Fusion Wrap Up – (for those of us who have had our fill of turkey)
I just could not get into watching or commenting on that IPOD train wreck. In these types of situations – issues weigh more than personalities so they tend sink to the bottom and everyone comments on the oily film on the surface.
Anyway – through the entire brew ha ha the issue that sank was “Fusion.”
anoni at FSP sums it up in my view:
I realize “fusion” is the darling of the political hobbyists…
but I still can figure out the rational (or benefit) for a candidate to run a fusion campaign with IPOD.
What does IPOD stand for besides being ANTI Republican and Democrat? Nothing.
some cross endorsements make sense:
Dem/Green
Rep/LibertarianBut even those are unlikely to affect Election Day outcomes.
I agree with the first point. IPOD style fusion doesn’t make a heck of a lot of sense. As for the second…
First of all don’t limit possible fusion combinations to what you think of as affinity groups. A Dem/Libertarian or a Rep/Green could have a real impact.
The classic “fusion” candidate along these lines was Rudy Guliani when he ran for Mayor of NYC as a Republican AND a Liberal Party candidate. He was offering something to each group and his message resonated with both groups. Capital “L” liberals did not like the cronyism and the built in malaise of the city’s Democratic party and he was clearly Republican enough to suit NYC’s cliff dwellers.
That’s when fusion can make a difference.
Jason
I think you have a really good point about the sometimes unexpected results of what appears to be an unlikely fusion, and I also take your point about the Guliani example.
My concern with fusion is that it rarely actually benefits the smaller parties in the long run. Given that I’d like to see a Libertarian Party replace the Republican Party as the second (not third) party in Delaware, my thought it this:
The larger party agrees to fusion because it is a way to pick up a few extra votes from people who probably would have stayed home if their party had no candidate. However, the larger party almost never has to make any concessions to the smaller one, and it will generally benefit far more from any victories achieved by fusion candidates.
Looked at closely, the Populist fusion candidates in the upper South during the 1880s-1890s were a long-term disaster for the Populist movement.
If I controlled a small party (which I don’t) I would prefer to remain issue oriented and not fuse, but publicly endorse candidates from either party who came closest to my ideals in a particular race. If that endorsement proves capable of driving extra voters to the polls, then there is a small but real incentive for the larger party to make some movement. It also allows the smaller party to build a “brand” identification even before it has candidates to run.
“ANTI Republican and Democrat?”
Jason, you are really stuck on this false dilemma. The correlate for you is conservative v. Liberal. In the latter case, there are “moderates.” Are they ANTI Liberal and Conservative?
Sometimes it actually is important to read the claims others make for themselves. If you read IPOD’s platform, you see a government reform agenda that isn’t mirrored in either the Repub & Dem parties but which a particular Repub or Dem candidate can find themselves in agreement. (People are actually allowed to do that, Jason: agree w/ a group to which they don’t officially belong.}
Now suppose that a Repub and/or Dem candidate agrees w/ IPOD’s govt reform agenda, then through fusion a beneficial relationship can work out for both the candidate and IPOD, which wants to see its govt reform agenda get an elected voice in the legislature. I happen to like IPOD’s govt reform agenda and I think that the people of DE would benefit as well.
For many Americans, all political reality isn’t trapped between the vectors of the Repub and Dem eternal struggle which seems to frame your political perspective about most political issues and events. They have other agendas that are important to them as well, which neither of the major parties possess to a well-formed degree. And these people want to raise these issues now and make alliances w/ those who focus on them to a great degree. These people aren’t willing to wait, and probably are sensible enough to doubt, your hypothesis about the coming political Nirvana when the Dems rule nationally and in every state and the libs w/i the Dem usurp the Tom Carpers & Thurman Adamses. etc. Many Repubs have the same fantasy about themselves.
Now, my question is: why should Dems and Repub candidates, or candidates from any party, be denied making alliances w/ other parties over issues that don’t appear in either of the Dem/Repub official hymnals (and, most importantly, why should voters be denied voting for such candidates) simply because it doesn’t square w/ the quasi-theological politics of Dem and Repub partisans who thank of themselves as part of an elect who will effect a second-coming of their respective party’s dominance?
Sorry, Jason. While you are part of the biggest show in town, yours is not the only show. And people who either don’t like your show or who like part of it but don’t want to make it into a veritable religion–these people have rights too. We should be about maximizing their rights as we do our won.
Thanks for rebutting Dana, nice job.
Dana,
“A Dem/Libertarian or a Rep/Green could have a real impact.”
In the meantime, like the anonu, I don’t see an IPOD cross endorsement having much impact.