Unity Watch

Unity08 hits the "Pause" button

2008-01-11T10:59:00.001-08:00

I can't say I'm surprised, or even hugely disappointed, but it is a little sad:

We were caught in a peculiar catch-22; we wanted to break the dependence on big money by getting lots of small contributions from millions of members, but needed some up-front big money to help generate the millions of members to make the small contributions. And the FEC (in effect, an arm of the parties) didn't let that happen. We have challenged this ruling in the federal courts, but are still awaiting a decision and time is running out.

And so reluctantly, especially given the volatility of the present situation, we're forced to scale back - not cease - our operations and suspend our ballot access project. Our website will become less interactive (it takes staff to answer hundreds of e-mails a day) and we can't in good faith make the $5 million commitment necessary to make a serious start on ballot access.

To be honest, with Obama/Huckabee/McCain reaching-across-the-aisle, and Bloomberg planning a bipartisan bid, I'm not sure Unity08 matters anymore. I'd like to think that they'd have done better if they'd taken my advice, but frankly the FEC ruling is what probably did them in. Ah well, hopefully they can at least with the court case so that Unity12 can give it another shot, in case it is needed...

Unity08's website now live

2007-10-31T13:36:00.001-07:00

Looks good so far. I'm already working on building my political capital, particularly through the forums. I may even end up helping run the California group....

Unity '08 getting its game on with new website

2007-10-18T17:08:00.000-07:00

Or hopefully they will soon. If they really pull this off, I'll probably retire this blog in order to build "Political Capital" on a new Centroids group blog on their forums...

Rank the Candidates & the Issues

2007-08-21T13:05:00.001-07:00

The second version of the survey -- well worth taking.

We've invited you to take and publish this study because we've seen that your site actively discusses politics and the state of the nation. It is crucial for us to include as many American citizens as we can so that we can truly start discussing the "crucial" issues facing the country and how to resolve them... before it is too late.

Take the Unity08 Opinion Survey

2007-07-30T14:20:00.000-07:00

At long last, a concrete opportunity to help shape the direction of the Unity08 movement: take the new Unity08 survey.

More and more we are hearing about the frustration that Americans are experiencing with the direction of the country. We want more choices and more opportunity to be heard. And recently, the press and public are awakening to the potential power of Unity08 to change American politics for the better.

We will succeed, but only if we can involve millions of Americans in the ranking and discussing of crucial issues, drafting of top leaders, and the nomination of a candidate team to run on the Unity08 ticket.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect -- beyond the breadth of topics covered -- is their clever "click on a line" UI to let you express finely-graded preferences. Nifty!

CSM on 'post-partisan' Unity

2007-06-22T10:36:00.000-07:00

The Christian Science Monitor follows Time Magazine in focusing on Arnold-Bloomberg centrism, but goes one step further by talking to Unity08:

The New York mayor and the California governor are hammering a note that resonates with the public. Seventy-five percent like leaders who are willing to compromise, and 60 percent like leaders whose positions are a mix of liberal and conservative, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in Washington.

"The analysis [of Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger] is exactly correct," says Doug Bailey, cofounder of Unity08, a group that wants to nominate a bipartisan "unity ticket" for the 2008 presidential election, using a first-ever online convention. "The people know the system is broken at a time when there are more crucial issues in front of the government than at any point in our lifetimes. Yet they know the two parties can't sit down and talk in any effective way."

A Product Manager's Proposal for the Unity08 Process

2007-06-19T15:27:00.000-07:00

As a Product Manager in Silicon Valley, the three questions I ask about any problem are:

What do we want the customer to experience?

What technical innovation is necessary to achieve that?

What are the opposing systemic forces that need to be overcome?

For Unity08's nomination process, I believe the goal is to:

Engage a broad spectrum of American citizens
in selecting an optimal, bipartisan Presidential ticket.
through effective presentation of all relevant data

To me, the key word is "engage." If the Unity08 experiment is to succeed, we need to find a scalable way to actively engage a diverse pool of delegates in the hard work of interviewing and analyzing potential candidates; otherwise, it will become a mere popularity contest.

So, how does effectively enfranchise a large (and constantly increasing) community composed of diverse -- even contradictory -- viewpoints?

