Founding Fathers Balanced Interests, So Should We
(Continued from home page)
maintain the balance of power and policy we have fostered over the years. Fortunately, some inner sense lets us know when the government – and we with it – have tilted too far. Maybe that’s brought on by guilt, maybe fear, maybe fairness, maybe just plain common sense. Good as far as it goes, except this calibration would be so much better if it were a conscious one.
For a long time, Congress was the keeper of this responsibility, working across the aisle to advance the common good. We are reminded of the powerful potential, and no doubt Congress reminded itself, when both parties came together to pass the affordable housing bill – only for it to be held hostage by the President.
The bill will become law anyway but his refusal to sign is indicative. Whatever inclination toward cooperation is being cast aside, even punished. We have grown accustomed to watching our elected representatives stretch the congressional rulebook one way or the other to advance their respective partisan visions. While we are responsible for electing these people, they quickly become vassals of the two major political parties and the special interests they represent.
Their overall agenda couldn’t be any more different than balance, in fact it’s just the opposite. By trying to sway matters far to one side or the other, they are doing everything in their power to knock us off balance. New pressures ranging from MAGA to the Democratic Socialists serve only to exacerbate the differences.
Rather than slip-sliding back and forth with each new administration, we need to raise up balance as a fundamental philosophy. Balance should be the message and the objective, the method we use and the outcome we seek.
We accomplish this on any particular question by incorporating the best of both sides into something better. This doesn’t mean 50-50. It’s the combination best suited to the need and the circumstances.
There is a large constituency for this kind of logic. The most recent of a six-year series of nationwide public opinion surveys conducted for Our Common Purpose show the balanced approach gains at minimum a plurality of support on every policy question asked. On half of those questions, it got more support than the two partisan positions put together.
Moderates would seem most likely to buy into this direction, and many do. Importantly, they are joined in nearly equal numbers by those conservatives and/or liberals who are something less than the most zealous. By contrast, the more ardent partisans – those who consider themselves very conservative or very liberal – are predictably less enthused about something that doesn’t tilt entirely in their direction.
As detailed previously by Our Common Purpose, we need to start this process by acknowledging a long list of values we hold dear, headed by familiar ideals such as liberty and justice that go all the way back to the founding. Uplifting sentiments aside, these values inevitably come into conflict with each other at the core of many of our major policy disputes. As just one pertinent example, the back-and-forth over border security boils down to a contest between compassion and law-and-order, two ideals that are in frequent conflict. Democrats and Republicans reflexively take up predictable positions, arguing passionately about which value is the problem and which is the solution.
We err badly by turning a blind eye to the obvious. There are positives that come from both values in question. When considered in isolation, both are valued for many reasons. Yet we’re put in a position of picking one to the exclusion of the other. Then, when things get out of hand, we reverse course four years later.
How much better it would be if from the get-go, in this and every debate, there was a third side seeking the right balance of the two. What for instance is the best balance of compassion and law-and-order, and how do we combine them to best effect? We should be aiming to creatively build upon the best qualities of both to produce solutions that diverse perspectives can live with and support. This is the only path to the stability that so many desire.
For the sake of the nation, the Founding Fathers ingeniously found balance that has lasted 250 years. I ask you, shouldn’t we be working harder to do the same?
— Richard Gilman
‘War’ or Peace — and the Steps In Between
Sept. 23, 2025
The draconian commentary over the assassination of Charlie Kirk is enveloping us in a darker and ever more threatening cloud.
A written report from ABC News summed it up thusly: “One word in particular was echoed by leading voices in the MAGA movement: ‘War.’” The story went on to quote Steve Bannon, Alex Jones, and other illustrious observers.
These are perilous times. Each new development sends a tremblor through the land. Some, or maybe it’s many, lean into fighting fire with fire.
Steven Livitsky, author of “How Democracies Die,” is quoted as observing: “When you have intensely polarized politics to the point where each party is viewing the other not as a rival, but as an enemy, and is using rhetoric, regularly, that the other side is a threat to the country . . . that is a tinderbox political situation.”
The tinder in the box are the words being used, and they’re getting more combustible. Just ask Jimmy Kimmel, not to mention many scores of educators who face dismissal for daring to speak their minds. By all reports, the fire – though it goes unnoticed by many of us – is already burning hot in the dark recesses of the Internet.
Even efforts to walk us back from the edge buy into the basic phraseology. Ezra Klein, one of the stable of columnists at The New York Times, wrote of Kirk: “We were on the same side on the continued possibility of American politics. It is supposed to be an argument, not a war; it is supposed to be won with words, not ended with bullets.”
With all due respect to Klein, we need to aspire to something better than argument as the core of how we conduct ourselves. The growing acceptance that argument is our base case, the very best we can do, is a major problem onto itself. Better than war, yes. The gold standard, no.
If we can look past the current administration into the future, the question we need to address is what we want going forward. Up until know I had thought that we, as a nation and as individuals, must make a basic choice. Argument on the one hand. Cooperation on the other.
