With a Centrist Manifesto, No Labels Pushes Its Presidential Bid Forward

A new political platform focused on cooperative governance by the bipartisan group No Labels has something for everyone to embrace — and just as much for both sides to reject.

For example, the government must stop “releasing” undocumented migrants into the country, it maintains. But the government must also broaden legal immigration channels and offer a path to citizenship to those brought to the country as children.

Or this one: The constitutional right to bear arms is inviolable but must be tempered with universal background checks and age restrictions on the purchase of military-style semiautomatic rifles.

Then there is this: A woman must have a right to control her reproductive health, but that right has to be balanced with society’s obligation to safeguard human life

No Labels’ possible third-party challenge for the presidency next year has drawn fire from liberals, centrists and even some members of Congress who support the group’s principles but fear that their efforts — based on the seemingly high-minded ideals of national unity — could greatly damage President Biden’s re-election campaign and hand the White House back to Donald J. Trump.

But at an event on Monday, the group will formally release what it calls a “common sense” proposal for a centrist White House, in hopes of shifting the conversation from the politics of its potential presidential bid to the actual policies that it believes can unite the country and temper the partisanship of the major party nominees. If the ideas do not take political flight, or if one or both of the parties adopt many of the proposals the group’s leaders say no challenge will be necessary.

Skeptics will say that the 67-page, 30-point document on the “politics of problem solving” by No Labels’ chief strategist, Ryan Clancy, is too heavy on identifying problems and too light on concrete solutions. But within the manifesto are surprisingly substantive policy proposals, many of which will anger conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats but could please the less activist center.

“Right now we have campaigns run by Biden and Trump that are far more about style than substance,” said Senator Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican and supporter of No Labels who reviewed the document. “This is trying to call the campaigns to be about substance, not style, to actually engage with the American people about the issues that confront us.”

Monday’s event, at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., will be a significant step for the embattled group. Two of No Labels’ most prominent supporters and possible standard-bearers — Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Jon Huntsman Jr., the former Republican governor of Utah — will share the stage to talk up the new agenda.

The location, a traditional venue for presidential aspirants in the state that will hold the first Republican primary in six months, is intended to be a signal of the group’s seriousness.

“I’ll give them credit in that No Labels seems to be tapping into what America is looking for right now,” said Chris Sununu, New Hampshire’s Republican governor. “Whether it’s viable and where it goes, we’ll see.”

The manifesto is stuffed with poll-tested proposals, some bland and others that would require major shifts for both parties. Universal background checks for firearm purchases have been blocked by Republicans since the proposal emerged with Mr. Manchin’s name on it after the massacre at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

Most Democrats will find the document’s glancing reference to climate change unsatisfying, especially since it couples support for a domestic renewable energy industry with an adamant opposition to restrictions on domestic fossil fuel production.

The policy proposals call out Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden by name for pledging not to cut Social Security benefits, as it warns that the public pension system is nearing insolvency. Its solution to the thorny question is more a guideline: No one at or near retirement should face a benefit cut, nor should middle-class or lower-income Americans.

Its recognition of a woman’s right to control her reproductive health and society’s right to protect life is simply a punt on the issue that could most animate Democratic voters next year.

“Abortion is too important and complicated an issue to say it’s common sense to pass a law — nationally or in the states — that draws a clear line at a certain stage of pregnancy,” that section concludes.

Such failures of policy will fuel detractors who call No Labels’ effort a subterfuge to draw reluctant voters from Mr. Biden and secure Mr. Trump’s election.

“We like puppies and kittens and pie,” said Rick Wilson, a former Republican and a founder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project. “They think they can be tapioca vanilla pudding as long as possible, to keep up the message, ‘Hey, we’re just centrist do-gooders. What could possibly go wrong?’ And the thing that could go wrong is the election of Donald Trump.”

Love it or hate it, No Labels supporters say the manifesto should encourage the parties to at least start talking about a common set of issues.

“Having this kind of common sense, bipartisan agenda that starts from place of acknowledging that we have to work together is of great value to the national discourse,” said Representative Jared Golden, a conservative Democrat from Maine.

Opponents of No Labels argue that Mr. Biden is already governing by consensus. They say that two of the president’s biggest economic achievements — a major infrastructure bill and a law to reinvigorate domestic semiconductor manufacturing — were negotiated by the administration and Republicans and Democrats in Congress, many of whom are already affiliated with No Labels.

A third pillar of Mr. Biden’s re-election campaign — clean energy and climate change programs, as well as measures to hold down prescription drug prices — was largely written by Mr. Manchin, the top prospect to carry a No Labels ticket, said Matt Bennett, the longtime head of the centrist Democratic group Third Way and one of the organizers of a burgeoning anti-No Labels effort.

The coalition opposing the No Labels effort — which already includes Third Way, the progressive group MoveOn.org, the Democratic opposition research firm American Bridge and the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, formed by Republican consultants — will be joined next week by a bipartisan coalition headed by Richard A. Gephardt, a former Democratic House leader.

To No Labels’ most ardent opponents, the group’s lofty rhetoric and appeals to centrism mask a secret agenda to return the Republicans to the White House. They point to a number of No Labels donors, such as Woody Hunt, senior chairman of Hunt Companies, John Catsimatidis, head of Gristedes Foods, and Ted Kellner, a Milwaukee businessman, who have given lavishly to Republicans, including Mr. Trump, suggesting such donors know full well that No Labels’ main role now is to damage the Democrats.

Polling conducted by an outside firm for Mr. Gephardt appeared to indicate that a candidate deemed moderate, independent and bipartisan could not win the presidency but would do great damage to Mr. Biden’s re-election effort. In a national survey by the Prime Group, a Democratic-leaning public opinion research and messaging firm, Mr. Biden would beat Mr. Trump by about the same popular vote margin he won in 2020. But were a centrist third-party candidate to enter the race, that candidate could take a much greater share of voters from Mr. Biden than from Mr. Trump.

The same group surveyed seven swing states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and found that Mr. Trump would win three of those states in a head-to-head matchup with Mr. Biden, Mr. Biden two. In two of the states, Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump would essentially tie, according to the survey.

Nancy Jacobson, a founder of No Labels, said — as she has before — that the effort should be considered an “insurance policy” for an American electorate dissatisfied with a potential rerun of the Biden-Trump election of 2020. The “common sense” document is a catalyst for tempering that dissatisfaction or channeling it into a genuine political movement.

But in an interview, Larry Hogan, the former Republican governor of Maryland and a national co-chairman of No Labels, said he would consider joining a No Labels presidential ticket should both Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden win their parties’ nominations.

“If it gets to the point where three-quarters of the people in America don’t like the choices, we might have to do something to put the country first,” he said. “I’ve always said I put the country before party, so it’s something I wouldn’t reject out of hand.”

While many voters may see protest candidates as a way to express frustration with their options without much consequence, several recent presidential elections may have been swayed by the presence of a third-party candidate. The Green Party ran Jill Stein in 2016 and Ralph Nader in 2000 — both elections with razor-thin margins in key states — who drew from the Democratic nominees. The presence of H. Ross Perot in the 1992 campaign siphoned off voters from George H.W. Bush, which benefited Bill Clinton.

“Not a single one of us is worried they’re going to win the election and Jon Huntsman will be president,” said Mr. Bennett, the Third Way leader. “We’re worried they will spoil the election.”