How to Build a Major Third Party (Without Gimmicks)
And why we need to make the sausage
This story offers a blueprint for reforming the existing two-party system in the United States. It is the first of two parts. The second part will examine the plan’s potential shortcomings and evaluate solutions — check back here to read it.
There are things we cannot change. If history is just, it will show that the primary achievement of the Trump administration was death: from a pandemic that could have been reined in and that, at this publication, has killed 420,000 Americans; from sub-human immigration policies that caged living, breathing people and intentionally separated families; from a death penalty killing spree not seen in generations, without regard for trauma, mental illness, or intellectual disability, but with conspicuous regard for the skin color of those put to death; from relentless efforts to undo or undermine the Affordable Care Act; and, of course, from the hate it inspired in others.
The election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris is not a light switch. Where the Trump era brought unconscionable death, some of the killing forces put in place will remain forceful for some time. Some, however, were active long before Donald Trump entered politics — voodoo economics, police brutality perpetrated against Black and Brown citizens, and, again, a willfully broken health care system are only a few examples.
These and many of the challenges we face have been put in place or allowed to fester by the rotting of the Republican Party — something we likely cannot change.
On the matter of changeability, history makes a strong case that the United States is stuck with its existing two-party expression of the political spectrum.
I have argued in recent weeks that we have no choice but to alter our two-party structure, and that there is historical precedent for doing so amid circumstances similar to those we are living through. Yet the obstacles are great and conventional wisdom is justifiably cynical about the prospects. The only way to overcome these deterrents is if a critical mass of citizens sustains a movement, and the only way to sustain a movement is if transformation seems both essential and possible.
On the matter of essentiality — “Democracy prevailed,” as President Biden stated in his inaugural address; “Barely,” as many have stated in the days since. The roots of antidemocratic power run deep in the ailing soil. The only difference between weeds and invasive species is time.
Donald Trump is no longer president. As for the rest…
…everyone is behaving, charitably, the same as ever.
The Republican perspective on welfare economics also remains intact. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT), perceived adult, has already stated that the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion pandemic rescue plan is “not well-timed.” The pandemic rescue plan should not delay the immediate efforts of the Senate, as its members work hours per month to get this pandemic under control.
At the state and local levels, Republicans who are thought to have disrespected Donald Trump — by certifying election results, by failing to do enough to overturn election results, by intimating any consideration for impeachment, by acting with independent strength, by acting with evasive weakness — are under attack from within.
The right-wing media bubble is no closer to embracing fact-based journalism, and long-term trends will only exacerbate critical institutions’ antidemocratic skew. By 2040, per Mother Jones, “roughly 70 percent of the country will be represented by 30 senators. The remaining Americans, who are disproportionately whiter, older, and more rural, will have 70 senators.”
Again, a movement to remake our politics will be sustained only if transformation feels essential and possible. The Republican Party’s failure to support the basic functions of government, let alone advance the cause of multicultural democracy, forces our hand on the first point.
On the second, the matter of possibility — necessity may be the mother of invention, but seeing is believing. In that spirit, what follows is one illustration of one road to a more representative and responsive democracy.
The headline? Establishing a major third party can be done.
On the platform, part 1
Relatively healthy democracies grant a prominent, institutional home to the center-right. This is partly due to a large percentage of the population identifying with these ideological views, but, more importantly, a robust center-right apparatus is a buffer against a rising far-right.
As long as the majority of Americans remain rooted on the political spectrum somewhere between progressive socialist and pro-democracy/pro-fact conservative (including many who voted for Donald Trump), then a majority of Americans should want a center-right party that we — lawmakers and voters — can work with. The alternative is a far-right party we can’t work with, i.e. the modern GOP. If a healthy, functioning democracy is propped up in part by a sturdy center-right pillar, then reinforcing the pillar is in the best interest of all pillars that mean to do the people’s business.
The official Republican Party platform is not popular with a majority of citizens. Well, that’s not entirely fair — in 2020, there was no platform for the first time since the party’s founding. However, based on governing priorities and public polling data, we can confidently assert a few demonstrative examples.
Cutting taxes for the wealthy? Not popular.
