Another Centrist Initiative Offers Mushy Technocracy to Unite a Divided Nation

Another Centrist Initiative Offers Mushy Technocracy to Unite a Divided Nation

Bloodless appeals to the mushy centre as an alternative are almost as widespread as acknowledging that America's two leading political parties represent complementary threats to the nation. Like clockwork, astute political personalities put forth tepid, moderate solutions that they believe, for some reason, will resonate with a passionate and divided population. The most recent of these initiatives is the union of three groups into a revitalised iteration of Andrew Yang's centrist Forward Party, a movement founded on the dubious tenet that "any problem has a solution most Americans can accept (truly)."

In The Washington Post this week, former Democratic presidential contender Yang, former governor Christine Todd Whitman (R-N.J.), and former congressman David Jolly (R-Fla.) argued that "the United States sorely needs a new political party—one that embodies the moderate, common-sense majority." "By appealing to the margins, today's obsolete parties have failed. The majority of Americans believe they aren't represented as a result."

It should be mentioned that Whitman was on the board of directors of Americans Elect, another such centrist initiative to oppose the big parties, and may still do so (the organisation is no longer active, but it still has a website). Before its convoluted nomination process failed to select a candidate, that organisation succeeded in the challenging goal of appearing on the ballot in the majority of states for the 2012 presidential election.

Since then, polarisation has intensified as contentment with the country's course has decreased. Today, political violence is a prevalent issue in American society. Supporters of the Forward Party see a chance to create a new, non-ideological political party in this fractious environment.

According to Yang, Whitman, and Jolly's article in the Post, "most third parties in American history failed to take off, either because they were ideologically too restricted or the population was indifferent." But more people than ever are calling for a new party.

In fact, according to Gallup, only 13% of Americans are satisfied with the direction the country is going, and a record 62 percent of respondents want a third party to oppose the Republicans and Democrats. This cross-partisan support for a different party is cited favourably by Yang, Whitman, and Jolly as proof that America is ready for a moderate alternative. However, the information is dispersed, much like the nation, when you dive deeper and ask individuals what they want from their political representation.

"Republicans and independents who lean Republican were asked how they would want to see the party develop in the future. While 34 percent want the party to remain the same, and 24 percent want it to become more moderate, a majority of 40 percent want the party to become more conservative "Gallup included. "Democrats and independents who lean Democratic are evenly split on the way their party should go: 34% want it to grow more liberal, 34% want it to become more moderate, and 31% want it to stay the same."

That might indicate support for a centrist option, but it's not the clear preference that Forward Party backers hope for. It might have a constituency if it can inspire voters with split-the-difference viewpoints on the few subjects party leaders address if it can be developed into a sustainable organisation that gains ballot access and actually nominates candidates (unlike Americans Elect).

Yang, Whitman, and Jolly contend that while most Americans are legitimately concerned about the far right's insistence on abolishing gun laws, they equally disagree with proposals by the far left to take all firearms and remove the Second Amendment. "Most Americans disagree with the far left's calls to fundamentally alter our economy and way of life when it comes to climate change, but they also reject the far right's denial that there is even a problem. The majority of Americans disagree with the extreme views of the far left on late-term abortions, but they are also concerned by the far right's efforts to criminalise a woman's decision."

All of these stances are ambiguous, meh-style compromises on subjects that are dear to many people's hearts. However, the energy is fully with the activists who truly care about the causes, not with those who throw up their hands and take the middle path. The United States may end up adopting some form of such laws (actually, it already has). And that doesn't imply the discussion ends; it goes on as long as people are interested.

The Forward Party also promises to support changes to the electoral system, such as ranked-choice voting, open primaries, and simpler voting. These concepts may or may not be sound (ranked-choice voting isn't as revolutionary as its supporters claim, as Reason's Scott Shackford has noted). However, these ideas are purely theoretical and are not expected to win over a large number of supporters.

Organisers of the Forward Party might undoubtedly hear from supporters of the Libertarian Party, Green Party, and other well-established but not particularly successful third parties that zeal alone is insufficient. But it's unquestionably essential for creating political groups and maintaining them across years of labour and adversity. Such energy is unlikely to be released by lukewarm dedication to the mushy centre.

Strangely, despite approvingly citing Gallup surveys that support an undefined third party, Yang, Whitman, and Jolly overlook polling that suggests a more hopeful course than technocratic moderation. Americans frequently express a rising mistrust of the federal government, more confidence in local governments, and a preference for states to take the lead in policymaking rather than Washington, D.C. Decentralizing decision-making (ideally to the person) and facilitating escape from unfavourable policies by relocating to the next town or state—what George Mason University's Ilya Somin calls "foot voting"—might ease tensions at a time when people are at each other's throats over politics. In other words, resurrecting federalism and localism may appeal to voters more than making yet another hollow claim that we all secretly support "commonsense solutions" that seem obvious to many.

The most recent notable organiser of the Forward Party, Andrew Yang, presents himself as a serious, solutions-focused individual in interviews with Reason and other publications. But it's not immediately clear that he understands that Americans with various values and tastes desire to live differently and according to different standards. The statement "Every problem has a solution most Americans can support (truly)" demonstrates that blindness. What if we disagree even on the definition of a problem? What happens when some people reject the answers that others find appealing?

The Forward Party's founders, like the majority of centrist technocrats, saw governance as an engineering challenge that can be solved with a few minor adjustments. However, using coercive power in government includes contentious moral debates. Political discussion presupposes constant disagreement, and if people are sufficiently divided, there could not even be simple or "common sense" solutions.