A seemingly center-right third party announced itself to the world in South Carolina on Thursday, and at surface-level first glance, it looks like a serious enterprise.
Whether this is good news or bad for civic life remains up in the air, but its organizers seem to be working in the right spirit.
The “Alliance Party of South Carolina” announced itself as the first of what soon will be 22 state entities proclaiming themselves as “fiscally conservative” but otherwise “independent voters, veterans, former moderate Democrats and Republicans, and centrists, whose views, values and futures are no longer represented by the existing divisive and paralyzed two-party monopoly plagued by partisan gridlock.”
Indeed, a look at the party website listed governing philosophy, principles, and positions that read like the epitome of studious centrism: “unity,” “community,” “participatory self-government,” “pragmatism,” “rank-choice voting,” and the importance of “Fourth Amendment … privacy.” On immigration, the Alliance supports “reasonable pathways to citizenship” for otherwise law-abiding illegals, which was a nod to the Left, but also includes an insistence that citizens may “define who may and who may not become part of the nation,” which was a nod to the Right and to the centrality of sovereignty.
The center-right will like the absolute centrality of debt reduction to the Alliance’s stated mission; the center-left will like its advocacy of rather strenuous means-testing for Social Security benefits.
And so on.
The party was formed not as a splinter group of former Democrats or of Republican Never Trumpers, but as a coming together of former Democratic and Republican officeholders, office-seekers, and party workers, along with skilled professionals without a partisan background, “who are feeling alienated and unrepresented by the parties they have supported for years.”
Those are the words of Jennifer McLucas, co-chairperson of national communications for the new party. A communications professional for 20 years but without former political experience, McLucas told me that the Alliance’s stated positions are meant to be “not prescriptive,” but rather “guardrails” inside which to “start a conversation.” There will be a candidate review team to decide who gets Alliance’s endorsement in any race, but as a candidate, “you will have the flexibility to adapt your issues to your local district.”
The primary focus of the new party will be drafting and running candidates for state and local office and for House and Senate.
“A presidential candidate is not out of the question; however, it is not the highest priority right now,” said McLucas. “If things fall into place and it looks feasible, we will certainly consider it.”
To be sure, Alliance won’t be what devoted conservatives or impatient progressives are looking for. Each side might fear that the practical result of Alliance would split their own side more than the other, thus handing victory to the ideological enemy. There is always the chance, however, that this new effort might really hit the “sweet spot,” taking equal numbers of disaffected voters from each side and building itself as a significant third force with practical effects varying from place to place.
Most people of good will should welcome Alliance to the conversation and to the marketplace of ideas. Maybe a little competition for votes in the middle will stir the pot enough to make both existing major parties re-assess their current paths, to everybody’s benefit. Responsible centrism can be a force for civic health. Let’s hope Alliance proves to be so.
