Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Transitioning to tripartisanship

Transitioning to tripartisanship
Getty Images

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

The United States needs to transition in the years ahead from the goal of seeking bipartisanship in Washington to the goal of seeking tripartisanship. This process of transition will make our political system more in line with the other great democracies in the world, namely countries ranging from the United Kingdom to France, Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea.


The concept of bipartisanship is regarded as American as apple pie. It is because our political system is dominated by two major political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. We have Third Parties, but they have very little power. In Washington, there are a few Independents in the U.S. Senate, Senators Sinema, Sanders and King. They caucus with the Democrats, although they do possess some power as independent members. Still, getting major legislation passed in Congress typically requires 60 votes in the Senate to block a filibuster, and this is why bipartisanship remains a central goal of Congress. Even when one party has control of Congress, they rarely have 60 senators from their own party.

The transformation that is needed in the United States is one to tripartisanship, namely an ideal that would require the support of members who represent American citizens who do not identify as Democrats or Republicans. In almost every month of recent years between 40% and 44% of American voters, according to Gallup, do not identify with either major party. It is these voters, therefore, who hunger for representation in Washington.

In many democratic societies with parliamentary governments there are three or more political parties which have power. In the UK, there are basically three parties, namely the Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democratic Parties. But in France and Germany, there are more than three. In Australia, the rise of the "Teal Independents" has been a major force in Australian politics in recent years. Coalition building is as British as kidney pie, as French as croissants, as German as sauerkraut.

The United States doesn't need a system with three or more major parties though. Instead, we need a system where an increasing number of candidates run for office as independents, be they libertarian, socialist, or new centrist. Together, these independents could wield power and force the Democrats and Republicans to arrive at solutions to policy challenges that affirm the point of view of the Independents taken as a whole. There may be four or five of six Independent Senators who vote with the Democrats and Republicans to get to 60. Independents can also play an important role crafting the bills themselves. On immigration, it may be group A of senators 1, 2, 5 and 6 who vote with enough Democrats and Republicans to get to 60 votes. On gun safety, it may be group B of senators 2, 3, 4, and 6. And so on.

The idea behind this is that independents would realize that they cannot have everything they want; indeed, no one can. The reason the independents would work with each other would be that coming up with 4-6 votes in the Senate would preserve their club and their leverage. Charles Wheelan was right to argue in The Centrist Manifesto that five or six senators who ran as members of a moderate Centrist Party could wield enormous leverage on Capitol Hill. Where he went wrong is to say that they should all be moderates.

The United States is not going to shift to a parliamentary system. Our president will be elected in his or her own election. We will never have a prime minister who is selected by the party that wins the most Congressional seats. This would require a fundamental change to our Constitution. But a tripartisan ideal is consistent with our Constitution because there is nothing in the Constitution which calls for a two-party system.

Ranked choice voting, Open Primaries and nonpartisan congressional districts will all help bring about this tripartisan revolution. But voters can elect Independents even without these important structural changes in our electoral system if 50 to 60% of them vote in primaries rather than 20 to 30%. In the spirit of liberty that animates the Declaration of Independence, the Independents should stand wherever they choose on the political spectrum. Although different in their ideology they would share a departure from both the Democrats and Republicans. This common departure would be the source of their power and their influence.


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