We Need More Political Parties in America
Why tribes aren't necessarily bad and how we can get there
Over the past decade much digital “ink” has been spilled and many teeth gnashed over growing “tribalism” in American politics. A quick google search will yield stories and studies with an almost universally negative bent. Even those seeking to bridge divides, like the landmark America’s Hidden Tribes study from More In Common, bake in an assumption that tribes are a problem. I think they’re wrong.
Instead, I’ve become convinced through two decades working in politics and nearly a decade in the New Way Politics space, that the following is true:
People are tribal. This is not a negative or positive thing. It's just a thing. A truth of all human history.
Therefore, we need to build healthier, more impactful political tribes, capable of considering the greater good, not just their own interests.
Political tribes in the US are operationalized through political parties, and through factions within parties. They are the locus of political power. Currently, we only have two parties with power, and a few very unhealthy factional tribes within them.
The US is a radically pluralistic society which needs, as my friend Lee Drutman rightly points out in this Washington Post piece, a system that reflects and allows for healthy governance in light of it, not in spite of it.
Therefore, we need more and better parties (to borrow the title of the Stanford conference I attended in April. More on that later.)
Listen, I get that it may seem counter-intuitive, especially for the segment of Americans who think both parties are awful - about a quarter of you, apparently. Only four out of every ten of you likes one party or the other even a little according to that same Pew study. I’m also very aware of friends in the broader New Way Politics ecosystem who don’t believe in party-centric reform but are focusing more on other systemic reforms to voting or rules - like ranked choice voting, open primaries, and campaign finance reform.
But if you’ll give me a few minutes I’ll explain why experience, study and reality have convinced me that more and better parties are the way to regain our footing as a nation. And I’ll lay out what I’m seeing as the pathway to get there and the key players working on it.
First, A Note About the “Center”
Large swaths of people in the New Way Politics Movement often say something like: “We need to restore the center to our politics.” Others may say, like Mona Charen and Charlie Sykes just yesterday on their podcast, “Why is there no passionate centrism?” Some major funders have made this their focus. If what you’re after is ideological centrism, it’s reasonable to think about finding “moderate” candidates and supporting them alongside reforms that may help them win - like ranked choice voting.
But this misses two really important realities:
We are a radically pluralistic, complex nation whose people and parts need different solutions to varying problems. Simply saying the “moderate” solution is the best doesn’t come close to meeting the moment.
If we don’t have healthy institutions to back quality candidates, to curate and support them, and to provide guardrails for them, one-off “moderate centrists” will be just that - one-off. There will never emerge a new center of power.
I have many friends who are working on finding, supporting and electing “moderates.” I don’t want them to stop. But I don’t believe this will solve the problem long-term. More one why in a bit.
Instead, I think about the “center” as the vast group of deeply principled, patriotic, sacrificial people who, though they may hold differing views on important problems and how to solve them, are dedicated to holding the nation together and moving it forward. This, then, is what I think of when I say, for example, “the center must hold.” It’s not a point in the middle of an ideological spectrum but a messy, diverse band of humanity who declare, sometimes against all odds and with Lincoln’s second inaugural, “We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.”
W.B. Yeats 1919 poem “The Second Coming” has this haunting stanza, as he watched World War I unfold upon the world:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
This captures the moment so painfully right now as we watch carnage across the globe - and it sticks uneasily like a lump in my throat as I look on the horizon of our American political moment.
If the “center must hold” then how might it look in the coming decade and what role could political parties play in that holding?
Parties as Tribes and Essential Institutions
Didi Kuo of Stanford University recently wrote in her brief but direct paper entitled “Parties as Essential Democratic Institutions” that:
Today’s “hollow parties” are a far cry from the organizational party of mid-century. Attention devoted to the electoral-legislative dimension of parties neglects an equally important dimension: that of parties as membership and linkage organizations, rooted in society. Parties are critical to democratic stability not because they win elections, but because of their representational integrity—their ability to channel voters’ interests and translate them into the substance of party competition and policy. As parties have built up their capacities in the electoral arena, they have neglected many of the social ties once considered integral to their work.
