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.
Innovating Beyond the Two-Party System
Why should we innovate beyond the two-party system instead of just reforming it from within? Two simple answers:
Between 40-50% of Americans won’t join either party directly but are still held hostage to the political candidates being presented by party bases.
The individuals most engaged among the bases of each party don’t want to change sides or leave the fight.
If we don’t disrupt and innovate beyond the present party system holding control of Congress, we may lose the ability to function free of violence, which will turn the government apparatus into something more authoritarian by nature. If we can reboot the system, we can revitalize and improve institutional performance with a better outcome for all Americans.
Disruption is a normal part of civilization. Innovation is the way that we improve upon the forces that are shaping our lives. Political innovation has been absent as so many other areas of life have advanced in the past 50 years.
The “Crisis Now” Moment in Four Parts
There are other factors that make this moment fraught with such dire implications. We turn to the work presented by two political scientists, Suzanne Mettler (Professor of American Institutions at Cornell University) and Robert C. Lieberman (Political Science Professor at Johns Hopkins University), to learn more. These authors find that a crisis of democracy typically occurs in one of four settings: 1) political polarization, 2) racism and nativism, 3) economic inequality, and 4) excessive executive power.1 The unique challenge of our times is the simultaneous burden of all four factors impacting American political life.
Political polarization has already been presented, so I refer to that previous essay (Common Sense Papers No. 20). Our society believes that political discrimination is fair game for civil society, so this is tearing apart families, communities, and functional government.
Racism and nativism are complex variables that are not evenly distributed or felt among American citizens. This area gets tricky. Racism tends to be more concentrated among certain geographic regions. As Democrats build coalitions to try to secure the majority necessary to achieve their political agenda, they focus on stoking racial bias to court black voters and other minority groups, regardless of the actual racism present in various communities. As rural Republican landowners in certain geographic regions and white workers with blue-collar skills face the impacts of immigration (much of it illegal), the tilt toward nativism appears to be a form of self-preservation.
Economic inequality is a function of capitalism. Inequality has always been in society and probably always will be. Leveling economic outcomes is destined to make the entire system poorer. However, curbing monopolistic abuse that allows for excessive profit-taking and providing social safety nets and more individual opportunity at the low-skill end of the spectrum can help address this issue. The best way to have capitalism with guardrails, limits, and safety nets is to allow space for creative discussion that pushes well beyond the partisan divides of Republicans and Democrats. With innovative, creative thinking and restructuring of key economic support programs, much can be done to improve economic dignity in the urban cores of America and the rural heartlands. I’m wildly optimistic that this area can be addressed thoughtfully once the two-party stranglehold on policy is sidestepped.
Excessive executive power is manifesting in corrupt ways. As mentioned in an earlier paper (No. 25), the current use of Executive Orders immediately following a presidential election to nullify and create bureaucratic directives is effectively stealing power from Congress. It needs to stop or change. The revolving door of executive leadership and Washington lobbyists is also problematic and feeds the special interest rent-seeking that is abusing the federal budget and hurting the American people through corporate protectionism. Executive power needs to be properly channeled into domestic enforcement, international standing (alliances and threats), international trade, and negotiating with Congress for bipartisan reforms—always bipartisan/multipartisan reforms. A president who wants to truly heal American divisions would declare an unequivocal unwillingness to sign any measure that doesn’t garner bipartisan support—requiring one’s own party to work across the aisle, no matter what, would change the calculus of the competition game represented by unhealthy game theory.
Reflection & Choice
If we can innovate beyond the current two-party system, we have enormous upside in dealing with generational political problems (social security funding, Medicare/Medicaid outlays, immigration & border control, and national debt management, just to name a few) that will go unsolved until necessary crisis intervention becomes required, which may not be without severe economic and societal hardship.
As Federalist No. 1 says:
It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.2
Our inability to break the power struggle in the two-party system at the national level is crushing our ability to govern with reflection and choice. When was the last time you saw a riveting debate about public policy on C-Span? When was the last time we had a congressional vote that appeared totally random according to party preference? The Congress is failing the American people precisely because is it narrowly divided into only two parties that are incentivized to fight for power and survival.
The method for innovating beyond the two-party system will be presented in Part VII of The Common Sense Papers. Most recommendations from leading experts regarding how to change our current system require legislation that may never happen in all fifty states. The method proposed by Common Sense 250 is structural and requires no new election laws. But it does require movement building at scale!
A choice to innovate beyond the two-party system requires Americans to go all-in on a new experiment. While sending one independent elected official to Congress will have significant effects, especially in a 50-50 Senate, the greater benefit comes with sending a united team of independents to break up the partisanship in the House of Representatives—The People’s House.
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.
Kate Blackwood, "Mettler Explores Threats to U.S. Democracy in New Book," Cornell University News, August 11, 2020, https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2020/08/mettler-explores-threats-us-democracy-new-book (accessed January 14, 2024).
The Federalist Papers, ed. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2012), 250.
A 'responsible' revolution to reform our political system is what we are working towards...together.
Your writings are very clear and reflect a great deal of wisdom.
Excellent article!
I'd like to debate your statement that economic inequality is a function of capitalism. I'm more inclined to say it is a function of human nature. When we speak of forms of government, I don't believe there has ever been a form of government in which there was not economic inequality.
There is nothing wrong with economic inequality. The only problems are the extremes and abuses. Most of us would agree slavery is not acceptable today. As you state, we can have "social policies" that help with the problems of economic inequality.