3rd Party May Be Needed to Show Better Way
Final installment, Part IX of a series, June 1, 2025
The thousands of words written here about how American values unite and divide us could be boiled down to two letters. We need to get from “X” to “w”.
This final installment of a series that began in January offers reflections and recommendations, but first to recap what we’ve learned:
Consistent with the theory of values pluralism put forward long ago, even our most cherished values inevitably come into conflict with each other. The million-, billion-, trillion-dollar question is the method we choose for dealing with those conflicts.
How we mismanage them today is readily depicted by the X. We literally are at cross purposes with each other.
The two political parties eagerly encourage our primeval instincts of instantly sensing friend or foe. One party promotes the positive side of its remedy to any conflict and castigates the negative side of its opponent’s approach. The other party does just the reverse, promoting its own positives and lambasting the opposition’s negatives. It’s either/or. Either you’re for our approach or you’re against it. The X is not collaborative, it’s confrontive.
In reality, however, neither side has all the answers. One side’s approach is not the “problem” and the other the “solution”. Polarity management, the method of thinking that has come front and center in this series, posits that any two conflicting approaches, any two conflicting values, each have their upside and their downside.
This leads to an overarching observation that cannot be overstated. We need to fundamentally re-orient our thinking.
Rather than fixating endlessly on the vertical axis of left versus right, we need to focus instead on the horizontal axis. Up versus down. What are the positives of both sides’ position on any given issue? What are the negatives? What can we 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
Since 2017 there has been a “Problem Solvers” caucus in the US House of Representatives. It is associated with the “No Labels” political party, established around 2010. Both the caucus and the party nominally still exist. The party’s slogan is: “Not Left. Not right. Forward.” The caucus is composed of about 25 Rs and 25 Ds (notably, no No Labels), and lists as recent accomplishments helping to avoid government shutdowns. Other focus areas include immigration, national debt, jobs, energy, public safety, health insurance, and child care. The party was ballot qualified in about 25 states in 2024 before ultimately failing to find a viable and willing presidential candidate. As I recall there was controversy over NL being used as a pawn to spoil one party or the other’s chances.
Unfortunately but not surprisingly, increased partisanship around investigating the 2020 capitol attack and ousting House Speaker McCarthy in 2023 have apparently hurt the caucus’s ability to vote as a unified bloc as originally intended. Prominent co-founder Joe Lieberman died in early 2024, which also hurt the organization’s ability to recruit candidates.
What can we learn from these unity party efforts to date, both successes and failures? Were their objectives sincere? Is their strategy viable? Is there anything we would have them do differently or more/less than they already have? Did they utilize polarity management concepts? Why haven’t they gained more public awareness and support? After some more research, perhaps we could contact them to get their perspective and lessons learned.
Bill, nice to hear of your positive experiences in business managing conflicting objectives (polarities). I like all your ideas about growing a more civic minded and skilled culture.
I had another idea to modify my proposal. After working on these skills individually and with practice partners and then small teams of fellow citizens, rather than next trying to “go national” it could be effective to present those examples to our own local elected officials at various levels (city, county, state, federal). We could tell them this is what we want you to do: work with each other to actually solve problems, not just struggle for absolute power. Here’s a method, we tried it so you can too. If you do, we’ll support you at the next election!
The “BOBS” caucus — “Best Of Both Sides”!
Ah, the alluring bugle call of a third-party, coming to the rescue like cavalry, with the hand of God reaching down from the clouds for good measure. So simple an image (despite mixing metaphors), yet Wikipedia lists scores of third parties in the US that perennially try and fail to have positive impact. Why? Spoiler effect and winner-take-all elections.
Until we have widespread ranked choice or approval voting, or proportional representation (even more far-fetched), I suggest we set our sights lower and closer to home.
1. For starters, practice polarity thinking individually as an exercise. Read about an issue on AllSides and then summarize pros and cons and try to articulate a solution that maximizes pros and minimizes cons from both Left and Right.
2. Meet up with a friend who supports the common purpose vision but comes from a different background, share your analysis and ask for their critique. Extra credit: pick another issue to work on together from scratch.
3. With a larger group of people who have also completed steps 1 & 2, develop tactics and a flexible script of generic stock phrases that could help move typical non-productive win-lose arguments (and divisive sound bites) toward conversations seeking maximum shared benefit and minimum harm using the polarity management model. For example, “Is anything perfect? (No.) Then what are some of the downsides of this view?” Or “Do you know anyone who disagrees with you on this? (Yes.) Anyone you respect or care for? (Yes.) So what do you think they see as upsides for their view?”
