Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How America gets to a new center

How America gets to a new center
Getty Images

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

America needs a new center, but it does not need a new centrist political party. A new centrist political party that could overcome the widely recognized dysfunction in our national politics caused by both political parties would be great, but it is not going to happen. There are too many impediments preventing the rise of a vibrant third party, including the fundraising obstacle, gerrymandering, the absence of open primaries in most states, and the poor historic record of third party candidates.


What is needed is a surge in independent politicians who are not part of a weak national third party, but who will push, directly and indirectly, the political system into a new center space. Democrats and Republicans ironically will be central to the birth of the new center and the death of their joint control over our political system.

Independent candidates from different ideological perspectives in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate could wield sufficient power to forge compromises on major legislation concerning guns, the environment, child care, paid parental leave, the national debt and corporate tax rates. The key is not to make a centrist political party the change agent, which was the strategy of Charles Wheelan's The Centrist Manifesto and the third party, Unite America. This strategy paints a target on the back of the third party itself.

Dartmouth's Professor Wheelan was about half right: generate enough votes in the Senate to act as a fulcrum (he called his approach the "Fulcrum Strategy") to forge compromises between the two parties. But he was mistaken to think that we needed a political party which advocated for moderate centrist solutions proposed by independents to create the leverage necessary to bring about the changes. Candidates which Unite America backed for the House and Senate in 2018 all came up short, and Unite America reinvented itself in 2019 and 2020. Today they back independents, Republicans and Democrats as well as election reform initiatives.

Independents, on the view being articulated here, would ultimately leverage their power to generate ambitious centrist solutions, but they themselves would not start from a moderate centrist standpoint or an ambitious new centrist standpoint. They would ideally move toward an ambitious new centrist standpoint because it would be more agreeable than the positions of the two major parties. We need creativity and out of the box thinking, not the same old trench warfare.

Therefore, the task before us is to have a diversity of communities and funders to encourage and back candidates from a range of political perspectives -- libertarian to green -- that are united in their opposition to both Democrats and Republicans. These candidates will disagree about substantive policies but agree that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have the answers or the requisite attitudes to craft the policy solutions we need. Their opposition to the two major parties, however, will in the end be sufficient to create the legislative basis for tripartisan solutions to our major challenges ahead that go beyond a moderate middle position between the two major parties.

There is no doubt that structural changes are needed in our electoral system as well, notably ranked-choice voting, open primaries and elimination of gerrymandering. Yet new laws and regulations will not by themselves transform the electoral system. We need a concept of how legislative change could come about through tripartisan policy solutions, and we need organizations which are in the fixing our democracy space as well as the media, traditional and social, to televise, advertise and catalyze this political development.

Notice that electing an independent president would shorten the birth pangs of this new political system, but change can come about with either a Democratic or Republican president. The president will need to help steer a new centrist legislative agenda, but ultimately it is Congress that will be the driving force of this transformation because Congress, not the president, makes laws.

The trajectory from here, to be sure, will not be linear. It will be more complex and nuanced. It will also take place over the course of five to ten years. You cannot transform Washington politics with a wrecking ball.

Read More

Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

If approved, the Democracy Voucher program would bring in $4.5 million each year through a property tax.

Road Red Runner/Adobe Stock

Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

A public funding mechanism for Seattle elections is up for renewal in next week's election.

The Democracy Voucher program was passed 10 years ago. It offers voters four $25 vouchers to use each election cycle for candidates who accept certain fundraising and spending limits. Supporters said it is a model for more inclusive democracy, touting higher turnout, increased participation from more small donors and a more diverse candidate field.

Spencer Olson, spokesperson for the group People Powered Elections Seattle, which supports Proposition 1, said the program helps level the playing field.

"It's really important that people's voices are heard and that candidates can run being supported by their constituents," Olson contended. "Versus just listening to those wealthiest donors, those special interests that have historically been the loudest voices at the table and really dominated what priorities rise to the top."

The voucher is supported by a property tax. Olson and other supporters hope to bring the model statewide. Critics said the program is not big enough to make a difference in elections and has not curbed outside spending. Ballots are due by 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Olson pointed out the vouchers have succeeded in encouraging more diverse participation in local elections.

"The intention of the program was to bring a public financing program to Seattle elections to help empower more candidates -- more diverse candidates, women, renters, people of color -- to have equal access to be able to run, and run competitive elections without having to rely on wealthy donors, special interests," Olson emphasized.

Olson noted because the money comes from a dedicated tax levy, unused vouchers roll over to the next election.

"The goal isn't to create an unlimited pot of money but to be able to provide resources for candidates to run with the community's support," Olson stressed. "But it's not a blank check at the same time."

Eric Tegethoff is a journalist covering the Northwest for Public News Service.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi
- YouTube

Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

The latest interview in this series features Rahmin Sarabi, founder and Director of the American Public Trust, an organization dedicated to promoting and implementing deliberative democracy practices, such as citizen assemblies.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”
An Israeli airstrike hit Deir al-Balah in central Gaza on Jan. 1, 2024.
Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”

President Donald Trump finally acknowledged there is “real starvation” in Gaza—a reality that has generated momentum among holdout countries to recognize a State of Palestine, as 147 of 193 U.N. members have already done. Trump claims that this impermissibly “rewards Hamas.” Concerns about the optics of “rewarding” a militant group that is not the country’s government should not drive the decision to recognize Palestine as a state or the decision to maintain diplomatic relations with its government.

Countries that have already recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the fact that the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) forms a defined geographic area with a government and a population—the traditional criteria for statehood. Countries that have not recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) lack of effective control over parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and to the idea that recognition can be used as future diplomatic leverage. But waiting to recognize a state of Palestine until after there is a negotiated agreement between Israel and the PA is an outdated position that amounts to “kicking the can” down an interminable road.

Keep ReadingShow less