THE WAYFARER

E Pluribus Unum.

Out of many, one.

A Latin phrase emblazoned on corroded pennies lying damp on street corners, etched meticulously in the limestone facades of government buildings, and draped across the outstretched hands of angels in the The Apotheosis of Washington in the Capitol rotunda. But most importantly, a creed that lies in the heart of us—Americans. From the first moment our Founding Fathers took up the pen in the hope of a new and unified nation, this idea has persisted. But it was not mere coincidence or inevitability that enshrined this belief. Rather, it was formed from prescient minds and hopes of what this nation could be. The idea shined, perhaps the brightest, in the heart of James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”. Authoring essays on his vision for a democratic government with the feverishness of a dog chasing a squirrel, he envisaged our representative union. His greatest contribution coming with the publishing of Federalist Paper No. 10.

In the thesis¹ of the Founding Father’s essay, Madison predicted a fundamental Achille’s heel in all popular democracies: the issue of factionism. The duopoly that emerges as a union—in the interest of its citizens—entrenches itself in partisan identities. The vast majority ideologically snug in the center realize, incorrigibly, that they are in some sort of no-man’s-land of political representation between varying degrees of extremism on either side. The table of democracy wobbles on its two legs precariously. The only fulcrum that keeps such a unity upright are the soft guardrails of constitutional ambiguity and respected governmental norms. But what happens when these norms come under attack by the very same constitutional guardrails they are meant to protect? The table either falls or bolsters itself on a third leg. 

Should that third leg not be built from the constructs of our individual self and our commitment to acting in good faith? In our abiding desire for liberty? In our love for this country and its people? A strong leg. A unified leg. A Pluralist leg. 

Pluralism is not a novel concept. It has long been a philosophy embraced for its idea that diverse ethnic, religious, racial, and social groups can maintain and develop their own traditional cultures and special interests within a common civilization. But, as of yet, this has not been extrapolated into its own distinct unifier. One of itself; an actual identity. And maybe that identity is the most constructive way forward in a nation torn by division. 

The Pluralist holds a firm belief in these ten principles:

1. Mutual tolerance of political opposition
2. Institutional forbearance, or the exertion of restraint in deploying governmental prerogatives. In other words, following the spirit of the law rather than simply the rule of law²
3. Displaying awareness that difficult problems most often cannot be solved with simple solutions
4. A deep and abiding comfort with nuance
5. Unwillingness to fall into the contemptible habit of thinking one is persecuted when, in fact, they are only contradicted
6. Willingness to listen carefully and in good faith
7. Not beholden to constituent factions vying for primacy
8. Eschew extremism
9. Rooted in the firm belief of pragmatic realism
10. Distaste for demagoguery

These ten principles serve as the requisite political identity that guides a Pluralist. And while somewhat ambiguous, they are purposefully so. The reason being that any sense of identity will inevitably involve self-determination. To assign strict criteria of what is or isn’t a Pluralist would be akin to assigning strict criteria to what is or isn’t beautiful. They’re abstract concepts that rely on a certain degree of consensus. Take, for example, an autumn sunset falling behind the Tetons. This will roundly be considered a beautiful sight, but to objectively state why this is so would be impossible. 

Society is much the same. A certain degree of accepted norms are essential to its functioning. If citizens simply did not recognize the rule of law, the world would fall into anarchy and nihilism. 

But first we must observe history, for as Edmund Burke once asserted, “those who cannot remember the past are destined to repeat it.” We must understand why other moderate and centrist third parties have failed in the past. Why the Reform Party, Unity Party, and Forward Party—to name a few—have failed to capture the larger public sentiment. This is for two reasons: a failure to recognize the psychological and emotional identities party loyalties play in voters’ affinities and an overemphasis on policy reform before first recognizing the importance of these identities. 

As humans, our sense of consciousness is both our greatest strength and our highest hurdle. Our awareness of who we are as people is an amorphous mixture of varying, sometimes conflicting, set of identities. I am a friend who adores the company of people, but I am equally a lover of solitude. I am a believer in justice and the rule of law, but recognize that law doesn’t necessarily equate to legitimacy, and very rarely does it mean reform. These questions sway in our minds and form what we attempt to describe as our sense of self. But, as is apparent, they are forever in motion. The discomfort that arises requires that we have some firm set of ideas in which to ballast ourselves. For many, that is where a community develops: religion, social circles, and political ideologies. To devalue the importance of any of these in identifying who we are as people would be to fail from the outset.

Too often, to our detriment, we prefer to think of politics as a game of chess. We think by moving policies in one direction or the other we will inevitably garner support from the beneficiaries of those policies. Yet, this is too reductive. And it is not because of a failure on the part of the populous to appreciate those policies, but because those policies were always secondary to the identities they were meant to represent. My sense of belonging to my identity group will always take precedence over whether I believe in comprehensive immigration reform or redistributive tax policy. 

But—and here arises the paradox—this over-reliance on identity as a means for political expression is the greatest driver of factionism that Madison warns of. How then do we move forward while simultaneously acknowledging the role of identity but also minimizing the friction that it causes? This demands we question our priors, and see the world for what it is so that we may, in turn, come to find what it can be. 

The most common critique of Pluralism is that it is viewed as overly idealistic. In a sense, yes. However, what is idealism if not a vision for a better world that may yet be? Pluralism, it could be argued, is far more based in reality than the current state of politics. The current state of politics is to say “this is right” or “this is wrong” without even the mere attempt at nuance. No other facet of our existence operates in this fashion, so how could we possibly believe that our ruling government could do so? That is not idealistic, but utterly irrational. Pluralism makes space for the nuance; welcomes it even.

The purpose of this essay is not to expound on policy suggestions; however, I will offer one as an example of what a potential Pluralist focus may include. 

Currently, the American electoral system is based on a “Winner-take-all” approach (i.e., single-member districts). Parsed out by district, we elect one candidate that we believe most closely aligns with our own personal philosophy and values. One candidate wins; all others lose. This means that even if the winning candidate only garners 51% of the vote, they win 100% of the representation. In a pure democracy, this is absurd. This means that the other 49% of the electorate are not at all represented by their government. 

Contrast the Winner-take-all approach with a Proportional-representation approach (i.e., multi-member districts). In a Proportional-representation system, elections are held for multi-seat districts that allocate seats based on percentage of the vote. So in a six-seat district, if one party wins 51% of the vote, they would be expected to hold three seats. This means that each major party would be likely to hold at least one seat in government. This provides the entire electorate with at least some form of representation and a much more democratic version of governing. 

Take that into account, then perhaps a Pluralist would be running on an agenda that includes the abolition of the Winner-take-all (i.e., single-member district) approach to government. This would include, namely, repealing the Uniform Congressional Districts Act (UCDA) which requires all House elections to be for single-member districts. This will inevitably amass a fair bit of ridicule, most notably from those in power who benefit quite substantially from a Winner-take-all approach. However, a Pluralist believes that a government is for and by the people, not for and by the few. 

1. “Among the numerous advantages promised by a wellconstructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice.” ↩︎
2. Numbers 1 and 2 are derived from Harvard professors Steven Livitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s research into the breakdown of democracies covered in their book How Democracies Die (2018). ↩︎