No, Your Excellent Idea Is Pretty Much Crap

Tom Friedman has an idea!

Third parties... What are you doing to do?

Now, certainly third parties have a place in American history.  In the 19th century, they usually arose because one of the two main parties were not addressing an important issue.  The perfidy of Masons.  The spread of slavery.  The peril of the Irish.  The desire to inflate the currency.  The struggles of farmers.

I guess you can even look at George Wallace as addressing the needs of white supremacists.

Ross Perot was somewhat different.  To his credit, he did focus attention and energy on the deficit.  But his was also a top down, personality driven enterprise driven by ego.  And then there's Ralph Nader, but I repeat myself.

Now, there is a lot of talk about third parties this year.  In some ways, the Tea Party could function as a third party if Willard Romney wins the nomination.  If they were to bolt (which is doubtful), they could function as a third party.  More likely evangelicals will bolt, but that's an example of grassroots third parties.  Similarly, if OWS coalesced around a candidate, they could be a third party.  At least in part, that's what Obama's speech yesterday is trying to head off.

But that is different from Americans Elect.  This is a top down, third "party" effort flogged by people like Tom Friedman.  They want a sensible technocrat.  Someone who works with both sides of the aisle.  Someone who doesn't pander to the extremes.

No one seems to have told them that guy is already President.

The other problem with this line of thinking (and this is true of all the recent third parties since the Progressive Party), is that it presumes that a president without a party can govern.

Our government is simply not wired to work that way.  Congress certainly isn't wired to work that way.

We had a president without a party once.  His name was John Tyler.  I am reasonably certain he was not carved onto the side of Mount Rushmore.  Tyler's presidency was a mass of dysfunction, as he was expelled from the Whig party for apostasy.  Tyler was a Whig because he opposed Andrew Jackson, not because he supported the Whig policies of Henry Clay.  So when he succeeded Ol' Tippecanoe (and Tyler, too!), he quickly exposed himself as a man torn between parties.

To a certain degree, Jimmy Carter became a man without a party, as Washington Democrats simply couldn't put up with him.  That turned out well.

Governments function because of institutions.  Parties are powerful institutions.  The idea that you can summon forth a knight in shining soundbites to win with presidency and slay the dragon of deficits and win the crusade against partisanship is narcissistic folly.  (Did I mention this is Friedman's idea?)

Partisanship exists because there are different opinions on how to run the country.  Arguing between the parties is not a symptom of dysfunction, it's a necessary part of making decisions.  However, once the arguing is finished, compromise becomes necessary.  As the GOP showed - yet again - yesterday, they will filibuster ANYTHING Obama puts forward, even moderate judges.

The problem is not that Washington is a partisan place, but that one party has decided not to compromise at all on anything.  THAT is the root of the dysfunction.  Electing Bloomberg won't solve that.

Now, conceivably a third party in the legislature would be interesting, but you'd have to change our electoral laws (to one of instant runoffs between the top two finishers) and change the rules of Congress.

But aside from THAT... cake.