Howard Lurie: You can’t reform the parties from the outside

In my recent op-ed in Broad + Liberty, “Independent voters are good people. That’s the problem,” I used the quote “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” to make the argument that voters who registered as Independent were allowing the extremists in both of the major political parties to prevail. A few days later, in Broad + Liberty, David Thornburgh disagreed. “Independent voters aren’t the problem.”

My basic argument was that by withdrawing from the two major political parties, Independents were not making the things they disliked and led them to become Independents any better. Thornburgh, rather than offering any evidence to disprove my argument, spent almost his entire op-ed arguing that Independents should be permitted to vote in primary elections. His first sentence was: “Over the last five years of my forty year career as a Pennsylvania civic leader, I have been a strong advocate for primary elections in Pennsylvania that embrace all voters, including our 1.4 million independent voters.”

According to Thornburgh, “Pennsylvania is one of only nine states that still strictly excludes independent (or non-affiliated) voters from the opportunity to vote in primary elections.” If my math is correct, he is admitting that in 41 states Independents do have some voting rights in primary elections. Yet, he offers nothing to even suggest that things are better in those states. Indeed, he states that “Nationally a recent Gallup survey reveals that 43 percent of all voters consider themselves independent, the highest number since Gallup started asking the question.” So what have Independents accomplished?

My position is that they have made things worse. As I said in my earlier op-ed: 

In my opinion, Independents have made the problem worse by withdrawing from the two major political parties. By effectively withdrawing from the political process, a great many good people are allowing evil to triumph. They are allowing the extremists to gain control. In some states, like Pennsylvania, Independents cannot vote in the political primaries. Independents have, in effect, dropped out of the political process. They think that they have taken the high road, when in actuality, they have taken a dead end. They are roughly a third of the registered voters. They could have an impact if they stayed within either the Republican or Democratic parties. They could have a moderating effect. 

Merely allowing Independents to vote in the primary elections is unlikely to make things any better. Thornburgh argues that Independents are “not the problem, but we’re glad to be part of the solution.” Yet he offers absolutely nothing to show how allowing Independents to vote in the primaries solves anything. Let’s examine his arguments.

The primary election is where the political parties choose their candidates for the general election. Independents are not a political party. They aren’t choosing their candidate to appear on the general election ballot. Allowing them to vote in the primary just means that they get to vote for someone whose name is on the Republican or Democratic ballot. How does someone get their name on one of those ballots? It’s not easy. And if the only choice on primary election day is either the Democratic or Republican ballot, what impact is the Independent voter going to have?

Thornburgh seems to think that the political process is like buying and selling in a free market. He offers a private sector analogy of automakers producing trucks. He suggests that if Automaker A produces trucks that have a tendency to catch on fire, “consumers will flock to Automaker B, forcing Automaker A out of business.” But he says this after already admitting that “almost half of all voters are rejecting” both political parties. So Democrats are not flocking to the Republican Party, and Republicans are not flocking to the Democratic Party. They are dropping out of the political process, and then complaining that they can’t vote in the primary election. They are like the bus passenger who decides to get off the bus miles from his destination and where the bus would take him, and then cries about having to walk the rest of the way.

Thornburgh asserts that “Parties will become more representative if voters demand it. And adding a million four new independent voters [in Pennsylvania] primary elections will absolutely build that demand.” But who is the party? The party is not like a business entity that controls and sells products. It is more like a club that has members. But the club does not control its members the way that a business controls its products. Members can decide to leave the club, but products cannot decide to leave the business that produces them. 

By leaving their party, the Independents, who I presume are the moderates, are leaving the party in the control of the extremists. The extremists aren’t leaving. The extremists don’t want the moderates choosing the party’s candidates or moderating the party’s positions. The extremists want extreme candidates and extreme positions. Isn’t that why so many voters have become Independent?

My argument, which Thornburgh rejects, is that you can’t reform the parties from the outside. You can only reform them from the inside. If I may rephrase the initial quote: the only thing necessary for the triumph of extremism is for the moderates in both parties to leave.

Howard Lurie is Emeritus Professor of Law, Charles Widger School of Law, Villanova University