The Wells Brothers' Election Non-Endorsement: October 2022

by David R. Wells and Lawrence H. Wells
17 Oct 2022

It is time for another in our series of election year commentaries.

As usual, the political season (which seems to get longer every cycle) is rather depressing. The candidates rant and bluster, and pander to their favorite special interest groups. They tell lies, and expect us to believe them. We are not at all impressed.

2022 is a congressional election year rather than a presidential election year. Neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden are on the ballot this year, but both heavily influence their parties. We cannot offer detailed analysis on the elections for all 435 Congressional and 33 Senate seats, so we will only speak generally.

1. What is at stake

" … It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind."

" … a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1.

What is at stake in the 2022 election is representative democracy in the United States.

A democracy depends on one simple principle: All candidates for office must accept the results of an election. Any candidate who cannot accept the results of an election is almost by definition against democracy. Yet in 2022 we see a major party fielding candidates who claim that elections have only one possible outcome: They win. If they don't win, they claim the election is somehow fraudulent. (And their inability to produce any evidence of fraud is somehow irrelevant.)

We will be governed by a few simple principles in this election:

Those who have read our previous election commentaries will know that we are not fans of "strategic voting", or voting for "the lesser of evils". While we still believe in voting your conscience, in this election those living in competitive districts do need to consider the implications of a victory by the "greater of evils".

2. The two-party "system" is broken, and probably irreparably.

Once, political parties represented particular ideas about policy and political principles. For the two dominant parties, this is no longer the case. While both parties pay lip service to principles, in practice both are primarily concerned with maintaining their power, and helping their friends.

Both parties rely on fear mongering to motivate their voters instead of offering actual policy choices. In an election the positions of both come down to "If the other party wins, disaster will surely follow! They will [insert something you think will frighten your party's base here. If you're a Democrat, something like "destroy the environment" or "take away a woman's right to control her own body"; if you're a Republican, something like "take away your 2nd Amendment rights", or "restrict your right to practice your religion"]! Another common election argument used by candidates from both parties is "I might be a bum, but the other candidate is even worse!"

And once in power, both parties all too often govern as if opposing viewpoints did not exist. Both will claim to have a mandate from the voters no matter how slim their margin of victory actually was, and then try to use that "mandate" to ram their party's favored legislation through whether the public wants it or not. Perhaps the most extreme examples are the Clinton Administration, which claimed a "mandate" after winning the 1992 election with just a 43% plurality of the popular vote; and the Trump Administration which claimed a "mandate" after narrowly winning the 2016 election in the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. This inevitably leads to a backlash, and usually quickly. We saw this in 1994, 2010, and 2018.

We cannot say that we were not warned:

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."

- George Washington, Farewell Address (1796)



We fear that both major parties may be beyond saving. They need to be replaced. Unfortunately this will not be easy. The one thing the Democratic and Republican Parties agree on is that any alternative parties must be kept off the ballot whenever possible.

While we're encouraged by the new Forward Party's stated goal of building a new centrist party, it isn't even on the ballot in this year's national elections; it can only endorse candidates from other parties that are on the ballot. They have the advantage of not being a party built on the candidacy of a single presidential candidate. (Remember Ross Perot and the Reform Party?) While we’re willing to listen to what they have to say, it is incumbent upon them to say something meaningful.

The slightly older Alliance Party is currently only fielding candidates in a few Congressional districts and for some state offices in Minnesota, South Carolina, and Washington.

The Unity Party only appears to have candidates for a few state offices in Colorado.

At the moment the Libertarian Party is the only 3rd party that is reliably on the ballot in most if not all states.

2.1 What's wrong with the Republican Party

In the past the Republican Party generally stood for a set of principles that included: Competent governance; rule of law; a limited role for the Federal government, as defined by the US Constitution; fiscal restraint; engagement with the rest of the world through robust diplomacy and international institutions; a strong national defense to deter potential aggressors; and free (more or less) market economics.

All of these principles have been abandoned. The Republican Party is now the Party of Trump. It is little more than a cult of personality. Its only “principle” is agreeing with whatever Donald Trump happens to be saying today. Anyone who dares to disagree with Donald Trump on any issue is quickly cast out. With few exceptions, those who remain inside the Republican Party are either Trump loyalists, those who still foolishly believe they can exploit Donald Trump and his loyalists, (dishonorable mention to Sen. Mitch McConnell), or cowards who are unwilling to risk losing office by opposing Donald Trump (dishonorable mention to Sen. Lindsey Graham).

