How to set up a third party in the USA (Part Three)

(Feel free to skip this intro if you read part one)

We're living in interesting times.

That's part of an old Irish curse, to be living in interesting times. And after 3 years of this crap, I'm starting to understand why. Interesting times are usually interesting because of how much is possible, but that doesn't mean it's all positive. Usually we talk about how many things are breaking and how this may not be repairable, etc etc etc, and that no one is going to be held accountable. It's depressing as hell.

But today, let's continue to talk about a possible positive, something that we have a unique opportunity to do because of all of this "interesting time." I think the time is here for a third (or more) party in the USA.

This is a dream shared by many, that the "Land of Opportunity" might give us an opportunity to choose between more than two warring groups. As one of the last developed nations to have more than two parties, the USA is watching everyone else pull ahead while we become more and more bitterly divided, and more people are chased to the extremes by necessity and passion. I myself, while not being a Democrat nor an outright liberal, do not have a choice anymore when it comes to voting. I don't like what the Democrats do (or more to the point, how they do it) but I cannot vote for a corrupt and immoral party like the GOP. So in essence, I have no choice left.

But is that really true? How many people feel like I do? How many people are sick of the either one or the other battle, unable to actually talk about solutions because we're too busy fending off the attacks of the "other?" How many people are sick of the argument that we cannot act on something for fear of driving people to the "other side?" And how many people are sick of politicians promising that they'll fix what the last guy broke, only for the other politicians to say the exact same thing, while both break the whole thing over and over again?

It must be exhausting to try to deal with such a bi-polar nation. I pity any diplomat having to deal with the USA.

Maybe there is more support than ever before, but we're all so tired of fighting each other that we don't see the opportunity before us. Maybe it's time to change that.

Right now there are three large constituencies that I think can make a strong third party:
1) Young people disillusioned by the decades of fighting and lying
2) GOP members pushed out by an increasingly unstable cult
3) Moderates who haven't given up and joined the Democrats

I'm going to go through all three in a series of posts and explain who they are and how we can get them mobilized for a third party. And today we're going to visit the rarest of species, the involved and stubborn Moderate

Moderates are probably the least understood political group in our nation. Many equate them with Independents or Libertarians, or think they take every policy position exactly in the middle. This is definitely not true. Independents usually have a policy angle they are fixated on, and Libertarians have specific policy goals orbiting the idea that government is bad as a principle. And where is the center in a debate over human rights? You can have some, but not others?

No, Moderates mostly dip their toes in every available political and policy group on the spectrum. They might be in favor of a flat tax and supportive of a Universal Basic Income. They might be in favor of businesses choosing who their clientele is but in support of transgender military members. They may be against shuttering nuclear power plants but for more green energy initiatives. 

In other words, Moderates can't be easily classified in a platform. This alone makes it hard to even identify who is a moderate and who is simply a more centrist Democrat, Republican or Other. I'm not going to try to make a classification of them today, but for the purposes of this article just assume I am talking about the mythical "free thinkers" we all like to think we are.

Last time we talked about how the ex-GOP members of this new party would be the moderating voice to the youth's new ideas. So why in the world would we need "moderates" if there is already a moderating focus? What do these hard-to-define people add to the already powerful group of youthful energy and conservative operating power? What are we missing to have a legitimate challenger of the two parties of the USA?

I posit to you that there is no closed-system approach to creating a third party that can work. By that I mean that thinking you need to peel away support from Democrats and Republicans in order to form a party is a losing strategy. Both parties will react quickly to such a threat and shut it down or threaten that the other side will win if you dare try something different. And every politically active person has already had to consider staying or leaving their voting group, so it's not like you are introducing them to a new question.

So we're not going to add numbers by appealing to moderates of the parties. But we are going to attract people who are not affiliated with any party or group, which makes up around 40% of the nation. Not all these people are active politically, but they are willing to listen to a good argument from anyone. And that is step one to getting involved, because if they are listening it means you have engaged them, and people who are engaged are more likely to take an action than those who just passively let information settle over them.

This is where the two key skills of moderates come in: ability to actively listen to conflicting viewpoints, and the ability to effectively communicate elements of conflicting viewpoints. I'll cover them both and explain how they sew up the new group we are creating, and what I think the next step is to make this a reality.

Active Listening

When is the last time someone changed your mind? How did they do it? More importantly, how did you feel afterwards? How did you feel about them?

For many people, changing their mind is not a pleasant process. This is because we equate it with losing. If someone convinces us, it's because they were better at arguing, had more facts, had the majority opinion on their side, etc etc etc, and we couldn't bring enough of our own viewpoints to "win." It's not a discussion where you come out agreeing, it's an argument where you come out surrendering.

