Op-Ed: Radical Inclusion: A Centrist Blueprint for American Renewal by Tommy Abel
Understanding Radical Inclusion – by Tommy Abel
I’ve had countless conversations with friends and colleagues—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents—who all say the same thing: they’re tired. Tired of yelling. Tired of gridlock. Tired of being told they have to pick a side. They’re exhausted. Not apathetic, but fed up with being told they’re either part of the problem or not “pure” enough in their beliefs. Radical inclusion speaks directly to this quiet majority—those who want to build, not burn.
I wrote this because I believe we’re better than the noise. I believe there’s a quiet strength in the middle that’s been ignored for too long. And I believe we don’t have to agree on everything to build something together. This isn’t just a political essay. It’s a personal hope—and a public challenge. Let’s make room for each other again.
“Radical inclusion” is a phrase deliberately chosen to emphasize bold commitment, not extremism or ideological purity, but moderation, compromise, and cooperation. It is radical precisely because it directly challenges the prevailing culture of division and tribalism in American politics. Radical inclusion isn’t just a lofty idea. It’s common sense. It’s civility. It’s about getting back to what made American democracy work in the first place. It insists on creating meaningful space at the center for those who seek solutions rather than conflict, unity rather than division, and practicality rather than ideological rigidity.
The Numbers Don’t Lie: America Lives in the Middle
Despite the high volume of political rhetoric from both the far left and far right, empirical data consistently reveals that the true majority of Americans reside in the ideological center. Gallup’s most
recent polling shows that 43% of Americans now identify as independents—more than either
Democrats or Republicans, who each account for just 28% of the electorate (Gallup, 2024). This represents the highest share of independents since Gallup began tracking party affiliation in the 1980s and underscores the growing dissatisfaction with both major parties. Ideologically, 34% of Americans identify as moderates, compared to 37% who identify as conservative and only 25% who identify as liberal (Gallup).
The demand for a new political option is well documented. In a February 2024 Gallup poll, 58% of Americans stated that the two major parties do “such a poor job” representing the American people that a third party is needed. Among independents, that number climbs to a staggering 69% (Gallup).
This is not a passing sentiment; support for a third party has steadily risen for over a decade. Furthermore, the “Hidden Tribes of America” study by More in Common found that 67% of Americans belong to what the researchers call the “Exhausted Majority”—a group characterized by political flexibility, a distaste for extremism, and a desire for cooperation over confrontation (More in Common, 2023). Only 14% of Americans fall into the “wings” of political activism—8% identified as progressive activists, and 6% as devoted conservatives.
Additional research from Pew in 2023 found that nearly nine in ten Americans (86%) believe that Republican and Democratic leaders should work together on major issues, even if it means compromising on some policy positions (Pew Research Center, 2023). This bipartisan appetite for cooperation is consistent across party lines, generational cohorts, and regional divides. Similarly, a 2022 Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found that 64% of Americans said the country needs a new political party, while only 28% believed the existing parties were doing an adequate job (Harvard CAPS/Harris, 2022).
This data forms a compelling case: the American electorate is not polarized—it’s abandoned. The vast center is ideologically moderate, frustrated by extremism, and actively seeking pragmatic, unifying leadership.
The political middle is not theoretical – it’s measurable, it’s growing, and it’s waiting for leadership.
A Word to the Critics: The Necessity—and Limits—of the Center
Any proposal to build a new centrist coalition will face critiques from both ideological poles. From the right, there are claims that this project revives failed political elites who ignored working-class grievances and sold out national priorities. From the left, the charge is that such a coalition would whitewash systemic injustice, overlook progressive momentum, and downplay urgent crises such as climate change and inequality. These perspectives are not without merit—but they reinforce, rather than weaken, the need for a centrist position.
Radical inclusion is not about appeasing every viewpoint or diluting every policy to mush. It is about governing with integrity, evidence, and balance. It means choosing policies that may frustrate the far left or right—but that serve the greater good through consensus and sustainability. Centrism is not indecision—it is the recognition that we do not live in a binary world. A healthy democracy requires negotiation, not absolutism; resilience, not radicalism.
This movement embraces bold climate action that is grounded in economic realism and scientific consensus. It defends personal liberty—including equal protection for women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ Americans—based not on ideological trends, but on the founding promise of equal justice under the law. These are not fringe values; they are majority values—shared by Americans who wish to be safe, respected, free, and heard.
Centrism is not the absence of belief. It is the belief that a democratic society only functions when enough people—across geography, race, class, gender, and generation—are willing to meet in the middle and govern together.
Historical Lessons in Centrist Coalition Building
History provides powerful examples of societies thriving when pragmatic, moderate coalitions unite against extremism and authoritarianism. Nelson Mandela’s Government of National Unity in post-apartheid South Africa exemplifies this principle. Mandela intentionally chose reconciliation and collaboration over revenge and division. His establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and an inclusive constitution stabilized a nation on the brink of collapse. Mandela’s approach clearly demonstrated that genuine reconciliation requires courage, humility, and cooperation across deep divides. His words capture the essence of radical inclusion perfectly: “Reconciliation means working together to correct the legacy of past injustice.”