Opposing all gun safety measures? Not popular.
Slashing health care protections? Not popular.
Restricting a woman’s right to choose? Not popular.
Counter-majoritarian rule? By definition, not popular.
Taxing the wealthy, supporting responsible gun safety legislation, strengthening the health care system, protecting Roe, and supporting democratic rule (for starters) should not be Democratic Party positions. Like being in favor of science, facts, and chocolate, these positions should fall squarely within the Overton Window and, therefore, provide no political advantage to a non-fringe party.
The “center squeeze” effect — in which one party is squeezed out of relevance by two reasonably popular parties on either side of it along the political spectrum — is something a new center-right party would avoid. As the Republican Party has moved further to the right, the abyss between it and the Democratic Party has grown unsustainably wide. There is more than enough policy space between Democrats and Republicans for a newcomer to sit down, get comfortable, and build a steady electoral coalition.
(From the Tampa Bay Times: “A 2004 Gallup survey found six in 10 people believed the two parties did an adequate job of representing American viewpoints; support for a third party hovered around 40 percent. By 2018, those numbers had flipped, with most Americans now saying a third party was needed.”)
To fill the gap, the center-right only requires structure to support an existing ideological appetite. (We need that third kind of heat.) Once in place, the predisposition of advanced democracies to embrace two center-adjacent parties will reinforce this new addition’s existence.
The Big Mo…ney
In 1992, billionaire businessman Ross Perot ran for president on his own ticket. Entering the campaign, Gallup had been conducting public polling for almost 60 years, and never had an independent or third-party candidate placed even second in its presidential polling data. In June of 1992, Gallup gave Perot a significant lead (39%) over incumbent President George H.W. Bush (31%) and Governor Bill Clinton (25%).
The campaign suffered self-inflicted wounds that rendered victory impossible, but Perot was a force. While he did not win votes from the Electoral College, his candidacy was different from other significant independent or third-party candidacies in the 20th century for three critical reasons: One, he was not running as a segregationist; two, his share of the popular vote was much greater; and three, the votes he received came from all across the country.
Perot was uniquely charismatic, sure, but he put his money to work. Famously, he bought 30-minute blocks on network television so he could, without interference, share his ideas with viewers. Tens of millions watched.
Ross Perot took bold steps to advance his own candidacy, and his efforts were, all things considered, remarkably effective. He did this while barely making a dent in his sizable wealth. Hold that thought.
In late August 2020, 400,000 people tuned in for the virtual convention of the Movement for a People’s Party. MPP is a progressive political organization that seeks to build a competitive party “free of corporate money and influence.” Whether or not MPP reflects your politics, securing more government representation and advocacy for working people is good.
Respectfully, MPP joined a game of Monopoly where the other players already own hotels on every property. The first step of MPP’s action plan is “Inspire and Empower,” and the details read: “Change hearts and minds, unify around a revolutionary progressive platform, activate people to build a mass movement.” I take no pleasure in comparing this strategy to one of the great cartoons of all time (though I do take pleasure in sharing it):
This first step of MPP’s plan is a bottleneck devoid of specifics and urgency, in large part because MPP lacks the immense resources that would be required to set bold goals and commit to a timeline for remaking our politics. Clear goals and timelines endow missions and missionaries with purpose, and they can be divided into institutional competencies and actions. Without big-time money, the plan boils down to good intentions.
You can build a movement at the grassroots level without insane money (at least to start). You can also build a movement with insane money that buys, among other things, grassroots organizing. Neither campaign model comes close to guaranteeing sufficient impact to make lasting change.
The not-bulletproof-but-closer-to-bulletproof formula is a movement that inspires grassroots activism and has access to insane money (e.g. Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign). This unusual combination requires the alignment of stars.
In this case, the cause is better, more representative democracy (and booting fascists to the periphery of meaningful power). With clear, loud, optimistic marching orders and evidence of legitimate support, the first organizers will come.
Now, what about that legitimate support, support that can launch a David cause with Goliath money, that can fire a campaign starting gun so loudly that Americans everywhere recognize it all at once, that can provide a statistically significant number of movement-driven, good-paying jobs on day one?
