One of the defining features of modern American politics has been nonstop change. Across 12 federal elections since the turn of the century, ten have produced a change in party control of at least one of the House, Senate, or presidency. By comparison, just six of the prior 20 elections produced any change at all. And after three back-to-back, two-term presidencies between 1992 and 2016, each of the last three elections has ended with a new winner.

A series of major events and disruptions to daily life has further hastened the political instability of this era. The “forever wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq that followed the 9/11 attacks and the financial crisis led trust in government to crater. Massive technological changes gave us new filters through which to see the world and others in it, helping to precipitate popular uprisings and social movements but also generating growing estrangement from our fellow citizens, worsening political and cultural polarization and tribalism, and a crisis of shared epistemology. The Covid pandemic exacerbated all of this.

Subscribe now

The consequences have been grim. Americans have grown less trusting of their institutions and each other. Politics, increasingly informed by cultural attitudes, has become a more salient part of many people’s identities. The two parties have each become more ideologically homogenous, more tribe-like. All this has put even greater pressure on the country’s political system. Fewer people trust election results or view their political opponents as legitimate. Meanwhile, growing numbers believe election outcomes matter “a great deal” and that the other “side” represents a threat to their values and way of life. (And dissent or criticism from one’s own side is rarely considered cause for self-reflection and instead often viewed as heresy.)

As the political stakes have risen, America’s two parties have become myopic, rarely looking more than two years ahead at any given time because the next election is always “the most important of our lifetime.” This has created bad incentives for them and their supporters. Republicans, who currently control both chambers of Congress and the presidency and have an ideological majority on the Supreme Court, have won the latest battles. Yet their embrace of Donald Trump and MAGA, who practice a deliberate politics of division rather than addition, has turned off a generation of young people—especially young women—who may never vote for them.

Democrats, meanwhile, made clear that they are okay shedding the support of more culturally conservative (or even moderate) white working-class voters in exchange for a new base that is more affluent, educated, culturally progressive, and politically active, otherwise known as the “Brahmin left.” While this exchange has helped them succeed in lower-turnout, off-year elections, it also contributed to the movement of both the Electoral College and Senate toward Republicans and enabled Trump’s comeback in 2024.

In this environment, it often seems political actors are incapable of seeing the bigger picture and making decisions that are strategically sound. Though some partisans on both sides still understand the wisdom and value of persuasion—of winning converts and meeting voters where they are—many others have concluded that they simply don’t want to build coalitions that include people who might be more sympathetic to some of the other side’s views or policies. They believe that those people are suspect, and that greater ideological purity and uniformity will make “our side” stronger.

To be sure, one advantage of these changes is that both parties now have higher floors of support than they once did, as more voters have been polarized into one camp or the other. But the trade-off has been a cap on how large their coalitions can ever really grow. The upshot is that neither one enjoys landslide victories anymore, and national elections are increasingly decided by the thinnest of margins, raising the stakes of election outcomes. It’s an unstable system in which turnover is constant and majorities are rarely around long enough to affect lasting change.

In essence, we have a “politics without winners.” (The biggest winners in modern politics are the polarizers selling rage bait. To support our work to build something better, please fully join our community by becoming a paid subscriber today.)

Subscribe now

But we also know that most Americans disapprove of this type of politics and want a change. They’re exhausted by political tribalism and the two parties’ inability to work together on behalf of the country. As a sign of their displeasure, many have shed party affiliations together: the share of Americans identifying as independents sits today at its highest point ever. This has left fertile ground for either party to build a dominant, enduring electoral majority—if one of them is willing to take the long view of politics.

Which brings us to the purpose of our new publication. Cards on the table: we lean more toward the left side of the spectrum, and much of our analysis and commentary will thus be focused on Democrats and the liberal tradition. In that way this project will serve as something of an intellectual successor to the Liberal Patriot, where both of us previously wrote.

We will also dive into related themes that both parties—and Americans more broadly—will hopefully find worthwhile, including:

• Politics without winners. The gist of this idea, mentioned above, is that neither Democrats nor Republicans appear at this juncture concerned with doing the hard work of building a broad, ideologically and demographically heterodox coalition capable of winning an era, not just the next election. They are instead more concerned with mollifying their respective bases, staying on the right side of interest groups, and winning with as few members of the “other side” as possible. If neither party is willing to forge a different path, the constant churn of political change will endure for the foreseeable future.