A. Self-Organizing Caucuses

We do it the way nature does it: through "spontaneous self-organization." In political terms, we enable the easy formation -- and self-policing -- of innumerable "caucuses." The goal is to create little "micro-communities" with their own governance and agenda, so that individuals who share a similar mindset can work to refine that into specific questions, positions, and policies. This gives new joiners an easy way to find a "home" in the vast see of Unity08 delegates, which in turn rewards those communities that are both welcoming and clear in their communication.

B. Nominated Questions

Having established these caucuses, we would then leverage them to nominate *questions* for the various candidates. This would need to be an iterative process, as we would want questions to be refined, merged, and split in order to best reflect the mood of the population as a whole. Once we've obtained a mostly-orthogonal set of questions, there would then be an internal poll (perhaps using Approval Voting) to pick a reasonable set that all candidates must address.

C. Remixable Answers

Here's where it gets interesting. In addition to written answers, I would encourage candidates to submit video responses of arbitrary length -- and not just to the mandatory questions, but any other questions they felt were important to them (or the caucuses). These would then be available on, e.g., YouTube, or even CSPAN.

And if the candidates were brave enough to grant appropriate rights, I would want to give Unity08 delegates permission to *remix* those videos into condensed position summaries -- though those remixes would need to be clearly labeled as such, follow certain guidelines, and only be available to registered delegates (unless approved by the original speaker). This would give the uber-wonks the opportunity to streamline and customize their candidate's message for those who lack the patience to listen to the whole thing, without necessarily reducing everything to sound bites. Importantly, any such remixes would need to include links back to the original source material, as well as to any rebuttals the original author chose to make.

The goal, ultimately, is to create the tools for a sustained, passionate, yet civil dialogue around all these matters, by using modern technology to involve ordinary Americans in the process.

D. Approval Runoff Voting

The final way to engage voters is to adopt a "March Madness" approach to voting, where the field is progressively winnowed down to 16 candidates, then 8, then 4, 2, and finally 1. This allows excitement to build (a la American Idol), and encourages delegates to learn more and more about fewer and fewer top contenders. This should also mesh well with the ongoing influx of new delegates. Each voting period should be multiple days (including a weekend), to maximize opportunities to participate.

The best mechanism for this (IMHO) is what I call Approval Runoff Voting, where at each "tier" voters can select as many candidates are there are "seats" available in the next round. For a given tier, this is the exact same process used for electing County Commissioners in most states, so it shouldn't be that unfamiliar; plus, individuals who don't care about the complexity can simply select their single favorite. However, unlike Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV), we have a better chance of a weaker "consensus" candidate surviving the initial rounds. Plus, the desire to attract multiple votes should discourage unsportsmanlike sniping among the candidates.

I believe that this approach has the best chance of providing a positive user experience for all Unity08 delegates, by maximizing their opportunities to be heard while minimizing the risk of negative interactions. In addition, I believe it would be relatively straightforward to implement this with fairly minor modifications to existing tools.

-- Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D.

Thoughts on Community Governance

2007-06-19T12:46:00.000-07:00

One of the biggest challenges for Unity08 is nurturing healthy community discussions. Here's a few resources worth reading about both structural and economic levers:

A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy by Clay Shirkey

How To Keep Hostile Jerks From Taking Over Your Online Community by Cory Doctorow

The "Karma" economy as envisioned by Cory Doctorow (again)

"Game" economies

Seth Godin on Reinventing Democracy

2007-06-19T08:12:00.000-07:00

My man Seth Godin riffs on ideas for how to update our electoral process to reflect the needs/challenges/opportunities of modern society, rather than clinging to 1840's-era conventions.

If I ran a party and wanted to increase my chances of getting elected, I'd figure out how to turn the primary process into something that was simultaneously more interesting and more likely to lead to large numbers of my party turning out to vote in the general election. Instead, it's almost guaranteed to do the opposite.

Worth reading the whole thing. More importantly, it is worth implementing!

Open Source E-Voting

2007-04-18T10:57:00.000-07:00

One of the (many) issues for Unity08 -- and the larger question of electoral reform -- is how to trust the software. Open Source may not be a panacea, but it definitely seems like a step in the right direction.

