A Political Platform for Pragmatically Independent Moderates
A plethora of recent polling indicate that around a third of the US electorate self-describe their politics as independent. A similar fraction express a desire for more than two political parties. One might surmise that such a large cohort of disaffected voters could be organized — or at least energized — to foment significant changes to our dysfunctional duopolistic politics. But that hasn’t happened, at least not yet.
The problem with “independents” is that we’re, well … independent. Many consistently choose to vote for either the Republican or Democratic candidate. Significant numbers want a third party that’s either more conservative than the Republican party or more progressive than Democrats.
That said, though, there remains a significant cohort who have political positions that can be described as “middle ground” or “moderate”, often appended with descriptors such as “pragmatic” and “common sense”. For want of a better descriptor, perhaps we might refer to ourselves as PIMs — pragmatically independent moderates.
But even as we PIMs embrace an ethos of moderation, we understand that the political ground on which we stand carries negative connotations, particularly among committed zealots: “unprincipled”, “wishy-washy”, “flip-floppers”, “weak”, and “indecisive” along with other pejoratives. We also have to face the fact that the emotional juice behind our brand of pragmatic independent moderation doesn’t carry the same energy as the committed fanatics on the left and right — i.e., those who vote in major party primaries.
We PIMs have lost hope that the two major parties will return to an era of embracing overlapping moderate positions — when we could find policies and candidates to our liking in both major parties. We are convinced that structural and institutional changes will be required to bring functionality to our dysfunctional politics. Unfortunately, structural changes that will be required to unseat the entrenched duopoly face serious barriers that will likely take years, if not decades, to overcome.
Many of us rightly focus on changes that would result in increased electoral competition — e.g., open primaries, rank choice voting, redistricting reform. These reforms would help ensure that independent and minor party candidates are not discriminated against by election statutes. Unfortunately, electoral reform is a necessary but not sufficient condition for bringing about enduring political change. Getting there will require convincing a significant number of voters and quality candidates to sign on to our quest to find a way out of the political wilderness even before such reforms are enacted.
Diffusion of Innovation Theory suggests that new ideas and products tend to follow an adoption process through different categories of people.
Innovators are the first to sign on to a new way of thinking. Innovators have no need to be convinced that change is necessary. PIM innovators already intuit the long-term benefits that will derive from electoral reform. We’re convinced of the need to engage in the long-term battles necessary to succeed.
But the 2.5% level of support from innovators is not enough to move the needle. Innovation must next be embraced by early adopters — a cadre of thought leaders, quality candidates, voters, activists, and donors. Early adopters are convinced of the need for change, but they need to be convinced that their time, energy, money, and votes can make a difference.
Successfully bringing along the early adopters would be a game changer. Imagine if even 10% of voters and quality candidates gravitated to the PIM cause. Imagine if even 10% of the vote in contested races went to PIM candidates. Imagine if 10% of elected representatives were committed to PIM. Can you feel the ground shifting? Without the early adopters, however, the PIM cause will remain wandering in the 2.5% wilderness — where the Libertarian Party has resided for the last fifty years.
The question for us 2.5 percenters, then, is what will it take to bring on the early adopters? Sure, they’ll agree with us about electoral reform. But they’ll need something more. Even we committed innovators are going to need something more. We will ultimately be demoralized by unfinished electoral reform. And those whose focus is on the here and now will need to have some sense of how PIM-aligned candidates can manage to get elected and what sort of policy proposals PIM-aligned candidates would pursue, even as they also work on electoral reform.
We pragmatically independent moderates have a problem, though. We get that many issues being addressed through our political institutions are multi-dimensional. We get that there are legitimate competing viewpoints, even with hot-button issues of the day. Our stated approach is to work with those who come from the different sides of issues, listen to competing points of view, and focus on reasonable common-sense compromises. We might even point out that PIM representatives could exert a disproportionate impact on legislation by their willingness work together to find middle ground between political extremes.
This sounds great if you’re a hard-core political junkie. If not, you’re wondering “where’s the beef?” You’re wondering what common ground might actually look like. You’re wondering what magical powers will convince others to agree to that common ground. You’re wondering how significant numbers of voters will believe you can actually make this happen and overcome their wasted vote worries.
Perhaps it’s time for we PIMs to begin practicing the kind of democracy that we advocate for our political institutions. Engaging in the messy task of developing a platform of policy solutions is not all that different than engaging in the messy task of passing laws. Who’d like to join me? I’ve got a few ideas about how we might go about it.
