomberg. “I’m going to nominate him,” said Blakeley. “He is brilliant. He has run New York better than any mayor in history. My wife is a director of the Bloomberg Family Foundation; she knows him well and he is brilliant.” Unfortunately, he added, “There are people who are prejudiced against wealth. That is one of the things you’re up against.”
I got deepest into the movement’s governing vision with Matt Miller, a former Clinton administration official who splits his time among a McKinsey consulting gig, the Center for American Progress, and a weekly online Washington Post column. While not officially affiliated with Americans Elect, he has been a major advocate for the third-choice cause—using his column to plead for a “patriotic billionaire” to run for president, given the “abdication of both parties,” “the hoaxes both parties are peddling,” and the “grossly misleading campaigns” both will run. He has laid out a full “third-party stump speech,” which calls for, among other things, a public-works jobs program, taxes on “dirty energy,” higher teacher pay, tougher limits on Wall Street, and cuts in defense spending. I asked him: Did not most of these resemble the platform of a certain Democratic president, especially if he were able to operate unconstrained? Not so, Miller said, pointing to a handful of his stock proposals that he said leaned the other way, such as eliminating corporate taxes, cutting Social Security, and weakening teacher tenure. “I’m interested in the agenda, not the team,” said Miller.
We were meeting at a Starbucks across from the Occupy D.C. encampment at McPherson Square; scruffy protesters queuing for the rest room jostled noisily around the nattily dressed Miller. I asked him whether an agenda as ambitious as his could win public support amid such disillusionment. “If you think we have to aim higher, if you think we have to solve our problems rather than pretending to, then it’s all about how you think we can get closer to that and if there’s any way to get there given the two-party stranglehold on the debate,” he said. “If you had a third-party voice on ‘Meet the Press,’ they’d say: ‘The Democrats are full of it on this; the Republicans are blowing smoke on that. If we were serious, we’d be talking about X, Y, and Z.’ There’s a missing chair.” Moments later, as he headed out the door, Miller paused for a parting caveat. “I’ve been told,” he said, “that it’s all hopelessly naïve.”
Alec MacGillis is a senior editor at The New Republic. This article appeared in the November 17, 2011, issue of the magazine.
17 comments
As long as there is plurality voting, there will be a political duopoly. If you don't like the political duopoly, don't try to fight it within the plurality voting system, mobilize to get rid of plurality voting.
- sighthnd
November 1, 2011 at 1:07am
The Democrats are full of it on protecting trial lawyers. The Republicans are blowing smoke by protecting health insurance cartels, prescription drug manufacturers, for-profit hospital companies, and rich people who can't stand to see their taxes go up if it means uninsured Americans are treated with dignity instead of left festering until it's too late at the ER. Balance! A pox on both their houses! I think I'll take health care reform. Screw the supposedly centrist fat cats.
- chaitless
November 1, 2011 at 2:12am
Where are the conservative environmentalists? I mean, where did those folks go who want to "conserve" the ecological health of our surroundings? Is it now "conservative" to want the worst possible atmosphere for your children and grandchildren to breathe?
- ironyroad
November 1, 2011 at 2:31am
Here's an interpretation, at least with regard to the Matt Millers. The large center, which is to say the amorphous middle class, is mostly in agreement on specific issues (such as an increase in the taxes paid by the wealthy) but far apart on the personalities who propose solutions to those issues (such as Obama). Which is to say that personalities, or more accurately, perceptions, dictate the preferences of many voters, especially low interest center voters. If instead of a Democrat or a Republican, the large center has a third choice of their candidate (i.e., one who represents the interests of the middle class), they would support him or her on the issues. That this third choice might propose the same solutions as the Democrat is irrelevant; it's the perception that counts. As for the Democrat, or Obama, changing his tone, from conciliatory to confrontational, is also irrelevant. He could change positions on issues, change his suit, it doesn't matter, because the perceptions of Obama, like the perceptions of the Republicans on the right, are fixed, and no amount of change in the message will change those perceptions. Granted, this is dumb, and doesn't say much for those behind Americans Elect (who may well believe there is a difference in more than perceptions), but it's a reasonable interpretation.
- rayward
November 1, 2011 at 8:18am
This is precisely the plot line of the novel "From Three to Five" by Hank Adler. The American Exceptionalism Party nominates a third Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidate, drawn from the political center. The secondary characters are all recognizable as current political persons with just their names changed.
- jgmusgrove
November 1, 2011 at 11:38am
The motto of America Elect should be: "Of course the perfect should be the enemy of the good, otherwise, what would centrist commentators talk about all the time?" But, to be slightly less cynical for a moment, America Elect could be just what we need to get this country back on the right track. First, we get a president committed to AE's agenda. Then we elect at least 220 AEers to the House, and sixty AEers to the Senate. Every senator would be required to pledge prior to the election to pass every bill proposed by the President, except for unimportant bills, on which the Prez will allow them to vote their consciences. Alternatively, we could simply disband Congress until unemployment falls to 7%, and allow the Prez to pass legislation in the interim by fiat. I have no particular preference either way, but considering that it's incredibly (and inexplicably) difficult to get 60 senators to vote the same way - just ask Harry Reid! - a benevolently dictatorial Prez (Motto: "It's for your own good") is probably the way to go. This also takes care of the difficulties that might arise in the extremely unlikely event that, despite the Prez's magic speeches and the hypnotic appeal of the AE agenda, a majority of non-AEers get elected to the House in midterm elections in the Prez's first term. Of course, none of this would be necessary if Repubs actually took responsibility for governing rather than opposing everything Obama proposes. It wouldn't be necessary if the Senate worked by majority rule. Still, since this is a pipedream, we might as well indulge an even wackier pipedream, especially since it gives centrist commentators something to do.
