Lots of Risk in No Labels Bid
Sept.3, 2023
The possibility that the bipartisan No Labels might field a “unity” candidate for president in 2024 is producing two contrasting storylines.
- One version is prospective victory, or close to it. No Labels says there is both a need and an opportunity for its candidate, claims a majority of voters are open to the prospect, and maintains it won’t go forward unless polling shows it can win.
- The other version says trouble ahead. With democracy thought to be in peril, this is not the time for a quixotic bid by a third-party candidate that could easily muddy if not muck up the result.
These competing scenarios are weighed in this the second of a series about the ambitious plans of No Labels. There is still more to written on the subject, about what is being said and what isn’t, but we’ll save that for a different day.
No Labels claims no decision has been made on a presidential run. It plans to announce its intentions at a convention it’s setting up immediately after the March primaries. Meanwhile though it is busy getting on the ballot in as many states as possible, and is out there selling its viewpoint.
“The most powerful forces in both major parties,” No Labels argues, “are still driven by ideology and identity politics instead of common sense. The dominant leaders in both parties can’t or won’t break us out of this vicious cycle.”
Rather than being stuck with a Trump-Biden rematch, it claims 59% of voters would be open to considering a moderate independent as a third-party candidate.
Whoever that might be, or even how he/she will be chosen, is a bit of a mystery. Joe Manchin, the independent Democrat senator from West Virginia, and Jon Huntsman, the former Republican governor of Utah, were the frontmen at No Labels’ coming-out party in July but I’d guess any number of possible tickets are being considered.
Let’s though be realistic. With an announcement scheduled just six months before the election, whoever the candidate is would have to be shot from a cannon to make a dent in public awareness. Ross Perot, for instance, entered the 1992 race in February of that year. He leveraged his near celebrity status as a business tycoon into the most successful third-party candidacy of recent times, and still he ended up with only 19% of the popular vote.
If victory turns out to be a hill too high, we’re left to worry about the second scenario. Given the high chance that the disputes over the 2020 election will be repeated in 2024, a serious third-party candidacy can only mean unintended trouble.
No Labels is doing all it can to downplay the concern. “The Spoiled Logic of the Spoiler Argument,” its website contends.
For proof it turns to none other than the aforementioned Ross Perot. His candidacy didn’t harm anybody or anything, goes the argument. The support for Perot, a middle-of-the-roader, came from conservatives, liberals and moderates alike. And anyway, it wasn’t nearly enough to affect Bill Clinton’s lopsided victory over incumbent President George H.W. Bush.
The Wall Street Journal has a different view, blaming Perot for dividing the GOP coalition. Nonetheless it’s hard to assign much if any direct responsibility to Perot because the outcome wasn’t even close. Clinton took 370 electoral votes, Bush 168, Perot himself had 0.
The stronger case of a third-party candidate spoiling an election, despite No Labels’ arguments to the contrary, is the role played by Ralph Nader in 2000. We have short memories but the drama of that particular election will come back to you quickly.
Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush ran neck and neck in the national vote total, 48.38% to 47.87%. The Electoral College was equally close, with everything coming down to a to-and-fro battle for Florida’s 25 electoral votes. The state see-sawed back and forth all night, with Bush’s eventual margin of 537 votes so slim that by state law a recount was required. The ensuing legal battles over voter confusion and hanging chads went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court, itself split 5-to-4, had the final say in giving the presidency to Bush.
Any of this sounding familiar? Does it foreshadow in any way what was to come 20 years later?
The drama might not have happened were it not for Nader, the consumer activist running as the Green Party candidate. Nader was no Ross Perot, garnering just 2.74% of the national vote.
He performed even worse in Florida. Even so, his 1.63% share of the Sunshine State represented 97,488 votes, far more than the 537 votes that separated Bush and Gore.
This review is not complete without also mentioning New Hampshire. Its four electoral votes were the difference between Bush’s final tally of 271 to Gore’s 267. Flip tiny New Hampshire and flip the entire election. While the results there were not as close as Florida, Nader’s 22,198 votes were still more than Bush’s winning margin of 7,361.
