This paper aims to synthesize all previous discussions about the nature, intent, and structure of the Forward Party and provide a comprehensive account to ensure that the party’s vision remains coherent and consistent
The Constitution of the United States of America
By Joshua Peters
This paper aims to synthesize all previous discussions about the nature, intent, and structure of the Forward Party. It has been over six months since the publication of the first Forwardist Paper, and much has been discussed since then. Therefore, it is crucial to provide a comprehensive account of what has been said to ensure that the party’s vision remains coherent and consistent. Additionally, this paper will offer a better understanding of the Forward Party’s nature and its implications for American politics.
Our Principle: A Pragmatic Centrist Foundation
The Forward Party has emerged as a potential new player in the American political landscape, positioning itself as a pragmatic centrist party. However, understanding this positioning requires a nuanced exploration of what it means to occupy a centrist stance, especially within the context of a bimodal political spectrum dominated by the two major parties. This exploration also requires an appreciation of the broader philosophical traditions, from Aristotelianism to American pragmatism, which profoundly influence the Forward Party’s ideology.
At its core, the Forward Party embraces liberalism, a political philosophy that aligns with a pluralistic, pragmatic, and analytic worldview. This liberalism, rooted in the American pragmatist tradition, is not strictly about advocating for traditionally “liberal” policies. Instead, it emphasizes openness to diverse perspectives, commitment to reasoned debate, and a willingness to adapt and change based on evidence and experience. It encompasses a range of liberal ideas, from classical liberalism, which emerged from Lockean political philosophy, to the New Deal progressivism advocated by FDR, JFK, and LBJ. Thus, the ideology guiding the Forward Party must be pragmatic, as it is the only way to accommodate a plurality of viewpoints.
Pragmatism in this context means that the party does not adhere rigidly to any single doctrine but instead engages in a dialectic process that considers various political dispositions—be they progressive, conservative, libertarian, or otherwise—and evaluates the practical cash-value of ideas. In other words, the party’s focus is on what works and what will lead to the best outcomes for a liberal democratic society.
American pragmatism, as a philosophical movement, has always been concerned with the practical implications of ideas and their applicability in real-world contexts. Philosophers like Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey emphasized that the truth of an idea is closely linked to its practical consequences and utility. This perspective is integral to the Forward Party’s approach, as it seeks to navigate the complexities of modern governance by prioritizing effective solutions over ideological purity.
The Forward Party is often regarded as a centrist party by media outlets. Even Wikipedia describes the Forward Party as a “centrist political party.” While this is not formally the case, there is something to be said about the party having informal tendencies that could be considered centrist. However, understanding these informal centrist tendencies requires further exploration.
Centrism, as I envision it for the Forward Party, is thus not about occupying a neutral position or sitting on the fence between two extremes. Instead, it represents a unimodal position on the political spectrum. Traditional views often present American politics as a bimodal distribution, with two dominant ideologies (represented by the Democratic and Republican parties) forming two peaks on either end of a spectrum. In this structure, centrism might be perceived as merely the midpoint between these two extremes. However, the Forward Party’s approach challenges this binary view.
A unimodal distribution, in contrast to a bimodal one, does not focus on the extremes but rather seeks a consensus that emerges from diverse viewpoints. Centrism, therefore, is about identifying and promoting policies that resonate with a broad consensus, rather than being confined to the ideological boundaries set by the dominant parties. It is a stance that prioritizes solutions based on common ground and practical considerations, rather than rigid ideological purity. Accordingly, the Forward Party would expand centrism to include a spectrum ranging from left of center to right of center. However, this spectrum can shift depending on the distribution of viewpoints: if the distribution is right-skewed (with more viewpoints clustering towards the left), the center may appear further left; if left-skewed (with more viewpoints clustering towards the right), the center may appear further right.
This unimodal understanding shares a connection to the tradition of American pragmatism, which emphasizes practical outcomes and the flexibility to adapt as situations change. American pragmatism advocates for a continual process of inquiry and adjustment, much like the Forward Party’s commitment to a dialectic process. This process involves constantly revisiting and reassessing policies based on their real-world effectiveness and the evolving needs of society. In essence, the Forward Party’s pragmatic centrism, as I will call it, is about creating a new center of gravity in American politics—one that is not merely equidistant from the existing extremes but instead represents a synthesis of the most practical and effective ideas from across the spectrum. Therefore, this pragmatic centrism seeks to bridge divides by focusing on shared values and common goals, rather than emphasizing differences and disagreements.