Kirk is given credit by many observers, including by Klein, for showing up. He engaged, proselytized about politics and Christianity and the combination of the two, won admirers and sparred with detractors. From everything I read, he loved argument. To hear his wife tell it, he got excited at the prospect of debating. By all accounts, he excelled at it.
The to and fro since his death has brought me to realize there isn’t a simple on-off switch between arguing and cooperating. The dichotomy I had in mind isbetter thought of parts of a progression, with argumentation as the base stage. We can’t let this be the end state. We should progress from there to conversation, and from there to cooperation. In the ideal world, we would eventually get to reconciliation. That might seem a bridge way too far but the distance from here to there should not stop us from seeking to traverse the other steps.
To probe into this just a little:
Argumentation
Where we are stuck today and, unfortunately, where we may stay. To many, argument is inevitable and inescapable. We see ourselves as right, the others as being wrong. We disrespect them, if not something worse. We know it all, they know little. We argue with no intention of changing our minds.
The President said at Sunday’s memorial service for Kirk: “No side in American politics has a monopoly on disturbed or misguided people but there’s one part of our political community which believes they have a monopoly on truth, goodness, and virtue, and concludes they have also a monopoly on power of thought or speech.”
The accusation is worthy of some serious self-reflection. But the greater truth is that both sides need to be looking in the mirror.
The most unbending advocacy is built on conceit, self-righteousness, and the convictions that arise from one’s own bubble. Folks claim to know what the other side is thinking on most any subject – when they really don’t. The other side, which in reality is a patchwork of viewpoints, is stereotyped in the extreme.
Conversation
A big step up from argumentation, in that it begins with a real interest in learning the other person’s point of view. Exploring what’s necessary to achieve a useful conversation is itself a worthy subject of examination. Certainly easier and better if the two parties have some level of respect for each other, and with that the desire to hear each other out. That involves truly listening, and responding in a way that shows the other person was heard, rather than straying off point to one’s own next thought. Conversation won’t by itself solve the problems of the world but it’s a step toward understanding.
Cooperation
Another step forward, moving from interest to intention. Once mutual interest in communication has been established, it becomes easier to deliberately structure the dialogue toward some desired outcome. E.g., what on this topic do we agree about, what do we disagree about, how should we proceed from here? This is not to suggest that the two parties will suddenly agree. It does mean they will deliberately suspend judgment while they work through the possibilities. One structured process for doing this, called polarity management, has been thoroughly explored on this site this year.
Reconciliation
With enough of the above, one might hope for some eventual meeting of the minds. This could end up being a crowning achievement, although getting there is far in the distance. We can’t let the enormity of that challenge keep us from advancing on the previous stages.
Not to suggest any part of the progression is easy. Reaching across the divide is hard to accomplish. Our present-day turmoil makes it all seem improbable if not impossible, but we cannot default to argument. Unless we start taking steps toward a better day then that day will never come.
With the outpouring of grief and tributes at his memorial service now complete, may Charlie Kirk rest in peace. For the good of the country, the rest of us need to begin arranging a peace of our own.
— Richard Gilman
A Tip of the Cap to Respecting the Flag
Sept. 7, 2025
This is a tale about a cap, a cap with a patriotic twist.
I spotted it in a touristy-kind-of gift shop the other day. The khaki cap offers a nod to Boston on the edge of the brim, with USA displayed on the side. Much more noticeably the front panel sports the American flag in shiny white, charcoal and black. There’s not a hint of red or blue anywhere.
While I recognized some might see it as irreverent, I liked the subdued color scheme. To me anyway it softened the prominence of the flag. I was intrigued enough to ask my wife Wendy if she liked the cap. She did not.
You read two weeks ago about the dialogue between the two of us. Our custom of trying to arrive at some consensus, and guide our actions accordingly, doesn’t usually extend to our choice of apparel. Nonetheless, in the moment I accepted her verdict on the cap.
Wendy’s objection wasn’t about fashion. No matter the colors, she believes our flag has become too politicized.
In her mind MAGA hijacked the flag in the run-up to the 2024 election. American flags, many of them mounted next to Trump pennants, loudly whipped in the wind as rallies of pickup trucks rolled through city streets. No telling how many flags got shredded along the way but the commotion screamed the drivers’ evident regard for themselves as the true patriots in this country. It stuck in Wendy’s craw.
MAGA is hardly the first to exploit the flag for political purposes. The liberal counterculture has used it as a form of protest for many years. Flying the flag upside down. Burning or otherwise desecrating the flag over the Vietnam War, the policies of Ronald Reagan, Black Lives Matter, and so forth.
Our visit to the gift shop happened to come just a few days after President Trump issued an executive order, another in his continuing stream of executive orders, that takes exception to recent protests including those this summer in Los Angeles. A White House fact sheet complained the protests “featured flag burning alongside violent acts and other conduct threatening public safety.”
