The Washington Post has published an op-ed by David Jolly, Christine Todd Whitman and Andrew Yang, entitled, “Most third parties have failed. Here’s why ours won’t.”
In their article, Jolly, Whitman and Yang postulate that a new political party they propose -the “Forward Party” will somehow replace one of the established two parties. Or at least the new party would join them in the mainstream. Setting aside a personal opinion based on my experience working for Whitman at EPA (and setting aside the apparent attempt to use the word, “Forward” to conflate their party with the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign), what they propose in their op-ed is a stalking horse for the Republicans.
The nonsensical rationale presented in the article to justify a third party transparently employs right wing misrepresentations to make the case Democrats will never give voters what they really want -while soft-pedaling the gap between Republicans and what most Americans want. It goes on to say only “Forward” has its finger on the Pulse of America. Without repeating the article in its entirety, let me cite key elements of the article to explain why its statements are all gaslighting :
1) "...calls from the far left to confiscate all guns and repeal the Second Amendment...." - virtually no one on the left has called for confiscation of all guns, nor for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Those are right-wing misrepresentations of left-wing positions, designed to whip up the base. The left has called for restrictions on and even buy-backs of certain types of guns (not confiscation); for more rigorous screening of gun purchasers; and for appropriate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (failing to interpret the 2nd clause of the second Amendment in the context of the 1st clause of the second Amendment leaves the 1st clause as superfluous -which can hardly have been the framers' intent!).
2) "...climate change... calls from the far left to completely upend our economy and way of life...." -Again, right-wing hyperbolic misrepresentation. First, the climate change issue is not inherently a right/left issue any more than that of the Titanic bearing down on an iceberg -except one party has adopted the position we should be steering "right" -into that iceberg! Even the more "extreme" climate-adaptive measures advocated by the left are largely economic efficiencies, enhancements and savings necessary to preserve life and infrastructure, and in any case are vital to our survival as a civilization -if not as a species. The segments of our economy that would suffer significantly (principally the fossil fuel industry) are the entrenched dinosaurs that will pass along with the rest of us even as they insist that fireball in the sky is a mere errant ray of sunshine.
3) "...the far left’s extreme views on late-term abortions...." -an adoption of the right's hyperbolic misrepresentation that the left's views on late-term abortion -to save the mother's life or mercifully end a fatally deformed fetus- represent anything but the mainstream.
Meanwhile, the article attempts to balance the misrepresented positions from the left by speaking mildly of the countervailing right-wing positions, as "...eliminating gun laws....", "...denial that there is even a problem....”, and "...make a woman’s choice a criminal offense" -when the right's opposition, positions and ambitions on these issues are far more extreme and unpopular than could be divined from this article.
Without offering a methodology for attaining them the article then goes on to simplistically call for a few of the very same core measures that the Democrats already are adamantly advocating: "...ranked-choice voting and open primaries; for the end of gerrymandering; and for the nationwide protection of voting rights and a push to make voting remarkably easy for anyone and incredibly secure for everyone."
Clearly, there is only one established party from which this new alternative is intended to woo votes. In claiming "not" to be a "spoiler" party, the article makes it clear that spoiling is the actual objective. There is little evidence this nascent new party offers anything new or different from the ambitions of the same Democratic party it so disproportionately disparages. Certainly, Democrats' effectiveness in realizing those ambitions could be, should be, and has been justly criticized, but it is most unlikely that this new third party would be more effective. However, it threatens to siphon off a sufficient percentage of Democratic votes to ensure an overwhelming shift of balance toward the establishment party representing the fewest Americans -the Republicans.