Outside of the federal government, the only outfit that both operates without a profit mandate and also possesses this dizzying level of unchecked power is the specific subset of plutocrats who would like to be Great Men and Women of History.
In a nation as wealthy as the United States, it is unforgivable for so many to have so little while so few have so much. The uberwealthy should pay much more in taxes, full stop.
But right now, that is not the game we’re playing. This is about outmaneuvering a radicalizing right-wing party that threatens the long-term viability of a democratic United States. (That right-wing party, by the way, is the primary political obstacle to addressing the wealth gap.) This is the only game in town, and we must come together in common cause to play it.
Now, imagine if a Ross Perot-type, instead of running for president, were to use their wealth to — practically and without overstating it — save American democracy?
Michael Bloomberg, whose net worth is estimated in the $50–$65 billion range, spent a cool one billion of that on an ineffectual presidential campaign. Let’s make the case for Bloomberg to lead this effort instead.
Dear Mike,
I’m sorry that you didn’t get to be president. But you can still be a hero who gets tons of recognition for doing something important, now and in the history books.
You recently spent almost $1 billion on your presidential campaign — again, sorry — and your wealth is only increasing. You’re also famous for your philanthropic leadership on existential issues like fighting climate change.
The latest existential fight is for our democracy. A radicalized Republican Party is breaking America’s governing institutions, leaving citizens’ calls for fair representation to wither on the vine.
But you can save us. You can build a machine to establish a moderate, influential political party and push the GOP out of the mainstream. If you were to put $3 billion in some kind of trust (no tinkering!), that money could pay 2,500 talented employees $100,000 per year — for 10 years — and still arm them with a day-one operating budget of half a billion dollars. And that’s before including donations or profits from merch!
Anyway, please think about it.
Sincerely,
Lots of AmericaP.S. ICYMI your money would be in a trust that you won’t control. But…
P.P.S. …as long as you don’t run for office again, you will get soooooo many compliments and a bomb obit.
$3 billion, a made-up number, is simultaneously an insane figure, a doable amount for the right (combination of) people, and appropriate for the scale of the endeavor. The cost to establish broad awareness around a specific campaign and activate political organizing nationwide will represent an extraordinary sum, and that’s years before stepping into the arena — recruiting candidates, meeting signature requirements, staffing races, paying election fees, etc.
For now, we live in a White, patriarchal society with extreme wealth consolidation at the top. If pitting the non-fascist subset against the fascist subset of that society can improve government for all people to the left of the fascists, we should do that.
Conveniently, and unlike MPP or others of its progressive ilk, a center-right party is likely to support plutocrats’ right to exorbitant wealth; seeking help from unaccountable billionaires without demanding all their billions is at least a plausible ask.
And what do these potential funders get for their contributions? If done right, credit.
So be a hero, Michael Bloomberg. Be a Great Man of History.
On the platform, part 2
Now, with a sense for the scale of the operation, we can return to establishing a platform that will attract organizers and, a few years down the line, voters.
The platform won’t represent ordinary people if it’s just the brainchild of the new party apparatus and its funders. At the same time, the new party apparatus has to be able to convey a vision if it hopes to make hay with ordinary people.
That’s why it’s important to start with low-hanging fruit, positions that most Americans already hold but are not supported by the GOP. As fruit (and polling data) go, the five examples we previously identified — taxing the wealthy, enacting responsible gun safety legislation, securing and expanding access to health care, ensuring women are in charge of their bodies, and basic majority rule — hang relatively low.
But, then, why not just vote for Democrats? The function of this new political entity is to champion values and ideological territory that are not represented by Republicans, who are radicalized, or Democrats, who are Democrats.
Creating a new platform that both attracts and reflects moderate and center-right voters means forgetting thoughts and feelings about who we are and embracing data. It means allocating significant funding to research and development — researching areas where groups of voters illustrate gaps in ideological representation, then developing a platform that supports relevant positions.
That means ongoing, widespread, big-time engagement — surveys, focus groups, community outreach, you name it.
In this time of politics as atavistic tribalism, many positions backed by Democrats are disregarded because of the letter “D.” A vital part of this engagement strategy is distinguishing positions that are broadly popular — but have a Democratic branding problem — from those that are too progressive for centrists and moderate conservatives.
