A reader writes:
Your reader expends a lot of verbiage on the way to his conclusion that "we desperately need a centrist independent candidate", but he starts with a rather ridiculous premise – that to "eclipse the 18.9% of the vote that Ross Perot captured in 1992" constitutes "doing well". Ask any Republicans who were around in 1992 how thrilled they were at Perot's "success", which cost them the election. Ask Perot supporters themselves; do I have to point out that they lost? I was pretty happy, myself, because I voted for Clinton, but I see absolutely no evidence in 1992 or your reader's writings that a third-party candidate is ever going to be anything but a spoiler for someone else.
Then look the reality of third-party candidates since then: they haven't been centrists; they've been extremists, dissatisfied with the unconscionable compromises of the Ds and Rs: Ralph Nader, Ron Paul. Perot himself was not a centrist; he was, to put it as nicely as possible, a kook.
Another writes:
First and foremost, the reader's claim that a "centrist" presidential candidate may do well ignores the fact that we currently have a massively, infuriatingly centrist president in Barack Obama.
Only Obama would put major cuts to Social Security and Medicare on the negotiating table, repeatedly, without even being asked by Republicans, when the majority of his own party want them expanded. Only Obama would actively protect torturers, mega-bank fraudsters, and their enablers from investigation and prosecution for as long as he has in the name of "moving forward," when the majority of his party want them prosecuted. So the center HAS their candidate. It is only conservative propagandists like FOX News, Limbaugh, Beck et al. who persuade so many people that Obama is the second coming of Lenin.
But on to an independent presidential bid and your reader's points: (1) and (4) depend upon, first and foremost, the candidate being already VERY well-known and famous, or otherwise extremely rich. This means only a celebrity, a billionaire, or a sitting office-holder need apply. Nobody else is going to have the initial support to get jump-started by electronic media. So who is there? Michael Bloomberg, a Republican in all but name; Bill Gates; and Hollywood. That's pretty much it, really.
Point (2) is actually counterproductive. Republicans have been preaching the evil and incompetence of government at all levels for over forty years now. The more the people distrust and dislike their government, the more likely they are to vote Republican – and LESS likely to vote for a third-party candidate. (The GOP strategy here is actually quite cunning: claim government doesn't work, then sabotage government, then get MORE support from the voters when you claim you were right all along.)
Finally, your reader takes for granted that the current candidates are unpopular because they are too polarized – too liberal or too conservative. To the contrary. The majority of dislike of any candidate in polling is simply because the candidate in question is running against the respondent's party of preference. The difference between winning and losing lies, as it has for quite some time now, in unifying one's own base by demonstrating loyalty to the party and its stated principles.
Of the remaining GOP candidates, only Santorum could be accused by conservatives of being too extremist. The other three are all in trouble because they are not loyal ENOUGH to the party line. Ditto Obama. The difference is that both parties, Republican and Democratic, have been moving to the political right for thirty years now, to the point that Obama and some other Democrats like Senator Wyden actually discuss cutting or privatizing Medicare. The Republicans have become extreme conservatives; the Democrats, led by Obama, have become centrists leaning slightly right. The base of both parties is dissatisfied- Republicans because they've been taught that no-compromise tactics work, the Democrats because the gains they've made through the 20th Century are being bargained away for what amounts to magic beans.
And this brings me to the final point. Where is the "center"? Most Americans want Social Security protected, Medicare expanded, taxes raised on the wealthy, and the people who masterminded the 2008 financial crisis behind bars. Republicans want Social Security and Medicare abolished, taxes raised on the poor and cut for the rich, and zero consequences for 2008. Obama, leader of the Democrats … wants Social Security and Medicare cuts, wants a few tax hikes on the wealthiest with tax breaks mixed in, and wants amnesty for the banksters.
The center in this country is not the one that needs a candidate. The LEFT needs one. It's sad that liberals' best hope in 2012 might well be Roseanne Barr and the Green Party. But how in the hell are you going to unite people dissatisfied with Obama for not being liberal enough with people dissatisfied with the GOP options for not being conservative enough? You're not. It just won't happen. Nobody, no matter how rich, how big a celebrity, nobody can bridge that gap.
Another makes a similar case and concludes:
Suppose you decide to vote for an independent candidate. What would he do that would be different? Would he get better cooperation from the Republicans in Congress than Obama for anything significant? Would the Democrats embrace the guy who kicked their guy out? If the Congress was devoted first and foremost to governing the country, there might be a chance for an independent President to accomplish something. But anyone who wants change is going to have to resign themselves to the reality that they will have to build from the bottom up, rather than start with a President and work down. It will take years. And it hasn't even been started.
The Dish 