In response, the executive order seeks to “restore respect, pride, and sanctity to the American flag and prosecute those who desecrate this symbol of our freedom, identity, and strength to the fullest extent permissible.”
The order is largely for show. Prosecution to “the fullest extent possible” likely amounts to very little, in that the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that flag burning is political expression protected by the First Amendment. Trump is not concerned so much about prosecution as he is about fanning the passions that he knows burn among the faithful.
A few years ago, one of the polls conducted by Our Common Purpose tested public perception of which traditions and institutions unite or divide us. “National symbols (e.g. the American flag)” finished a respectable 10th of the 28 possibilities.
Support though was not evenly distributed. The flag did well among older folks. It did less well among young people, those who rely on social media, and blacks. More germane here, it did well among conservatives and, in an overlapping demographic, among Republicans. It did less well among liberals and Democrats.
Sociologist Jonathan Haidt helps explain why in “The Righteous Mind,” his seminal work about how conservatives and liberals differ in their moral foundations. Early in the study, he sought reactions to a story about a woman who cut up an old flag to make rags. He reflected: “I also began to understand why the American culture wars involved so many battles over sacrilege. Is a flag just a piece of cloth, which can be burned as a form of protest? Or does each flag contain within it something nonmaterial such that when protesters burn it, they have done something bad?”
Haidt found sanctity is among the strong moral foundations for conservatives. Not so much for liberals.
Flag-burning protesters manage to quite vividly display their fury at the country letting them down, but they do themselves or their causes no favors. They would win more sympathy, and support, if they reversed their approach. Carrying the flag at their vanguard, in much the same manner as it is mounted on pickup trucks at Trump rallies, would send the message: “We are proud Americans, too. We deserve to be treated as such.”
My wife is absolutely correct. The flag doesn’t belong to one side or the other. It belongs to all of us.
The ultimate test is whether we treat it respectfully, which explains why I hesitated at the gift shop. Ever since the red, white and blue format was decreed by the Flag Act of 1777, Betsy Ross and her many successors have abided by the tradition. The purists likely won’t think of it this way, MAGA might not think of it this way, you might disagree, but the cap to me tastefully portrays patriotism without being too much in anyone’s face. No matter the colors, it honors the stars and stripes.
Having considered all of the above, with or without my wife’s blessing, days later I returned to the gift shop to purchase the cap.
— Richard Gilman
If It’s Needed at Home, Why Not Nationally?
Aug. 24, 2025
My wife and I face the daily flow of decisions that come of sharing a life together. A good many are trivial, a few demand more attention. Frequently we are on the same wavelength, although we have been known to have a squabble or two.
These little flare-ups are a reality of life. The important thing is how we handle them.
For a number of reasons, it shouldn’t be hard for us. We go back a long way. We share the same basic values. We spend a lot of time together. Our sources of information aren’t exactly the same but overlap. We trust that the other has our collective best interests at heart. We have a lot of experience dealing with each other.
Two weeks ago I wrote about those who monopolize a conversation with a one-sided viewpoint. Perhaps some marriages operate on much the same dynamic, with one partner or the other dominating. Not us, we’d end up in divorce court.
Even with all the advantages we have going for us, we still have to conduct a dialogue about each issue that comes along. Sometimes these discussions come easily, sometimes they are more difficult. Regardless, the one and only way we can find some accommodation that is satisfactory to both of us is through an exchange of views. I need to know what she’s thinking. She needs to know what I’m thinking.
We have two major motivations for working together:
- We each have a stake in the outcome, and therefore should have a say in the matter. Our forefathers protested taxation without representation. On the home front, representation is a given. But it means nothing unless meaningful participation comes with it.
- Two heads are better than one. My friend Bill Barr contends that the beauty of polarity management, which you have been reading about here, is that incorporating both sides produces an outcome that is superior to what either side could or would have produced on its own. The same is true on the home front.
My wife and I aren’t special in this regard, I’d guess most couples favor dialogue over monologue. The point is to draw a comparison between that and how the country is operating.
The country enjoys few if any of the advantages that we do as a couple. On the plus side, the nation has a long and rich history. Other than that, not much. We the people are spread far and wide, not just in location but in experiences. Our shared values come into conflict. Our sources of information provide us with different perspectives and even different facts. Our spotty record of dealing with each other, once exemplified by bipartisan leadership in Congress, is currently at an ebb. All the trendlines are in the wrong direction.
In the face of all of these shortcomings, we should be working overtime to exchange views. My wife and I must do that, even knowing each other as well as we do, if we hope to get anything accomplished. As for the country, knowing each other as poorly as we do, it ought to be mandatory.
