Common Sense Papers 40 through 45 discuss several modern political imperatives and make the case for why now is the time to innovate beyond the two-party system.
Exit, Voice, and Loyalty
I want to bring additional considerations into the discussion of innovating beyond or side-stepping the two-party system at the national level. I want to mention exit, voice, and loyalty. The title of this essay comes from the classic book of the same name, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty by Albert O. Hirschman. His analysis of how to respond to a decline in firms, organizations, and states is relevant for our purposes. This essay is my take on exit, voice, and loyalty as applied to current U.S. political conditions in 2024.
Here's a summary of the three key concepts:
Exit: This refers to the option of leaving an organization or stopping usage of a product if its quality deteriorates. In a business context, customers can exit by switching to a competitor. In an organizational or national context, members or citizens might leave for another organization or country.
Voice: Instead of leaving, individuals may use their voice to express dissatisfaction and push for improvement. This could be through complaints, protests, or suggestions for change. Voice is an attempt to repair or improve the situation rather than abandoning it.
Loyalty: Loyalty is a mitigating factor that influences the choice between exit and voice. A loyal member of an organization or a consumer of a product is less likely to exit and more likely to use their voice when they perceive a decline in quality. Loyalty can slow down the exit process, giving the organization time to correct its course.
The Common Sense Papers are making the argument that the political decline in the two-party system of the United States has reached levels where exit, voice, and loyalty are taking on new dynamics. I’m proposing that political dysfunction is creating a compelling case for exit. But exit becomes fully ripe for acceptance when a new onramp emerges to something better. A strong alternate organization leads to an easier, smoother exit.
Applying the Framework to U.S. Two-Party Politics
In the context of the two-party political system in the United States, Albert O. Hirschman's framework of Exit, Voice, and Loyalty provides a useful lens for understanding voter behavior and party dynamics.
Exit in Politics
In the political realm, 'exit' could manifest in several ways. For disenchanted voters, exiting might mean switching allegiance from one party to another, akin to a consumer choosing a different brand. This is often seen in swing voters who move between the Democratic and Republican parties. Another form of political exit is choosing not to participate in the electoral process at all, a decision made by those who feel that neither party addresses their concerns or represents their interests.
Voice in Politics
Voice takes a central role in democratic systems. Voters use their voice through voting, but also through participating in primaries, engaging in political discourse, joining protests, or even running for office. Within the party structure, voice can influence party policies and leadership choices. When party members or supporters feel that the party is straying from its core values or failing to address key issues, they may use their voice to advocate for change. This is evident in the rise of various political movements or factions within the major parties, which seek to steer the party in a particular direction.
Loyalty in Politics
Loyalty in politics is complex. It can be loyalty to a party, an ideology, or specific political figures. High levels of loyalty might make some voters or party members reluctant to exit, even when they are dissatisfied with certain aspects of their party. This loyalty can act as a stabilizing force, preventing drastic swings in support and allowing parties to recover from setbacks. However, excessive loyalty can also lead to complacency within parties, reducing their responsiveness to the changing needs and opinions of their constituents.
Interplay of Exit, Voice, and Loyalty
In the U.S. two-party system, these dynamics interact in unique ways. The system itself discourages exit to a third party due to the “winner-takes-all” approach in elections, making voice within the two dominant parties a more viable option for expressing dissatisfaction. However, the increasing polarization of politics has sometimes led to a strengthening of loyalty, which can suppress voice and reduce the parties' incentive to adapt or reform. Yet, increasing polarization is also creating a new voice among moderates who are fed up with political shenanigans.
The balance between exit, voice, and loyalty in U.S. politics is crucial for the health of its democracy. When either party fails to respond to the voice of its constituents, it risks increasing exits. The exits may lead to other parties but this is unlikely given the state of core tribalism. Exit out of the political process entirely or to unaffiliated status is more likely. Additionally, broken political parties fail to attract new entrants, leaving a sizable portion of the electorate outside the political party dynamic because they never entered. Conversely, a responsive party or political movement that can adapt to the changing needs and voices of its supporters while maintaining a core of loyalists is more likely to remain robust and relevant in the ever-evolving landscape of American politics.
Exit, Voice, and Loyalty Applied to Common Sense 250
Now, for our current political context in the United States and the arguments that are being presented in The Common Sense Papers, let’s apply exit, voice, and loyalty in reverse order.
Loyalty is the virtue that supports patriotism. Loyalty asserts itself in association with identity—thus it rears its presence strongly in identity politics. In-group/out-group dynamics are maintained by loyalty to one group against a common enemy. As a previous essay talked about three concepts to overcome three temptations, the virtue of loyalty must be processed along some combination of the Higher Way, Middle Way, and Natural Way.
