A Conservative Look at Andrew Yang and the Forward Party
Thoughts on Yang's Bio, and His Plans for the Forward Party, Which Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate is a Bigger Menace to the Republic, and Who Will Be the Next Governor
No one should know who Andrew Yang is.
He announced his campaign for President in 2017. He had never been elected to office. He had two relatively minor honors from the Obama White House. Yang was well-off but never ultra-rich. He couldn’t buy himself in the Presidential race. He didn’t have Mike Bloomberg money or Steve Forbes money, heck, he didn’t even have Morry Taylor money. Given that, he should have flamed out sometime in mid-2019. At best, he might have stayed in long enough to pay a minimal filing fee and collect three dozen votes in the New Hampshire Primary.
That Yang ran a mid-level presidential campaign and raised tens of millions of dollars while outlasting several professional politicians is actually an impressive achievement.
He also seemed to be the one Democratic candidate who conservatives seemed to like personally despite not agreeing with him.
After a failed run for New York City Mayor earlier this year, Yang announced he’d left the Democratic Party for the Forward Party. Coincidentally, Yang was releasing a book Forward.
So I decided to read the book and see what he had to say. I’ll be examining what was good, what was bad, and what the overall message of Yang and his Forward Party is.I will say at the outset that his politics are considerably to the left of mine, but I’m not going to fisk every issue I disagree with him on.
The Campaign Biography
The first section of the book is pure campaign biography, and if you’re interested in politics and campaigns at all, it’s an interesting read. Most biographies of former presidential candidates are written by people who have run for office or at least been in the eye of the media and they have a tendency to skip over a lot of steps in the campaign and the process, assuming their readers already know about it.
Yang is about close to an example of an “average American” running for office as you’re going to get, so you get a lot more details and behind-the-scenes action than in a typical candidate biography. There also were clearly growing pain and as the campaign gained attention, he struggled with how to relate and assert himself with the media.
Yang has a lot to say about in Presidential campaigns. The media was a particular target: “Many members of the national media feel they have a responsibility to reinforce particular candidates and their “narratives” and dismiss others. They don’t just report on the news; they form it.”
He also captured well the way the media treats non-traditional candidates:
Often, what the questioner really seemed to be asking was, “You haven’t spent years acclimating yourself to Washington, schmoozing donors, doing robotic press conferences, and generally insinuating yourself with the political leadership class, demonstrating that you will get very little done. How can we also trust you to get very little done and maintain the status quo?”
Yang summed up the media approach to campaigns in a way that most conservatives could readily apply to all of its political coverage:
Don’t expect TV news organizations to act accountable, fair, and objective. Many don’t even see themselves that way. They’re not there to report the news; they’re there to make the news. They have set audiences to whom they are appealing and are comfortable making judgments as to what and how to present “the news” to that audience They may not be eager to add new variables to the mix that may not line up with their audience’s tested preferences.
Yang also writes of how he was able to get himself out there and become a known force. There are fun moments like when he stumbled into a senior citizen’s jazzercise class and joined in for a while and the video of him dancing went viral. There were a lot of ways Yang was able to get himself out there and promote himself and his brand.
In the book, Yang has some concerns about this as running for President has really become a reality show and the process has become about self-promotion first and foremost. Yang said, “I actually think that in many respects running for president requires qualities that would make you a terrible leader.”
He noted that Presidential candidates are less CEOs and more the product being sold and that the process helped take people out of touch by putting them around people whose lives revolve around them and are totally focused on the candidate. “You function on appearance; appearance becomes your role. Empathy becomes optional or even unhelpful. Leadership becomes the appearance of leadership. The process through which we choose leaders neutralizes and reduces the capacities we most want in them.”
Yang is really fun to read in these first eight chapters. He’s interesting, introspective, and thought-provoking.
The Policy Manifesto
While there’s quite a bit I can take issue with in this section, I did find quite a bit that I either agreed with or at least found intriguing. Yang has some interesting ideas around government reform.
He embraces the idea of term limits and favors limiting members of Congress to a combined eighteen years of service in both houses. He even adds an interesting angle, pointing to research showing that the longer someone is in power, the more it changes the way they think and makes it hard to relate to the people they’re supposed to represent. He also thinks there should be a lifelong ban on members of Congress lobbying.
He makes a good case for Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). I’m a little less enthused with the idea of jungle primaries* where all the candidates appear on the same ballot and the top two advance as that’s led to a lot of General election battles between candidates of the same party. Yang advocates for the top five advancing from the primary to the general election where Ranked-Choice Voting could be used and I think that’s a more compelling system. Alaska passed an initiative in 2020 creating a system where the top four advance and I look forward to seeing how that plays out in coming years.