If the liberal-minded Nader hadn’t been on the ballot in Florida or for that matter New Hampshire, how would his backers have voted? Did he spoil the presidency for Gore?
We don’t know. Exit pollers found that Nader supporters were equally divided in their sentiments toward Bush and Gore. But frustrated liberals had to blame someone. The fallout toward Nader was so severe that Public Citizen, the non-profit organization he started in 1971, was forced to disavow any remaining connection to its founder.
That’s the moral of this tale. We don’t know. IF No Labels decides to field its Unity ticket in 2024, IF the ticket doesn’t come close to winning, IF the major parties run neck and neck as they did in 2000 and 2020, how will the Unity candidate factor into the outcome? We don’t know.
No Labels admits as much in trying to downplay the concern. Its website emphasizes that it will enter the race only if “there is a viable path to Electoral College victory” and rather huffily asserts:
“The spoiler charge is being peddled by people who want to scare the public, sow doubts, and limit Americans’ choice at the ballot box. It is premature to make these assumptions because we have no idea who the candidates will be or where the country will be in November 2024. There is no way to know how a No Labels ticket would affect the race and anyone who claims otherwise is just spinning.”
Exactly. We don’t know. IF 2024 turns out to be neck and neck, the losing side – whichever side it might be – will find it easy to scapegoat No Labels, and the entire nonpartisan movement, for spoiling what otherwise would have been the will of the majority. And we won’t even know how valid that blame will be.
No Labels deserves considerable credit for all it has done to build up bipartisanship when it is so desperately needed. The Wall Street Journal says “its members are patriots who want to spare the country from a campaign that offers four more years of the last two polarizing Presidencies.” Maybe the No Labels brain trust is correct in believing the bipartisan ideal can be fully realized only from the White House.
These though are difficult times. Well-intentioned acts can have unintended consequences. No Labels has to pick when the intervention it has in mind has the best chance to succeed and will play to best effect.
One can conceive of that in 2028. It’s harder to see in 2024. There is already too much at stake.
–Richard Gilman
Part I of this two-part series can be found by clicking below on Next Article.
Please direct comments to ourcommonpurpose@gmail.com
No Labels Ups the Ante
Aug. 27, 2023
No Labels has taken a label for itself. From now on it wants to be known as the “Commonsense Majority.”
The new brand doesn’t roll off the tongue quite like Democrat or Republican, but it’s a good path to take.
And that’s only part of it. No Labels also has now introduced a 70-page agenda laying out what it says is the will of the American public, and the early stages of a game plan to field a candidate for President.
“Americans have the ability and the responsibility to demand a restoration of common sense in the 2024 election,” No Labels writes. It claims its agenda “is the blueprint for how to do it.”
This is the first of a two-part series reflecting on those plans.
Today: the agenda.
Next week: the potential run for President.
The “common sense agenda” offered by No Labels begins with the assertion of five “foundational beliefs” that it says many politicians have forgotten.
We are grateful to live in a country where we can openly disagree with other people.
We care about our country more than any political party.
We respect hard work and believe it should be rewarded, but we also believe America should help people who cannot help themselves or fall on hard times.
We want a well functioning government that addresses our common problems and empowers every American – no matter who they are, where they are from, or what they believe – to reach their full individual potential.
We know America is not perfect. But we’d rather live here than anywhere else.
No argument with any of that. These statements are entirely consistent with the polling done by Our Common Purpose showing that most Americans agree about basic concepts.
But No Labels – a well-heeled operation with lots of members, influential connections and some big donors – does not stop there. It goes on to attempt to apply this approach at a totally new level of detail. It posits 30 big ideas that, while still somewhat general in nature, venture into a level of specificity well beyond that attempted by Our Common Purpose.
That’s a big step forward. However, one can question to what extent these 30 ideas generate the same widespread agreement as the basic concepts listed above. Some of the 30 could be labeled self-evident, some are unrealistic, one idea about budget reduction seems inconsistent with multiple other ideas, one or two might even be misinformed. While No Labels makes repeated references to all the polling it has done, the blueprint provides few specifics as to who favors what and in what numbers.