Instead, we have conned ourselves into believing it’s not necessary to inquire into, much less incorporate, other perspectives. As a direct result, we have fallen into the dangerous position of having the side in power dictate the course of action. Donald Trump has taken this to new extremes but both parties are guilty. This direction is as damaging for the country as it is for a marriage:
- Everyone has a stake in the outcome, and yet half of the country effectively has no say. Their elected representatives are powerless. That’s representation without participation. We are challenged to define the intention of democracy. Is it that everyone has a voice? Or is it that winner take all?
- Rather than putting our heads together in the hope of coming up with lasting solutions, we sub-optimize by accepting the untempered wish list of one side or the other.
Not everyone, but most of us recognize deep in our hearts that we need to work together. In full disclosure, it is a curiosity that in the most recent nationwide public opinion survey conducted by Our Common Purpose, the number who said our representatives should find middle ground rather than fight it out was down to 65 percent. Down to 65 percent? It had been running at 70 percent or more in previous polls. It’s too early to tell if this is just a blip or we have slipped a little.
A common thread in the comments made by respondents to various of the polls has been the need to listen to each other. We wish it, we just can’t seem to deliver it.
Dialogue versus monologue should be simple enough. National issues are a lot more complicated than choosing what color to paint the bathroom but both need to begin with asking the other party “what do you think?,” actively listening to the answer, and hoping the question is then reciprocated with “what about you?”
No question, it takes two to tango. By virtue of our marriage certificate, my wife and I are the designated participants in discussions about domestic matters. It’s a shame that in politics, partners are not similarly designated. Absent that, lodged as we are in our respective bubbles, it is hard to track down those of the other persuasion who are 1) willing to participate, 2) prepared to share sources of information, and 3) capable of exchanging thoughts in reasonable fashion.
That does not excuse us at the local level from actively seeking discussion partners. At the national level we have to scale up with some more institutionalized approach.
We are not going to have meaningful progress unless and until we begin exchanging views. Dialogue, not monologue, should be our aim at the kitchen table, over the neighbor’s fence, and across the breadth of the land. Without that, all we have to look forward to is more of the same.
— Richard Gilman
Rants Put a Stop to Real Conversation
Aug. 17, 2025
The tempests blow up out of nowhere. Conversations with friends that all of a sudden take a political turn – usually a turn for the worse.
Just in the past month, I have been party to four such episodes. This isn’t a case of one side or the other. Two involved liberals. Two involved conservatives. Doesn’t make any difference, either way sours a perfectly good get-together.
One might excuse these verbal barrages as nothing more than people expressing their convictions. Ours is a free country, what should be wrong with that? The problem is that these objectionable moments follow a basic downward pattern:
- They start with a statement. Even when the first sentence is posed as a question (“What do you think about . . .?”), there is barely a pause before the protagonist begins to answer it.
- The comments are stridently one-sided. It’s almost humorous when the speaker says he or she doesn’t know what “those people” are thinking and yet evinces no real interest in finding out.
- The speaker cuts off demurrals by citing “facts” that in the moment can’t be proven one way or the other.
- Like a snowball rolling downhill, the tirade builds momentum. The speaker has to get it all out. If someone ventures to chime in on any point, that’s encouragement to keep going.
- When the topic is finally exhausted, the speaker bounces to some other grievance. And away he or she goes again.
These overweening espousals of a particular point of view seem to indicate Political Derangement Syndrome, or maybe it’s Political Obsession Disorder, or some other designation we can dream up. At bare minimum it’s anti-conversation in nature and form.
Even if they could get a word in edgewise, others around the table are left kind of speechless. It’s hard to have a useful interchange when participants don’t have the same reality, the same factual foundation. Listeners are perplexed, then uncomfortable, eventually even perturbed. If they can get up and walk away, they do.
I for one struggle in these situations. It’s not who I am. In the heat of the moment, I’m not nimble enough of mind nor quick enough of tongue to interject a more constructive direction. In part that’s because I’m too quick to withdraw into myself, wondering for the umpteenth time what brings on these unprovoked political harangues.
Admittedly, expressing my objections here is little more than a rant of my own. Please forgive my whining. I’m seeking, however, to set the stage to next week look more constructively at the essential element of a conversation — which these days we desperately need to be working on.
For the moment, due to the work on Our Common Purpose, I’m likely oversensitive to one-sided arguments. Even so, I have no doubt you have had similar experiences. Please help us to understand. What are the blowhards trying to accomplish? What inner need is being satisfied? Maybe among friends, they perceive it just as banter. Maybe they need to vent. Maybe they’re seeking validation for their point of view. Maybe they’re trying to educate. Maybe their inner need to tell all is more important than the damage it causes. Your insights would be appreciated.
To get the ball rolling I consulted, what else?, Google. It turns out there’s a whole lot written on this general topic, a fair amount of it coming from psychologists. For instance, most everyone has heard of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Credit goes to Charles Krauthammer, the late political columnist and speechwriter who also happened to be a psychiatrist. When he came up with the term, way back in 2003, it was Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Today TDS cuts both ways. It can refer not only to those who are fanatical in opposition but now also to those who aggressively support him regardless of what he does.
