Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Paradox for Independents

Opinion

The Paradox for Independents

A handheld American Flag.

Canva Images

Political independents in the United States are not chiefly moderates. In The Independent Voter, Thomas Reilly, Jacqueline Salit, and Omar Ali make it clear that independents are basically anti-establishment. They have a "mindset" that aims to dismantle the duopoly in our national politics.

I have previously written about different ways that independents can obtain power in Washington. First, they can get elected or converted in Washington and advocate with their own independent voices. Second, they can seek a revolution in which they would be the most dominant voice in Washington. And third, a middle position, they can seek a critical mass in the Senate especially, namely five to six seats, which would give them leverage to help the majority party get to 60 votes on policy bills.


Since they do not speak with one voice—after all, there are about 60 million independents or unaffiliated voters in the United States, not to mention a large percentage of the 85 million 'eligible' voters who are not 'registered' to vote—there is no one path they should all follow.

The most reasonable path forward for independents is to pursue their independence from both major parties even as they advocate for what I have called a tripartisan system of governance in Washington. This would be a system in which there are three political forces in Washington, not two. The time has come for the United States to jettison the goal of bipartisanship and replace it with the goal of tripartisanship. Bipartisanship is not the goal in multiparty democracies throughout the world.

The paradox for independents is that in order to achieve their independence from the Democratic and Republican Parties they must commit to working with them and not trying to overtake them. Like women in progressive quarters in the last two generations, political independents must separate from the two powerful parties even as they seek to create a new relationship with them. The woman who needs her own identity over and above mother and wife, notably via having a career, may seek this identity even as she seeks to transform her marriage with her husband. Of course, some women may divorce their husbands and find new husbands or marry women or not marry at all. Yet, there is a model where the dominated woman, whose identity is suppressed, affirms her identity and demands that her spouse affirm it, too.

Political independents running for the U.S. Senate in 2026, for example, may advocate for the tripartisan ideal and the creation of an Independent Caucus in the U.S. Senate. They may run against Democrats and Republicans in their own state, or like Dan Osborn in his 2024 Nebraska Senate race, run as an Independent against a Republican. Yet, part of their campaign would be devoted to advocating for the tripartisan ideal.

By the time there are five or six independents in the U.S. Senate—Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) are among the handful of Republicans in the Senate who might convert—this Independent Caucus would create the foundation for what Charles Wheelan called a "fulcrum strategy," only he was focused on electing centrist members of a Centrist Party.

Tripartisans should not blast the Trump administration. The Democrats will take care of that. Indeed, the two parties are destined to fight bitterly with each other for the next four years. Tripartisans must be committed to overcoming the intense polarization in Washington and pave the way for the post-Trump years. Of course, many Republicans are hoping for post-Trump years that sustain the populist, ultra-right-wing perspective being unveiled every day. The tripartisan ideal can actually help either majority party.

To be clear: Because tripartisans are not ideologically aligned, they are not passionate about the same policies. Rather, they would each support various, though not all, policy bills (ranging from climate change to entitlement reform) because they want to end polarization and dysfunction in Washington as well as keep their seats in the U.S. Senate and the Independent Caucus.

The tripartisan model is designed to transcend the battlefield of American politics over the next two to six, and probably ten years, and integrate political independents with their own voices, attitudes, and ideas into the political process. If Senator Murkowski converted to an Independent in the first 100 days of the Trump presidency, that would be a major development: One small step for the U.S. Senate, one giant leap for the United States.

Dave 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.


Read More

People waving US flags

People waving US flags

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

Democracy Fellowship Spotlight: Joel Gurin on Trustworthy Data

Earlier this year, the Bridge Alliance and the National Academy of Public Administration launched the Fellows for Democracy and Public Service Initiative to strengthen the country's civic foundations. This fellowship unites the Academy’s distinguished experts with the Bridge Alliance’s cross‑sector ecosystem to elevate distributed leadership throughout the democracy reform landscape. Instead of relying on traditional, top‑down models, the program builds leadership ecosystems: spaces where people share expertise, prioritize collaboration, and use public‑facing storytelling to renew trust in democratic institutions. Each fellow grounds their work in one of six core sectors essential to a thriving democratic republic.

Recently, I interviewed Joel Gurin, who founded and now leads the Center for Open Data Enterprise (CODE) and wrote Open Data Now. Before launching CODE in 2015, he chaired the White House Task Force on Smart Disclosure, which studied how open government data can improve consumer markets. He also led as Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission and spent over a decade at Consumer Reports.

Keep ReadingShow less
A balance.

A retired New York judge criticizes President Trump’s actions on tariffs, judicial defiance, alleged corruption, and executive overreach, warning of threats to constitutional order and the rule of law in the United States.

Getty Images

A Pay‑to‑Play Presidency Testing the Limits of Our Institutions

Another day, another outrage, and another attack on the Constitution that this President has twice taken a vow to uphold. Instead of accepting the Supreme Court decision striking down his imposition of tariffs, the President is now imposing them by executive order and excoriating the Justices who ruled against him. His disrespect for the Constitution and the judiciary is boundless.

To this retired New York State judge, all hell seems to have broken loose in our federal government. Congress lies dormant when it is not enabling the chief executive’s misuse and personal acquisition of federal funds, and, notwithstanding its recent tariffs ruling, a majority of the Supreme Court generally rubber-stamps the administration’s actions through opaque “shadow docket” rulings. In doing so, SCOTUS abdicates its role as an independent check.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bomb First, Debate Later: The Hidden Cost of How America Makes War Now

A general view of Tehran with smoke visible in the distance after explosions were reported in the city, on March 02, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

Getty Images, Contributor

Bomb First, Debate Later: The Hidden Cost of How America Makes War Now

For those old enough to remember the first Gulf War, the scenes feel painfully familiar: smoke rising over Tehran. Babies carried out of a bombed-out hospital in incubators. Missiles striking cities across the Middle East. Oil markets in turmoil as Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz. The war of choice that began with Israeli and American strikes on Iran is widening by the hour, pulling in multiple countries, including NATO allies, and producing casualties that mount by the day.

Much of the early discussion has focused on obvious questions. How far will the conflict spread? How many people will die? What will it cost the United States in money, lives, and global stability?

Keep ReadingShow less