My belief is that because we are tribal as humans, we need to organize into coherent groups. Doing that requires more than just voting against the other guy, which is what most people think of these days when they think of parties. Kuo articulates here my case that parties can and should be healthy tribes. Places for people to find belonging and common purpose. I don’t believe they should be the primary identity of people - that should be reserved for family, heritage, faith and core values. But rediscovering parties as important institutions for a robust civic life, instead of scorning them, is key. Kuo further articulates a real vision for parties:
A democracy of the future that is more inclusive, more equitable and more just will require reasserting and repurposing parties, rather than rejecting or displacing them. As Theda Skocpol has written, “there cannot be any going back to the civic world we have lost. But Americans can and should look for ways to re-create the best of our civic past new forms suited to a renewed democratic future.” Pro-democracy coalitions and factions, as well as mobilization of those without wealth and power, can only be sustained through the representative, intermediary infrastructure of parties.
I agree. And though this line of thinking is strong, it’s not the first reason I began to think about parties as the key to unlocking a healthier future for our country. It was much more practical than that: I couldn’t win elections with independents.
Parties as Engines
I joke that I’ve lost more independent elections than any consultant in U.S. history. That may or may not be true, but one thing is for sure: I know how hard it is to win as an independent. So much so that Samuel Benson of the Deseret News recently opened his piece on RFK, Jr with this line: “Minutes after Kennedy announced his candidacy as an independent, I called Joel Searby. If anyone knows the steep path independent candidates walk, it’s Searby.”
This also means I know where all the snipers and land mines are on the way up this hill. And there are a lot of them. Placed and manned by the two major parties over many decades of collusion to centralize their power. Why? Because they saw that parties who organized could have power in ways they didn’t like, even if they were small. It’s why, for example, they began banning fusion voting in the early 20th century to the point where it’s mostly illegal in all but two states now. More on that later.
Voter psychology is also a powerful force. People don’t think independents or minor party candidates can win - and they’re afraid they’ll waste their vote or “spoil” the election, handing it to the person they like least. Some reforms are trying to address these challenges, but these are just two. There are hundreds of regulatory and procedural hurdles like ballot access rules, different campaign finance regulations for independents than for major party candidates, and many more.
What all these barriers and challenges amount to is this: it’s really hard to win elections as an independent or minor party candidate.
Some believe this will not change until reforms are in place. It’s hard to argue with them when you see all the barriers. I believe these reforms are necessary (more on that later, too) but I also believe we have to try to put electoral and organizing wins on the board now - and the way we do that is by building more and better parties. Parties which are viable, credible and durable - and win.
How? Candidates for political office have certain universal and basic needs. They need money, voter data, quality volunteers, professional service, a brand, a network to get them started and very often, training. Every independent and most minor party candidates have to start from scratch on all these fronts. Major party candidates have much of this built in - or at least available to them - through their party.
Candidates and voters alike desire to be part of something bigger than themselves. It’s who we are. Parties uniquely offer all a tribe, but it is critical to understand that the function of the tribe is central: to be the engine that powers the work.
Parties as Centers of Power
Winning elections isn’t the only piece. Leaders of principle need to govern - and parties are the central vehicle for that in our nation, too. I think Steve Teles and Robert Saldin got one very key thing right in their piece “The Future is Faction,” namely that it’s parties who govern and wield power. I disagree with their assessment that the only path is factions within the two major parties, but I wholeheartedly agree that we need parties.
No one can deny the power that a small group of aligned lawmakers can wield. Over the past decade we’ve seen it numerous times in the US Senate - usually for the good of deal-making. We’ve seen it in spades recently in the US House - usually for the bad and chaotic driven by the fringes. We’ve also seen it in state legislatures such as Alaska and most recently Ohio where cross-partisan coalitions were formed to govern. But without a governing philosophy, an organized institution and, importantly, a tribe of voters and operatives backing them, these factions and minorities just come and go without any cohesive thought to how this approach might actually lead to better outcomes over the long-haul.
That’s exactly what I think we must lean into. We must build new power.
Does Anyone Agree with You?
There is emerging as a segment of the broader New Politics Movement a group of leaders and organizations who see party-centric reform and growth as key. Some of them haven’t articulated it just that way yet, while others have.
One key group is the Center for Ballot Freedom who is leading a cross-partisan effort to re-legalize fusion voting. They see fusion voting as key (if not a prerequisite) to unlocking the building of parties and party power as a new moderating force in our politics. By carefully looking at the landscape and working to build the case for this reform and advance it, the Center for Ballot Freedom is aiming to lay important reform groundwork to make this possible. They are at the center of this thinking and I’m proud to be working with them.
