Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Let's aim for tripartisanship in 10 years

Venn diagram of red and blue circles forming purple

A centrist group could provide the votes to achieve legislative success in Congress, writes Anderson.

MirageC/Getty Images

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

I am against third parties because they paint a target on their backs. The Democratic and Republican parties are thus able to aim and fire at the third parties and almost always knock them down. Candidates who run on the left under the Green Party or on the right under the Libertarian Party almost always lose, although the Green Party manages to win a few seats every year at the local level.

Taking on the Democratic and Republican parties requires that individuals, running on their own and not the voice of an institution, take on the two institutions. Although the parties are instrumental in helping their candidates win elections, each contest must be won one race at a time. Individuals who are anti-establishment — anti the two-party system — can upset the party institutions with the right kind of backing and ingenuity.


Independent candidates need to fight like the colonists fought in the Revolutionary War. They cannot face their opponents head on because they will typically lack the financial means necessary to be competitive. Instead, they must be creative, they must surprise their opponents, and they must outmaneuver them with the internet and social media. But because some officeholders may switch from one of the major parties to being an independent, the transformation to tripartisanship need not be accomplished entirely at the ballot box.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Independents — who, according to Gallup, who made up 43 percent of voters in 2023 — should not align themselves with other independents to try to destroy the major parties. Instead, they should run more or less independently from other independents and aim to weaken the two major parties, by as little as five or six seats in the Senate and 15 seats in the House. As Charles Wheelan argued in “The Centrist Manifesto,” a "fulcrum strategy" would give leverage to centrist candidates who could force the two parties to compromise, especially in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to pass legislation.

The key to success for independent politicians is not to align with others of like ideological perspectives. Paradoxically, independents will have more success if they run from diverse ideological perspectives. This will enhance their abilities to remove targets from their backs, making it harder for their opponents to label them as subversive to the political order.

Once independents in the Senate and the House increase in numbers they should create an institution, such as an Independent Caucus. Then they should leverage their institutional power to compel the two parties to negotiate with them in order to reach not bipartisan but tripartisan solutions to major policy issues ranging from immigration and entitlement reform to climate change, child care, paid parental leave and gun safety.

Independent candidates for president are good for the system insofar as they get citizens to contemplate alternatives to the two major parties, but they are harmful to the extent that they illustrate how it is virtually impossible to win an independent presidential campaign in an election under the Electoral College system.

Independents will need to supply the votes to reach 60 enough of the time in order to keep their seats and promises to the public to end polarization in Washington. Like everyone else in politics and life, these independents will have to make compromises. Because they will want to keep their seats, the hypothesis is that they will be compelled to vote for some bills that do not speak to their interests. It is impossible to know in advance if this bold hypothesis is correct. History is frequently made when major changes were regarded as poor bets.

Finally, as the independents in the next few elections gain power, an organization will be needed to mobilize even more independent candidates and more voters. Existing organizations that speak for independents can help orchestrate this development. Creating an organization will be catalyzed by the formation of a social movement. Independents — like African-Americans, women, the LGBTQ community, the religious right and environmentalists — will ultimately need a social movement. Yet it is premature at this time to try to start a social movement. Independents must start running before the baton can be handed to them.

Together, politicians and citizens should aim for achieving tripartisanship in 10 years. Let’s call it the TINT movement.

Read More

silhouettes of people arguing in front of an America flag
Pict Rider/Getty Images

'One side will win': The danger of zero-sum framings

Elwood is the author of “Defusing American Anger” and hosts thepodcast “People Who Read People.”

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was surreptitiously recorded at a private event saying, about our political divides, that “one side or the other is going to win.” Many people saw this as evidence of his political bias. In The Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr. wrote that he disagreed with Alito’s politics but that the justice was “right about the divisions in our nation today.” The subtitle of Bacon’s piece was: “America is in the middle of a nonmilitary civil war, and one side will win.”

It’s natural for people in conflict to see it in “us versus them” terms — as two opposing armies facing off against each other on the battlefield. That’s what conflict does to us: It makes us see things through war-colored glasses.

Keep ReadingShow less
David French

New York Times columnist David French was removed from the agenda of a faith-basd gathering because we was too "divisive."

Macmillan Publishers

Is canceling David French good for civic life?

Harwood is president and founder of The Harwood Institute. This is the latest entry in his series based on the "Enough. Time to Build.” campaign, which calls on community leaders and active citizens to step forward and build together.

On June 10-14, the Presbyterian Church in America held its annual denominational assembly in Richmond, Va. The PCA created considerable national buzz in the lead-up when it abruptly canceled a panel discussion featuring David French, the highly regarded author and New York Times columnist.

The panel carried the innocuous-sounding title, “How to Be Supportive of Your Pastor and Church Leaders in a Polarized Political Year.” The reason for canceling it? French, himself a long-time PCA member, was deemed too “divisive.” This despite being a well-known, self-identified “conservative” and PCA adherent. Ironically, the loudest and most divisive voices won the day.

Keep ReadingShow less
Young girl holding a sparkler and wearing an American flag shirt
Rebecca Nelson/Getty Images

Three approaches to Independence Day

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

July Fourth is not like Christmas or Rosh Hashanah, holidays that create a unified sense of celebration among celebrants. On Christmas, Christians throughout the world celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. On Rosh Hashanah, Jews throughout the world celebrate the Jewish New Year.

Yet on the Fourth of July, apart from the family gatherings, barbecues and drinking, we take different approaches. Some Americans celebrate the declaration of America's independence from Great Britain and especially the value of freedom. And some Americans reject the holiday, because they believe it highlights the self-contradiction of the United States, which created a nation in which some would be free and some would be enslaved. And other Americans are conflicted between these two points of view.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fireworks on July 4
Roy Rochlin/Getty Images

One country, one constitution, one destiny

Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."

“One country, one constitution, one destiny,” Daniel Webster said in a historic 1837 speech defending the American Union.

This of Fourth of July, 187 years after Webster’s speech and the 248th anniversary of the signing of our Declaration of Independence, Webster would no doubt be dismayed to find his quote reconstrued by popular opinion to read something like this:

“Divided country, debated constitution, and as for destiny, we’re going to hell in a hand-basket.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Rich Harwood
Harwood Institute

Meet the change leaders: Rich Harwood

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

After working on more than 20 political campaigns and two highly respected nonprofits, Rich Harwood set out to create something entirely different. He founded what is now known as The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation in 1988, when he was just 27 years old (and is now its president). Soon after, he wrote the ground-breaking report “Citizen and Politics: A View from Main Street,” the first national study to uncover that Americans did not feel apathetic about politics, but instead held a deep sense of anger and disconnection.

Over the past 30 years, Rich has innovated and developed a new philosophy and practice for how communities can solve shared problems, create a culture of shared responsibility and deepen people’s civic faith. The Harwood practice of Turning Outward has spread to all 50 states and is being used in 40 countries.

Keep ReadingShow less