In connecting this pragmatic centrist foundation with broader philosophical principles, we can draw from Aristotle’s concept of virtue as a mean between extremes to further cement the Forward Party’s connection to the Western philosophical tradition. Aristotle stated,
Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean…this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect; and again it is a mean because the vices respectively fall short of or exceed what is right in both passions and actions… Hence in respect of its substance and the definition which states its essence virtue is a mean, with regard to what is best and right an extreme.
This concept aligns with the Forward Party’s pragmatic centrism, where the “mean” represents a balanced and rational approach to policymaking, avoiding the extremes of both excess and deficiency.
By positioning itself as a pragmatic centrist party, the Forward Party aims to transcend the often divisive and polarized nature of American politics. It seeks to offer a policymaking approach where ideas are judged on their merits and effectiveness, rather than their ideological origins. In doing so, the Forward Party aspires to cultivate a more collaborative and constructive political environment, where diverse perspectives are valued and integrated into a coherent and deliberative vision for American politics.
Our Purpose: To Preserve Our Constitutional Republic in Pursuit of a Liberal Democratic Society
Stated simply, our purpose is to preserve our constitutional republic in pursuit of a liberal democratic society. I shall define a liberal democratic society simply as a society that seeks the preservation of individual rights and democratic institutions. A liberal democratic society in the American context should be understood as distinct from Athenian democracy, which strived for a pure democracy—that is, an unstructured form of democracy with no checks to prevent the polis from voting away their rights. Learning from the mistakes of our Greek ancestors, we strive towards a more structured form of democracy called representative democracy and the liberty to form a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, pursuant to the protection of individual rights. This can further be defined as a republic.
Continuing with the lessons of history, we distinguish ourselves from our Roman heritage and define our particular republic as a constitutional republic. At the top of our political hierarchy is the United States Constitution. I shall further add that the aim of the Constitution is principally chartered in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The concept of individual rights has long been a cornerstone of liberal democratic societies, providing a tool for resisting unjust powers and safeguarding the liberties, equality, and dignity of individuals. This foundational principle is deeply embedded in the Constitution, which serves as a testament to America’s commitment to protecting individual rights. The ongoing discourse surrounding the nature and scope of individual rights reflects an evolving understanding of what they entail.
Among the various individual rights, freedom of speech stands out as particularly fundamental. If there is such a thing as an absolute right, I argue that it is the right to freedom of speech. This right is essential because it underpins the ability to think, express ideas, and engage in the democratic process. The First Amendment explicitly protects freedom of speech, reflecting its importance to a liberal democratic society.
Equality is another fundamental principle enshrined in the Constitution, serving as a common notion that holds all individuals are equal, and therefore one ought to treat others as they themselves wish to be treated. Additionally, equality makes possible the capacity for tolerance of difference—and from tolerance, there is the emergence of acceptance. Once there is acceptance of differences, one can begin to value individuality and judge others not by what makes them different, but by the content of their character.
However, achieving true equality requires more than just legal protections; it demands a cultural and psychological shift. Individuals must grapple with feelings of alienation and the challenges of reconciling their real selves with their rational selves to achieve an internal equilibrium. This journey toward self-acceptance is essential for cultivating a shared desire for a happy and fulfilling life.
In summary, the Constitution stands as a foundational document that unifies all Americans under the principles of a constitutional republic. It seeks to preserve the liberal ideals born out of the Age of Enlightenment, safeguard individual rights, and promote the progress of freedom and happiness for all citizens. The motto e pluribus unum—out of many, one—encapsulates this unity and diversity. As we continue to navigate the complexities of liberty, equality, and dignity, the Constitution remains a guiding light, embodying the idealistic conception of rational freedom at the heart of our liberal democratic society.
Our Party: We Cultivate a Democratic Ethos by Democratizing Our Policymaking Initiatives.
The Forward Party’s principles and purpose focus on democratizing policymaking through a data-driven approach, aiming to preserve a constitutional republic and promote a liberal democratic society. This approach is embodied in what we call the Forward Formula, which draws from philosophy, science, and politics. Not only is the Forward Formula a data-driven process, but it also engenders the nature of the Forward Party.
The Forward Formula is a data-driven process by way of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting polling and survey data from members and the broader public to establish policy guardrails that help candidates identify policy solutions to issues representing a consensus. This approach involves polling and survey data from both members and the broader public to achieve a consensus on policy positions, defined as achieving 68% or more approval from members, whereby the results resemble a normal distribution, i.e., a unimodal distribution when viewing the datapoints on a political spectrum.