Apropos of that, what we’re discussing here is a malady that afflicts people of both parties. When the potential label of Political Derangement Syndrome – or PDS – came to me in the middle of some recent night, it sounded clever, maybe even original. A working definition could be “someone who compulsively imposes his or her political preoccupations upon others.”
Balance that wild idea against the caution of one of the multitude of psychologists who have weighed in on this general subject. Brad Brenner Ph.D. of the Therapy Group of DC, argues strenuously that “pathologizing political disagreement—whether it’s hurled at critics or flipped back at die-hard supporters of Bush, Obama, Trump, Clinton, or anyone else—undermines mental well-being and shuts down meaningful conversation.”
No argument that meaningful conversation is the objective but what’s really standing in the way? Is it that a too-easy putdown is used to dismiss legitimate discussion? Or is there actually a pathology, a deviation from the norm, that makes real conversation impossible? The rants in question here shut down the meaningful conversations that Brenner is trying to protect.
Another resource, RehabNet.com, which specializes in addiction recovery, chooses the somewhat softer label of Political Obsession Disorder. Its description of the malady is right on the money:
“Political obsession can easily turn into emotional overload, especially during an election year or shortly after when coverage of the candidates is still going strong. This can result in extreme anxiety, anger, or frustration, especially during political events or when discussing them. To make matters worse, people who are in the throes of political obsession may actively seek out encounters and situations that are known to trigger strong emotional reactions.”
The article goes on to note that “it can be a scary and dangerous combination” when one is caught up in both political obsession and political polarization. That’s a dastardly chicken-and-egg cycle indeed.
None of these writeups venture to say what specific behaviors might qualify as a disorder. Every set of circumstances is different but can mere conversation qualify? I submit that it can, not based on the side being taken but where there is a predilection toward instigating conversations that aren’t really conversations at all. Syndrome, disorder, whatever, this tendency is the bane of true conversation.
All in all, there are probably not that many perpetrators. There are though plenty of us victims.
–Richard Gilman
Next: Dialogue vs. Monologue
‘Mid-Party’ Sparks Lively Reaction in Poll
Aug. 3, 2025
The country’s hopelessly divided standoff could be altered if only we’d take advantage of an entirely different dynamic in the voting population.
As unbending as the two sides might seem, lurking right in front of us is a desire for something better. It might come as a surprise that only half of the country says they are locked into their political affiliation, be it Republican, Democrat or independent. Somewhat miraculously, an equal number would be receptive under the right conditions to an alternative.
That opens up an immense opportunity, either to create a strategically positioned 3rd party, or to retool one or both of the existing parties.
The even split in political affiliation is borne out in the most recent nationwide public opinion survey of 1,500 voters conducted in July for Our Common Purpose*. The outcome in this particular poll was 36 percent Democrats and 35 percent Republicans. Another 24 percent regard themselves as independents.
The poll also shows respondents are equally divided in another way, this in their level of commitment. At the end of the survey, 41 percent said they would stay true to their current affiliation. Just over that, 42 percent said they would be open to an alternative. The rest weren’t sure.
The trial proposal put forward in the poll is a “mid-party” (a term originated here) that would model how those of varying political persuasions can work together, draw from both Republicans and Democrats to develop policies that build on the best thoughts of both, and seek candidates who pledge to work cooperatively with others.
Please note this construct is not to be confused with Elon Musk’s purported America Party and whatever it might represent. Musk’s name was spontaneously raised by about 30 of those taking the poll, indicating his announcement caught some attention, but two-thirds of those mentions were negative.
Quite in contrast to being controlled by one individual, the concept being tested here proposes to draw in the best of both sides. One of the survey participants, a Republican from metro D.C., laid out a clinical summary: “Offer a moderate alternative to bridging the gap between the Democrats and Republican parties, appealing to centrists and independents.”
He was not among those inclined to go along but many were. Just as he surmised, moderates (53%) led the pack. Liberals (50%) were right up there too. Then came conservatives (41%). There was even interest, although in lesser numbers, from those who consider themselves either “very liberal” or “very conservative.”
Their written comments mirror the greater population. Some folks out there don’t care a whit about anything political. In today’s lingo, “ldk.” At the other extreme, a small number of hardliners doubled down on their respective ideologies.
In between there is a lively dialogue, even if the participants were not directly responding to the comments of one another.
A number resorted to familiar arguments in dismissing the prospects of a 3rd party. A dumb idea, a distraction, a pipe dream, a waste of time and money. “Repugnant,” wrote a Long Island Republican. Some cautioned about the spoiler problem. A few Republicans were convinced it would solely hurt their candidates; a few Democrats feared the same for their candidates. Many seized on the mountainous difficulties. Third-parties have a lousy track record. They can’t compete in big-money politics. The existing parties will crush any such effort.