4. Use these new skills to start talking and listening, calmly and sincerely, with people all around us on important issues of the day — instead of continuing to awkwardly avoid them, or worse yet having them blow up on us!
We can call people who engage in this way Problemsolvers(TM) and those who don’t Troublemakers(TM). 😉
If and when we begin to succeed in growing some local constituencies, awareness, and track records from the above grass roots efforts in personal and political mediation, then it will be time to take it national. For reasons mentioned above, it would need to be adopted by one of the two existing major parties. I think it would almost certainly be the one whose political strategy is already based on a “big-tent” approach, but whose leadership is struggling to contain the outbreak of factions (eg, over Israel/Palestine) by satisfying the aspirations of a diverse membership.
I humbly suppose we could also use some outside expert advice all along the way. For example, what kind of a claim or pushback did the author and publisher of the Polarity Management book receive, which we should learn from? Or what advice might we receive from another well-known and respected journalist like, say, Judy Woodruff, who has been investigating the political divide issue for PBS?
Andy, I was drawn to your comments and want to add on and offer a challenge.
I have been a part of effective polarity management in business settings. It can be a valuable way of getting high value solutions while avoiding the trap of compromise (compromise often being the least offensive solution as compared to the best solution). In work settings it is easier to identify a common end goal i.e. increasing bottom line margin while also increasing customer satisfaction. The polarity is tricky but manageable in a comparatively closed system (a company).
I view the application of polarity management in our political system as equally valuable but far more difficult to manage. I am drawn to the longer-term value and the rich solutions coming from polarity management practices. And I like the steps you point out in your own comments. I have seen people (Richard is a tremendous example) effectively train, generally small groups to seek solutions based on polarities. While it is highly valuable, I am not sure how to grow a timely, influential larger nucleus designed to address our aggressively bifurcated current two-party system.
To that end I see a combination of factors as valuable drivers to make sustained change over time. Drivers I see as critical include:
• As you mentioned – continue to drive an understanding of polarity management at a community level.
• Significantly increase school curriculum focused on civics.
• Support the implementation of rank choice voting (pushes politicians to focus on a broader set of innovative ideas). Interestingly, RCV could lead to the introduction of third-party options.
• And last . . . .wait for it, introduce a mandatory public service requirement. A possible scenario would be either following high school graduation or at some point prior to age 22, young people chose to serve for either one or two years of service. Options would include a wide variety of paid programs (think VISTA, Americorp or Peace Corp) or the military. Following the completion of service, people receive financial credits to be used in paying for education or training.
I see this as a credible way to link young people of highly divergent backgrounds, leading to increased community and country commitment, increasing a true world view, and driving increased empathy.
What do you think?
Community discussions about real oversight by citizens to ensure democracy.
Our political system from top to bottom allow, support, and shrug their shoulders at gross abuses of the law and ethics to enable abuses of power by those who get elected, even here on my city council.
Remember Fred Friendly’s panel discussions?
Create similar forums where a skilled moderator leads the discussion among a range of voices in each community – and not just those selected by the powerful, influential, or even the people ruled by their emotions – since they are so manipulated by those they “like” or “admire”.
Review the purpose of a legislature at the local and state levels. What responsibilities to our elected officials there have to adhere to the law and ensure others also do not abuse their powers and trample the rights of all citizens or a few citizens. What are abuses of power? Ours include rushing emergency measures through without even council members reading or having discussed in open meetings. Ignoring complaints of illegal and unethical actions of city department leaders and staff – no one cared that our Police Chief intentionally committed perjury while giving sworn testimony – about a crime. These abuses, these actions, these shrugging of shoulders is what leads to all that we see at the national level.
Diane raises an interesting question. Are abuses of power learned at the local level and gravitating upward? Or are they originating at the national level and trickling downward?
Your proposed solution gives some needed consolation and hope. The challenge is how to realize it. Possibly organizations promoting equitable democracy such as The League of Women Voters and others can use your approach and model to bring people to one table for open discussions which then can be conveyed to legislators interested in change and other influential entities that help make it a reality.
Thank you for not giving up
Our Common Purpose has suggested that a new political orientation supportive of centrist or moderate governance is necessary to combat the current power of extremism. In determining how to effectively create and manage a new political orientation – whether it be creating a third party, or the shifting of emphasis within an existing party – it would be wise to consider three ideas.
The first, expand the use of ranked-choice voting at all levels. People do not want to throw their vote away, nor assist in the election of their least favorite candidate. Ranked choice voting minimizes both of these and gives third-party or reformist candidates a better chance of electoral success.