Europe likewise offers valuable lessons. In 1936, France’s Popular Front united communists, socialists, and moderates in a collective effort against rising fascism. Germany’s Grand Coalition under Chancellor Angela Merkel effectively balanced economic growth, immigration, and social stability for nearly two decades, setting a global standard for pragmatic governance. Spain and Chile each transitioned peacefully from authoritarianism through broad-based centrist coalitions dedicated to democracy, economic reform, and social inclusion. Each historical instance illustrates the crucial truth that democracy thrives when moderate voices bravely come together around shared values rather than ideological division.
These coalitions were not perfect, nor did they solve every injustice. In many cases, they made compromises that left wounds unhealed or created new challenges. However, they illustrate a vital truth: when faced with division, democracies survive not through ideological purity, but through the courage to build broad, imperfect, yet inclusive coalitions. Any coalition must be more than symbolic—they must be carefully curated, grounded in shared purpose, and adaptive to changing public needs. When thoughtfully constructed and transparently managed, centrist alliances can defend democracy, rebuild trust, and deliver real progress across generations.
Radical inclusion acknowledges that history is messy—but insists that unity, tempered by honesty, offers the surest path forward.
The American Moment: Uniting the Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas
In contemporary American politics, the Bush, Clinton, and Obama families symbolize powerful legacies of leadership that are more aligned than conventional narratives suggest. Despite ideological differences, historical records highlight significant common ground among these families—common ground that forms an ideal foundation for radical inclusion and bipartisan cooperation today. For many Americans, these leaders aren’t just historical figures—they’re symbols of a time when politics still felt like it served people, not parties.
On immigration, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton each supported comprehensive reforms that emphasized both compassion and security. Bush advocated for an America that was both “lawful and welcoming,” Obama pursued balanced immigration reform through executive actions such as DACA, and Clinton consistently supported practical solutions that honored America’s immigrant heritage.
Criminal justice reform reveals similar overlaps. Each leader acknowledged the need to balance public safety with rehabilitation and justice. Clinton’s later reflections on criminal justice policies, Bush’s emphasis on compassionate conservatism, and Obama’s legislative efforts toward criminal justice reform collectively underscore a pragmatic agreement on the path forward.
Economically, all three families demonstrated a consistent commitment to fiscal responsibility and growth that benefits a broad spectrum of Americans. George H.W. Bush’s pragmatism on fiscal policy, Clinton’s balanced budgets and economic prosperity, and Obama’s stewardship during economic crises illustrate shared values of responsible governance and pragmatic problem-solving.
Healthcare and scientific research further underscore their alignment. Bush’s groundbreaking AIDS relief initiative (PEPFAR), Clinton’s expansive investments in public health, and Obama’s Affordable Care Act collectively affirm a bipartisan commitment to evidence-based policies and compassionate governance.
Lastly, each family fiercely defended constitutional fidelity, judicial independence, and the rule of law, emphasizing democracy as foundational and transcending partisan interests.
These ideological overlaps are not mere historical footnotes—they demonstrate a deeply rooted commitment to pragmatic moderation, a vital precondition for building a transformative centrist coalition.
A Platform for Radical Inclusion
A political platform grounded in radical inclusion would prioritize practical, bipartisan solutions to America’s most pressing issues. Core elements could include balanced immigration reform that combines humane pathways with secure borders, pragmatic healthcare expansions emphasizing coverage and cost control, fair criminal justice reforms that prioritize rehabilitation, robust investments in scientific research and public health, responsible fiscal policy that balances budget discipline with strategic investments, and unwavering protection of constitutional integrity and judicial independence.
Such a platform provides Americans with a clear and pragmatic alternative to extremism, firmly anchored at the ideological center, emphasizing governance over ideological purity and cooperation over conflict.
Expanding the Coalition: Key Contemporary Leaders
To build a viable and influential centrist coalition, the inclusion of respected contemporary leaders from both parties is essential. These individuals are known for their integrity, policy expertise, bipartisan cooperation, and steady leadership—traits that are increasingly rare and urgently needed.
Senator Mitt Romney brings constitutional fidelity, conservative credibility, and moral clarity, particularly in moments of institutional crisis. Senator Joe Manchin offers a voice for rural America and moderate Democrats, advocating energy pragmatism and fiscal responsibility. Former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan has governed effectively in a deeply divided state, consistently modeling bipartisan problem-solving and executive competence.
Senator Amy Klobuchar has built a reputation for pragmatic legislating and coalition-building, particularly in antitrust, voting access, and infrastructure reform. Senator Michael Bennet, a soft-spoken but principled reformer from Colorado, adds a steady voice for educational equity, democratic renewal, and economic fairness, with strong appeal to independents and moderate Democrats.