Those important quibbles aside, the agenda is comprehensive and ambitious. It’s as if Santa Claus were handing out legislative gifts. There’s something for everyone in the 70-page blueprint that is divided into 10 sections: the politics of problem solving, being responsible, border security and immigration, public safety, America’s youth, energy and environmental security, protecting America, democracy, empathy and equality, and opportunity.
No Labels is perhaps most strident in the section on being responsible, meaning that the federal government needs to be more fiscally responsible. Idea 2 addresses the solvency of Social Security, and warns we’re only making matters worse by kicking the can down the road. Idea 3 spells out what Washington must do to stop spending “so much more than it takes in.”
And to its credit, No Labels does not shy away from the big issues of our moment in history, including abortion, gun rights, border security and climate change. In each of those cases, it seeks to balance interests in an effort to find the middle ground.
Abortion: Idea 26 proposes we “find a sustainable and inevitably imperfect compromise that balances the belief of most Americans that women have a right to control their own reproductive health and our society’s responsibility to protect human life.” The blueprint notes that most Americans do not support a total ban on abortion and at the same time do not support unlimited access to abortion at later stages of pregnancy.
Gun rights: Idea 10 acknowledges that Americans have a constitutional right to own guns, but contends that “society also has a responsibility to keep dangerous weapons away from dangerous people.”
Border security and immigration: Idea 6 recommends we do more to secure our borders, including “even physical fortifications in some areas,” and reform the asylum process. Idea 7 then goes on to urge we attract more legal immigrants to fill out the workforce and provide a path to citizenship for the dreamers.
Climate change: Idea 15 supports “an all of the above energy strategy,” meaning that we should continue to explore for fossil fuel resources, rekindle nuclear power, and improve the regulatory and permitting process to provide essential minerals and metals to build clean energy technologies.
The very nature of acknowledging the trade-offs that are involved will frustrate the diehards. The New York Times noted that the No Labels platform “has something for everyone to embrace – and just as much for both sides to reject.”
But that’s what we have to do if we are to move forward. No one recognizes this more than No Labels, which has been promoting cooperation in Congress for more than a decade. In fact that’s the beginning and the desired end of this entire exercise.
The blueprint begins with Idea 1 stating “America can’t solve its biggest problems and deliver the results hardworking taxpayers want, need, and deserve unless Democrats and Republicans start working together side by side on bipartisan solutions.”
Together the 30 ideas represent a daunting mission. The prospect of achieving all 30 goes beyond belief. Accomplishing just one would be impressive enough.
Maybe, however, putting them all on table is the best approach. Tempting as any one offering might sound to any one individual, it’s tough to sell them one by one. No Labels has come to the conclusion that it must offer a full menu and a presentable leader if it is to attract and serve the common sense majority it is touting.
–Richard Gilman
Next week: the potential run for President.
House Could Take the Better Way
Aug. 20, 2023
The U.S. House of Representatives once again finds itself at the precipice.
It showed the best of itself in May by working through its differences to approve an increase in the nation’s debt ceiling, with nearly equal support from both sides of the aisle. Then in July it rather quickly reverted to the worst of itself, bogging down in a partisan showdown over next year’s military budget.
Now with September fast approaching, the House is staring at a series of other appropriations bills that must be approved before the new budget year begins Oct. 1. The chamber recessed for August without resolving the suddenly contentious funding for the Agriculture Department. Eight more “must-pass” appropriations bills are yet to be considered by the full chamber. September promises to be ugly.
The contrast between the House at its worst and at its best suggests there are two different ways the very same assembly could be configured.
The first we all know. A chamber cleaved down the middle between two sides constantly at war, the Republicans now owning a numerical advantage so slight there’s no room for defectors. This is the version on full display in the showdown over the military budget. 
The second could be. Each side has its extreme faction, the so-called hard left and far right, that aren’t going to budge. They are outnumbered, however, by a body of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle who while holding differing political persuasions are committed to find a way forward. This coalition carried the day by a large margin, 314-117, on debt ceiling relief.
At the middle of this teeter-totter are 77 center-right Republicans affiliated with one or more of three House groups known as the Problem Solvers Caucus, the Republican Governance Group and the Main Street Caucus.