I also liked the idea of “Civic Juries” to advise elected officials. The idea is for a system where a number of citizens of different backgrounds come together and hear from both sides of controversial issues and decide where they stand on them. Members of the civic juries would vote both before and after hearing from the experts and that would be reported back to the elected officials. It’s an intriguing idea and certainly better than just having the loudest voices heard.
Yang’s biggest policy idea is his call for Universal Basic Income (UBI) and I didn’t find his pitch for it in the book to be particularly persuasive. To be fair, he did apparently cover this in a more in-depth way in his previous book. In here, we get a single chapter that does move the needle for those not already on board.
I had to chuckle at Yang’s suggestion that Congress had overcome the suggestion of being able to pay for the pandemic relief payments as a sort of UBI by the people acting like owners. We didn’t find the money for those payments, we printed it because we were in the midst of an emergency and that emergency has had some consequences for the feasibility of UBI.
It may be stating the obvious, but a time of inflation and a labor shortage is not the best time to make a case for UBI. Left-wing blogger Matt Yglesias said it best:
To be sure, the short-term situation doesn’t prove UBI a bad idea in the long run, any more than the collapse of the stock market in 2008 proved private accounts for Social Security to be a bad idea. However, private accounts for younger workers have not been on the agenda in a long time even though anyone who remained invested in the stock market in 2008 has more than made back their losses. This time period’s going to pose a challenge to Yang’s pet issue that just wasn’t there before and I think it will persist for years to come.
His cringiest idea was of making tax day a national holiday where we celebrate all the things that the federal government does for us. Also in light of complaints from the left about how creepy it was to have private enforcement of abortion laws in Texas, I found it hilarious that he had a section in his book where he suggested hiring “Tax Mandalorians” to go after tax cheats. As bad as this sounds, this was more of a thought experiment on Yang’s part and unlike Biden’s plan to force banks to disclose deposits, Yang’s Tax Mandalorians would be unlikely to go after your teenager for failing to report $800 in babysitting income she deposited in her savings account. (That is not the way.)
Yang posits that U.S. government decisions and views of the health of the country are often solely based solely of GDP growth and the stock market. He argues that a more full view of the country’s health would be called for. He suggests creating “An American Scorecard” which is made up of multiple indicators including elements that liberals might be particularly concerned about such as clean water, mental health, and education rates, and things conservatives might be concerned about like marriage rates and military readiness.
I think this is a good idea, but there’s really no reason that this is a political platform item. Nothing’s stopping Yang or any private group from creating this, so why wait for the government?
When is a Party Not a Party?
Yang’s Forward Party is really a party in name only. It’s not seeking ballot access, it’s not going to run candidates on its own ballot line and it’s not asking people to change their affiliation. “There will be Forward Democrats and progressives, Forward Republicans and conservatives…Forward Independents and unaligned and so on.”
He’s set a goal of having twenty million members in what’s really more of a multi-partisan coalition than anything else.
Yang’s first project for the Forward Party is ambitious: getting states to enact Rank Choice Voting and Jungle Primaries across the nation. Having looked into it, I can’t think of more time-consuming issue to make the centerpiece of a political movement’s efforts.
Maine is one of two states to implement RCV. This handy timeline from the Maine Secretary of State tells the story of how RCV was implemented in 2018…after first being proposed in 2001, going through various committees, feasibility studies and finally passing through a citizen’s initiative. The law then survived court challenges (though not without modification), legislative attempts to override it, and another court challenge after the 2018 election. It was slightlry amended ahead of the 2020 elections leading to another round of legal/political wrangling.
The irony is that this was passed by a citizen’s initiative in Maine and, as Yang wrote in his book, it was spurred by people who were upset by vote splitting in the general election for Governor. However, because of a quirk in Maine’s constitution, it can’t apply to general elections for Governor.**
Not every state is going to be Maine. Some might be easier, but many might be much harder, particularly those which don’t even have an initiative process and that’s even assuming that states will go along with it. Massachusetts had an initiative up for vote in 2020 and rejected an RCV system.
This project seems incongruous with Yang’s stern warning in the penultimate chapter of his book “Our institutions are hanging by a thread. The challenge is to rebuild them as quickly as possible to address the true needs of our time. If we actually want to rise this challenge, we have no time to waste.” (Emphasis mine.)
Based on that, I would not expect Yang’s plan to start with:
Step 1…Take Seventeen years (on average) to change all the election laws in the Country.
If our institutions are truly hanging by a thread, Mr. Yang must think it a very long one.
Of course, if you agree with Yang’s approach, you might wonder why anyone on the right would have any interest in this effort at all given the fact Yang definitely leans to the left.
