Extremism and populism have increased around the world, with some nations more susceptible than others. One nation that’s mostly resisted them is Germany, though it’s seen the rise of the far-right with AfD (Alternative for Germany) coming in second place, doubling their vote share and causing the Social Democrats to drop to third for the first time. However, the Germans have an ingenious solution to extremist gains: the Firewall, an informal agreement among German parties to band together to keep the far-right out of power. The Christian Democratic victory in February will likely result in a so-called Grand Coalition of the center-right CDU (Christian Democratic Union) and center-left SPD (Social Democratic Party). The Grand Coalition will keep the center in power as it has several times, most recently under Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The United States has no such protections. Rather than preventing extremism, our two-party enabling system of government encourages it. We split the center among two parties while the extremes conglomerate into unified political masses. The extremes are loud, and because of that they can control our two-party system. One of the most prominent Democratic Party politicians is Sen. Bernie Sanders, a populist and member of the far-left who attracts thousands to his speeches. The right is much the same. Populist extremists dominate both parties, spouting non-scientific malarkey and espousing policies that would bankrupt the government and/or the people. Our nation was born in Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense and if that idea’s destroyed so will America.
In the two-party system the extremes have an advantage; the center is divided amongst the two parties—who’ve convinced themselves the other is the enemy, ignoring any threat from within the party. In each of these parties, with the size of the center in either given party diminished, the extremes can be loud and draw attention and ultimately control the direction of the party. In the first Trump term the social justice wing of the Democratic Party grabbed a massive amount of attention, and since then the Party hasn’t been able to shake the image that they’re a bunch of crazy “woke” left-wingers who care more about making people trans than grocery prices. It doesn’t matter that the social justice movement is a small wing of the party, they receive a lot of recognition. In the Republican Party, neocons and libertarians have been sidelined or driven out in favor of social conservatism and Trump’s cult of personality.
Going back to Europe; places without a history of a centrist coalition have recently established one. In the Austrian September elections, the far-right Freedom Party, founded by former Nazis in 1956, won their first election ever, receiving 28.8 percent of the vote. But they’re not currently ruling Austria; the center-right Austrian People’s Party has formed a government with the center-left Social Democratic Party of Austria and NEOS, a newly-formed liberal party. Austria has previously shown none of the reluctance of Germany to include the extremes in government; they didn’t shy away from including the Freedom Party, or Greens, as junior partners in coalitions. If Austria, where there’s no precedent of anything like the Firewall, can create a government that keeps the extremes out of power, then perhaps there’s hope for the U.S.
We could unite our center; instead of the center jockeying for control over their own party and joining with the extremes to combat the other side of the aisle, the center could be one cohesive political unit. One political unit that could resist the extremes. According to CNN Exit Polls, 42 percent of 2024 voters are ideologically moderate. But this voting bloc is heavily divided, it may be larger than either the conservatives or progressives, but there’s no unified front between the center-right and center-left—they fight each other more than they fight the extremes. There’s little cohesion between former Governors Chris Sununu and John Bel Edwards; even though they’re both moderate they’re fundamentally opposed. This is what our simple two-party system has done, it has driven a wedge between left and right.
How could these two groups reunify? A new party, headed by moderates, is an option. Throughout American history, elections have been determined by a handful of swing voters, while the more extreme establishment of each party gets power; rarely if ever have the swing voters chosen the ones in power—the head of the party. A third party could be just for the center; no longer would center-right and center-left be on opposite sides of an aisle. They would be together, and could grab a few extra congressional votes to pass their agenda. But this hardly seems like a feasible solution. If a centrist third party were sustainable in the American electoral system, wouldn’t we have it already?
The establishment of a third party in American history has always failed. The anti-slavery Free Soil Party failed in the 1840s and 1850s. The Bourbon Democrats of Grover Cleveland couldn’t establish their own third party as their influence diminished at the hands of William Jennings Bryan’s populists. The Dixiecrats failed to establish their own Southern party twice in the 1940s and 1960s. And most recently Ross Perot, despite his large vote share, couldn’t make his Reform Party a viable alternative. Why would this be any different? Our new centrist party would just be squeezed out by the major parties. That is the way the American electoral system works.
The Firewall seems to be particularly easy to implement in parliamentary systems. After all, it was created within the walls of the multi-party, parliamentary German Bundestag. Austria’s had no difficulty implementing their altered version of the Firewall; it’s fit seamlessly into their parliamentary system where the Austrian President chooses who will form the government. Perhaps that is the answer; the United States should adopt a parliamentary system. It would allow for the center to coalesce and resist the extremes. It would also allow for better monitoring of the executive, a desirable side effect considering the current President. However, the parliamentary system would likely be hard to implement. You’d have to completely restructure the U.S. government; we’d destroy the nation our Founding Fathers built.
If we are unwilling to or incapable of implementing a parliamentary system or establishing a third party, then perhaps we should just create a new congressional caucus. There are already a number of congressional caucuses; most, if not all, of which are contained within one party. One of these is the Blue Dog caucus, consisting of moderate Democrats such as Representatives Josh Gottheimer and Jared Golden. In early-2023 the Blue Dogs tried to rename themselves to the Common Sense Caucus; this proposal drove several members of the caucus to leave, including Representative Mikey Sherill and Former Representative Abigail Spanberger. Ultimately the Blue Dogs didn’t go through with the name change; but I think a Common Sense Caucus would be just what America needs.
—DeWitt Erich Silber is a high school student in New Jersey and international-level competitor in history and geography. He is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Austria.