None of them are worthy of our votes.

At best, today's Republican Party is dysfunctional. At worst, it panders shamelessly to the worst side of human nature: Fear, hatred, and bigotry. At best it tolerates those who do the pandering. By submitting to Trump’s cult of personality, they are now pointing towards a path to dictatorship.

This is neither the party of Lincoln, nor the party of Reagan, Roosevelt (Teddy), Eisenhower, Ford, Bush, or even Nixon. When pressed, Nixon was at least willing to put the nation's interests above his own. (And he did it more than once.)

We think it is time for the Republican Party to go the way of the American Party of the 1850s, and for much the same reasons.

2.2 What's wrong with the Democratic Party

The Democratic Party's faults have changed distressingly little since our 2020 election commentary. Indeed, in several cases, they seem to have “doubled down on Stupid”. To date, the Biden administration and the Democrats in Congress have given us little reason to believe they will change.

Since 2020 they have continued to allow U.S. military strength to deteriorate, even while foreign powers that might not be entirely friendly become increasingly aggressive. The recently announced plan to retire all 22 remaining U.S. Navy cruisers without replacement is a good example.

They have done little if anything to restrain the government's deficit spending despite increasing inflation. Instead, they have continued to pass expensive programs largely funded by deficit spending . The Democrats do not deserve all of the blame for the current inflation; the Trump administration could hardly be described as frugal. Further, the Federal Reserve Board’s (headed by a Trump appointee) failure to raise interest rates in a timely manner certainly contributed to the problem. But the Biden administration initially made no effort to restrain spending, and was certainly slow to react when inflation began to increase.

They have continued to practice "identity politics", much like the Republicans. Since President Biden campaigned as a candidate of unity we had hoped for better, but we can't say we're surprised. “Identity politics” has been a major problem with the Democratic Party for decades.

President Biden also campaigned on his ability to govern competently. Yet last year we saw a glaring example of incompetence in the disastrous evacuation of Kabul. The Biden administration inherited a terrible deal with the Taliban from the Trump administration, (indeed, Trump’s deal was little more than an unconditional surrender) and then implemented it poorly. Perhaps Biden learned something though, because his administration's handling of the more difficult crisis in Ukraine has been reasonably good.

The Democratic Party has also played an extremely dangerous game in this year's primary elections: It has funded pro-Trump candidates who reject the results of the 2020 election in some Republican primaries. The Democrats no doubt intended to produce Republican candidates who (they think) are less likely to win a general election. We must point out that this is exactly the approach Hillary Clinton used in 2016. It didn't work. The consequences for the nation could be even worse this time.

2.3 What we think the Democratic Party should do if they want to defeat Trump

The Democratic Party cannot win the Senate and House 2022 with only the support of its base. If it wants to win in November, it needs to earn the support of centrist voters who are highly skeptical of the far left policies favored by its base. It needs to earn the support of people like us.

The first step the Democratic Part must take: Stop creating Trump voters.

The Democratic Party must recognize that the issues that Donald Trump exploits are real, and in the past the Democratic Party has failed to address them. It must not simply write off voters who care about these issues, as it has done in the past. It also must at least recognize the problems with the Democratic Party that we summarized in the previous section.

If the Democratic Party wishes to earn the votes of centrist, center-right, and principled conservatives - voters like us - it must run with platform that we can support, or at least accept.

A lurch to the far left might appeal to a segment of the Democratic Party's membership, but it is not likely to go over well with the broader electorate. The under-performance of the Democratic Party in the 2020 elections should provide a cautionary tale. Despite the unpopularity of the incumbent Republican president and the Republican Party generally, the Democratic Party failed to gain a majority in the U.S. Senate, and lost seats in the House of Representatives. We believe this lackluster performance is largely attributable to a phrase that was popular among the Democratic Party's left wing: "Defund the police." Apparently the voters didn't think this was a good idea.

Unfortunately there is considerable recent evidence that indicates a significant portion of the Democratic Party is still reluctant to work with people who disagree with some of their policies, even if the people who disagree are within the Democratic Party. Consider how President Biden's legislative agenda was held up for months not by the Republican Party, but by the left wing of the Democratic Party which was unwilling to compromise with more centrist Democrats. There are a few encouraging signs, though. Congress was able to pass the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act with bipartisan support by focusing on areas of agreement, and setting more contentious issues aside.

