Is America apathetic enough for a third-party run?

This is said to be a uniquely angry time. Every third newspaper column is a riff on polarization and rage. Writers at serious outlets warn of civil war and even wonder about the merits of national divorce. And yet, for all the real-if-overstated divides in America, it’s increasingly clear that the prevailing mood as this presidential cycle kicks into gear isn’t anger but apathy.

When Donald Trump was arraigned this week, it was the second time in as many months that a courtroom appearance by the former president failed to precipitate the kind of Weimar-style…

This is said to be a uniquely angry time. Every third newspaper column is a riff on polarization and rage. Writers at serious outlets warn of civil war and even wonder about the merits of national divorce. And yet, for all the real-if-overstated divides in America, it’s increasingly clear that the prevailing mood as this presidential cycle kicks into gear isn’t anger but apathy.

When Donald Trump was arraigned this week, it was the second time in as many months that a courtroom appearance by the former president failed to precipitate the kind of Weimar-style street brawl that both Trump and his loudest critics seem to be lusting after. Before his first indictment, he warned of “potential death and destruction.” From a public order point of view, Trump’s first arraignment was a nothingburger. This time around, instead of violent scraps, some Cuban Americans sang Trump happy birthday and said a prayer for him at a restaurant in Little Havana. The disappointment was palpable in a New York Times headline: “No Proud Boys at Trump arraignment, but a colorful crowd shows up.”

But while the fact that we’re not all beating one another up about Trump’s legal troubles might undermine some of the more over the top claims about the state of our politics, it doesn’t demonstrate apathy per se. For evidence of that, look no further than what, for now, is the prevailing theme of the 2024 presidential election: will America be stuck with the same underwhelming choice as four years ago? Biden and Trump are unpopular politicians betting that the benefits of incumbency outweigh their obvious and widely appreciated shortcomings. 2024 is set to be the “hey, at least I’m not as bad as the other guy” election. Both Biden and Trump have their own versions of this. “Don’t compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative,” Biden likes to tell voters. Trump has taken to presenting voters with a stark choice: either I win or the communists win.

No surprise, then, that No Labels, a centrist bipartisan group, is readying a serious third-party run in the event that both the Democrats and the Republicans field “unacceptable” presidential candidates. I get into the details of No Labels’s latest machinations, and the growing alarm among Biden allies about their maneuvers, in a piece for the site on why Biden’s grip on the 2024 nomination is not a secure as you might think. And I think the third-party hype is only going to grow in the coming months. There’s the ongoing will-he-won’t-he question about Joe Manchin’s future plans. There’s the all-important question of what No Labels means by “unacceptable.” This week No Labels indicated that they would likely back out if Ron DeSantis were the Republican nominee and said they wouldn’t bother if Biden had a big lead over Trump in the polls.

The third-party chatter could get very embarrassing for Biden: a bipartisan group of moderates essentially saying that he and Trump are as bad as one another. Does that mean a third-party candidate could be a real factor this time around? It’s still too early to say. Two unpopular candidates is a necessary but not sufficient ingredient for a meaningful third-party run, but would a candidate picked by No Labels insiders really be the person best placed to break up the duopoly? And American voters have grown all too accustomed to choosing between two flawed candidates.

For now, the third-candidate possibility is best understood as a front in the Democratic shadow war: a way for moderates to flex their muscles and test the strength of Biden’s candidacy. Hence why Biden’s team is getting nervous. And why Trump couldn’t care less.

On our radar

YOU WERE AT THE FUNERAL, JOE! The president ended his speech at a gun safety summit today with a baffling sign off: “God save the Queen, man.” The White House pool reporters say they have no idea what he may have been referring to.

IS DESANTIS V. NEWSOM ON? On Monday, Sean Hannity asked Gavin Newsom if he’d debate Ron DeSantis. The California governor said yes. When the idea was put to his Florida counterpart on Thursday, he goaded Newsom about “pussyfooting around” and not running against Joe Biden. So far, so edifying.

*** Sign up to receive the DC Diary in your inbox here ***

Blinken goes to China

Secretary of state Antony Blinken is headed to China this weekend, after his initial February trip was scrapped due to Beijing’s spy balloon. In a letter addressed to Blinken, some Republican members of Congress point out that the visit “could not come at a worse time.”

“China is America’s largest national security threat,” Ohio congressman Max Miller, one of the letter’s signatories, told The Spectator. “This threat impacts every single person I represent and every American. This administration must take a harder stance against the communist regime.”

A harder stance doesn’t seem to be in the offing. Just this past Tuesday, Blinken spoke with Chinese foreign minister Qin Gang, only for the Minister to blame the US for tensions, saying “It’s clear where the responsibility lies.” Biden says he wants to open up dialogue and control competition, but Beijing clearly has no interest in playing a constructive role. It has repeatedly refused talks between Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and minister of national defense Li Shangfu, and has used increasingly belligerent rhetoric, with General Secretary Xi Jinping saying, “We must adhere to bottom-line thinking and worst-case-scenario thinking, and get ready to undergo the major tests of high winds and rough waves, and even perilous, stormy seas.”

The CCP has also been engaging in regular provocations in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. Add to this the recent revelations about a Chinese signals intelligence facility in Cuba — which received no material response from the US — and the situation is bleak. As the letter notes, “A visit… simply rewards the actions of the CCP and lends validity to a repressive, militaristic regime.”

–John Pietro

Reports of Vivek’s demise have been greatly exaggerated

Ahead of Donald Trump’s Tuesday arraignment in Miami, one of his opponents for the Republican nomination, Vivek Ramaswamy, teased an announcement. Immediately whispers began to circulate that Vivek would drop out, endorse Trump and encourage other GOP candidates to do the same.

That… didn’t happen. Instead Vivek appeared outside the courthouse and encouraged all candidates to sign a pledge promising to pardon President Trump if elected. But who was the origin of the Vivek dropout rumors? A Republican source tells Cockburn that they emerged from the same source as rumblings that Ben Carson would drop out in 2016, Byron Donalds would drop out in 2020: Never Back Down PAC’s Jeff Roe.

What could explain Roe’s alleged form for spreading hearsay about candidates of color dropping out of key electoral races? A GOP insider described Roe as “not racist.” Perhaps just an unfortunate coincidence.

–Cockburn