• Structure of the shadow parties. “The Groups” (or the “shadow party”) and other forces have taken advantage of weak formal party structures—especially on the Democratic side. Though they are not well-understood, they carry immense power in shaping the party’s policy agenda and messaging. Yet, their priorities and views are often at odds with not just the median American but with the very constituencies they purport to represent. If the Democrats hope to reclaim that power for themselves, they must first understand who these groups are and how they have come to play such an influential role in the party.

• The median voter. Though the term has been invoked often enough in some spaces that it has become a punch line, it’s still a good reminder to political elites not to lose sight of what ordinary Americans believe and care about—to be willing to meet them where they are and not get too far out of step with them or tell them that their views are “unacceptable.” We appreciate the sentiment expressed by our friends at Welcome, who say they “work for the center of the country, not the center of the [Democratic] party.”

• Political moderation. There is a great deal of misunderstanding in American politics surrounding the term “moderate.” Lately, some seem to think it’s simply a synonym for the “establishment.” Others believe it means “landing in the exact middle” or having no real convictions. But it’s actually a guiding framework for ensuring our politics are governed not by the extremes but in between them. The inclusion of political moderates in our parties is important because most Americans themselves are not strong partisans, and it remains vital to have effective guardrails against extremist factions that would, if given the chance, lurch the country in a direction the overwhelming majority disagree with.

• (De-)polarization. Political divisions have existed in virtually every society ever, and we would never suggest it’s possible or even desirable to completely avoid them. But toxic political and cultural polarization clouds our judgment and makes us more tribal, which in turn makes it harder for America to govern itself. The worse these trends grow, the harder it will be to build a healthier politics.

• Patriotism. America has its faults, just like every society throughout history. But it has also done an immense amount of good in the world and made great progress over time toward fulfilling its founding ideals, and it’s important to acknowledge this. However, there is a growing strain of anti-Americanism at home that is not only bad, per se, but unproductive as a guiding framework for improving life here. Reformers cannot fix a country they do not love. While reflexive or coerced patriotism is not always healthy, a strong national and civic identity can benefit all citizens, too.

• Prosperity and growth. Voters have lost faith in the ability of either party to deliver prosperity and growth. Worse still, some prominent figures, particularly on the political left, have questioned whether the goal of growth is even worthwhile. Yet, few things are more important to the average voter than strong economic growth and the opportunities it presents for upward mobility and a prosperous life. As we confront the momentous economic transformation driven by AI, this challenge to the parties will only grow in importance.

• Civic culture. An underrated factor behind America’s political malaise is the decline of shared activities, spaces, and culture. As technological advances have made it easier to live life on screens at home, Americans have been spending less time in groups and more time alone. There are fewer opportunities to truly know our neighbors, making it more likely that our understanding of them will be filtered through the distorted lens of social media. The country desperately needs a revival of its civic institutions to help bring people of different backgrounds together and break down superficial barriers.

• The working class. There has been much debate recently about what it means to be “working class” in America: is it income, education, both, or something else entirely? No matter how one defines it, this cohort clearly has an immense amount of influence on the country’s politics. It is thus worth trying to better understand working-class Americans and their concerns, beliefs, and voting habits.

• The Democratic Party. We have previously written at length about our thoughts on the state of the Democrats, and that will continue in this publication, especially in the lead-up to the 2028 presidential primary. What will the party stand for in the post-Trump era? Who will lead it? Which factions will have the most influence? And are they setting themselves up for long-term success or succumbing to short-term incentives again?

As we write about these themes and more, we will be guided by old-school liberal values. We will maintain a commitment to ideological pluralism, free speech, and civil discourse, and no topic will be off-limits. We will strive to approach our analysis and commentary in a manner that is pragmatic, intellectually curious, and open to a good-faith exchange of ideas. At the same time, we will reject extremism, purity, dogma, and reflexive partisanship. We will also bring a data-driven approach to everything we do and do our best to engage with information that may contradict or complicate our priors.

For now, The Long View will be a two-year project with our friends at Welcome that will go through the final night of the 2028 Democratic National Convention. We hope you will join us as we embark on this new venture.