Limbaugh’s quip is a pro forma insult, even though true. Mr. Auster’s characterization reflects thoughtful analysis, despite the exclamation points.

The most hollow ever: quite a distinction given some of the characters our parties have presented in elections past! I must say, though, that I detect the combination of vacuousness and arrogance in the incumbent as well.

It will be interesting (in the Chinese-curse sense) to see if Nader’s declaration will spice up the race, and if it will spur a real right-wing third party challenge. Nader to the left of the Demopublican pair with no counterweight to their right could well throw the election to Bush, and in a way that gives him no incentive to moderate his growing leftism. Nader’s pursuit of his spoiler’s dream could be very bad news for conservatives. HRS

I seriously doubt that John Kerry could be any more monstrous than his apparent model, John F. Kennedy. The latter, however, at least pretended to be a conventionally patriotic moderate. Of course, anybody who uttered Kerry’s contradictory mixture of bombast and anti-American sentiments would have been hard to find in 1960.

Mr. Sutherland is right about the exclamation points, but I was writing this for Lucianne.com, so was trying to leaven my seriousness. :-)

Bush can certainly be arrogant, but I don’t feel he is vacuous in the same way as Kerry is. Bush has genuine beliefs and convictions, wrong-headed though they may be. Kerry simply has the self-love that comes from being a Perfectly Orthodox Liberal.

Mr. Sutherland’s statement, “Nader’s spoiler’s dream could be very bad news for conservatives” is worrisome to me because he could be right. We certainly DON’T want Nader stealing our thunder! However, I don’t see how Nader’s involvement will slow or in any way inhibit our forming a third party or joining The Constitution Party—which seems to be very popular right now (By the way, I have been assured by one of The CP’s columnists that there are absolutely NO libertarians in the Party hierarchy. I am trying to find out where The CP stands on illegal aliens—to deport them or not—and how tough they are on Border issues). The point I want to make about Nader’s Independent move is that I think most Demos and Greens/Communists will take him seriously unlike they did in ‘00 and will really come out for Kerry. This time, most Demos and the left hate Bush SO much and want him out SO bad, that they are more united than they were in ‘00. The only caveat seems to be Kerry’s adulterous ways and his wife’s involvement with The Tides Org. That Kerry is an empty suit does NOT mean he can’t or won’t be elected. Look what happened in California! They got an empty suit there, and that man is only slightly to the right of Kerry and absolutely no polistical experience.

Let’s just concentrate on what we have to do (forming a third party or joining The CP) and let the “major candidates” do what they will. It’s not easy starting anew, and it’s going to take a lot of hard work—which I am looking forward to.

I have grave doubts about the Constitution Party. First of all, the fact that Mr. Levin is having to “try to find out” how tough they are on border issues suggests that this is simply not a high priority for them, even if they’re on the right side. Second, the Constitution Party is committed to a rigorist, antiquarian, strict-constructionist interpretation of the Constitution which, while it might appeal to most of the participants on this site, will turn off many voters who might otherwise rally to an anti-immigration third party. What this country needs is an essentially single-issue third party focused on the National Question which would be able to appeal to the following types of people as well as traditional conservatives:

*environmentalists concerned about overpopulation
*blue-collar, pro-union workers concerned about jobs
*people on both sides of the abortion debate
*people who believe in the welfare state but don’t want immigrants draining its resources
*non-Christians and others who would be disconcerted by the Constitution Party’s explicitly Christian, almost theocratic platform
*racialists

Peter Brimelow has assembled such a coalition at VDARE. Whether this can be done politically I don’t know. But I do know that the Constitution Party will never appeal to most of the kinds of voters listed above and therefore doubt that it will ever obtain more than a marginal number of votes.

I have grave doubts about the Constitution Party. First of all, the fact that Mr. Levin is having to “try to find out” how tough they are on border issues suggests that this is simply not a high priority for them, even if they’re on the right side. Second, the Constitution Party is committed to a rigorist, antiquarian, strict-constructionist interpretation of the Constitution which, while it might appeal to most of the participants on this site, will turn off many voters who might otherwise rally to an anti-immigration third party. What this country needs is an essentially single-issue third party focused on the National Question which would be able to appeal to the following types of people as well as traditional conservatives:

*environmentalists concerned about overpopulation
*blue-collar, pro-union workers concerned about jobs
*people on both sides of the abortion debate
*people on both sides of the Iraq war issue
*people who believe in the welfare state but don’t want immigrants draining its resources
*non-Christians and others who would be disconcerted by the Constitution Party’s explicitly Christian, almost theocratic platform
*racialists

Peter Brimelow has assembled such a coalition at VDARE. Whether this can be done politically I don’t know. But I do know that the Constitution Party will never appeal to most of the kinds of voters listed above and therefore doubt that it will ever obtain more than a marginal number of votes.

My apologies for the double post. I thought I’d stopped the first one in time to add the Iraq line.

If the point of supporting the Constitution Party were to have its candidate win the presidency, Mr. Harvey’s concerns would be quite relevant to me. I picture building up the vote of the Constitution Party in order to pressure the GOP to move to the right, so I am not worried about whether 51% of the public will ever gravitate to the Constitution Party.

I think that people need to have realistic expectations to avoid disappointment. When I read scenarios about the Constitution Party taking 11% of the vote, etc., even that strikes me as far-fetched. A third party typically gets less than 1% of the vote. It was big news when Nader got 2.7% or so, and it affected the election. Take the Constitution Party from 0.5% up to 1.5%, and that alone would make the GOP mainstream start making plans to get back the lost voters. That is the most I can hope for in the short run.