The center-rightists pride themselves on being pragmatists. Listen to what others have to say. Work out what one can get and has to give in return. Find the votes to get it done. Move on.
Rep. Dusty Johnson of South Dakota, chairman of the Main Street Caucus, has described his group as “pragmatic conservatives who actually care about getting to work.” The caucus overlaps with the Republican Governance Group. The website of its chairman, Rep. David Joyce of Ohio, adds that members “carefully consider policy stances and aim to make a difference rather than pushing partisan noise.”
They come to this either because deep-down they believe it’s the right approach or in some cases for the pragmatic reason that they represent a swing district.
They find themselves in either an enviable or difficult position. Sway in one direction, they line up in solidarity with their ultraconservative colleagues to push through highly charged partisan showdowns. Sway back in the other direction, they collaborate with moderate Democrats to pass legislation that appeals across the aisle.
There’s little question in my mind which of these options is preferred by most Americans. They don’t want to perpetuate the divisive nonsense. They want it solved.
In poll after poll conducted over the past three years by Our Common Purpose, a representative sampling of voters nationwide repeatedly express hope for something better from our elected officials. Asked in the most recent of these surveys whether we should fight it out or work it out on controversial legislation, a whopping 93 percent said work it out.
The center-rightists are actively engaged in reaching across the aisle, for instance in holding a recent joint briefing on artificial intelligence with the 100 or so members of the center-left New Democrat Coalition. Beyond that, the center-rightists are endeavoring behind the scenes to sideline inflammatory legislation they know won’t play well back home.
Most visible to the public, however, is what happens with those measures that do reach the House floor. The center of support for the debt ceiling measure came from the middle of the political spectrum. Of the 104 Democrats affiliated with the center-left caucuses, 98 voted yes. Of the 77 Republicans who belong to the center-right caucuses, 69 voted yes.
By themselves they don’t have enough votes in the 435-member House to swing it themselves on this or any other measure. But the circle of lawmakers who were open to reason and willing to negotiate grew to 314 on this particular bill and has been even larger on other bipartisan legislation.
Can they team up again to stave off more partisan staredowns? Unfortunately, it appears it’s not in the cards for the appropriations bills to be considered next month. With input already in and markup of the bills complete, the battle plan seems already drawn.
Looking forward, the political pressures, burdens and consequences for the center-rightists are considerable. The ultraconservatives, far fewer in number, have shown themselves to be punitive. Enough Democrats have to be willing to swoop into help, as they did with preliminary matters just to get the debt ceiling relief to the floor. So be it. By working across the aisle, they found a way.
The House teeters between two ways of arranging itself. The familiar version is hopelessly split in half, the two sides fighting out every step. The other bridges the chasm by working out differences, the extremists be darned. The first of these we all know. The second is what could be.
The center-rightists have the sway to make it happen. It remains to be seen what they will do.
–Richard Gilman
Look below to see which representatives from your state are among the 77. Let them know what you think.
These Reps Could Bridge Divide
These are the 77 Republicans who have chosen to join one or more of the three center-right caucuses in the U.S. House of Representatives. You can encourage those from your state to seek out bipartisan solutions not just some of the time but all of the time.
Arizona
Juan Ciscomani
Arkansas
Steve Womack
California
John Duarte
David G. Valadao
Jay Obernolte
Kevin Kiley
Young Kim
Ken Calvert
Michelle Steel
Florida
Laurel Lee
Mario Diaz-Balart
Maria Elvira Salazar
Carlos A. Giménez
Aaron Bean
John Rutherford
Idaho
Mike Simpson
Illinois
Mike Bost
Indiana
Larry Bucshon
Erin Houchin
Iowa
Mariannette Miller-Meeks
Randy Feenstra
Kentucky
Garland “Andy” Barr
Louisiana
Julia Letlow
Michigan
John James
John Moolenaar
Bill Huizenga
Lisa C. McClain
Minnesota
Brad Finstad
Pete Stauber
Mississippi
Michael Guest
North Carolina
Chuck Edwards
North Dakota
Kelly Armstrong
New Jersey
Jeff Van Drew
Christopher H. Smith
Thomas Kean Jr.
