Now that we have your attention, please understand that this blog is not aimed to wreck anyone’s life by saying out loud that they should be President. The point is that we need to think in new ways about how to select one. As the saying goes, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a better result is insanity. A review of the “over and over” will explain what needs to change.
Over and over again we can only choose between blue Brand X and red Brand Y. Over and over again we accept the logic that two partisan mindsets define the full spectrum of possibilities. Even if everyone rejects the two parties, we only see options on a narrow path connecting those poles, or maybe further out beyond one or the other, but still on the same line. Recently the idea of a “horseshoe” positions the “out-beyonds “ closer together in their extremism, but they’re still on the same narrow bar.
Right now, Democrats worry that Donald Trump will be re-elected and Republicans worry that Joe Biden will be. Neither side offers alternatives. On one hand the incumbent won a narrow mandate, to “not be Donald Trump,” yet has taken transformative steps to reshape the economy to partisan tropes. On the other hand the ex-incumbent tried to overturn an election that he lost. Other options are unlikely to be more than spoilers – and the duopolistic parties elbow them out, to ensure that theirs is not the campaign that will be spoiled. Over and over the two poles hold their place.
No one speaks for the voters who are not fully tied to one side of this duopoly or the other. Nor for that portion of those who sigh resignedly, or hold their noses, saying “I’ll have to vote for ….” Over and over, a plurality, maybe a majority, wish for a real and viable choice that never emerges.
If we want something different, it won’t come from a third party or new ballot layout. Someone needs to campaign in a whole new basic logic. If that can bring America’s core premises into view, voters might see past the self-serving partisan platforms.
As this blog aims to show, America’s core carries a compelling, and essential, logic. Our founding creed says all are equally endowed with unalienable rights, and that governments exist to secure those rights. It gives no preference to either of today’s partisan poles, nor to any of their planks. It is abstract and therefore aspirational, for all to be able to exercise rights, to grow in the capacity to live our lives life by our chosen lights. This creed is deeper than any template for policy formulas. Politics are only means to its greater end. We will disagree on those politics, but as tools, not goals. Politics, we will see, do not merit the intransigent enmity that prevails today.
How would this new logic take effect? Could it be done before the next election? The only hope lies in clarity.
First, there can be no attempt to “split the difference.” A new movement needs to set a whole new pole, committed to its new bottom line, aiming at a majority of voters. Practically speaking, the numbers will come first from the traditional “middle,” then from the Democrats and Republicans who are less than fully committed in partisanship. Given current numerical splits between independents and the two parties, a majority for a new logic would draw the “old middle” plus 10-20% from each side, thus gaining a majority. But the point is not to try to pull people into a “middle position” between the current parties; it is to re-cast the game.
The message for this new logic also can not bog itself down in arguments over specific positions. The partisans have already perfected the art of bisecting any issue to fit their political trench lines. A “Declarationist” stance would parse every issue by starting from the creed, much as accounting is based on “assets equal liabilities plus equity,” or trigonometry problems trace back to the Pythagorean Theorem. How does the issue in question interact with rights? Isn’t abortion a question of one person’s property rights over their body, versus the survival of another likely person who depends on that body? Isn’t a dispute between a gay couple and a bakery refusing to do a cake for their wedding a matter of how society defines the boundaries between two sets of rights?
A Declarationist campaign should, on any given issue, identify two or more potential answers, parse them for which rights and which interests are served or negated, and point out the critical points that differentiate the stances. Final choices, in this logic, must only be made in light of due deliberation and actual circumstances. A priori commitments would only mire the discourse in combat between litmus tested positions, which cedes the agenda back to the logic of partisan polarization.
This kind of campaign will require a different kind of candidacy. Where candidates for high office normally campaign for “me,” this effort must focus on the Declaration’s creed. It will need candidates who fight for the spirit of our creed, not policies they might prefer. Anyone involved should promote the creedal logic, not their role in a new party. This is particularly important because anyone with current visibility will have flaws, either imparted from prior political battles or reflecting the personality quirks that often afflict highly driven people. Setting aside the “me” will cement the movement as a purposeful influence rather than one more vehicle to win office.
Still, certainly in our one-year timeline, a well recognized name would help. The trick is to find a widely recognized, generally well-liked figure whose politics are either unknown or sufficiently indistinct that that person could credibly declare a full commitment to the Declarationist idea.
Thus the title of this post, again not to ruin a successful singer’s life but to make a point. Ms. Swift may not have thought extensively about politics or the governing process. But there is no real preparation for the Presidency, as there is no job remotely like it – and she has headed a very large enterprise in entertainment, a field not unrelated to the Presidency. Revenues from the Eras Tour are estimated in the billions – she runs a substantial institution. Her audience is young, and while not especially diverse in ethnic terms, its appeal is non-contentious and absolutely non-discriminatory. That audience is mostly female, but Ms. Swift has gained notoriety in a connection to NFL football. In any case, she is an example of someone with broad name recognition, without prior connection to partisan mindset. Could someone like this campaign in the new logic?
Because, just sayin’, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a better result is insanity.
Common Conviction 