America Could Use a Third Party

By Harry Martin, September 1, 2021

Recently, a friend shared a New York Times opinion article “America could use a liberal party” from March 22, 2021 by columnist Bret Stephens. In the article, Stephens cited 2021 Gallup Poll research that highlights the percent of the public support for the formation of a third political party in America has grown from 40 percent in 2003 to 62 percent in 2021. While Gallup data shows there has been considerable interest for several decades, the large percent along with recent changes in politics, as Stephens pointed out, indicate something is different today.

Stephens speculated the differences are 1) weakening political party brands, especially Republican, 2) those at the extremes in both parties are the most eager for a third party, and 3) the liberal center of America is being neglected which Stephens defines as all those who believe in “liberal democracy”. His notion of that includes tenets from both liberalism and conservativism.

I argue that Stephens misunderstands the issue in his third point calling America’s middle the liberal center because what’s going on politically in the middle of America in the 21st-century is much wider and deeper than his definition of liberal democracy. Consequently, his conclusion that America needs a new liberal party as America’s third party to become what it used to be also misses a number of changes and advances from the old days when both parties were more similar. I argue the center of America is moderate and a moderate center is different than a liberal center.

Here is my thumbnail of 21st-century moderates. Though on some topics moderates look like liberals, on others like conservatives, their political core—the lens through which they view life, the world, and politics—is different. Their political lens frequently runs counter to the left-right lens Americans have been conditioned to filter and judge everything and everybody.

I argue their political lens and identity anchor to a different reference point. Their views and values are shaped less by the left-right spectrum lens which is the horizontal dimension (x-axis) focused on resolving controversies about “issues”. Moderates think more two-dimensionally including, what I call, the vertical dimension (y-axis) which is focused on solving “problems”. They are y-axis dominant political thinkers. For them, the “doing the right thing political debate” is about applying pragmatic, common sense logic to solve public problems at root cause and to create institutional public goods for the common good in contrast to x-axis dominant people applying narrowcast win-lose logic to resolve binary-framed issues in favor of some faction’s interests. That is a huge difference.

The moderate lens also includes principled views and values that challenge traditional left-right debates on taxes, spending, debt, infrastructure, safety-net, education, health care, and more. But, it also confronts political positions and policy choices pushed for special rights and benefits for social and economic rent-seekers. Moderates’ calculus nets different answers on questions about liberal humanism, globalism, social experimentation, discrimination, immigration, wealth inequality, technology, faith, genetic and fertility sciences, abortion, children’s rights, and many others. Really big global impact problems are also fair game for moderates’ policy prescriptions like climate, a China centered world, and the eight-going-on-eleven billion pound elephant in the room—world population.

Thus the ‘lens’ is a key political difference between moderates and non-moderates and that is very different from Stephens’ contrast between liberals and illiberals who are those who go too far on issues for the sensibilities of reasonable people—also a big beef of moderates.

Though a third party is hard to envision given the momentum, money, and mass both parties have, the call for a third party is likely most sincere, not from left or right illiberals, but from the silent millions of moderately-minded eligible voters in the center who want real public goods and institutional solutions for our common protection, prosperity, and posterity. With the two parties as far apart and as disrespected as they are, is the opportunity at hand to remake America a more moderate nation with our children and America’s future in mind?

If the answer is yes, America’s moderate center has two options: depolarize at least one party so moderates can blend in or mobilize against both parties with a new, third party. Option two requires, in addition to an ideology of Moderatism, money, organization, leaders and members, and a platform to run ‘virtual’ third party candidates that represent and vote a moderate American agenda.

America is the greatest nation but will it endure? Given the rapid and aggressive rise of China, the resurgence of terrorism in an emerging multipolar world, and our current new-crisis-a-month domestic reality, America’s future is at risk. If you understand our current state or lament the legacy of debt and social experimentation adult Americans are indoctrinating our young generations to believe is normal, you realize the window is closing to return to what American politics used to be that Stephens hopes for and to reverse the damage caused by decades of ineffective policies and ill-willed agendas of both parties that many Americans hope for.

Can you imagine any scenarios where neither party has a majority in either house of Congress? Will 2022 and 2024 finally be the time for the voice of America’s silent and silenced majority to be heard? Is America’s center willing to fight to reclaim the nation’s soul to ensure brighter futures for our children’s grandchildren? Only you and your conscience can answer these questions. America could and should use a moderate party.