Former Ambassador Jon Huntsman Jr. brings invaluable foreign policy experience, having served under both Republican and Democratic administrations, while Michael Bloomberg contributes data-driven expertise on urban governance, public health, and climate action. Former Secretary Condoleezza Rice adds institutional wisdom and global strategy, reinforcing the coalition’s depth on diplomacy and education. Senator Mark Warner complements the group with deep experience in technology, intelligence, and financial oversight.
Former Ohio Governor John Kasich offers crossover appeal, Midwestern pragmatism, and a strong moral center, while Senator Chris Coons contributes diplomatic skill and bipartisan rapport, particularly on foreign policy and judicial matters. Senator Susan Collins, long regarded as a centrist anchor in the Republican caucus, has repeatedly demonstrated independence and commitment to institutional balance, judicial integrity, and women’s rights.
Former Speaker Paul Ryan, though firmly rooted in conservative economic philosophy, provides a disciplined, data-informed perspective on fiscal policy, entitlement reform, and congressional functionality. His commitment to institutional respect and long-term planning aligns with the coalition’s broader vision for responsible governance.
The participation of these leaders would not only expand the coalition’s breadth and policy depth, but also demonstrate to the American public that leadership grounded in civility, collaboration, and problem-solving is still possible—and urgently necessary. Together, they represent a formidable cross-section of American political life: diverse in background, moderate in tone, and united in purpose.
Imagining a New Political Future
Could this kind of coalition really kickstart a serious third party in America? It’s not as far-fetched as it sounds. While that provocative idea warrants deeper exploration, it certainly suggests intriguing possibilities. A genuine third party, representing the broad middle spectrum of American politics, could profoundly reshape governance. Conservatives and progressives alike would need centrist cooperation to govern effectively, inherently moderating extremes, fostering bipartisanship, and enabling stable, responsible policymaking.
What would American democracy look like if governance consistently required negotiation, compromise, and practical solutions? Could the extremes that dominate our current politics be moderated by the powerful voice of a credible, influential center?
These compelling questions will be addressed in upcoming writings, offering a thorough exploration of the challenges and opportunities involved in creating an authentic third party.
A Call to Action: Inviting America’s Leaders to Unite
This is an invitation to America’s most respected political families and leaders: the Bushes, the Clintons, and the Obamas, along with the centrist figures mentioned above. Now is the moment to come together, overcoming partisan divides to reclaim moderation, civility, and pragmatic governance. America urgently needs their united voices and leadership.
The path forward is clear. Together, these leaders can restore faith in moderation and bipartisan cooperation. By publicly standing together, championing pragmatic policies, and exemplifying radical inclusion in practice, these prominent families can fundamentally reshape American political culture, inspire a weary electorate, and reclaim the proud legacy of centrist governance.
The potential impact is historic; the opportunity is rare, and the responsibility is profound. This might not be easy. It might even fail. But the opportunity to do something historic is real—and the responsibility is ours to take. The call is clear, compelling, and urgent. America’s democratic future depends on leaders bold enough to embody and champion radical inclusion, not as an idealistic fantasy, but as a pragmatic necessity.
Note to the Reader: On Bias, Moderation, and the Purpose of This Essay
In the current political climate, where outrage often drowns out reason, acknowledging bias is no longer a liability—it’s a responsibility. This essay, “Radical Inclusion: A Centrist Blueprint for American Renewal,” has been evaluated using a transparent bias scale designed to anchor discourse in facts, fairness, and transparency:
⦁ 0 = extreme left-wing propaganda, detached from fact
⦁ 10 = extreme right-wing propaganda, detached from fact
⦁ 5 = centrist, fact-based argumentation with minimal ideological distortion
This piece received a 5.0 / 10 on that scale—positioning it squarely in the political center. The essay draws heavily on empirical data (Gallup, Pew, More in Common), historical precedent, and a broad cross-section of political leadership to make its case for a new kind of politics: one rooted in pragmatism, moderation, and cross-partisan cooperation. It advocates for a constructive, inclusive, and pragmatic approach to governance.
Importantly, the essay does not attempt to present “both sides” as equally valid in every context. Instead, it proactively rejects ideological extremes on both ends, arguing that the center is not a place of indecision, but of principled pluralism. Its central claim is not that centrism is morally superior, but that it is strategically essential for preserving democracy and solving complex problems.
By highlighting leaders from across the political spectrum—Bush, Clinton, Obama, Romney, Manchin, Rice, Bloomberg, and more—the essay offers a roadmap for how diverse ideologies can converge around shared democratic values without requiring uniformity.
In publishing this piece with a clear acknowledgment of its position, I invite readers to engage in a more honest and productive conversation. The goal is not to be neutral for neutrality’s sake but to help restore trust in the possibility of common ground.
Inclusion is not capitulation. It is construction. It is how we build something better—together.
— Tommy Abel
