The Leading Princeton Publication of Conservative Thought

Why Howard Schultz Should Run for President: It’s Not Because He’ll Win

The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.

American political parties are stuck in a rut. The Democrats’ “Green New Deal” is close to becoming accepted orthodoxy. Republicans have convinced themselves that lowering taxes and increasing spending will eliminate the United States’ nearly $20-trillion debt. Every day brings a new slate of radical policies being adopted by the party faithful, shortly followed by members of Congress and presidential candidates. Extremism is the norm, and voters are disillusioned. Turnout in the previous presidential election was a dismal 55.5% of eligible voters. Compare that to countries like the United Kingdom, where turnout was 68.7%, or France, whose previous presidential election netted a 77.8%  turnout. American voters clearly believe that their votes do not make a difference and that their perspectives are not represented in the existing political parties. What to do?

Enter Howard Schultz. A middle-of-the-road-pragmatist, Schultz promises a socially-liberal fiscally-conservative agenda that appeals to voters tired of the Trump reality show, but fearful of the Democrats’ identity politics and lefter-than-left economic ideas. He is a charismatic speaker, a capable self-made business leader, and an outsider free of political baggage. What is not to like?

Actually, quite a lot. But that is not the subject of this article. Schultz’s contribution to the presidential race is not his policy ideas, but his mere presence. For the first time since Ross Perot’s 1996 presidential campaign, America has a viable third party candidate who will change the ideological framework of the campaign and its candidates, even though his chances of winning are slim. A Howard Schultz campaign will force Republicans and Democrats to break out of the two-party system that has entrenched political polarization over the past three decades, pushing them to adopt platforms that appeal to a novel constituency: the political center.

To understand why this is, we first need to understand how the current system arrived at its current state. It is a fact that the mathematics of the current system used to elect the president – a popular vote grouped by state – heavily favors the formation of two (and only two) political parties. But the Electoral College was also not designed to include popular elections: it was assumed that if American politics was to become factional, it would happen in the House, which was directly elected and thus more susceptible to public opinion. However, as the Electoral College system shifted to the “popular vote,” the presidential elections became just as partisan as congressional elections. As the concentration of power has increased in the executive branch, this trend has accelerated, with Congress often delegating powers to the president in matters that are constitutionally vested in Congress.

As American politics became more and more focused on the president, it also encouraged the parties to act as presidential cheerleaders even during non-election years, sowing a rigid party system that forces congressional representatives to act as though they are fighting to win the Electoral College. Since the so-called “swing states” consist of no more than 5% of voters who are truly independent “voters,” the parties’ strategy now focus almost purely on “getting out the vote” – that is, encouraging already Democratic or Republican-leaning individuals to go vote, which forces the party to appeal to only its existing (partisan) voter base.

This problem has been further exacerbated by gerrymandering, which renders around 80% of House districts uncompetitive. The election that the representatives worry about is not the one on election day, which they are near-guaranteed to win, but the primary race, where extremely partisan voters will often throw out a candidate that seeks moderation or compromise. Thus the House of Representatives is full of politicians who represent not the majority of people in their home district, but a very small slice of extremely polarized voters. These radical politicians cheer on the leader of their respective party, permitting him or her to create legislation that their own party will unilaterally support – if it is not done by executive order first. It should be no wonder that the only thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree upon is the need to preserve the two-party status quo, resulting in numerous election regulations at both the state and federal levels that make life difficult for upstart parties. Put all this together and you a have a recipe for democratic distrust and decline.

Schultz’s entry into the presidential race promises to change all this. His centrist ideas will force both the Republican and Democrat candidates to fight for the middle-of-the road of voters sick of extreme policies.  It may also force Democratic primary voters to reconsider their choice of candidate – if they pick a suitably radical candidate, then many voters may opt for Schultz, re-electing President Trump and denying their party the presidency. This is explained by the Median Voter Theorem, a game theoretical concept that posits that a candidate’s best strategy is to appeal to the “median” voter – that is, the voter whose political preferences sit squarely between the left and the right. What constitutes the political center varies by jurisdiction and is not consistent throughout the country, but Schultz’s campaign has purposefully chosen his political positions to be fairly aligned with those voters in swing states. Democrats and Republicans must take note.

The presidential candidates’ need to appeal to centrist voters will also force congressional representatives to become more moderate. Even though Schultz will not be running candidates in congressional districts, his mere presence in the presidential race will necessitate that the political parties adapt their policy platforms, which will require their congressional delegations to vote more in line with the median voter. Political parties may also feel pressured to disown their most radical members in order to avoid alienating centrist voters. In addition, Schultz’s presence on the ballot will invite new voters to the polls that may have previous spurned overly-polarized political parties, giving centrist candidates from both parties an opportunity to capitalize on a surge of new voters.

How do we know this will work? We see it in other countries with multiple parties in their congress or parliament. For example, the Canadian system (which has three parties possessing at least 10% of seats) is relatively moderate – there are no members of the mainstream Liberal Party calling for a Green New Deal, and no members of the Conservative Party asking for a complete shutdown of immigration from non-European countries. The fringe extremes common in America’s Democratic and Republican parties are instead located in small parties that win relatively few seats and have never become part of a governing coalition. In particular, the Liberal Party of Canada plays a unique role in discouraging polarization – as the party in “the center,” it can shift between both the right and the left, trying to appeal to the median voter. The party is currently in a center-left phase, which has led to a sub-10% approval rating for the quasi-socialist NDP. The Conservative Party has also broadened its appeal to both centrist and right-wing voters. But 20 years ago, the median voter was more right-wing – and so was the Liberal Party, which focused on cutting taxes and reducing regulation the last time it was in power. In a multi-party system, political candidates are incentivized to reach for the center, ensuring that radical voices are left on the sidelines.

A centrist party (or even a series of centrist candidates) has the potential to reshape federal politics. Centrist candidates reduce polarization, pulling the parties towards the policy preferences of the median voter. They also provide fresh ideas that are sorely lacking in a turgid two-party system. It may seem like a pipe dream, but if other countries can do it, so too can the United States.

Comments

comments