No Labels Means No Values

I recently learned that a new political party was created and met the requirements for three states to include it. It calls itself the No Labels Party and, according to a video on its homepage, spokesman Ryan Clancy explains that No Labels believes that “every voice counts” in America, and not just one person’s or one party’s. Unfortunately, this party, which implies a new political alternative and offers such abounding platitudes, appears to stand for nothing at all.

Clancy further states in the video that they “are not trying to create a third party” (which they have), that they don’t support particular candidates or interest groups, and that they are “not carrying water,” whatever that implies. As of this writing, Clancy adds that “soon No Labels will present some ideas that speak to American people” and makes it very clear that the 2024 election is the most important in our lives.

According to Clancy, the two major parties have “left us with no good choices.” He adds that this will likely force us to vote for the least bad options. Nothing new here. Agree or disagree, but I feel as though I have only had to choose from the least bad options for most of my voting life.

Image: Blank road signs by bedneyimages.

The No Labels website states:

1. We care about this country more than the demands of any political party.

2. Political leaders need to listen more to the majority of Americans and less to extremists on the far left and right.

3. We are grateful to live in a country where we can openly disagree with other people.

4. America isn’t perfect, but we love this country and would not want to live anyplace else.

5. We can still love and respect people who do not share our political opinions.

6. We support, and are grateful for, the U.S. military.

No Labels apparently wants to unite all those people in the middle to find and promote candidates that represent the true majority of Americans. Don’t get me wrong: These sound like great objectives, but one thing politics has taught me since I began pursuing a degree in government in the late 1980s is to be skeptical about any political claim. With this in mind, the first thing I did was reach out to Abbie, the Midwest Regional Contact at No Labels, with three very specific—even “Yes or No”—questions:

1. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and the Founders made it very clear that the only way it could survive was by maintaining these principles. In other words, you would be free to be a Muslim and worship in the US the way you wished, but any of your Islamic principles that contradicted with Judeo-Christian principles would not be honored politically. Does No Labels consider this as part of its core beliefs?

2. Christians should believe that the conception of a human life is sacred, and therefore abortion is wrong. Does No Labels support or oppose abortion?

3. The country has taken a decidedly Socialist turn over the last 100 years. We should be a conservative Republic following the supreme law of the land as laid out in the US Constitution. Does No Labels believe in the original Founder’s interpretation of the Constitution?

In my email, I added, “These fundamental yes or no questions must be clearly answered if No Labels is to get the support from the people it needs. Unclear answers on these principles are what we get every day from the GOP and the Democrats.”

When I received a response from Abbie (after reminding her of my email five days later), she wrote, “I did receive your message, but I was unsure as how to answer. A lot of the items you mentioned are not the focus of our group. We do not work on reform itself.”

If the reader reviews my questions carefully, I did not ask anything about specific “reforms,” instead asking about basic interpretation of the Constitution and the moral choice regarding abortion. Abbie, the representative for Indiana (and 20 other US States), could not answer any of them.

The rest of Abbie’s message read:

“Just know that No Labels does not actually submit legislation itself, nor do we represent any party. We are here to bridge the divide and find a way to have a working Washington. The candidates that choose to run on our ballot line if we move forward would be candidates that represent the ideals of No Labels as well as be representative of the majority of the electorate.”

Ideals are great, but they must be both meaningful and manageable—that is, they must be specific and have an achievable plan in place, or like other vague objectives, they will never come to fruition.

Another highlighted video on the No Labels site is from an episode of Meet the Press where Former Governor Pat McCrory (R-NC) points out that the current intense division between traditional parties may produce poor candidates and open up the door to a 3rd party. McCrory added that some 40% of American voters are independents.

I will admit that I was initially a “not-Trump.” I believed we had two very poor choices with Clinton versus Trump. I later learned from his executive actions that Trump offered the type of policy management we need, even if it is driven by an obnoxious and somewhat immature person. I campaigned for Trump’s second term, and I am as disappointed as anyone with the devastatingly inept and socialist Biden Administration.

Cliché it is, but the party that stands for nothing will fall for anything. A political party that has no fundamental way of interpreting the Constitution and cannot even answer a question on an important moral issue surely cannot lead to something better than we have today. I’d like to be wrong about all this and watch as No Labels unites the middle tiers of American voters and supports candidates we all love and back, but I’m not holding my breath.

If you experience technical problems, please write to