Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less
New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two groups of glass figures. One red, one blue.

Congressional paralysis is no longer accidental. Polarization has reshaped incentives, hollowed out Congress, and shifted power to the executive.

Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

How Congress Lost Its Capacity to Act and How to Get It Back

In late 2025, Congress fumbled the Affordable Care Act, failing to move a modest stabilization bill through its own procedures and leaving insurers and families facing renewed uncertainty. As the Congressional Budget Office has warned in multiple analyses over the past decade, policy uncertainty increases premiums and reduces insurer participation (see, for example: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734). I examined this episode in an earlier Fulcrum article, “Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis,” as a case study in congressional paralysis and leadership failure. The deeper problem, however, runs beyond any single deadline or decision and into the incentives and procedures that now structure congressional authority. Polarization has become so embedded in America’s governing institutions themselves that it shapes how power is exercised and why even routine governance now breaks down.

From Episode to System

The ACA episode wasn’t an anomaly but a symptom. Recent scholarship suggests it reflects a broader structural shift in how Congress operates. In a 2025 academic article available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), political scientist Dmitrii Lebedev reaches a stark conclusion about the current Congress, noting that the 118th Congress enacted fewer major laws than any in the modern era despite facing multiple time-sensitive policy deadlines (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5346916). Drawing on legislative data, he finds that dysfunction is no longer best understood as partisan gridlock alone. Instead, Congress increasingly exhibits a breakdown of institutional capacity within the governing majority itself. Leadership avoidance, procedural delay, and the erosion of governing norms have become routine features of legislative life rather than temporary responses to crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less