New York
Nicole Malliotakis
Michael Lawler
Marcus Molinaro
Nicholas J. LaLota
Elise Stefanik
Brandon Williams
Nick Langworthy
Andrew R. Garbarino
Anthony P. D’Esposito
Nebraska
Mike Flood
Don Bacon
Nevada
Mark Amodei
Ohio
Michael R. Turner
Troy Balderson
David Joyce
Bill Johnson
Max Miller
Oklahoma
Stephanie I. Bice
Oregon
Cliff Bentz
Lori Chavez-DeRemer
Pennsylvania
Guy Reschenthaler
Glenn Thompson
Brian Fitzpatrick
Dan Meuser
South Carolina
Nancy Mace
South Dakota
Dusty Johnson
Texas
Michael McCaul
Monica De La Cruz
Pete Sessions
Tony Gonzales
Beth Van Duyne
Michael C. Burgess
Dan Crenshaw
Jake Ellzey
Utah
Blake D. Moore
John Curtis
Virginia
Jen A. Kiggans
West Virginia
Carol Miller
Washington
Dan Newhouse
Wisconsin
Bryan Steil
Derrick Van Orden
Mike Gallagher
Source: Washington Post survey of the “Five Families” in House majority
A Model of Working Together
June 22, 2023
Voters should take heart that approval of the debt ceiling relief bill, as messy as the process was, ended up a model of elected officials actually working together. Congress will need to use the same approach again if it wants to get anything done.
Before and after the debt measure was passed by the House of Representatives (days later it would also be approved by the Senate), most all media attention was devoted to the ultra-conservatives and the progressives on the opposing end of the political spectrum.
For days beforehand the media focused on whether the House Freedom Caucus would derail the deal negotiated by the White House and House Republicans. The over-stoked drama being whether Speaker Kevin McCarthy, working with a super-thin majority, could rally enough Republicans to pass the measure. One headline warned, “Debt bill faces growing revolt within G.O.P.” After the vote, the hardliners would again take center stage, this time to demonstrate their unhappiness by withholding their votes on the most routine of matters.
This is the world we live in. The zealots do nothing better than how well they work the media. The outsized importance given to their every utterance creates the misimpression that we must pick between the extremes.
Fortunately when it came to the debt ceiling, matters were not left to them. While they blustered away, something far more positive was taking shape in the corridors of Congress. There were plenty enough votes from the lots of Democrats and lots of Republicans working behind the scenes in support of the measure.
That meant all the attention being paid to the outliers, and all the handwringing that resulted, were badly overblown. Unlike the usual votes along party lines, the outcome didn’t depend at all on every Republican lining up behind the bill. Credit to the Washington Post for accurately sensing the tide. Its headline days before the vote: “A Washington surprise: Centrists push back against fringes in debt deal.” The final margin turned out to be 314-117, far bigger than we had been led to imagine.
Plenty of plaudits have gone to President Biden and Speaker McCarthy, but the unsung heroes are the rank-and-file lawmakers of both parties who came together to do the right thing. This was a moment when simple, higher-minded principles that deep-down guide the country, in this case that we will pay our bills, transcended partisan politics.
Rather than the usual dynamic of Republicans on one side, Democrats on the other, the yeas and nays could better be characterized as the pragmatists versus the die-hards. While the diehards, represented by the Freedom Caucus on the one side and the Congressional Progressive Caucus on the other, get most of the media attention, it was groups occupying more of the political center that carried the day.
Rep. Ann Kuster, D-N.H., chairperson of the House’s New Democrat Coalition, has described her group as “the ‘can-do’ caucus. We get the job done.” Across the aisle, Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., chair of the Main Street Caucus, described his group as “pragmatic conservatives who actually care about getting to work.”
Different words but, party affiliations aside, the two descriptions have an air of similarity. While fully acknowledging the divisions of government, Kuster has declared, “let’s demonstrate to the American people that mature and pragmatic legislators will get the job done.”
Kuster said she believed from the very beginning that the vote on the debt ceiling would be “from the middle out.” She was right. The winning coalition included 92 of the 97 New Dems and 63 of the 68 Main Streeters.
