The 80 Percent Party
During the recent kerfuffle between President Trump and Elon Musk over the Republican budget plan and other issues, Musk asked an interesting question: "Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80 percent in the middle?"
In his entirely non-scientific X poll of more than five million Americans on the matter, roughly 80 percent of people favored creating a third party in the middle. Setting aside the improbability of launching a huge new third party, or at least launching one that isn’t tied to the specific interests and quirks of one man or a small ideological niche, what would a hypothetical party of the 80 percent look like in terms of its agenda?
Examining a range of polling from the past few years and trying my best to use reputable polls and exclude ones by activist groups pushing questionable opinion data to defend their issue, I put together this table below showing the contours of what public agreement among eight in ten Americans looks like on basic tests of supporting or favoring various policies. This exercise does not include other areas of potential 80 percent consensus, such as desiring less divisive politics in America or viewing the economy as the most important priority—clearly things most people would like to see their government focus on.
As you can see, the “80 Percent Party” platform includes a fascinating mix of positions that cross traditional partisan and ideological lines to represent a core agenda of common-sense beliefs about what the government should be doing—steps like deporting criminals, limiting congressional terms, banning junk fees, ensuring health care and prescription drug affordability, and protecting Social Security and Medicare. Just below the 80 percent threshold are two other issues with high public consensus: (1) raising taxes on the wealthy and (2) banning trans athletes from women’s sports.
There are other issues of basic agreement among Americans that enjoy strong majority support but not at such high levels, including measures to protect clean air and water, limit money in politics, provide workers with 12 weeks of paid family leave, pursue an “all of the above” energy approach, defend against terrorism and reduce crime, and bring down federal budget deficits.
What’s notable about the “80 Percent Party” is that neither Republicans nor Democrats can legitimately lay claim to this entire agenda. Both parties may support some of these ideas but not all. More importantly, neither party has the discipline to limit its governing agenda to the areas with the broadest support—for example, they both elevate significant culture war issues that animate their respective bases and promote specific policy positions that appease their coalition members, thus driving away potential backers rather than uniting a sustainable majority of people behind a common-sense framework.
Given the polarized nature of American politics, it is unlikely that a new independent party like this could even appeal to 80 percent of the electorate, since inevitably the leaders of such a party would personally turn off large numbers of potential converts or the new party’s voters would splinter on other hot-button issues. But the establishment of a non-partisan organization (or a few relevant ones) dedicated to promoting areas of consensus within our flawed two-party system—without a cult of personality figurehead—could do a great deal to help lower the temperature in politics and focus more governmental attention on the issues that most Americans care the most about.
Americans have been promised a great deal at relatively little cost to them which is why the U.S. debt is approaching $37 trillion ($107,000+ per citizen). I get John Halpin's point, that neither major party represents the "middle" very well, yet until we citizens are willing to actually bear the cost (financial and emotional) of the things we want, including those in the list above, we will not have a party that is truly representative of the 80% in the middle.
A party in the middle would have to come from the Establishment wing of the two existing parties plus the disengaged. In other words, a party of failure. Economic, cultural and political failure. The core of the issue suite is price controls, a policy that has failed every single time since it was invented by Hammarubi.
Better to redefine politics so as to unite the two non-Establishment wings
In other words, populist fusion. That couldn't get to 80 % but neither could a center party. Just look at how well they are doing in Europe. Populist fusion is hard but it wouldn't have the stench of failure and kicking the can down the road.