Another who is actually doing the hard work of trying to build is the new Forward Party. I had the honor of helping build and launch the party over the past two years as a merger of three groups - Andrew Yang’s Forward, the Renew America Movement, a center-right advocacy group including former Republican New Jersey Governor Christie Todd-Whitman and the Serve America Movement for whom former Republican congressman David Jolly was serving as chair. Though I no longer work for the Forward Party I remain incredibly supportive and am helping them build where I can.
Irrespective of your feelings about Andrew Yang or any other leaders associated with Forward, here’s what you can’t deny: no one else is really trying to build a new party. I’ve seen it from the inside and traveled all around the country helping state parties get launched for 18 weeks. It is a real, dedicated, diverse group of leaders who want a New Way in our politics. It is not Andrew’s vanity project or an effort to spoil elections. Forward is focused on local elections and unfilled or uncontested seats of which there are thousands every cycle. They are baking in ideological diversity rather than mandated centrism. I think this is so smart - and reflect that voters in Lubbock, Texas may want and need different solutions to their problems than voters in Fort Collins, Colorado.
Forward is leading and learning at an incredible pace and I’m so grateful for what they’re doing.
Other friends in the New Way Politics ecosystem who are circling around or working directly on things that recognize and advance the tribal and party-centric realities of our system too. They include:
Protect Democracy: they have a vast portfolio, but one part of their work includes the legal side of fusion voting - and hosting and convening key conversations. Specifically, they state their goals for the future as: 1) Make our political parties more responsible promoters of democracy. 2) Replace winner-take-all elections with more proportional systems of representation. 3) Legalize fusion voting to help break the two-party doom loop.
Principles First: this growing group of Republicans and conservatives are rejecting the extremism and populism in the party and building a new center of thought and convening with their Principles First Summit. Key leaders in this group, and their allies, recognize the importance of building new centers of power to counter the forces who have overtaken the Republican Party. Some of its leaders have long clamored for a new center-right or conservative political party. I hope they’ll build one.
New America: The vaunted think tank is devoting a portion of its work, much via resident leaders Lee Drutman and Maresa Strano, to advancing thought and work in the new party space. They have funded and published important work in this sphere, including Lee Drutman’s key paper, More Parties, Better Parties.
The Inter-movement Impact Project: This convening group of leaders is modeled after Dr. King’s “Beloved Community” and embraces the radical pluralism of our nation, while trying to find ways to work together to create new, healthy centers of power. Many of the leaders gathering in this setting understand the power of tribes and are helping build new ones.
The Academy: As I’ve witnessed first-hand, leading political scientists are starting to really dig deep into parties, their role and the way forward. I attended a conference hosted by Stanford University and New America entitled, “More Parties, Better Parties” which entertained several dozen academic papers and conversations about the role of political parties in America, and the importance of reforms like fusion voting. Others like Princeton and Harvard are leaning in too.
Some in these groups don’t agree with each other on lots of important things. That’s ok. What I’m seeing emerge is a group of leaders who understand key dynamics of our political system and the realities of our American social fabric.
In the face of great headwinds and with many skeptics, who will join the ranks of those who say, “the center must hold, and I will do my part?” It is my hope, and it will be my work through the coming decade, to wire more of us together and find collaborative ways to advance good.
Thanks for another thoughtful article Joel. As you know, I've been working in the reform movement for over 5 years now. Along the way, I've met hundreds of fellow reformers and not a single one is anti-party. Even as a fierce independent centrist, I understand the importance of political parties. And yet, it's now becoming popular for many academics to oppose reforms because they are not "party-centric." This is a dangerous and unnecessary false dichotomy. I hope you would agree that we can be BOTH pro-voter reformers and pro-party voters. We need parties to play their right-sized role as organizers who thoroughly vet well-aligned candidates. However, our two major parties receiving public welfare for their primary elections, and then telling independent voters to "pick a team" is unfair and unamerican. The Alaska model offers "proof of concept" and real hope for a multi-party future. I don't see any way that Top-4 / Final-5 voting hinders the ability of new parties to form and compete on a more level playing field. This movement is too young and too small for any of us to be spreading false dichotomies about reforms that are absolutely better than the status quo. Because their are no "silver bullet" solutions, we need to grow this ecosytem of effort, together. Onward & Forward, we go...