The give-and-take that led to agreement is the course strongly preferred by the public. In extensive polling done over the past three years by Our Common Purpose, the question has been asked in a variety of ways but the answer is always the same. Voters have indicated time and again they want their elected officials to put aside party politics to get things done. One striking example comes from the most recent poll taken in January. When respondents were asked to choose whether legislators should work it out or fight it out, a rather astonishing 93% said they should work it out.
The idea of Republicans and Democrats voting together for the common good was more than some representatives of the far right and hard left could stomach. They were left to sputter and then, in the case of a few ultraconservatives, to act out their frustration.
Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., took to a podcast to grouch about the Speaker playing footsy with the Democrats. “We’re going to force him into a monogamous relationship with one or the other. What we’re not going to do is hang out with him for five months and watch him go jump in the back seat with Hakeem Jeffries.”
Jeffries, D-N.Y., the minority leader of the House, might not have appreciated the metaphor, but Gaetz’s analysis did get right to the crux of the matter. There is a choice to be made about whether our representatives cross the aisle to get things done.
They did so on debt ceiling relief. The President appropriately has taken to promoting the result as the Bipartisan Budget Agreement. With this as a model of working together, the question now is whether it can happen again. It’s likely the only way this session of Congress will get anything done.
Few actions rise to the immediacy of raising the debt ceiling. The give-and-take of bargaining produced enough concessions for both sides to declare themselves winners. The product of their labors had backing from the leadership of both parties. Taken together, those advantages don’t come along every day.
But other “must-pass” legislation is on the horizon. A series of appropriations bills must pass for the government to function. Another deadline looms on Sept. 30, by when the federal budget for next year will need to be enacted. The Farm Bill, critical to agriculture, also comes up again this year.
If even a limited number of ultraconservatives continue to play hardball, the Speaker will again find himself in a bind. The question the media should be asking the next time around is whether the requisite votes can again be cobbled together from both sides of the aisle.
The bipartisan action on debt ceiling relief shows that on matters of national importance Congress can find a way to work together. Republican Johnson of the Main Street Caucus chose not to comment for this article but Democrat Kuster believes there is further business to be done with those she calls “reasonable Republicans” to deliver bipartisan solutions on issues such as the Farm Bill, workforce development, even on controversial reforms in the permitting process for large projects.
There is promise here, even in the divided House of Representatives. Voters should be clear with their representatives in Washington that they want to see more of the same.
–Richard Gilman
Most Prefer Working Together Over Fighting
The confrontive political standoff we have today is not what the great majority of us want.
This conclusion comes through once again, emphatically, in Our Common Purpose’s most recent public opinion survey conducted by Survey USA in January 2023.
It’s not that respondents are oblivious to present circumstances. They were asked in the most recent survey to show on a sliding scale (ranging from -100 to +100) whether we are divided or united. Their answers veered distinctly toward divided, averaging out at a -34.
Present circumstances, however, contrast sharply with what they want. When asked to show on the same scale (-100 to +100) whether they wished us more divided or more united, their answers veered resoundingly in the other direction, averaging out at +76 for more united.
These sentiments are reflected in a variety of other measures as well as follow-up comments that reflect both the regret felt by respondents over what we have, and their wish for something better. Listen, for instance, to these Voices of America:
I totally agree we must be together rather than the condition we are in right now.
- Independent from Amherst, OH.
We need to unite and save the senseless energy we use fighting amongst one another and put it toward making our country a better place . . .
- Republican from New Boston, MI.
It seems like the entire world is caught up in partisanship. I feel the USA needs to try to work together as an example to the world.
- Democrat from New Orleans, LA.
Support for Principles Remains Strong
Even in the face of an ever-shifting political landscape, support for the 10 Principles to Unite America remains strong.
The 10th principle, Education Is Crucial to Our Future, nudged upward to tie Equal Rights for All, Responsibilities for All as the co-most popular ideals in the most recent public opinion survey of registered voters conducted by Survey USA in January 2023. The two each drew strong agreement from 81 percent who were surveyed.
