Some question our suggestion the Future Party start with building organizations in every state led by experienced political workers supported by eager volunteers.  Once established, candidates can then vie in the conventions for the party’s Nominations.  We are well aware of the fact that successful new parties have been built around a personality such as Macron in France and Beppe Grillo in Italy.  The problem is we already have gone down that road with Donald Trump’s take over of the Republican Party.   We feel the best counter to a personality cult party is to offer an alternative. Instead of a disruptive erratic leader, offer quiet competence and solid policies.  After four or god forbid eight years of constant noise and acrimony on both sides, the country just might be tired of it. The better bet for a new party is to offer something quite different.  Further, whatever name personalities out front in the beginning may define the party in ways that turn off would be adherents. The better way is provide a framework potential candidates can see themselves coming out on top in what would initially be three-way races.  If potential candidates see a path forward they will come.  Think of each our two major parties as rivers fed by an extreme stream and a more moderate stream.  Now, mainly do to the primary system and extremes dominating the media, the moderate streams are dammed and out of the flow. Like water, the build up of blocked talented people will find somewhere to go if exists.  We just have to provide a way for these moderate streams to come together to form a mighty new river.

Another criticism is the lack of a statement of principles or platform.  We believe people will gravitate to the Future Party because they are convinced their present extreme parties are headed in the wrong direction and are incapable of solving our pressing problems. Many present independents have already came to that conclusion. Out of control spending, a badly broken immigration system, individual concerns over healthcare and parental leave issues and our political and economic relationship with the rest of the world are just some issues the two present parties have failed to positively address. On these issues there is wide agreement on general principles needed to resolve the problems.  Better to let the new party members themselves come together on a platform they feel they can succeed on. By coming together they would show they can come up with workable plans.  This could appeal to a majority of American and would show the nation who the adults in the room are.  Also, if we set forth a platform in advance we stand to turn off a wide swath of potential party members.

Before we had primaries, convention goers would coalesce on candidates and issues. They did this for a simple reason. They existed to win elections.  If you can’t convince those with the most invested in the party how are you going to win in the general elections?  Those people who are the nuts and bolts of the party earned the right to determine the products they to sell the general public.  If you don’t like the product vote for the competitor.  But know these people did their best to provide you with solid reasons to vote their way. This would be big difference from our present system having to vote for the candidate you detest least.

In practice this would preclude some candidates with baggage,questionable polices or low favorably  such as Ted Cruz or Martin O’Malley jumping in early and defining the party. Once structurally sound, the party would be in position to attract first class and/or interesting candidates.  For instance  Mitch Daniels, Nikki Haley, Mitch Landreau or Chris Coons  all presently without a chance for one of the present major’s 2020 nominations but could win in the general could be encouraged to seek the Future Party nomination.  The contest alone would generate huge publicity and confer instant stature to the party. The ratings would probably drive you know who up a wall.  The possibility of a dark horse and actual debates on issues would focus attention on the Future Party leading to at least parity with the old majors.  This ,of course is the goal.

Just the presence of the Future Party would bring good things. The possibility of either or both the old  major parties to become marginalized could force them into reforms. Instead of pandering to their extremes they would have to find ways to broaden their appeal.  Conceding the wide middle of the nation could leave them sidelined with losses. This move to more conciliatory government couldn’t help but lead to tackling our major problem. It would seem to us the $400 million Charlse Koch’s political group plans to spend on the 2018 election cycle would be better spent on funding the Future Party.  A lot others in the donor class might on both sides might want to make the same comparison. They just need to ask themselves, what is best for the country?