Grace, Tolerance, and a Culture War Truce
One of the key principles of the Forward Movement is “grace and tolerance.” Yang’s chapter on that subject is actually quite moving. He talks about his own failings and the challenges he faced. He wrote of urging NBC not to deprive a young comedian of a job on Saturday Night Live because he’d made a racially insensitive joke about Yang. He wrote, “We are all filled with dysfunction and pain. We make mistakes. My worst moment would make me plainly unlikable, or worse. We should strive to treat people with the kind of grace and understanding we would want for ourselves or our children.”
His call for grace and tolerance go out to people on the right. He chastens progressives for being too hasty to pigeonhole every single one of the seventy million-plus Americans who voted for Trump and states he has family members who voted for the former President. Yang cites research that suggests that political leanings to the left or right may be a result of factors that are in-born to each person and like any other in-born element they be treated as not right or wrong, but just a difference that needs to be respected.***
Beyond the call for grace and tolerance, what’s notable is what’s not in the book. Abortion rights aren’t discussed, LGBT issues aren’t discussed (other than noting a supporter who had him sign a book to her with the phrase, “I love lesbians,”) Race is barely touched on. Yang shares his own personal experience with being on the receiving end of racist taunts, but there’s no grand theory of race and white guilt. He discusses the murder of George Floyd but only as a lead-in to a discussion of police reform. He mentions gun violence once but the only policy he offers is giving gun owners a chance to upgrade their gunlocks that will only allow the owner to use the gun.
Yang has no interest in fighting a culture war or in passing blanket judgment on all orthodox Christians, Republicans, or Trump supporters. He has no interest in performative progressivism. He wants a culture war truce. He’s seeking to focus on solving problems and has probably done more than anyone who’s not a conservative to meet people on the right halfway at least on a cultural level.
Who Will be the Forward Republicans?
The most fervent partisan Republicans with, “Let’s Go Brandon” bumper stickers and “Trump 2020” yard signs still up are probably not going to have much interest in what Yang has to offer. They’re fully engaged in the culture war and they like it that way.
However, those from what David French calls “the exhausted majority” may find the nice guy offering social truce to have definite appeal.
Even UBI, Yang’s most controversial proposal, isn’t that far away from what many on the right have proposed. Charles Murray has proposed his own form of it. Mitt Romney’s child allowance is effectively a UBI for parents raising children.
In Forward, Yang suggests moving away from Income Tax that tax work to more of a value added tax (VAT). The Fair Tax is a National Sales Tax (not quite the same thing as a VAT) and supported by many conservatives and includes a monthly allowance to ensure that everyone has enough money to be able to spend up to the poverty level without incurring a tax.
There are many people on the right who aren’t far from Yang on his idea of UBI and would be willing to work with him on the sort of agenda he’s laid out in the book.
I think he could build something of a movement that could appeal to a lot of burnt-out voters across the spectrum. Yang might well achieve a situation where the Forward Party endorses a Christian conservative pro-life pastor in one part of a state and in another endorses a liberal pro-choice pantheist pansexual and the two are both elected to the legislator and work on issues like UBI and RCV.
The Forward Party’s biggest problem may be Yang making RCV/Jungle Primary its big focus. The issue is wonky, complicated, and likely to be a frustrating and exhausting political fight with slow progress. Such things are rarely the basis of a broad long-lasting political coalition, particularly when there are disagreements on contentious issues.
Why the Bulwark Republicans are Wrong on the VA Governor’s Race
The Daily Beast’s Matt Lewis had a Tweet regarding the Virginia Governor’s race:
I always find it disconcerting with people with jobs in media claim not to understand something that they don’t agree with. I think folks that are backing McAuliffe over Youngkin at the Bulwark (and it’s really Bulwark writers and those aligned with them that’s making this argument.) have been pretty darn clear about their reasons.
They don’t trust Youngkin. Youngkin said he was honored to be endorsed by a man who made January 6th happen and has said he would vote for him if he were the GOP Nominee. More to the point, they doubt the commitment to democracy. What if there’s another disputed elected in 2024? Will Governor Youngkin stand with Trump if he loses and tries to engineer another effort to overturn the election?
I would agree with the idea that Youngkin’s committing moral compromise by treating Trump as honorable and respectable. He should be exiled from public life for the harm he’s done to our country for betraying the public trust and undermining the republic. I also understand the contrary argument that these nods to Trump are the price of winning the GOP nomination and being a leader in the GOP. That’s why I’m no longer a Republican.
