Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

It’s time for a tripartisan revolution

Road signs labels Left, Center and Right
wildpixel/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.

Former President Donald Trump has won a convincing Electoral College victory, although the swing states were decided by narrow margins. But when you take the 30,000-foot perspective of the election, it is very illuminating.

Forty percent of registered voters, according to Gallup, do not identify as either the Democrats or Republicans. Moreover, one-third of the 240 million people eligible to vote are not even registered.


Thus, we hear that our society is being ripped apart by, on one side, gun-loving, God-fearing, gay- and trans-hating redcoats and, on the other side, abortion-loving, gay- and trans-loving, gun-hating bluecoats. Yet the reality is that of every 100,000 voters, about 40,000 of them were independents who were basically anti-establishment and not ideologically aligned. Many of them were centrists, rather than progressives or conservatives.

The upshot is that of the 240 million potential voters about 120 million of them were either not registered or registered as independents. In short, half of voting age adults do not fit into the brutal polarization narrative that we hear about regularly. This lens is used to explain the election and the victory of one side over the other.

The polarization narrative — a titanic struggle between two sides that hate each other — is not an accurate picture of political America. A realistic picture reveals that a third of potential voters have checked out of voting itself, because they are disillusioned or disgusted with the system and 40 percent of registered voters are fed up with the two-party system that does not permit more than half of them to vote in primaries and does not give candidates who are independent a realistic chance of winning.

So, yes, the Fox News/MSNBC picture of a red vs. blue battle speaks for tens of millions of Americans, but up to half of voting age people don't fit into this picture. If Harris had won, the same analysis would hold.

Independents in the years to come must revolutionize American politics by establishing representation for the tens of millions of Americans who do not identify with either party. Although Congress in the last 16 years has certainly produced important legislation, some of which is the fruit of bipartisan cooperation (e.g., concerning Covid, infrastructure and semiconductor chips), there is plainly not enough important legislation to list. We are still waiting for lawmakers to address immigration, climate change, energy, child care and parental leave, and guns.

What is needed is a shift away from the duopoly that dominates our politics and makes bipartisanship the goal of politics. In its place, we must promote the goal of tripartisanship. A tripartisan revolution, however, does not seek to overhaul the system. It is more modest in its ambitions.

As Dartmouth economist Charles Wheelan wrote in his 2013 book “ The Centrist Manifesto,” we need a "Fulcrum strategy" in which five or six senators help one of the parties get to 60 votes by negotiating elements of major bills that represent a third force in American politics. These senators can be elected as independents or switch to independent once in office. What precisely the group would call for would vary with different bills and cannot be pinpointed on the ideological spectrum, although a centrist perspective is probably where they will be in many cases.

Still, unlike Wheelan, I do not advocate uniting a group of self-identified centrists; instead, I advocate uniting a group of independents across the ideological spectrum who will help forge major compromises because it is the right thing to do and because it serves their self-interest, including securing their ability to retain their seats in the Senate.

What will not change in the Trump presidency, and what would not have changed in a Harris presidency, is the disillusionment and frustration felt by 40 percent of registered voters and 33 percent of the voting-eligible people. The time for a tripartisan revolution has arrived, one that makes room for independents to have a seat at the table.

Read More

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us
Provided

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us

In the rush to “dismantle the administrative state,” some insist that freeing people from “burdensome bureaucracy” will unleash thriving. Will it? Let’s look together.

A century ago, bureaucracy was minimal. The 1920s followed a worldwide pandemic that killed an estimated 17.4–50 million people. While the virus spread, the Great War raged; we can still picture the dehumanizing use of mustard gas and trench warfare. When the war ended, the Roaring Twenties erupted as an antidote to grief. Despite Prohibition, life was a party—until the crash of 1929. The 1930s opened with a global depression, record joblessness, homelessness, and hunger. Despair spread faster than the pandemic had.

Keep ReadingShow less
Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan

Photo illustration by Alex Bandoni/ProPublica. Source images: Chicago History Museum and eobrazy

Getty Images

Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan

Some 4 million people could lose federal housing assistance under new plans from the Trump administration, according to experts who reviewed drafts of two unpublished rules obtained by ProPublica. The rules would pave the way for a host of restrictions long sought by conservatives, including time limits on living in public housing, work requirements for many people receiving federal housing assistance and the stripping of aid from entire families if one member of the household is in the country illegally.

The first Trump administration tried and failed to implement similar policies, and renewed efforts have been in the works since early in the president’s second term. Now, the documents obtained by ProPublica lay out how the administration intends to overhaul major housing programs that serve some of the nation’s poorest residents, with sweeping reforms that experts and advocates warn will weaken the social safety net amid historically high rents, home prices and homelessness.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility

Donald Trump

YouTube

Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility

On Friday, October 3rd, President Donald Trump issued a dramatic ultimatum on Truth Social, stating this is the “LAST CHANCE” for Hamas to accept a 20-point peace proposal backed by Israel and several Arab nations. The deadline, set for Sunday at 6:00 p.m. EDT, was framed as a final opportunity to avoid catastrophic consequences. Trump warned that if Hamas rejected the deal, “all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas,” and that its fighters would be “hunted down and killed.”

Ordinarily, when a president sets a deadline, the world takes him seriously. In history, Presidential deadlines signal resolve, seriousness, and the weight of executive authority. But with Trump, the pattern is different. His history of issuing ultimatums and then quietly backing off has dulled the edge of his threats and raised questions about their strategic value.

Keep ReadingShow less
From Fragility to Resilience: Fixing America’s Economic and Political Fault Lines

fractured foundation and US flag

AI generated

From Fragility to Resilience: Fixing America’s Economic and Political Fault Lines

This series began with a simple but urgent question: What’s gone wrong with America’s economic policies, and how can we begin to fix them? The story so far has revealed not only financial instability but also deeper structural weaknesses that leave families, small businesses, and entire communities far more vulnerable than they should be.

In the first two articles, “Running on Empty” and “Crash Course,” we examined how middle-class families, small businesses, and retirees are increasingly caught in a web of debt and financial uncertainty. We also examined how Wall Street’s speculative excesses, deregulation, and shadow banking have pushed the financial system to the brink. Finally, we warned that Donald Trump’s economic agenda doesn’t address these problems—it magnifies them. Together, these earlier articles painted a picture of a system skating on thin ice, where even small shocks could trigger widespread crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less