I have been an unaffiliated voter for more than 10 years, but usually vote Democrat. I look for the most centrist candidate in the primary. I used to think Republicans had some good ideas on not letting the national debt get out of control and making good foreign policy decisions, but that has not been the case this century. I am probably closer to a Democrat because I am in favor of actual free market capitalism, not crony capitalism, but with empathy and appropriate social safety net with personal responsibility for the recipients built in and monitored fairly. I think some elements of the Democratic Party are out of touch when it comes to some cultural issues and on the federal budget and debt. I guess I would say I think it’s easier to reign in the Democrats than the Republicans and there are still some thoughtful and center Democrats that I like: Mark Kelly, Secretary Pete, Susan Rice👍🏻.
Thomas, I think your perspective captures something important about the politically homeless center. You’re not describing a neat ideological label so much as a set of principles: fiscal responsibility, genuine free-market capitalism rather than cronyism, a compassionate but accountable safety net, and a willingness to question where either party has gone too far.
What I find especially interesting is your point that you still see thoughtful people within the Democratic Party, while also believing parts of the party have become disconnected on cultural issues, spending, and debt. That tension between wanting to reform an existing party and deciding that the political system needs something new is exactly the conversation I think we need to be having.
Thanks for laying out your thinking so clearly, Thomas. This is precisely the kind of discussion I hoped this piece would generate.
I have said it before and worth saying again: whether two parties with factions or multiple factional parties, no one is going to have a majority, let alone 60 votes. The answer, regardless, is coalition-building issue by issue, your ally on one issue may be your adversary on another. Ditch all litmus tests and find buddies across the aisle. The alternative is nothing gets done and voters get angrier.
I will have to nitpick it a little bit at your examples. I think of blue dogs like Jared Golden (Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez ( Washington) As better Exemplars. I don't really think of Pete as being somebody very Center for example.
Golden and Perez are much more likely to Buck their own party, think about their home constituents, and vote in swingways. We need more blue dogs like them
Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez are good examples precisely because they have shown a willingness to buck their own party when they believe their constituents or their judgment point them in another direction.
That gets at a larger question for me: Should we judge how “centrist” an elected official is by where they fall ideologically, or by their willingness to think independently and cross party lines when the circumstances warrant it? I would certainly like to see more of the latter.
Alright I just looked through your website and yeah I think you guys are missing the forest for the trees a bit although there's some decent stuff in there
If you want to start a real third party, I argue it needs to be a workers party to build the coalition of people not represented by either Red or Blue
But then you'd need to have policies like Medicare for All & No New Data Centers
Policies that expressly help working people, even at the expense of capital. This moderate centrist "common sense" stuff will only get you so far because you don't have the correct frame of mind for what is happening
Democracy needs to pump the breaks on rampant capitalism. You correctly identify needing to get "money out of politics." When it doesn't though it breaks down over time with poor leadership and the money takes over the system.
When that happens, the democracy gets more and more unpopular in general. as the workers get left further and further behind by profit motives cutting their benefits, wages, etc and see less and less the fruits of their labor
Now shit we've got an unpopular and increasingly unstable democracy on our hands
What do the Republicans do to get popular again? they do a fascism. Blame your neighbor, blame outsiders, blame the cities. blame everyone but us. Lean into nationalism. It's fraud in the programs; it's immigrants making your life hard. It does work on a lot of people with a few careful lies to get the decent ones (no new wars, etc) if they still put trust in their old racist uncles or aren't paying attention
I dunno your Goldilocks approach might not allow for that kind of language in our discourse but I wanted to get the thought out
I'm sposed to go fix a garage door though so I'll leave it there
Let's look at yesterday's Senate vote for a perfect answer to your question. A bill was introduced to: 1) stop insider trading in Congress, 2) Voter ID, 3) the data center electricity issue ... It didn't pass, and even the NY Times said it was because Dems didn't want to give R's a win.
Here's my cynical viewpoint... R's control Congress and could have put 3 separate bills on the floor, but elected not to. Why? Because they have no incentive to solve these issues either.
Today's politicians in all parties have no incentive to solve problems. NGOs and non-profits that have been historically 'for or against' a cause have no incentive to fix a problem.
Mike, I think you’re putting your finger on a much deeper problem: the system often rewards keeping an issue alive more than actually solving it.
If politicians benefit from having the same problems to campaign on every election cycle, there’s little incentive to produce durable solutions. And when both parties operate under those incentives, simply changing which one is in power doesn’t necessarily change the outcome.
That’s one reason I keep coming back to the need for a different political structure, one where results and accountability matter more than preserving the issues that keep everyone employed, funded and campaigning.
Center to me is where most Americans are or in my case, where most in Colorado are, not the extremes- issue by issue, center left on some, center right on others. As examples, Colorado has 14 ballot issues. Going to vote yes on requiring law enforcement to work with ICE when a suspect whose right to be in this country cannot be established and has a violent criminal history or is in custody to be charged with such. Voting YES for no biological men to play in girl’s sports. Voting YES to change state income tax from flat to progressive. Voting NO to retain flat tax and cap it. Issue by issue.
Thomas, I think “issue by issue” is exactly the key. Being in the center shouldn’t require someone to fit neatly into a predetermined ideological box. It means being willing to look at each question on its merits and arrive at a position that may be center-left on one issue and center-right on another.
Your Colorado ballot examples illustrate that well. Too much of our politics today assumes that if you hold one position, you must automatically accept the entire package of positions associated with that party. I think a lot more Americans approach issues the way you describe than our two-party system acknowledges.