The Forward Party’s ideology and the Forward Formula’s methodology are closely related in their pragmatic approach to politics and policymaking. The Forward Party’s core ideology revolves around pragmatic centrism, emphasizing practical solutions over rigid ideological positions. This approach aligns with the American pragmatist tradition, which values the practical consequences and real-world applicability of ideas. This creates a new political center of gravity by synthesizing the most effective ideas from across the political spectrum, focusing on consensus rather than dissensus.
The Forward Formula operationalizes this ideology by utilizing a data-driven, dialectic process to establish policy positions. It involves collecting and analyzing polling data from both party members and the broader public to identify consensus policy positions. A policy is considered to have achieved consensus if it receives 68% or more approval, reflecting a unimodal distribution in the data. This method mirrors the party’s centrist stance that is not about being neutral but rather finding a balanced “mean” as described by Aristotle—a rational principle that avoids the extremes of excess and deficiency. The focus on a unimodal distribution in the Forward Formula’s polling data reflects the party’s belief in a consensus-driven, rather than binary, political spectrum, where the center is defined by practical and widely accepted solutions rather than a mere midpoint between two extremes.
The Forward Party emphasizes a structured approach to problem-solving, encompassing effective communication, collaborative efforts, and a willingness to compromise. This methodology aims to transcend mere debate, cultivating constructive dialogue that leads to practical, broadly supported solutions. It adheres to principles of observability, measurability, and testability in its decision-making process.
Inspired by the Japanese philosophy of kaizen, the party remains open to revision as new information emerges. Once introduced, a policy becomes a datapoint itself, subject to reevaluation and adjustment through the dialectic process. This commitment to continuous improvement helps the party adapt and evolve in response to new facts and changing circumstances.
The party aims to cultivate a political environment where consensus and compromise are essential, creating an inclusive and representative governance structure that avoids the pitfalls of polarization that we experience with the two major parties. It should be noted that the Forward Party is the only political party that formally seeks the input of its members and the broader public in the determination of its policy initiatives. Thus, solidifying its structure within a democratic ethos.
Our Project: To Create a Viable Third-Party Structure in American Politics
We consciously deviate from the Founding Fathers’ view on political parties and seek to establish a multiparty structure within the American political system. I understand a party, in general terms, to be a number of citizens, whether constituting a majority or minority, who are united and driven by a common interest. While the Founding Fathers generally believed that the establishment of political parties was counterproductive, James Madison—a Founding Father, the fourth U.S. president, and the Father of the Constitution—offers us a guiding principle whereby having a multiparty structure can mitigate the effects of “the mischiefs of faction.”
Madison tells us in Federalist Number 10, “the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority.” He continues, “There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: The one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.” Madison contends the remedy of its cause is worse than the disease. It would require the suppression of liberty in one case by the employment of some “destructive agency” or amount to an impractical management of opinions, beliefs, or perspectives which are innate to human nature.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them every where brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have in turn divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to co-operate for their common good.
Accordingly, Madison contends, we are left with controlling the effects of party formation.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote: It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government on the other hand enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest, both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good, and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our enquiries are directed.
Madison argues that a pure democracy, where citizens govern directly, is prone to factionalism and conflict because majority interests can easily override those of the minority. (This is precisely what happened in Athens that led to democracy failing.) He believes that this form of government lacks mechanisms to protect minority rights and has historically been unstable. In contrast, Madison suggests that a republic, which involves representation, provides a solution. By electing representatives, a republic can better manage the diverse interests of its citizens, offering a way to balance and mitigate the negative effects of factions.
While Madison is laying the groundwork for a representative democracy, this thought process reflects a foundational notion for why a multiparty structure is required in government.
[T]he fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked, that where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonourable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust, in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Applying this to the need for multiple parties, Madison’s logic suggests that multiple parties create a wider range of interests and viewpoints, making it harder for any single party to gain unchecked power. This competition among parties helps prevent any one group from having a monopoly on political power, thereby protecting individual rights and preventing tyranny.
In summary, multiple parties are essential for maintaining a free and fair political system, preventing the concentration of power, and safeguarding against oppression. By advocating for a pluralistic party structure, the Forward Party strives to transcend the divisive duopolistic structure and establish at a minimum a viable third-party structure in American politics. In doing so, the party seeks to shift the Overton Window to a position where working towards consensus is considered a virtue. This entails creating a central influence within the government, i.e., a fulcrum effect, placing policymaking and lawmaking initiatives in situations where reaching consensus and making compromises are necessary to advance solutions. This is our political project in spades.