In June of 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt had a secret meeting with his 1940 Republican opponent, Wendell Willkie, to discuss the future of the major political parties.
Afterwards, FDR told a top aide, Sam Rosenman, that he and Willkie, sensing a change in political demographics, agreed that there should be a "new political set-up."
"We ought to have two real parties, one liberal the other conservative" he said.
"Of course," FDR continued, "I’m talking about long-range politics. . . . But we can do it in 1948, and we can start building up right after the election this fall.
"From the Liberals of both parties, Willkie and I together can form a new really liberal party in America . . . [and] the conservatives could join together as they see fit."
Roosevelt was not alone in the belief that there should be two parties, not unlike the British Labour and Conservative parties, that offer people competing visions.
For example, William F. Buckley Jr., the founder of the modern conservative movement, agreed. He wanted voters to have "a choice not an echo."
In the post-World War II-era, Democratic party platforms moved to the left, and Republican platforms moved to the right.
Depending on the political, economic, and cultural circumstances, voters chose, at times, liberals like Lyndon Johnson and Barack Obama, and conservatives like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
During the past 75 years, however, there have been politicians and voters who believe they are above the fray.
You know the type: people who think they are open-minded or intellectual because they hold that political partisanship is the root of all evil, and begin every conversation with "on the one hand and on the other hand."
The latest "holier-than-thou" group that takes the non-partisan blather to new heights is the "No Labels."
Founded by discontented Democrats and Republicans about 10 years ago, their slogan is: "No left. No right. Forward."
Most of the leaders of the movement are mealy-mouthed pols, rejected by their party or the voters. They include Republicans Jon Huntsman, Jr., and Kelly Ayotte, and Democrats Bill Nelson and Joe Lieberman.
There is also Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., of West Virginia, who is flirting with the No Labels party because he faces an uphill battle for re-election next year.
At a recent No Labels seminar in Manchester New Hampshire, The New York Times reported " . . . the ostensibly bipartisan interest group No Labels discovered . . . "consensus campaigning and governance is all well and good until it comes time for the details."
The two top speakers, Manchin and Huntsman, while calling for "moderation" and "common sense" compromises, quickly revealed that they couldn’t agree on gun control and energy policy.
And despite calls for "transparency and accountability," both speakers declined to divulge the names of No Labels top donors.
But what is dangerous: No Labels is threatening to run third party candidates next year. Manchin has been mentioned for the top spot and Huntsman for vice president.
The problem with third-party candidates for national office is that they often elect, by a plurality, the very candidate they hope to stop.
In 1860, Southern Democrats angry with their party’s northern nominee Stephen Douglas ran John Breckenridge.
The result: the man all Democrats hated, Republican Abraham Lincoln, won with only 39.8% of the votes cast.
Ditto Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.
As The Bull Moose candidate against conservative Republican President William Howard Taft, Teddy Roosevelt elected the man he truly despised, leftist Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who received only 41.8% of the total popular vote.
The unintended consequence of the off-and-on independent candidacy of Ross Perot in 1992 was the election of Bill Clinton, with 43% of the vote.
Oddly, both in 1968 and 1992, the third party candidates, at one point, outpolled a major party candidate.
In the early fall of 1968, George Wallace pulled ahead of Democrat Hubert Humphrey, and in 1992 Perot was beating Bill Clinton.
But as the American electorate gets serious in the last weeks of national campaigns, they have historically turned away from third-party candidates.
Their popularity takes a big dive by election day and, at best, they go down in the record books as spoilers.
Expect the same if No Labels enters the 2024 presidential sweepstakes.
No Labels does not grasp that political partisanship, conflicting political philosophies, and a purposely designed inefficient system prevents fleeting majorities from becoming tyrannical. "American public policy dysfunction exists," George Will has pointed out, "not because democracy isn’t working, but because it is."
One New York pol who understood the nature of partisan politics was President Roosevelt’s confidant, Edward Flynn of the Bronx, who served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1940 to 1943.
Reflecting on the nonpartisan cries of the No Labels types of his time, Flynn said, "There is no such thing as non-partisanship. If there were, there would be no need for elections.
"The phrase 'non-partisanship' has a high moral tone. It is used by men running for office to attract votes, but deep down in their hearts these men know that it is only a word without real meaning.
"There is, and always must be, honest disagreement. All of us have our likes and dislikes. And that is the genesis of partisanship."
Well said.
(A related column may be found here.)
George J. Marlin, a former executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is the author of "The American Catholic Voter: Two Hundred Years of Political Impact," and "Christian Persecutions in the Middle East: A 21st Century Tragedy." Read George J. Marlin's Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.