Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Governors Cox and Shapiro Urge Nation to “Lower the Temperature” Amid Rising Political Violence

Utah Republican Spencer Cox and Pennsylvania Democrat Josh Shapiro appear on CNN

Governors Cox and Shapiro Urge Nation to “Lower the Temperature” Amid Rising Political Violence

In the days following the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, I wrote Governor Cox’s Prayer Wasn’t Just Misguided—It Was Dangerous, an article sharply criticizing Utah Gov. Spencer Cox for his initial public response. Rather than centering his remarks on the victim, the community’s grief, or the broader national crisis of political violence, Cox told reporters that he had prayed the shooter would be from “another state” or “another country.” That comment, I argued at the time, was more than a moment of emotional imprecision—it reflected a deeper and more troubling instinct in American politics to externalize blame. By suggesting that the perpetrator might ideally be an outsider, Cox reinforced long‑standing xenophobic narratives that cast immigrants and non‑locals as the primary sources of danger, despite extensive evidence that political violence in the United States is overwhelmingly homegrown.

Recently, Cox joined Pennsylvania Governor, Democrat Josh Shapiro, issuing a rare bipartisan warning about the escalating threat of political violence in the United States, calling on national leaders and citizens alike to “tone it down” during a joint interview at the Washington National Cathedral.

Keep ReadingShow less

High School Civic Innovators Bridging America’s Divide

At just 17 years of age, Sophie Kim was motivated to start her organization, Bipartisan Bridges, to bring together people from both ends of the political spectrum. What started as just an idea during her freshman year of high school took off after Sophie placed in the Civics Unplugged pitch contest, hosted for alumni in Spring 2024. Since then, Sophie has continued to expand Bipartisan Bridges' impact, creating spaces that foster civil dialogue and facilitate meaningful connections across party lines.

Sophie, a graduate of the Spring 2024 Civic Innovators Fellowship and the Summer 2025 Civic Innovation Academy at UCLA, serves as the founder and executive director of Bipartisan Bridges. In this role, Sophie has forged a partnership with the organization Braver Angels to host depolarization workshops and has led the coordination and capture of conversations on climate change, abortion, gun control, foreign aid, and the 100 Men vs. a Gorilla debate. In addition, this year, Sophie planned and oversaw Bipartisan Bridges’ flagship Politics and Polarization Fellowship, an eight-week, in-person program involving youth from Tustin, Irvine, Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach, California. A recent Bipartisan Bridges session featuring youth from both Los Angeles and Orange County will be featured in Bridging the Gap, an upcoming documentary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Democrats can reclaim America’s founding principles, rebuild the rural economy, and restore democracy by redefining the political battle Trump began.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Defining the Democrat v. Republican Battle

Winning elections is, in large part, a question of which Party is able to define the battle and define the actors. Trump has so far defined the battle and effectively defined Democrats for his supporters as the enemy of making America great again.

For Democrats to win the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential elections, they must take the offensive and show just the opposite–that it is they who are true to core American principles and they who will make America great again, while Trump is the Founders' nightmare come alive.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?

Trump and the MAGA movement have twisted the meaning of patriotism. It’s time we collectively reclaim America’s founding ideals and the Pledge’s promise.

Getty Images, LeoPatrizi

Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?

Republicans have always claimed to be the patriotic party, the party of "America, right or wrong," the party willing to use force to protect American national interests abroad, the party of a strong military. In response, Democrats have not really contested this perspective since Vietnam, basically ceding the patriotic badge to the Republicans.

But with the advent of Donald Trump, the Republican claim to patriotism has gotten broader and more troubling. Republicans now claim to be the party that is true to our founding principles. And it is not just the politicians; they have support from far-right scholars at the Heritage Foundation, such as Matthew Spalding. The Democratic Party has done nothing to counter these claims.

Keep ReadingShow less