Otherwise, the strong agreement with the remainder of the principles stayed within the ranges established in the previous six surveys. The latest percentages of those who strongly agree:
- We’re better united than divided. 77%
- Even with our flaws, we have much to cherish. 66%
- Our great democracy is only as good as we make it. 69%
- Give us liberty, though not to harm others. 66%
- We are a nation of laws — that need to be equally applicable to all. 79%
- Equal rights for all; Responsibilities for all. 81%
- Government – at all levels – needs to be better at what it does. 80%
- Our military stands strong to deter, not to provoke. 66%
- New opportunities are needed in communities across the land. 62%
- Education is crucial to our future. 81%
All-In for We’re Better United
Nearly 80 percent of Americans strongly agree we’re better united than divided. Most of the remaining 20 percent somewhat agree. Many substantiate their support with comments that in one way or another call for us to act in common, be united, come together.
This amidst the gloom that division is all around us. Everything seems to be politicized, from school boards to public health officials to the U.S. Supreme Court. The nation is divided on major issues such as gun control, immigration and climate change, and we don’t have a way, or the will, to solve them. We watch discord in Washington, D.C., and experience it in our own backyard. Against this backdrop, anything to the contrary defies imagination.
Except the results of the surveys* conducted for Our Common Purpose are consistent and unwavering. Four out of every five voters strongly agree we’re better united than divided. Democrats, Republicans and independents strongly agree in near equal percentages. The agreement hasn’t wavered even during the worst of the past two years.
In an environment of inflammatory rhetoric, disinformation, contentious state legislation, all the uglies we face today, the poll results provide an encouraging message. Average Americans like you and I aspire to something different, better, more than we are getting today. The only catch being if that we want different-better-more, then we need to do different, better, more than we are doing today.
The comments gathered in the course of taking the surveys, presented here as Voices of America, add up to three objectives for we citizens that, simple as they sound, need to be stated as such. More to come in this space on each of the following. We need to:
— Raise up what unites us.
— Face down what divides us.
— Recognize that it’s on us to build unity together.
Granted it’s one thing to state objectives, quite another to make actual progress. We can’t though stand idly by without trying.
* A series of seven nationwide polls were conducted by Survey USA in a 30-month period from June 2020 to January 2023.
Backing for Three Principles Shifts Slightly
While support for the 10 Principles to Unite America remains steady and strong, the backing for three of the principles shifted slightly over the course of six nationwide public-opinion surveys conducted during the tumultuous period between June 2020 and January 2022.
The polls were conducted by Survey USA at regular intervals over the 18-month period. Each of the first five surveys were of 1,500 voters. The most recent survey polled 2,500 voters, adding up to a total sample size for the six surveys of 10,000 voters.
The biggest shift lifted #7 Government – At All Levels – Needs to Be Better At What It Does into a tie (with ongoing front-runner #6 Equal Rights For All, Responsibilities for All) for the highest level of strong agreement among the 10 principles.
Buoyed by increased support from Republicans that coincided with their losing the presidency, the principle enjoyed a spike of 6 percentage points from 76% to 82%. The Republican interest in better government jumped from 70% with Donald Trump in the White House to 80% when Joe Biden took over, and has risen since to 84%. Meanwhile, support for the ideal from Democrats (80%) and Independents (81%) remained strong.
The next biggest change was to #4 Give Us Liberty, Though Not to Harm Others, which dropped 5 percentage points from 69% strong agreement in June 2020 to 64% in January 2022. This change was driven by another shift in Republican sentiment. In the midst of ongoing unhappiness over mask-wearing and vaccinations, Republicans who strongly agreed with this principle slipped from 67% in June 2020 to 59% in January 2022.
The third largest change was to #2 Even With Our Flaws, We Have Much to Cherish, which gained 4 percentage points from 64% to 68% over the 18-month period. In this case the change was driven by Democrats who in June 2020 were re-examining our past in the wake of the killing of George Floyd. The percentage of Democrats who strongly agreed with this principle started off low at 58% but has since inched upward to 66%. Even with that, their support remains a bit below Republicans, whose strong agreement with this principle stands at 74%.
The levels of strong agreement with the other seven principles in the succession of polls has remained steady, varying no more than 2% over the 18-month period.