Steven B. Smith, political scientist at Yale, describes the loyalty issue this way:
There is no good that cannot be abused. Like any virtue, loyalty has its pathologies. The demand for justice, admirable in itself, can easily become harsh and punitive. The demand for equality can blind us to the need for excellence. The desire for autonomy can run afoul of our desire to belong. Similarly, loyalty can morph into fanatical partisanship and blind faith.1
Loyalty to a declining organization (party) often carries the hope that reform can happen from within. But here we must ask the question: is party loyalty now a source of American decline based on the constitutional workings of our government?
I believe so.
Loyalty to bad corruption is morally degrading. Loyalty in the face of dishonest competition is also compromising. Loyalty to old “rules of the game” in the face of mounting troubles that those rules are not addressing is also problematic. When enough damage is done through poor systematic performance, loyalty within the system is no longer warranted. At such times, revolution (i.e. innovation) is the recipe for new growth. A reboot must occur. Innovation must move us beyond the structures and failures of the present.
Exit and voice (complaint) are also options.
Voice means calling representatives to complain and express dissatisfaction. Voice means voting in every midterm and general election. Voice means getting voter turnout to move consistently higher for all election cycles so that greater pressure is placed on the failing partisan structure. Voice means championing election reforms and challenging the corruption of gerrymandering. Voice means voting away from duopoly options because bad incentives have spoiled so many offerings that voters see on the general election ballot. If the two-party system is spoiled, then the only healthy vote becomes “the spoiler!”
Exit, in political terms, means leaving the major two-party structure. This lands voters in unaffiliated or independent territory, with a subset of voters organized into third parties (minor parties). There are at least a few challenges with exit in the context of the U.S. political system. One is the nature of a winner-take-all voting system that mathematically favors the two-party structure. Another challenge is finding a way for those outside the two-party structure to compete effectively. A third challenge is represented by the distinction between voters and donors. While the voters may exit the system, the donors who care to buy influence and political victory can remain attached to funding declining parties and candidates in the hopes of maintaining political advantage against rivals and broad-based reform efforts.
Ignoring voting system reform for now, we can identify process model improvements and revenue model improvements to overcome several challenges that make exit appear to be ineffectual. By creating improvements to unify the independent space in American politics, a new structure can emerge that challenges the duopoly on both sides at the same time. I call this a horseshoe alliance that brings people on the left and the right, as well as the moderate middle, into a new coalition of like-minded adversaries.
Exiting the two-party system is the best way to restore constitutional government. Building a coalition that can launch unaffiliated and third-party candidates into national office will allow the exit option to express itself fully in national political life. Far from spoiling votes, the choice to exit can spoil the duopoly from continuing to hold the American voter hostage through the “us vs. them” game. Exiting in a way that challenges both parties at the same time is a distinct possibility.
As part of the discussion of exit, voice, and loyalty, I want to bring a unique writer into the picture who lives in my home state. Terry Tempest Williams, who has recently served as Writer-in-Residence at the Harvard Divinity School, is a prolific writer with a deep emphasis on environmental and climate-related subjects. Her writings have captured me in several ways. I want to share two dialogues that she had in her life that relate to exit, voice, and loyalty. The first dialogue will be about disagreement (No. 42). This is a form of voice. The second dialogue (No. 43) is about depolarization—moving beyond the personal costs of polarization. This form of loyalty—people over party—moves beyond partisanship, which allows for new exits to emerge.
Notes for new readers:
The Common Sense Papers are an offering by Common Sense 250, which proposes a method to realign the two-party system with the creation of a new political superstructure that circumvents the current dysfunctional duopoly. The goal is to heal political divisions and reboot the American political system for an effective federal government. If the movement can gain appeal, a call to crowdfund the project may occur in 2024 or 2025. Subscribe for free with an email to follow along.
The tabs on the top of the Substack page can bring you to earlier essays that spell out key political issues. Common Sense Paper No. 1, No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5 can help anyone get up to speed on the project.
Common Sense 250 is still working out details on launching a podcast for those who want to listen to the political strategy but don’t have time to read. Subscribe and watch for an email announcement.
Steven B. Smith, Reclaiming Patriotism in an Age of Extremes (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), 16.
Our voice is burned out, loyalty has vanished, it's time to exit.
This applies not only to politics but to the corporations we are complaining about. More people need to make an effort to "exit", choose new choices and stop being lazy and naive in supporting the old ones.