- GeoffG
November 1, 2011 at 11:58am
What a bunch of blithering idiots, proceding from the same lie -- that the paralysis of Washington is a function of both parties--and then proposing to replace not the intransigent congress, but the President. How foolish can you get? Why does no putative third party ever work from the bottom up--run against the damfool congressfools first, and remake the institution that is actually the locus of the problem? All this bunch has any chance to do is bend over and take it from the extreme rightwingers.
- cspencef
November 1, 2011 at 1:54pm
*the same lie that has been bemoaned many times in the digital realm of tnr.com, that is.
- cspencef
November 1, 2011 at 1:55pm
Yeesh. How come Republicans don't have to deal with this baloney? Nader wants to run third-party candidates against Obama from the left. I guess eight years of George W. Bush wasn't enough for him. And now we have these idiots wanting to run a candidate whose stated positions would be... well... identical to Obama's, but would be better on account of having that ineffable postpartisan quality that Obama was supposed to have, until Thomas Friedman woke up on January 21st of 2009 and went, "Holy crap! This Obama guy is a Democrat? I thought he was part of the Friedman Self-Deluded Centrism Party!" Where's Ross Perot when you need him? Oh, wait, these days Ross Perot would be considered a raving liberal. My bad.
- Dausuul
November 1, 2011 at 2:23pm
Sorry, my mistake--Nader wants to run Democrats against Obama in the primary, not third-party candidates.
- Dausuul
November 1, 2011 at 2:25pm
Who cares about the threat to Obama. The real biggest danger America faces is not in Washington or Tehran. It is right here between Bernanke and Wall STreet. wacht this congressional hearing on the missing $9 trillion from the FED? Still no answers and not a single one of Fuld, Blankfein, Prince, Rubin, Greenberg, Weill, Schwartz, Cohen, Feinberg, etc., etc. are in jail. In fact they all walked away with hundreds of million each. Today, another massive fraud at MF Global, another major AIPAC contributor. Do you really think Americans are this stupid and don't know what is going on at the fund raising events at Cipriani midtown for AIPAC? The emails "encouraging for donations" to "chosen" candidates all over the country by AIPAC. Are we supposed to believe that the contributors do not expect the cover from the regulators in exchange for funding of the candidates? Is it a coincidence that many documents were destroyed by the SEC regarding the investigations into scams like Goldman?
- MSA70
November 1, 2011 at 7:18pm
the video: http://dailybail.com/home/there-are-no-words-to-describe-the-following-part-ii.html MF Global Management team: Cross reference to APIPAC donations:Jon S. Corzine Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Bradley I. Abelow President and Chief Operating Officer Michael C. Blomfield Managing Director Asia Pacific Thomas F. Connolly Global Head of Human Resources Laurie R. Ferber General Counsel J. Randy MacDonald Global Head of Retail Richard W. Moore Managing Director Europe Henri J. Steenkamp Chief Financial Officer Michael G. Stockman Chief Risk Officer
- MSA70
November 1, 2011 at 7:21pm
Lord Voldemort for President, Sauron for Vice President. Seriously, maybe it will all turn out fine, but I am not sure that some banana republic, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, or even IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE (Sinclair Lewis) scenario can't take place in our noble republic. And we were worried when we thought Richard Nixon was the worst thing we had to worry about. Yes, yes, I know, this is supposed to be a placid revolt from the gentle middle and all will be fine. >.<
- skahn
November 1, 2011 at 11:26pm
Henry Paulson treasury secretary to George W Bush was the originator of the one trillion dollars bailout of Wall Street. He had been chairman of Goldman Sachs. Illegally he saved Goldman Sachs and sank their competitor Lehman Brothers. Bernanke was involved and Timothy Geithner. They have not been indicted or otherwise. Henry Paulson wrote a book and scenes his actions. These people do not have AIPAC sounding names. Crooks have no allegiance to anything religious or otherwise. Their allegiance is to money not to the law . When would these crooks will be brought to justice? When indeed?
- JAIMECHUCH
November 2, 2011 at 11:02am
In the meantime there are twenty five million people unemployed and ten million homes under foreclosure. No help for this scenario.
- JAIMECHUCH
November 2, 2011 at 11:07am
I hear little or no centrist comments here, only frustrated leftists clinging to their discredited agenda. We saw how much good that did during Obama's first 90 days and >$800 Bn in debt. Right wing intransigence is not a winning formula, either. We need fair taxation on a much broader base, reasoned limits on Wall Street greed and exhorbitant CEO salaries, and real punishment for outright crooks, such as Madoff and the insider traders. However, if 45% of voters pay no federal income taxes, there's little hope that they will ever care about imposing real limits on government. They'll just keep voting in the folks who promise them bread and circuses (aka Barry O). See also Greece in 2011. A 3rd party, centrist candidate could do some real good, but he needs to be a true centrist, not a democrat or republican in disguise. Also, to get elected, a centrist needs to eschew hardcore, partisan positions on "litmus test" issues such as guns and abortion, but fight for the things that really matter, such as free markets, acceptible universal health care, sensible defense spending, etc. To be electible, a centrist candidate cannot be perceived as in the pocket of big labor or big business, either. It's too bad, but our centrist may never be able to raise enough $$ without them ever to get elected.
- ksmith2011
November 2, 2011 at 5:49pm
"There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos." - Jim Hightower
- zardoz67
November 2, 2011 at 5:56pm