In the realm of health insurance, for instance, where Medicare for All might be too sweeping for a center and center-right bloc interested in reform, a government-administered public option is a mantle that this new platform could embrace.
Over the course of years, even after the first candidates of this new party run for office, the outreach continues. Between intelligent marketing and growing awareness of the campaign, the base of participants in these engagement efforts will broaden and evolve. Potential voters who were interested in the early days might find that the platform has become a little too right- or left-leaning for their tastes. So be it — that’s part of the process of refining a vision that reflects the largest number of unrepresented centrist and center-right voters.
The more the platform comes to represent the electorate, the wider its appeal and the less fluid the party’s electoral coalition will be. The point is not to win every voter to this cause but to ensure social and institutional health for all.
$trategy
Building this from the top down and the ground up can’t be done without the money, the people, and the ideas.
And then you need a plan. There are more tactics involved in a grand strategy to remake American politics than I will reference here, but let’s explore several that are fairly important.
First, compete everywhere.
One of the well-documented failures of the Affordable Care Act was the amount of time between passage of the bill and tangible, everyday impact. Until Americans started to feel the difference in their care, the law was a branding disaster and political albatross. Many of the protections the ACA has since implemented are now quite popular, even if the brand never recovered.
Experience is our perspective, and every living American has only experienced the leadership of Democrats and Republicans. As ACA protections became more popular after they began affecting real people, or the concept of a pandemic lockdown seemed less farfetched when the pandemic lockdowns started, accepting a new party platform as a major development, i.e. not another Constitution Party, will matter when it becomes everyday.
Running statewide candidates will inspire others to step up. Do that. But winning locally is what changes an abstract, whimsical notion into a concrete movement. Friends and neighbors need to talk about it; the school board or city council needs a representative or two; if the high school is doing a mock debate of a local race, some students should be assigned to argue for the center-right. Where high-profile races and public engagement offer awareness, backing local candidates offers transformation.
On this front, an unusually large operating budget for a new political party comes in handy. It allows the organization to recruit knowledgeable, savvy operatives to advise or oversee campaigns. It can take care of many hoops that third-party candidates have to jump through to get on ballots. And before the first candidate runs for office, it can establish mass consciousness around a new, well-funded party brand, what it stands for, and why its mission is so important, thereby creating a more receptive electorate.
But that’s not enough to get the votes.
Second, cut deals.
See the big picture. Here’s an example: Broker peace between the Democratic Party and Republican officials who are wary about the direction of the GOP.
A fledgling center-right party — well-financed and offering campaign support, good PR, and a chance to shape the direction of this new enterprise — convinces Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to join its ranks. (Murkowski has stated that while she has no plans to become a Democrat, she may not be long for the Republican Party.) In exchange for not caucusing with Senate Republicans and agreeing to legislate as a free agent, Democrats agree not to run a candidate against Murkowski for reelection and offer her certain committee positions. Winning a seat in Alaska, while not unheard of, is a tall order for Democrats, and this deal insulates Murkowski from vote splitting with a Republican challenger and from obsolescence in the Senate chamber.
Here’s another example: Target far-right ideologues by running center-right candidates against them.
If Democrats agree not to run a spoiler candidate, the center-right can effectively offer a conservative alternative in redder parts of the country. House Republicans who often run unopposed, for instance, would have to compete for their seats against candidates who can rightfully claim to be mavericks. With a well-run campaign that advocates independence and not supporting fascism, some and perhaps many of these races would supplant antidemocratic representation with traditional conservative representation that isn’t beholden to the GOP. For the prospects of good government, that’s a world of difference.
Cutting into the power of a far-right party of obstruction (and worse) is good for Democrats, moderate conservatives, and all who desire a better-functioning government.
Third, campaign for new voting systems.
America’s democratic system is old — Irish journalist Abie Philbin Bowman compared American democracy to “a laptop from 1985.” What was once the best system of representative government the world had to offer is, in 2021, not.