One troubling observation comes from a Florida Republican who worries that “a centrist party would fail to adequately represent anybody; a party that tries to please everyone pleases no one.” The solutions offered by a 3rd party would have do more than split the difference.
All of these are legitimate concerns. The question is whether we should reflexively use them to shoot down a potential solution to our problems. Many Americans are hungry for change. They are so exasperated by the current state of affairs that it’s conceivable they’d grasp at just about anything, but many are receptive to a new entrant on the political scene.
An independent from a town 40 miles outside of Boston could barely contain himself. “This is WAY overdue. Let’s get ‘er done.”
Some respondents instinctively grasped the benefits. A Democrat who lives in rural Iowa, smack dab in the middle of America, writes: “Honestly, I think a “mid-party” could really be what a lot of people are looking for right now. It feels like both major parties have moved so far to their extremes that regular folks who care about common-sense solutions and just want leaders to work together don’t really feel represented anymore.”
Some intuitively sensed it would cut into extremism. “Too much radical left and right. We need to find a middle ground and compromise more than we do now,” offered a conservative from rural Kansas. “I would love a new non-radicalized party to avoid the bi-polarism (pun DEFINITELY intended) of the elephants and donkeys,” wrote an independent from a small town in Missouri.
And it gives them better choices than they have today. “Hard left vs. hard right leaves me with no viable choices,” a Republican from Spokane complains. “It will be a lot more representative to a large percentage of Americans who are kinda intermediate,” is the estimation of a young independent from Iowa City.
All of the above represents a massive opportunity for someone, a wide-open space that for the well-being of the country should be filled. In the words of another Republican from metro D.C., “Politics today often feels very polarized, and a space that genuinely seeks to blend ideas from different sides could help break down barriers and foster more constructive dialogue.”
Whether that role is played by one of the existing parties or needs to be taken up a new party is an open question. Either way, it’s hard to imagine that either one of the Big 2, including the Democrats who desperately need this kind of fresh start, would do so voluntarily.
A Democrat from Minneapolis writes, “I would like to see a party that would challenge the norms of both parties, and truly understands America and its new values.” With that as instigation, perhaps one or the other existing parties will respond. A fellow Democrat from Cleveland visualizes how “it might help both Democrats and Republicans to see a new party that might show them something they are not representing to their own voters and they might be able to use that themselves to strengthen themselves.”
The only way that will come about is if they’re pressured into it. The challenges for a new party are no less severe, beginning with developing and holding to a higher standard.
A Republican living in the Democratic stronghold of Boston acknowledges: “A mid-party sounds good if it focuses on real solutions and puts the country above politics. People want to see less drama and more working together.”
That’s the formula for anyone wanting to improve upon what we have today. We just have to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity lurking right in front of us.
— Richard Gilman
*I thank my friend Frank Jones for helping to underwrite this survey.
A number of you have expressed opinions on this general idea, some at much greater length than the poll comments presented above, but additional thoughts are always welcome. To catch up on the existing commentary, scroll to the bottom of 3rd Party May Be Needed to Show Better Way – Our Common Purpose
New Poll Shows Parties Switch Sides on Debt Limit
July 20, 2025
The just-passed “big, beautiful” budget bill generates one big swerve in public opinion.
Despite all the noise they make to the contrary, Republicans aren’t the fiscal hawks they historically have been. At least for the moment, Democrats have taken their place as watchdogs on the federal deficit.
That’s one upshot from the just-completed nationwide public opinion survey conducted for Our Common Purpose by Survey USA. The various topics covered in the poll will be incorporated into an assortment of upcoming articles.
Not surprisingly, given that the “big, beautiful” bill was championed by the President and rammed through Congress by the Republican majority, it is liked much better by Republicans – although even they aren’t all that thrilled. On a scale of -100 for dislike to +100 for like, the poll shows that Republicans weakly support the new law at +29. Independents and Democrats dislike it to the tune of -24 and -55, respectively.
The only degree of consensus comes in regard to the biggest provision of all. It’s hard to say no to a tax break. A majority of Republicans along with pluralities of independents and Democrats will take the extension of the 2017 tax cuts, thank you very much.
Otherwise the poll reveals predictable partisan reactions toward major provisions of the legislation . . . the tighter restrictions on food stamps and Medicaid . . . cutbacks on incentives for clean energy . . . conversely, more spending on the military and border security.
Independents, who should be the tie-breakers in this kind of standoff, align mainly with Democrats in thinking the bill isn’t so beautiful. A plurality of Independents are against the military and border security increases. And while they’d tighten restrictions on food stamps, they line up behind clean energy and Medicaid.
It does not come as a surprise that there are differences of opinion on legislation that was rammed through Congress without consultation by one party to the other. There was no reconciliation of the conflicts in the underlying values, for instance the tension between compassion and fiscal discipline. Nor in the aftermath is there any agreement on the overall effects. The poll shows Republicans believe the new law will be overall positive for themselves individually and positive for others as well. Democrats, meanwhile, see it as negative both to themselves individually and to others. Independents evenly divide on the effect to themselves individually but believe the overall effect on others will be negative.