Second, provide moderate candidates better instruction as to how to campaign and introduce new legislation after elected. Moderates would be wise to copy the candidate preparation method used by the Charles Koch Summer Fellow Program.
In the late 1980s Charles Koch, began inviting potential conservative political candidates to an eight-week course with a curriculum designed to implement conservative thought into public policy. Koch’s goal in footing the bill for these political neophytes was clear. He hoped to help the conservative cause endorse savvy candidates who were well-schooled in conservative political thought, and who could operate highly effective campaigns. Once these campaigns were successful, Koch’s courses provided model legislation that would create conservative policies and laws.
Whether one admires or detests the goals of the Koch and his political education courses, one has to agree they were highly effective. Almost immediately newly-elected school boards and city councils were introducing and passing policies that were significantly more conservative. Shortly after this – when those council and board members used their new-found political experience to run for higher offices – state legislatures that had once been relatively competitive between Democrats and Republicans, became bastions of conservative thought, and Democrats became a decided minority. For example: Ohio, Florida, the Dakotas, West Virginia and Montana, which in the sixties, seventies and early eighties had politically balanced legislatures, became overwhelmingly conservative. While there may have been other reasons for this “conservative take-over”, there can be little doubt that graduates of Koch’s Institute were effective candidates and effective authors of new legislation.
Third, replace the primary election system in determining the party candidates who run in the general election. Primary elections, which were originally designed to be more representative of “the people’s will,” have led to extremism in both parties. In many states anyone who is not a registered member of one of the two major parties is not allowed vote in the primary election (closed primary.) In other states, where independents are allowed to vote (open primary,) members of the two major party often cross-over and vote for the most extreme candidate of the opposing party, hoping to face a more extreme, and consequently weaker opponent. Whether primaries are closed or open, extremist primary candidates have a distinct advantage over more moderate or centrist candidates.
After considering the challenges of creating a successful third party, I find that task so daunting that I hope we can find an alternative path to achieving the goals described by Our Common Purpose’s research. Given the results of the 2024 election, it seems that the Democratic Party would have greater reason to consider attempting this alternative path.
The concluding article of Our Common Purpose suggests that in order to accomplish the type of change attractive to a broader audience, a political party would need to “entail incorporating the opposing perspective.” There might be another route. Perhaps a political party could attract a broader-based appeal, not by adding opposition perspectives, but rather by minimizing or eliminating some of their own party’s more extremist perspectives that appear to be frightening or repulsive to the large group who consider themselves moderate.
The Democratic Party has done this before successfully by narrowing their party’s platform. Here’s an example:
During much of the Roosevelt era the Democratic Party was a coalition of a wide variety of interest groups. In 1946 Henry Wallace, a former vice-president was a member of Truman’s cabinet, and considered one of the key party leaders with a huge following of progressives. Yet, after Wallace authored an article supportive of communism and the Soviet Union, Truman fired him from his cabinet position and forced him out of party leadership. Wallace walked away from the party taking most of the party’s progressive wing with him.
Two years later, following Hubert Humphrey’s fiery speech condemning segregationist policies at the Democratic National Convention, a second powerful Democratic leader, Strom Thurmond, walked away from the party taking virtually all of the southern states – states that had been solidly Democratic voters for decades -with him. Not only did both Wallace and Thurmond leave the party, but they formed third parties to run against Truman in the 1948 presidential race.
Losing two of its largest voter bases should have spelled doom for the Democratic Party in 1948. Yet Truman won that election. How could the party lose so many votes and still be victorious? By ridding the Democratic Party of two of its most extreme wings (Communists and Segregationists), many Independent and moderate Americans no longer had reason to fear that the Democratic Party was too extreme, and changed their decision as to whom they would vote.
Today’s Democratic Party is much the same as the Roosevelt coalition as it accepts and promotes members from a wide variety of political beliefs – commonly called the Big Tent. But, by promoting so many beliefs, some moderates have come to define the Democratic Party by its most extremist positions. This fear may be based on false assumptions, but the fear is very real. The Democratic Party may not need to “incorporate” Republican perspectives into their platform; they may simply need to rid their party of some of its extreme elements that create fear within the minds of moderate independents.
This post has gotten too long. I’ll prepare a second post to this site in a few days in which I attempt to more directly respond to the two specific questions asked in Our Common Purpose’s concluding article.
I told you a year ago that if Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema would run as a third party they would get elected We talked about going to Dallas to visit Ross Perot to see what would be necessary to make this happen. Joe Lieberman passed away and the whole 3rd party convention came to a screeching halt. I am still ready to help you in any way I can!!!!!!!!
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.