The primary system used to determine election winners in the United States is plurality voting. With plurality voting, candidates do not have to receive a majority of the votes to win (only the most, or a plurality), and voters can only choose one candidate. Plurality is a suboptimal way to determine representation, and limiting voters to only one choice mostly renders third-party or independent candidacies inert. These candidacies can swing races but are highly unlikely to win them.
Hyperpolarization exacerbates this issue. Candidates who run on a platform other than one of the two major parties’ are less popular than ever, with a recent Pew study finding that “90 percent of Trump and Joe Biden voters believed a victory by the other candidate would result in ‘lasting harm’ to the United States.”
There are several alternative voting systems that merit consideration. One that is already used in parts of the United States is ranked-choice voting. In Maine, Alaska (soon), and a number of cities nationwide, residents rank candidates according to their preferences. There are important variables that can influence different outcomes, but the main takeaway is that a voter can select multiple candidates. If their first choice does not receive enough votes to qualify, then their vote transfers to their second choice, and so on.
Imagine it’s 2000, and you voted for Ralph Nader in Florida. What if, instead of watching your vote for Ralph Nader amount to an empty gesture, you ranked Ralph Nader first and Al Gore second? Then, when Ralph Nader didn’t have the votes to win, your vote would have transferred to Al Gore. George W. Bush won Florida by 537 votes; Ralph Nader received almost 100,000. World history might look a lot different right now if Florida had used ranked-choice voting.
This voting system reform element of the wider strategy is part education, part tough love. The education component is about ensuring the public understands their options. Democracy reform initiatives have generally done well with voters. Where ballot initiatives are possible, a strong, informative campaign — that teaches voters how ranked-choice voting works and makes the case for putting more power in the electorate’s hands — is likely to do well.
The tough-love component comes into play in states and municipalities where voters don’t control whether a democracy reform initiative will come before them. If voters don’t get a say, and if elected officials cannot be lobbied to pass alternative voting systems into law (a fair bet), then put those cross-party deals to work.
What about when the center-right movement runs against far-right ideologues in races that the Democratic Party agrees to sit out? See if every GOP state chair enjoys risking comfortable, deep-red seats when it isn’t a Democrat but a moderate conservative with no allegiance to the Republican Party eating into their relied-upon coalitions.
What about states where the Democrats are unwilling to sit out? See how the GOP in an evolving Texas feels about its chances with a Democrat and a well-financed, center-right spoiler in the race. Make them an offer they can’t refuse, like the center-right will sit the race out in exchange for campaign pledges to enact a new voting system and legislation that expands the electorate.
In Robert De Niro’s voice: Maybe all of this goes away if you play ball on democracy reform.
If they aren’t willing to play ball, keep running for a sizable portion of their electoral coalition until they come back to the bargaining table. If they are willing, great — pass reforms and then run against Democrats and Republicans on a new playing field.
Whether by initiative or traditional legislation, it’s essential to run campaigns for voting systems that don’t penalize third-party candidates. Do this in as many places and at as many levels of government as possible. In addition to supporting the growth of this new third party, switching to ranked-choice voting or another similar system will yield election outcomes that more accurately capture voters’ desires. It’s just better democracy.
When GOP Senator Rand Paul and man-who-used-his-Academy-Award-acceptance-speech-to-denounce-the-war-in-Iraq-before-that-was-popular Michael Moore both see the writing on the wall, it’s worth pausing to read it.
A Republican Party with fascistic inclinations is fighting to secure long-term minority rule. This has happened and is happening at every level of government.
The concept outlined in this story is one idea that attempts to meet this moment. It contains flaws and kicks some cans down the road, points I plan to assess in a Part B, coming soon. For today, I hope you take away three things.
One, antidemocratic forces in the United States are working to achieve their aims every hour of every day. Heed the warnings of history on the subject of complacency.
Two, scholars of democracy, public figures, and ordinary Americans are starting to say the same thing: We need a strong, wide, ethical, and well-represented middle to survive.
Three, cynical takes that accept the permanent station of the Republican Party might sound wise but don’t help when what is required most are imagination and conviction.
If the GOP can reform itself, great. But hoping for that and failing to plan for the alternative is a surefire way to be overrun — should American democracy’s moment of truth arrive.