Theodore,
In terms of immigration reform, it must be said that beggars can’t be choosers. If the CP has a pro-borders, moderated intake platform, surely that is good enough for now. Recall that even though Buchanan was considered ultra conservative socially, he did attract more than a few environmentalists purely because of his immigration position. The combined vote of all right wing splinter parties in 2000 was barely 1%. As Clark points out, it would be a major breakthrough & attention grabber if the CP got 2% or more by itself. It is possible that someone running with immigration reform plus the centrist positions of a Perot or John Anderson type could
draw more votes but then again maybe no. The media is so vociferously opposed to things like prop 187 & border controls that a vast smear campaign against a candidate’s immigration stance would overshadow their other centrist positions.
Take for example the current smear campaign against Governor Lamm, Professor Pimental et al in the Sierra Club. Centrists overall but because they dare to desire a stabilized population level they are tarred as racists & extremists (see livingonearth.org)

Mr. Harvey states the truth. I might add that, during my encounters, many blacks and even governmental employees are interested in such a coalition. The body of these people will never support something like the Constitition Party, which appears not so much as a group of people proposing a radical solution to our problems but, instead, a bit cranky and, as Mr. Harvey put it, full of antiquarians. If anybody seriously believes that immigration is the foremost culturally threatening issue facing us, then the Constitution Party looks like a sideshow.

Chris M., why do you think it is the anti-immigration movement that serves as the “begger” in this argument and not the Constitution Party? I can name ten to twenty people off the internet, active in anti-immigration politics, who have more national credibility than anybody in the ConP.

Immigration continues to poll as a hot button issue with most voters, and an overwhelming number of them take a position against immigration. I doubt that the top ten platform positions of the ConP, whatever they are, have even a fraction of the same appeal to the American public overall. And does the ConP have anything like the web or public policy presence of organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, VDARE.COM, Dan Stein and FAIR, ProjectUSA, CCIR, americanpatrol.com, and NumbersUSA? And just look how even the debate over immigration *within* the Sierra Club has already generated more public attention than anything the ConP will do in the next four years. I see no need for anti-immigrationists to go “begging” to some obscure political party for the favor of allowing them to “lead” us on this issue, especially if they are only willing to do so when we “moderate” our stance and subordinate our cause to their overall interests.

Paul,
Any candidate advocating immigration reform needs a vehicle. The CP is that vehicle. Don’t forget the massive logistical headache just to be on the ballot in all states, the signatures required etc. Do you think that some alternative to the CP will come together spontaneously in the next few months? Millions will ‘write in’ Tom Tancredo? Maybe, but don’t hold your breath. Even with hundreds of organizers behind them & millions to spend, Pat B & Ralph N were not on the ballot in one or two states in 2000. As to the beggar status of immigration reformers - here is some evidence: not since the prop 187 victory and the strong showing of Pat B in the 1996 GOP primary have reformers shown any electoral traction. Sure Arnold got a significant boost from his opposition to drivers licences for illegals and Tom Tancredo wins 70% of his district, but beyond this? There are probably 30-60 GOP congressmen & a few Senators who would champion reform. However they are currently intimidated by Rove & Bush into muting their criticism or at least not challenging Bush either in the primary or as an independent. I reckon the immigration issue will have to loom even larger & Bush will have to further promote the amnesty (he’s lately gone into stealth mode on the issue), before anyone with name recognition gets angry enough to step forward as a viable challenger. In any event, the clock is ticking and ballot deadlines fast approaching.

As Chris M. says, it is very difficult and expensive to organize a party and get on the ballot. The Constitution Party started as the US Taxpayers Party and got on the ballot in 21 states in 1992, its first election cycle. In 1996, they got on the ballot in 29 states. In 2000, after the name change, they got on the ballot in 41 states and should have been on in Massachusetts but did not have the funds to devote to a legal challenge.

Basically, all campaign funds were spent getting on the ballot. In the 2 months before the election, they spent close to nothing. If anyone wants to donate to change that situation, great. Even with federal matching funds in the millions, Pat Buchanan got less than half of one percent of the vote. To get up to 1.0% would be big news and would force major parties to pay attention.

Here are the vote totals and percentages from 2000, which I have tallied from raw data at cnn.com:

Gore 50,996,116 48.417% Democrat
Bush 50,456,169 47.905% Republican
Nader 2,674,782 2.540% Green Party
Buchanan 449,024 0.426% Reform Party
Browne 385,312 0.366% Libertarian
Phillips 98,718 0.094% Constitution
Hagelin 83,383 0.079% Natural Law
all other 182,821 0.174% various

No minor party candidate got on the ballot in all 50 states. I anticipate Nader’s numbers falling in 2004, and I doubt that the Reform Party will field a candidate or get the votes that Buchanan got. So, rising to the top of the third party heap will be easier in 2004 than in 2000.

A movement, not a party. That’s what is needed, IMO. I simply think the intrigues of a minor political party will disrupt the focus needed on the issue at hand, immigration. And, Chris M., I must say that the example of Buchanan, as far as I can tell, is an argument against taking a cultural movement and investing it in an existing political party. Buchanan was immediately bogged down in law suits, federal funding challenges, and an intraparty civil war. The framework of the Reform Party ended up doing him little good whatsoever, other than providing the final inscription on his political tombstone.

As Mr. Harvey states, moreover, the anti-immigration movement is much too broad of a potential coalition to fit within the narrow confines of the ConP. People who do not agree on much else will coalesce to stop immigration. It is a coalition that has the potential to generate a political cataclysm for the existing party structure and bring ruin on the ruling elites.

The CP’s position on immigration is here:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Immigration

While they do not say so explicitly, their stances would lead me to believe that they want illegals deported.