Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The United States needs a tripartisanship political movement

Checklist for "Democrat," "Republican" and "Independent"
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.

Whoever wins the presidential election in 2024 — Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or some other Republican or Democrat if one of them drops out — we need a political movement to launch within two to four years to represent the interests of the 40-plus percent of Americans who do not identify with either of the major political parties. If Trump wins, democracy will not close down in America although it may experience a series of hard body punches for four years. If Biden wins, lukewarm support for him and the Democrats does not mean we do not need a major democratic revolution.

Social movements and political movements, according to political scientists and sociologists, engage a group or groups of people in some advocacy effort to promote a collective goal. That goal could be broadly progressive or broadly conservative, although the majority of social and political movements have been on the progressive side. The goal could be very radical, whether left wing (socialist) or right wing (fascist). Some of the most familiar social movements in the United States are the labor movement, the anti-Vietnam-War movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the LGBTQ movement, the Tea Party movement, the pro-life movement, and the environmental movement.


The United States needs an independents movement, which should be intertwined with a tripartisanship movement that would include some Democrats and Republicans. We must transition away from bipartisanship: Washington is too polarized to achieve it. The two-party system is failing because over 40 percent of the public has no party or group of independents who speak for them. Bipartisanship is not the goal in the United Kingdom, France or Australia, and it should gradually be replaced in the United States with the goal of tripartisanship.

Tripartisanship will come about when a sufficient number of independents are either elected to Congress or switch from one of the major parties while in office already. Getting to a critical mass of five to six independents in the Senate and 10-15 independents in the House — who can come from different ideological points of views — could take eight to 10 years. It makes more sense for independents to fight for individual seats than to start anything resembling a national movement. Once some successes have been achieved, however, it will be wise to officially name and start a political movement. The movement, like the runner in a relay race, needs to have the baton handed to her once she has started running herself.

Social and political movements differ in many ways. Some are focused on one issue, like the pro-life movement or the anti-Vietnam movement, while others are focused on a range of issues, policies and regulations that concern a general issue. The civil rights movement, the women's movement and the environmental movement fall into this category. The tripartisanship movement does not concern one policy. Indeed, it concerns a range of policies and concepts, including ranked-choice voting and independent redistricting commissions to end gerrymandering.

A critical question is when to start such a movement, or what to name it if in fact it has already started. The civil rights movement, for example, was getting started with the Supreme Court’s Brown vs. Board of Education decision even though no one said it at the time. With the Montgomery bus boycott, which lasted a year, the concept of a social movement was becoming more evident to the press and to the public.

A tripartisanship movement is consistent with other political movements that also call for major political change. This includes umbrella movements that are trying to unite an extensive array of political organizations in the “save our democracy” space like the Bridge Alliance, which coordinates the activities of 80 organizations (and publishes The Fulcrum). Bringing about major social and political change is a different enterprise from building a stadium. There are different organizations and movements operating simultaneously with overlapping agendas.

A tripartisanship movement is narrower in scope than efforts that seek to unite organizations that are addressing problems ranging from civic education to campaign finance reform to making it easier to vote. As a result, it is ideally suited to take the lead on working on one major problem and providing fuel for movements and organizations that are addressing a wider set of problems. The tripartisanship movement could take 10 years to achieve its main objectives. Its forward motion will simultaneously help advance the efforts of organizations like the Bridge Alliance.

Read More

Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger

Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.

This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping.

Recent data shows that Americans view members of the opposing political party overly negatively, leading people to avoid political discourse with those who hold different views.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

How To Motivate Americans’ Conversations Across Politics

Introduction

A large body of research shows that Americans hold overly negative distortions of those across the political spectrum. These misperceptions—often referred to as "Perception Gaps"—make civil discourse harder, since few Americans are eager to engage with people they believe are ideologically extreme, interpersonally hostile, or even threatening or inferior. When potential disagreement feels deeply uncomfortable or dangerous, conversations are unlikely to begin.

Correcting these distortions can help reduce barriers to productive dialogue, making Americans more open to political conversations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Divided American flag

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson writes on the serious impacts of "othering" marginalized populations and how, together, we must push back to create a more inclusive and humane society.

Jorge Villalba/Getty Images

New Rules of the Game: Weaponization of Othering

By now, you have probably seen the viral video. Taylor Townsend—Black, bold, unbothered—walks off the court after a bruising match against her white European opponent, Jelena Ostapenko. The post-match glances were sharper than a backhand slice. Next came the unsportsmanlike commentary—about her body, her "attitude," and a not-so-veiled speculation about whether she belonged at this level. To understand America in the Trump Redux era, one only needs to study this exchange.

Ostapenko vs. Townsend is a microcosm of something much bigger: the way anti-democratic, vengeful politics—modeled from the White House on down—have bled into every corner of public life, including sports. Turning “othering” into the new national pastime. Divisive politics has a profound impact on marginalized groups. Neither Ostapenko nor Donald Trump invented this playbook, yet Trump and his sycophants are working to master it. Fueled by a sense of grievance, revenge, and an insatiable appetite for division, he—like Ostapenko—has normalized once somewhat closeted attitudes.

Keep ReadingShow less