3rd Party May Be Needed to Show Better Way
(Continued from home page)
gain from each of the approaches, what do we stand to lose? And ultimately, how do we meld the best of both into a solution that is superior to what could be achieved just by the left or just by the right?
Instead of an X, the better approach to managing these conflicts looks more like w. That’s w with a collaborative arrow as the middle leg. Combining the best of both sides in this fashion will bring us closer to common purpose. And of course that’s what Our Common Purpose is all about.
The development of this series has been revelatory to me. It has brought system, rigor, and the promise of repeatability to pursuing common purpose. For you, I hope it has added understanding and insight as to why we are stuck and what it will take to get unstuck.
Not that any of this will come easily. Far from it. This new approach differs in three respects from business as usual:
- It is to be built on logic, not knee-jerk reactions.
- It will take a staggering amount of real work to organize.
- It requires active collaboration of the differing political persuasions.
Sorting and melding of this kind is ideally suited to Congress. Its members are generally representative of America. Its committees are well structured to do the groundwork. The committees have the staff, the resources, and the clout to summon anyone who might be needed.
The methods being proposed here are novel but the collaboration wouldn’t be new. At many moments in our history Congress has worked together on difficult issues. Unfortunately, today it deliberately wards off such high-minded activity. The partisan pressures to toe the respective party lines are too strong.
If Congress isn’t up to the task, Democrats would be smart to seize upon the opportunity this presents. Having missed by a mile the two deciding issues of the 2024 election and now of divided opinion on how to move forward, they could use the methods being advocated here to design a broader-based appeal to America. And yet there is fat chance of this occurring, for it would entail incorporating the opposing perspective. That’s short-sighted for Democrats and unfortunate for the country.
Which leaves us with a rather preposterous third option. Is there any way to develop this new approach other than launching a third party? How else do we model a new method of thinking about politics?
One is tempted to tag a new entity the Best Party. “Best” not because it is superior, though maybe it could become that. “Best” because of the polarity-thinking approach it would take in establishing common ground. Melding the best of the left and the best of the right into something better. Either/or would be replaced by the best of one and the best of the other. But naming it as such would be a distraction from its serious intent. How would you label it?
The party would be the logical home for moderates who today are voiceless, in part because they don’t have a platform to stand upon. And it would be the logical home for anyone who doesn’t care as much for partisan perspectives as they do for what’s best for the country.
The drawback is that will take work, real work. It’s easy to react based on our inner instincts, voice our opinions, even write letters to the editor. It’s much harder to commit ourselves to sitting down with those of different perspectives to work through an issue – and there are many issues – in an honest, disciplined, structured way.
The work could be organized in a centralized or decentralized fashion. I can’t resist pointing this out because it’s one of the original business-oriented examples on which polarity thinking is based. Like any polarity, centralized/decentralized each has its upside and downside.
The centralized version would come by creating what we could name the Institute of Common Sense. The institute would plow through the work in organized fashion, and do it precisely by the book, but it would cost big bucks and give the say-so to what might seem like a relative few.
The decentralized alternative would be to foster dozens, hundreds, thousands of conversations across the country. They would be very uneven in their execution, and probably not done entirely by the book, but they would engage lots of people in the process.
Either choice is large beyond comprehension. And yet don’t we kid ourselves by believing lesser measures are going to do? Political trends are deeply entrenched, moving in the wrong direction, and spread far and wide across a very large country. It takes a lot to turn a battleship.
Please weigh in. Do you see another way?
— Richard Gilman
Thank you for pushing us to reevaluate our deeply polarized political landscape. Your insights into the potential of a third party are compelling, especially considering the significant number of voters disillusioned with the current two-party system.
However, the core issue isn’t merely about the number of parties. It’s about cultivating a political culture where diverse perspectives are genuinely heard, leading to the development of more effective and sustainable policies.
An emerging avenue is the adoption of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). This system encourages candidates to engage with a broader electorate, as success depends on widespread support rather than just a passionate base. RCV promotes civility in campaigns and ensures that winners reflect the majority’s preference. The Freakonomics podcast episode 595, “Why Don’t We Have Better Candidates for President?” delves into how our current system often favors extreme viewpoints due to financial incentives. RCV could counteract this by fostering a more inclusive and representative electoral process.
Regardless of the party structure, our democracy thrives when more voices are included and valued. This might happen with the introduction of a third party or perhaps our democracy is best sustained when candidates need to focus on the views and needs of the majority.
I applaud your perseverance to unite the country, but I am afraid a 3rd party would not be competitive against the two existing parties. The money stashed away by both the Democrats and the Republicans is enormous. It would take a group of billionaires to invest in a 3rd party, and we can see what that might get us — another Elon Musk as a presidential advisor.
I will try to stay positive about this issue and not become more left-wing than I probably already am. I will try to refrain from throwing my hands up in the air and screaming when President Trump issues another ridiculous policy. And I will continue to read your blog for inspiration on how to remain calm during this chaos.