Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A bold next step for the Democratic Party

Opinion

A bold next step for the Democratic Party

DEMOCRATIC PARTY FLAG

Getty Images//Stock Photo

In order to think about the next steps for the Democratic Party and the February 1, 2025, vote for a new Democratic National Committee Chair, it is useful to remember the context of three pairs of Democratic Presidents since the 1960s.

JFK and LBJ led the way for major progressive changes, ranging from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Affirmative Action and the War on Poverty. Johnson's Great Society was the most progressive agenda ever promoted by an American president.


President Jimmy Carter and President Bill Clinton especially represented the centrist turn in the Democratic Party. Two Southern Democrats openly recognized the limits of the federal government even as they advanced a range of progressive policies, including Carter's renewable energy agenda and Clinton's signature on the Family and Medical Leave Act Bill. Carter encouraged self-sacrifice, and Clinton chanted, "The era of big government is over," and supported initiatives like welfare reform. Carter's centrism was complicated and particularly visible in his efforts to build up the military. Some recent commentators argue that with his human rights crusade, he, more than President Ronald Reagan, set things in motion to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden returned to a more progressive orientation in domestic affairs. Obama countered Reagan and President George W. Bush's trickle-down economic agenda with some old-fashioned Keynesian deficit spending during the 2009-10 financial crisis. Obamacare was his historic achievement. Biden followed suit by supporting investments in the child tax credit, green energy, semiconductor chips, and infrastructure. In foreign affairs, Biden asked Congress for substantial financial support for Ukraine against Russia and, to a lesser extent, for Israel against Hamas.

Democrats are trying to figure out the next steps after Vice President Harris's loss to President-elect Trump. Rather than move left, right, or center, a more fruitful but admittedly risky approach for the Democratic Party would be to break out of this pendulum cycle and take the very bold step of reinventing the Democratic Party in such a way that it is able to work effectively with the rising group of independents in the United States.

Ironically, Democrats could advance their cause if they recognized the importance of the over 40% of Americans, according to Gallup, who identify as independents, not in the sense of getting independents to vote for Democrats but getting independents in some select races to vote for independent politicians.

To many, this will sound counterintuitive if not self-destructive. But pursuing this path can help Democrats in the years ahead get 60 votes in the Senate regarding policy bills and 50 votes regarding budget bills and the reconciliation process.

How might this work? I have argued in the last year and a half in the "Fulcrum" and in over 50 US newspapers that our politics should gradually replace the value of bipartisanship with the value of tripartisanship. Independents need representation on Capitol Hill, especially in the Senate, where five to six members, either elected or senators who switched to Independent, could have substantial leverage. Dartmouth economics professor Charles Wheelan illustrated how this "fulcrum strategy" for centrists might work in "The Centrist Manifesto." It would also work for independents.

Democrats in the years ahead might incentivize some Republicans to leave the Republican party and become Independents who would either caucus with them or establish their own Independent Caucus. For example, they might incentivize Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Ak) away from the Republican Party by offering her a Chairmanship or Ranking Member position on an important Senate Committee. Likewise, in Senate races where chances of electing a Democrat seem slim, Democrats might support a candidate running as an Independent.

In fact, in the case of one of the two races for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska, the Nebraska Democratic Party offered its endorsement to an independent, Dan Osborn. But he turned it down because he was not accepting party endorsements. Still, many Democratic PACS supported Osborn, as did many Democratic voters, and it was a surprisingly close race even though incumbent Senator Deb Fischer ultimately won.

Republicans could use the same strategy, but they are currently feeling confident about their power in the Senate, the House, and the White House and are less likely to reinvent themselves. Getting a new DNC Chair to start a war with the Republicans is a 20th-century strategy. Being bold involves doing something new, not just picking up missiles and bombs that have not been used for a while and using them again.

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

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

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
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less