I have been an unaffiliated voter for more than 10 years, but usually vote Democrat. I look for the most centrist candidate in the primary. I used to think Republicans had some good ideas on not letting the national debt get out of control and making good foreign policy decisions, but that has not been the case this century. I am probably closer to a Democrat because I am in favor of actual free market capitalism, not crony capitalism, but with empathy and appropriate social safety net with personal responsibility for the recipients built in and monitored fairly. I think some elements of the Democratic Party are out of touch when it comes to some cultural issues and on the federal budget and debt. I guess I would say I think it’s easier to reign in the Democrats than the Republicans and there are still some thoughtful and center Democrats that I like: Mark Kelly, Secretary Pete, Susan Rice👍🏻.
Thomas, I think your perspective captures something important about the politically homeless center. You’re not describing a neat ideological label so much as a set of principles: fiscal responsibility, genuine free-market capitalism rather than cronyism, a compassionate but accountable safety net, and a willingness to question where either party has gone too far.
What I find especially interesting is your point that you still see thoughtful people within the Democratic Party, while also believing parts of the party have become disconnected on cultural issues, spending, and debt. That tension between wanting to reform an existing party and deciding that the political system needs something new is exactly the conversation I think we need to be having.
Thanks for laying out your thinking so clearly, Thomas. This is precisely the kind of discussion I hoped this piece would generate.
I have said it before and worth saying again: whether two parties with factions or multiple factional parties, no one is going to have a majority, let alone 60 votes. The answer, regardless, is coalition-building issue by issue, your ally on one issue may be your adversary on another. Ditch all litmus tests and find buddies across the aisle. The alternative is nothing gets done and voters get angrier.
I will have to nitpick it a little bit at your examples. I think of blue dogs like Jared Golden (Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez ( Washington) As better Exemplars. I don't really think of Pete as being somebody very Center for example.
Golden and Perez are much more likely to Buck their own party, think about their home constituents, and vote in swingways. We need more blue dogs like them
Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez are good examples precisely because they have shown a willingness to buck their own party when they believe their constituents or their judgment point them in another direction.
That gets at a larger question for me: Should we judge how “centrist” an elected official is by where they fall ideologically, or by their willingness to think independently and cross party lines when the circumstances warrant it? I would certainly like to see more of the latter.
Alright I just looked through your website and yeah I think you guys are missing the forest for the trees a bit although there's some decent stuff in there
If you want to start a real third party, I argue it needs to be a workers party to build the coalition of people not represented by either Red or Blue
But then you'd need to have policies like Medicare for All & No New Data Centers
Policies that expressly help working people, even at the expense of capital. This moderate centrist "common sense" stuff will only get you so far because you don't have the correct frame of mind for what is happening
Democracy needs to pump the breaks on rampant capitalism. You correctly identify needing to get "money out of politics." When it doesn't though it breaks down over time with poor leadership and the money takes over the system.
When that happens, the democracy gets more and more unpopular in general. as the workers get left further and further behind by profit motives cutting their benefits, wages, etc and see less and less the fruits of their labor
Now shit we've got an unpopular and increasingly unstable democracy on our hands
What do the Republicans do to get popular again? they do a fascism. Blame your neighbor, blame outsiders, blame the cities. blame everyone but us. Lean into nationalism. It's fraud in the programs; it's immigrants making your life hard. It does work on a lot of people with a few careful lies to get the decent ones (no new wars, etc) if they still put trust in their old racist uncles or aren't paying attention
I dunno your Goldilocks approach might not allow for that kind of language in our discourse but I wanted to get the thought out
I'm sposed to go fix a garage door though so I'll leave it there
Cheers
Let's look at yesterday's Senate vote for a perfect answer to your question. A bill was introduced to: 1) stop insider trading in Congress, 2) Voter ID, 3) the data center electricity issue ... It didn't pass, and even the NY Times said it was because Dems didn't want to give R's a win.
Here's my cynical viewpoint... R's control Congress and could have put 3 separate bills on the floor, but elected not to. Why? Because they have no incentive to solve these issues either.
Today's politicians in all parties have no incentive to solve problems. NGOs and non-profits that have been historically 'for or against' a cause have no incentive to fix a problem.
Why? Job Security ...
Mike, I think you’re putting your finger on a much deeper problem: the system often rewards keeping an issue alive more than actually solving it.
If politicians benefit from having the same problems to campaign on every election cycle, there’s little incentive to produce durable solutions. And when both parties operate under those incentives, simply changing which one is in power doesn’t necessarily change the outcome.
That’s one reason I keep coming back to the need for a different political structure, one where results and accountability matter more than preserving the issues that keep everyone employed, funded and campaigning.
We have the proper structure, we don't have candidates willing to vote principles over party.
Center to me is where most Americans are or in my case, where most in Colorado are, not the extremes- issue by issue, center left on some, center right on others. As examples, Colorado has 14 ballot issues. Going to vote yes on requiring law enforcement to work with ICE when a suspect whose right to be in this country cannot be established and has a violent criminal history or is in custody to be charged with such. Voting YES for no biological men to play in girl’s sports. Voting YES to change state income tax from flat to progressive. Voting NO to retain flat tax and cap it. Issue by issue.
Pete and Kelly are center left, agreed.
Thomas, I think “issue by issue” is exactly the key. Being in the center shouldn’t require someone to fit neatly into a predetermined ideological box. It means being willing to look at each question on its merits and arrive at a position that may be center-left on one issue and center-right on another.
Your Colorado ballot examples illustrate that well. Too much of our politics today assumes that if you hold one position, you must automatically accept the entire package of positions associated with that party. I think a lot more Americans approach issues the way you describe than our two-party system acknowledges.