No Labels: A movement, a party or a grift?
Group's focus on presidential politics isn't built for the long-term
Building a strong national political movement is a complex and multifaceted endeavor that requires a strategic and long-term commitment. Engaging directly with voters, mobilizing resources, and establishing a coherent ideological platform are just a few of the many tasks that have to be undertaken. While many organizations and mobilizations have emerged on the political landscape with varying goals and methods, No Labels is an inconsequential effort in party building. Its only apparent role is as a potential disrupter in what will be one of the most important elections in our nation's history.
One of the fundamental requirements for establishing a national party is the development and communication of a clear and compelling ideological platform. Voters need to know what the party or movement stands for and what principles guide its decisions. This set of principles should address a wide range of policy issues, from economic matters to social and environmental concerns. It should also be flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining its core principles. Can anyone say with certainty what No Labels actually stands for other than occupying undefined ground between the Democratic and Republican parties?
No Labels bills itself as the "Commonsense Majority" engaged in grassroots efforts to eliminate the anger and divisiveness that permeates American politics. Yet, no signs exist that lead one to believe that the group is organizing at the grassroots level in a manner deemed to be credible. Rather than focus on politics at the national and congressional levels since its founding in 2010, the leaders of No Labels should have been engaging with communities at the local level, listening to their concerns and involving them in the development of its ideologies and objectives. Political movements and parties are built from the ground up and not the top down as No Labels seems to prefer.
It's been clear since its founding that No Label's focus is on national politics. The group emerges from a political hibernation every four years to determine the viability of a third-party presidential effort. For this reason alone, No Labels can't be taken seriously as a political movement or a potential party. There has been little to no evidence that the organization is even interested in participating in political activities beyond fielding a candidate for the White House who would be doomed from the start.
Yet, given its ambitions to be a national political player, No Labels is only as strong as the candidates it puts forward for elections. Far from having a bench of strong bench candidates or actively recruiting younger aspirants who align with its vague ideological platform and values, the group is floating the names of grizzled officeholders or has-beens who offer no real contrast to the presumed candidates of the two major parties. By now, No Labels should have identified a cadre of candidates to run in local elections building toward statewide and national runs in future election cycles.
The one area in which No Labels has been proficient is fundraising. As we all know, financial resources are critical for any political organization aiming to build a national movement. It’s essential that these efforts need to develop a comprehensive fundraising strategy that includes contributions from individual donors, corporate sponsors, and other sources. Building a network of committed donors who believe in the party's vision and goals is essential for long-term success. But No Labels has been raking in much of its cash from a number of dark money sources. This could be a reason why the organization doesn’t identify as a political party. As currently constructed, No Labels doesn’t have to divulge its list of donors.
In an article published in June, Mother Jones did a deep dive into the group’s funding and the donors who were providing it. (No Labels Exposed) In the article, David Corn and Russ Choma detail the various origins of the money flowing to the group. Contrary to the middle-of-the-political road appearance No Labels tries to project, a large chunk of the group’s financial support comes from not only GOP donors but more specifically, big-money individuals and corporate interests that fund right-wing causes. In fact, in a recent report in April, The New Republic gained access to a document that shows billionaire and Clarence Thomas’ BFF and benefactor Harlan Crowe gave more than $130,00 to No Labels between 2019 and 2021. By organizational standards, Crow was considered a “whale”-level donor, a designation that is awarded to its most benevolent sponsors.
Organizing a national party, if that is indeed the intention of No Labels is a difficult and methodical process. It is not a short-term project. It requires a long-term vision that extends beyond a single election cycle and includes a comprehendible platform, grassroots organizing, voter outreach, fundraising, candidate recruitment, and inclusivity. The singular focus of No Labels on presidential elections compromises any strength and viability it may possess as a national movement and highlights its lack of commitment to building a strong and inclusive political organization that can withstand the challenges of the political arena and be sustained over time.
It was reported that Andrew Yang recently met with the brain trust at No Labels to exchange ideas. While sidestepping several questions posed by reporters, he signaled that his third-party effort, Forward, which unlike No Labels remains committed to influencing national politics from the ground up. So regardless of whether or not No Labels fields a presidential ticket in 2024, you can count on the group to go back into dormancy until 2027, when the promulgation, avarice, and threats of disruption will begin anew.