And it works for a little while. People convinced in this fashion will sometimes cede the point and give you leave to do what you wanted to. And they will probably be ok with it, given you didn't damage your relationship in the process with personal attacks or condescension. But it will not last.

This is because this form of convincing is context specific. You are stating that this thing they believe only doesn't work in this specific instance, and in any other instance it's still fine, until you argue that too. Which is usually not done and too much work anyway. 

What you need is an argument that strips the context away, or at least generalizes it, by engaging their specific argument on a more broad level. This is what active listening accomplishes. If you listen to a person's argument, really listen, asking questions not to challenge but to clarify and explore, you will soon get to a point where you're no longer talking about the specific method or topic but about the VALUE and BELIEF that empower their arguments. This means that instead of addressing only the small situational issue before you, you now can address the core of their decision making.

And you're going to need to know what that is, in order to 

Effectively Communicate Viewpoints

When someone tells you what they want, do they usually tell you why they want it? If so, does it sound like they want it because it gets them into another situation they want which enables something else they want, etc etc etc? Because that's usually how it goes with me, unless I intervene and do some active listening. I find this form of communication to be ineffective in convincing anyone, least of all me, and certainly does not call me into action. 

Take for example someone explaining why they want to protest gun restrictions. Many times the thread is:

1) I'm going to protest this new law because

2) I believe these laws threaten my rights which are

3) Owning any gun I like because

4) That's in the Constitution and

5) We should follow the rules of the Constitution

Each one of those seems like a value, but none of them really are. Actively listening to each element you can find that

1) I'm called to act because I feel threatened

2) What is threatened are rights dear to me for some reason

3) I have a desire that is being unmet or challenged

4) It's not being done in a way I find legitimate

5) I'm fairly sure I'm right

If someone truly wanted to espouse the viewpoint that links those beliefs and those statements, one could say:

1) Based on my experience and my study of what works and what doesn't,

2) I posit that gun ownership is key to having and keeping a free nation

3) I believe in that statement and am actively participating in that belief through my actions

4) You are threatening my ability to participate in my belief, which I feel is based in fact and experience

5) You're not doing it in a way that I feel we agreed to, which some things that I assumed were bedrock principles. 

Each one of those argument is far more compelling, because it's not about what is true (which is subjective in a lot of cases) but what is driving an action. If we can effectively communicate what drives an action, then the action matters less than the ideals behind them. And only then can we adjust and compromise on an action, not the ideals.

It's this disconnecting that moderates do well, when they try. And it's this disconnecting that is going to (ironically) tie the Ex-Republicans and the Progressive Youth together. Each has ideals, and those ideals aren't nearly as far apart as we think they are. They just need to be defined in one another's language, and there need to be actions thought of with those ideals that meet the concerns and needs of both groups. 

Moderates are prisms which do nor reflect but rather parse and argument into recognizable elements for the other side. And that is what we need to move beyond the deadlocked sticking points of all groups.

What Now?

So we've got a target group. We've got things that draw them together and we've got the numbers (theoretically) to become a major voting group. What do we need now to put this into practice?

1) Give up on the existing parties

2) Present recognizable figureheads

3) Stop fucking around

We need to stop thinking the parties will change. They will not, unless a LASTING change is introduced that force them to. And no party will last if at the first sign of change their members go back to their respective parties. 

We need people to run as recognizable political celebrities. Every major third party challenge succeeded at this with one person, but to make it stick you need several. Otherwise it's a nice ride with a single person, and the moment you spot a weakness in that person it's over.

We need to stop with the extreme policy BS we do to get attention. No, the Weed party will never be serious. No, the Animal Rights party won't be taken seriously (even where it is most effective, in those nations there is still a stigma attached). Any single issue party is doomed to failure in the USA and doomed to obscurity in the rest of the world. This is because no single issue defines our core anymore, not even religion. So stop fucking around with catchy policies like UBI and present a full vision of governance, always. 

I don't know who will step forward as figureheads. I do know that we, if you're interested, need to assure them of point 1 and 3. Be loyal to this movement, or it will not come to exist. Be clear about your intentions for this movement, or no one will listen. Be ready to talk about all topics, or you'll be a passing fad. 

And we, small community that we are, can start by defining on every hot button issue where those values, beliefs and actions meet. That's my challenge to you all, who've read this far. The next time an issue comes up that is hotly debated, try to figure out the background of both sides, and call it out. See if you can't tie two disparate parties together. And when you succeed, come here and brag about it. 

Good luck!