Regardless, it comes as a steep cost.
The public opinion survey conducted last September by Our Common Purpose showed that nearly everyone either favored reducing the debt ceiling or at minimum holding to its current level. Republicans led the pack, with 89% backing one of those options or the other. Democrats and independents were right up there too.
But the new legislation has scrambled all that. Democrats, who typically get castigated for being the big spenders, are aghast. Asked in the new poll whether “we should be willing to accept that the bill will add another $3.3 trillion to the federal deficit,” 59% of Democrats said no. Only 21% were okay with the increase, and another 13% had mixed emotions. Independents answered in similar percentages.
Of course, the deficit has two components — how much comes in and how much goes out. Democrats might want to spend more, but at the same time the GOP is intent on reducing what is paid in. We’ve become accustomed in recent years to the obstreperous objections of the conservative Freedom Caucus to increases in the debt limit. They made life miserable for everyone from the Speaker of the House on down.
Not that the objectors have gone away but the new poll shows a turnabout in their constituency. Whether it’s out of self-interest or following their leader wherever he might take them, many Republicans have suddenly turned cavalier to the debt limit. To the question of whether we should be willing to accept adding $3.3 trillion to the deficit, 35% of Republicans agreed. Another 30% expressed mixed emotions. Only 24% said no. It’s a stunning swerve.
With the help of a compliant Congress, campaign promises made in search of votes are too easily enacted into law. Financing them by borrowing even more money is not only convenient, it has become far too easy.
It’s Big and Not So Beautiful — In Process or Result
July 1, 2025
We are caught up in partisan governance, which isn’t to be mistaken for good governance.
Good governance would be based on the merits of the argument, carefully weighing the competing interests, acting consistently over a period of time. It would be based on rational discussions and logic, such as by using the polarity management approach that has been advocated by Our Common Purpose. The objective, not always achieved, is doing the best we can, all things considered.
Partisan governance, meanwhile, serves a combination of ideology and political self-interest. It fulfills campaign promises, satisfying the wishes of one-half the population. That necessitates abrupt reversals of previous legislative or executive acts, often with just the stroke of a pen, that were friendly to the other half of the country. The objective is partisan advantage that can advance a one-sided vision of America.
This partisan approach is taken by both sides, but we’re watching it unfold big-time with the President’s “big, beautiful bill.” No argument, nearly 1,000 pages is big. Beauty on the other hand is in the mind of the beholder. Even Republican lawmakers can’t escape the blemishes. What’s worse? Cutting the legs out from under Medicaid or cutting the legs out from the 2016 tax cut?
Whichever way it goes will not be good for the country. Not in the result, not in the process.
The Trump Administration, in party with the Republican majority in Congress, are of one mind that our policies are too liberal and our spending too lavish on safety-net programs such as SNAP and Medicaid.
They reflect a deep-seated resentment among hard-working Americans who don’t earn a lot that they are supporting those who, they believe, aren’t working so hard. The harder it becomes to stretch their paychecks to buy groceries, the more they resent food stamps. This viewpoint was described more fully in Part IV of the series on American values.
The so-called liberal elites reject this line of thinking. One accomplished educator whom I was interviewing a few years ago summed it up thusly: “That’s stupid.” Learned man that he is, his utter disregard and disrespect was a low light of the usually uplifting field work for Our Common Purpose. More than any other experience it illustrated to me why we as a country are in such deep do-do.
In reality, contrasting points of view often represent important values we hold dearly. It’s just that they are destined to come in conflict with each other.
The abstract version of the conflict on this particular issue is in how we define fairness. Liberals tend to think of it as “fair and equal treatment.” Conservatives lean more to “fair rewards proportionate to effort.” Learn more about this in Part VI of the series on American values. Both of these interpretations have legitimacy but inevitably they come into conflict with each other. The question is how we balance them.
At a more concrete level, the conflict could be stated as fiscal discipline versus the belief that government should provide a safety net for those needing it. As an aside, it is hard to see how adding $3.4 trillion to the national debt serves fiscal discipline. Otherwise, similar to the preceding paragraph, these are both legitimate values that inevitably come into conflict with each other. The question again is how we balance them.
Our response to that these days isn’t anything to brag about, with partisan governance in full control. One side holds the bigger stick for a time. It will impose its will, summarily deciding the correct balance between this and that. Never mind the fallout. The “big, not so beautiful” legislation is causing even some Republican legislators to blanche, but these days they are no more than vassals of the President and they will find the votes. The other side can only resolve to put things back in order whenever it returns to power.
The better approach is methodically working through these differences, recognizing that none of us knows it all. There is something to be said for each point of view. If we’d study on it, we’d see that the conflicting values are each important. True to the ideals of polarity management, we’d list out the upsides and downsides of each. From there, we’d do our best to reconcile the two in a manner that, while the package will need to be re-balanced from time to time, can be maintained from one political regime to the next. Instead of oscillating wildly, we’d stabilize in the center.