Where I think they go wrong is that they assign virtue to Democrats like McAuliffe for not being Trump and proclaim them defenders of democracy. Not so. The actions of one party tend to move the Overton window for the other. The parties tend to react to one another. In the first nine months of the Biden Administration, I’ve been shocked by how Trumplike Biden’s actions are. Biden’s willingness to override norms, to do things that would have been unthinkable prior to Trump has really stood out. It’s just been less shocking because of Trump’s tenure.
Democrats can undermine the Constitution just as much Republicans. Let’s imagine for a moment that the 2024 elections are held with Kamala Harris as the nominee for the Democrats and Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) as the nominee of the Republicans. Harris narrowly wins the popular vote, but DeSantis takes the electoral college by a one or two state margin.
Democrats don’t think much of the electoral college and argue that it’s an antiquated and illegitimate way of choosing the President. Furthermore, they imagine that DeSantis would be a worse president for Trump with the same ideology but more competence. It’d be a talking point that all they’d have to do is override this arcane undemocratic process in order or to save “democracy.” In addition, after January 6, 2021, Democrats could conclude that Republicans deserved a taste of their own medicine.
Kamala Harris might grab the Eastman memo and say, “You know he had a point.” Just as Republicans in various states appointed themselves as electors in the 2020 elections, Democrats in Georgia and Pennsylvania could do the same thing. Then acting as President of the Senate, Harris could follow Eastman’s advice, disallow the electoral votes of Pennsylvania and Georgia due to ongoing disputes and declare herself elected the 47th President of the United States.****
I’m not saying that’s likely to happen, but it could. There’s little to reason to think “Kamala Harris is so dedicated to our country, she would never do this.” It’s more likely than a repeat of the events of January 6 with Republicans’ attempt to overturn a presidential election result. If Trump or another Republican lost the election and wanted to overturn it through dubious fraud claims that got laughed out of court, they wouldn’t have a Vice-President they could bully into helping them overturn the election. Also, Biden would control the military and unless he’s an utter fool, he’ll protect the Capitol from a repeat of January 6th. As such, I think Democrats are more likely to try to overturn the election.
If I compare Youngkin and McAuliffe on this issue, the contrast is stark. Youngkin has never supported a stolen election narrative in his life. McAuliffe has argued that the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were stolen as was the 2018 Georgia Governor’s race. By temperament and record, I think McAuliffe is more likely to support his party’s presidential candidate stealing the election than Youngkin.
On top of that, while it’s three years out, this calculation would have to include the likelihood of a party’s candidate winning in 2024. At this point, if I had to bet (and this could change), I’d bet against the Democrats retaining the White House.
So if I lived in Virginia and felt compelled to cast a lesser of two evils vote based on protecting the Republic, I’d vote for Youngkin. It’s a bit more probable that the Democratic nominee in 2024 will lose the election, and it’s more plausible for them to try to overturn the election results. In addition, with Harris as President of the Senate and Biden as Commander-and-Chief, they have greater ability to overturn the election.
Prediction Time
In 2017, the Virginia Governor’s race looked like it would be close for the GOP. One poll had it a one-point race, another had it tied. The Real Clear Politics average showed Ralph Northam by 3.3. Northam won the election by 8.9%.
With that history, you have to approach predicting a race like Virginia with some humility. I think most of the fundamentals in the race favor, Youngkin. Part of the reason McAuliffe has spent so much of this campaign running against Trump, things just aren’t going well with the economic recovery. In addition, the extremes of Critical Race Theory have handed Youngkin a powerful edge. One factor that led to Northam beating polls by such a great margin was a huge turnout by black voters after the Charlottesville rally. However, many Black voters are upset that McAuliffe is seeking a second term as Governor after previously serving and defeating several black candidates in the primary. Virginia’s only black Governor L. Douglas Wilder said Democrats have taken the black vote for granted.
The one thing McAuliffe has going for him is his organizational machine. He’s not only a former Governor, but he’s a former DNC Chair. He’s going to get every voter to the polls he can and you can bet his campaign is doing a good job on the early vote and mail-in voting.
But in the end, given the campaign he’s run and the state of the nation, the likely end result of McAuliffe’s organization will be that he’ll lose by less than the he deserves to.
Prediction: Youngkin by 1.5%
*I use “Jungle Primary” but Yang and many other advocates of the system use “Open Primary.” In my opinion, this creates confusion. “Open primary” traditionally refers to a partisan primary where anyone can vote in it. “Closed primary” refers to a system where only party members can vote. “Jungle Primary” traditionally refers to an all-party primary.
**Ranked Choice Voting in Maine does not apply to General Election campaigns for the state legislature.
***How this research explains how many people often move from left to right throughout their lives isn’t something Yang addressed.
****I’m not saying Harris’ declaration would be the end of the matter. Far from it, but for the purposes of this piece, I think I’ve followed the course of events far enough.