2.4 A way to repair the broken parties?

One of the reasons both the Democratic and Republican parties are broken is the primary election system. While there is considerable variation in primary election systems from state to state, in the past they have generally used voting systems similar to the general election: Voters cast a vote for one candidate, and the candidate with the most votes is the winner. This works well when there are only two or three candidates for each office; but primary elections often have larger numbers of candidates for an office. This can lead to situations where the winning candidate is supported by only a small portion of the electorate. Consider a primary with five candidates where the four losing candidates each receive 19.5% of the vote, and the winning candidate receives 22%. In this case 78% of the voters voted against the "winner". Some states try to correct this by holding a runoff primary when no candidate wins an majority of the vote. But in our hypothetical primary, this would mean a runoff between two candidates who were initially not supported by 58.5% of the voters. This might be acceptable if all of the primary candidates reasonably reflected the views of most voters. But in practice candidates with more extreme positions are more likely to win in a crowded primary. The reasons are simple: Those who disagree with the "extreme" candidate have many other candidates to choose from, while those who support the "extreme" candidate have only one option; and those who strongly favor a particular position or candidate are more likely to vote in primaries than voters who don't. Over time this has driven both parties to opposite extremes that most voters don't actually support.

In 2022 Alaska tried a different primary voting system: Top Four voting. All primary candidates from all parties are on one ballot. The four candidates who get the most primary votes regardless of party advance to the general election. The results seem to favor less extreme candidates, which is encouraging.

Alaska also used a different voting system for its recent special Congressional election: Ranked Choice voting. In this system voters cast 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice votes instead of a single vote. If no candidate gets a majority of the 1st choice votes, the 2nd choice votes are counted; if there is still no candidate with a majority, 3rd choice votes are counted. The results of this election are also encouraging.

Some local primary elections have also used Ranked Choice voting with similarly encouraging results. New York City used Ranked Choice voting in its last Democratic Party primary for mayor, and the winner was a former police officer who ran on a centrist "law and order" platform.

3. What's wrong with the News Media

A healthy press is vital to a functioning democracy. The news media needs to do a better job. Once again distressingly little has changed since our 2020 election commentary. If anything things have gotten worse. We are particularly dismayed by the trends at the PBS NewsHour since the 2013 transfer of production from MacNeil/Lehrer Productions to Washington DC station WETA. News analysis once featured interviews with several policy makers and/or experts on the topic with differing points of view; now it often features a discussion with another reporter. Other analysis segments often present only one analyst from an advocacy organization promoting a specific point of view. This goes against former NewsHour anchor Jim Lehrer's 3rd Rule of Journalism: "Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story."

Another problem with the news media that we didn't explicitly mention in our 2020 election commentary is that election coverage often fails to adequately discuss issues. Ideally election coverage should inform the public about key issues in the election. Examples include what each candidate proposes to do if elected, and how those proposals might address the issues they are meant to address. But too often coverage focuses on the "horse race" aspects of the election: Which candidate is ahead in opinion polls, campaign strategies, and the like. While this is at least somewhat worthy of reporting, it should be secondary.

What the Media should do to fix its problems

All of the news media, including PBS and NPR, would do well to review the late Jim Lehrer's rules of journalism:

1. Do nothing I cannot defend.

2. Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.

3. Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.

4. Assume the viewer is as smart and caring and good a person as I am.

5. Assume the same about all people on whom I report.

6. Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise.

7. Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories and clearly label everything

8. Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions. No one should be allowed to attack another anonymously.

9. “I am not in the entertainment business.”

4. An Appeal for Civility

If you didn't read it already, Sen. McCain's final statement is well worth reading. Most of the news media only read excerpts.

If we are to honor his memory, then perhaps the best we can do is talk to each other, especially those we disagree with, in a civil fashion. Listen to them too. Most of your "opponents" are reasonable people, not 3-headed monsters. Don't let the forces of polarization win. Polarization is exactly what the enemies of democracy want. It is one of the oldest strategies known to humanity: Divide and Conquer.

Polarization will be our undoing. As Abraham Lincoln (paraphrasing the Gospel of Matthew 12:25) famously noted, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

We need to re-learn how to disagree with each other without turning the other side into an enemy.

Civility alone will not solve all of our problems, but it is an excellent place to start.

We will again close with the immortal words of Harry Tuttle, the outlaw plumber from the movie "Brazil": "We're all in this together, kid."

Click here to return to the Wells Brothers home page.