You would call that good governance. It’s what we should be striving toward.
— Richard Gilman
Spending Cuts Can Only Boost Executive Power
Feb. 18, 2025
Those hoping the Supreme Court will smack down the President for overstepping his bounds are going to be disappointed.
Not that he will go unscathed. He will lose a few, but he is going to win some as well. And the whole process will take so long that there will be lasting damage regardless.
Those with a vested interest are counting on three bits of legalese that seem to offer powerful protection from the drastic spending reductions the President is ordering.
First, the Constitution is clear that Congress has the power of the purse. Only Congress can make appropriations, and without that money cannot be spent. Second, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 declares that if Congress appropriates money, it must be spent. Third and finally, the Constitution requires the President to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Slam dunk, case closed. Or maybe not. To a layman unschooled in the law, there seem to be two major sticking points in the rush to judgment.
The first is that this Court is into parsing words, which turns into parsing the law. Maybe that’s because Chief Justice John Roberts is trying to be open-minded. Or maybe it’s because he has no choice in weaving his way through and around the varying degrees of conservatism in the 6-3 majority.
His majority opinion last summer granting broad immunity to the President went to excruciating lengths to distinguish between official and non-official activity, the first of those being immune in the Court’s mind and the second not immune. He then weaseled a little by declaring that under certain circumstances, non-official activity could also end up being immune.
In that very same opinion, he drew another line in the sand. Quoting earlier precedents, he wrote, “The courts have ‘no power to control [the President’s] discretion’ when he acts pursuant to the powers invested exclusively in him by the Constitution.” On the other hand, “if the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere ‘individual will’ and ‘authority without law,’ the courts may say so.”
This, I believe, scratches the surface of the fundamental question of the moment. Do the appropriations bills approved by Congress in and of themselves make law of every line item contained therein? In which case, the President could well have exceeded his authority. Or to obtain the status of law, do programs and lines of spending need to be enabled by separate statute? If that’s the case, everyone is going to be scouring the books for what’s there and what isn’t.
Which brings us to the second sticking point. The spending cuts might appear to be random, but they are far from that. And this distinction is a more basic one than reversing policy on climate change, diversity, and what have you.
The first thing to note is that the President’s henchmen haven’t gone after military spending – the nation’s largest discretionary expense. Is that because the President is a big fan of the Defense Department or because the Constitution explicitly gives control of military spending to Congress?
Neither has he gone after Social Security or Medicare. Not that he won’t in the future but these programs are classed as mandatory spending that will require a longer-term approach than the quick strikes being dealt today.
Beyond that, a mantra is developing among Administration officials.
The new Energy Secretary said in an interview with Bloomberg News last week that “we will follow the law.” A spokesperson for the Interior Department said last week that the “ongoing review of funding complies with all applicable laws, rules, regulations and orders.”
This is all in keeping with the constitutional requirement that the President “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” But what is the law?
One direct example comes from the disemboweling of USAID. It is funded through the Foreign Assistance Act, which without question is law that dates back to 1961. And what does the law say? In a key section dealing with the billions that up until now were allocated for agriculture, rural development and nutrition, right there in black and white it says: “The President is authorized to furnish assistance, on such terms and conditions as he may determine.”
With the fate of the entire Department of Education hanging in the air, Linda McMahon mentioned in her testimony to become its head that the handling of funds for special education could be moved to another department. Not eliminated but moved. Why is that significant? Because providing for special needs is mandated by long-standing legislation. It’s law. Other parts of the education budget, such as grants for education research, might not be so fortunate.
That’s where “the law” starts to get murky. To qualify as such, does it need to be codified in legislation specific to it? That’s a high standard. Or do non-specific headings in omnibus spending bills such as the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law also qualify? That’s a lower standard.
The country’s highest tribunal could clarify matters by simply and unambiguously reiterating that Congress has the power of the purse. But that’s much too easy, the internal and external pressures on the Court far too great. It is very hard to imagine that the Court, in its version of wisdom, won’t somehow try to parse the baby. In so doing, it won’t be putting the executive branch in its proper place but rather will end up augmenting the power of the presidency.
One can readily imagine a parallel to Trump’s election interference case. Having laboriously established a distinction for immunity between official and unofficial acts, the Court sent the case back to district court to determine which of Trump’s actions fell into which category. (Of course, the clock ran out before that could be done.)
In whatever appeals it agrees to hear from the new wave of lawsuits, the Court could establish some high bar that must be met for funded programs to qualify as “law” and kick the cases back to the lower courts to determine which of the programs rise to that standard. Those that don’t would end up at the mercy of presidential discretion.
Everyone with a stake in federal funding better be puffing up their statutory imprimatur. Short of that, the Court will inevitably end up granting the President more power than heretofore we thought he had.