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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter


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

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