Harder Questions: Beyond The Litmus Test

2007-04-17T05:36:00.000-07:00

I must confess, I am a bit embarrassed at airing my theological dirty laundry on this politically-focused blog; still, I figure it is only fair to let people know where I'm coming from. More importantly, though, I do think the religious Right and Left have both become victims of their own "success." That is, they've found issues that resonate with their "base", and have let those issues (effectively) determine their entire concept of God -- and what He wants!

If our goal is to provide a Unity platform, then I believe it is crucial to re-ask those foundational questions, to see if we can shift the debate onto areas which God (and probably the most people) see as even more important than the many squabbles of yesteryear. Of course I realize I don't have a complete understanding of God (can anyone?), but hopefully these insights can help "move the needle" a little bit closer to what God actually does want.

In this particular case, I've been wrestling with what God wants from "democracy." That's a difficult question, since God has never seemed partial to majority rule (though He does work through randomness, which our democracy often feels like!). However, after reading through I Timothy 3 yesterday, I realized:

God is glorified by a leadership selection process that rewards godly character.

Now, that may seem obvious to even the most casual observer, but I found it deeply significant. In particular, it implies that God cares about the process, not just the result. Further, it emphasizes that God cares about a leader's character far more than his or her beliefs -- the exact opposite of litmus-test politics!

Given that, I've come up a few questions for Unity08's American Agenda that address the issue of character in terms of my so-called 'radical' virtues: humility, justice and love.

We value both tenacity and flexibility in our leaders. When do you think it is appropriate -- perhaps even virtuous -- to "flip-flop" on a publicly held position? How and why?
The President is supposed to serve all the people equally. What will you to do ensure you don't give preferential treatment -- even unconsciously -- to those who happen to share your background, beliefs, or biases?
What obligation does the government have towards those on the margins of society (e.g., the disabled, homeless, illegal immigrants, criminals, etc.)?

Again, I don't presume to have all the answers -- or even all the questions. But at least I have a few more than I did yesterday. :-)

Hard Questions

2007-04-15T06:41:00.000-07:00

While pondering whether to ramp up my involvement with Unity08 -- specificially around voting methods -- I've been forced to ask the question: does Unity08's philosophy align with my core beliefs? Or, more bluntly, do my political preferences align with what I believe God wants?

At the risk of speaking out of turn, I did manage to identify four things I believe God does want from our leaders:

Integrity

Justice

Concern for Poor

Humility before Him

The question is, how do I translate that -- especially the last! -- into a secular context?

Well, Unity08 does have this concept of a New American Agenda, where the delegates pose what they consider the most important questions for potential candidates to address. So, here's my best attempt to address the issues I feel are on God's heart (and I'm hoping will be on mine):

Tell me about a time you were forced to choose between integrity and expediency? How about one where you made the wrong choice?

What is the best long-term solution to reducing both the crime rate and our prison population?

Do you believe is possible to eliminate structural poverty in the United States? How? When?

How does your understanding of "God" (whatever that means to you) shape the way you make decisions?

To be honest, I don't how to answer those questions. But I do think we as a people would be much better off if we had leaders who did.

Question for "Live Chat" on Unity08 Rules

2007-04-10T13:33:00.000-07:00

Dr. King and Mr. Turk,

Q: Will the Rules Committee consider adopting "Preferential" (ranked-choice) or "Approval" (one-vote-per-candidate) voting methods for either the initial or final rounds, in order to:

i) reduce the need for strategic (vs. sincere) voting

ii) increase the likelihood of finding a consensus candidate (vs. the one with strongest partisan support)

as described in the online discussion thread.

Thank you,
Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D.

Unity08 Live Chat with the Rules Committee, Thursday, April 12th at 9 AM Pacific Time

Why Major Parties Need Unity08 (?)

2007-04-02T09:57:00.000-07:00

The Decoy Effect.

In the actual world, however, third candidates regularly have the unintended effect of making one of the front-runners look better than before in the minds of undecided voters.

Hmm. The tricky question, of course, is whether any "major" candidate feels that they would be better off with an appropriate third-party candidate for comparison.

Support Preferential Voting!

2007-03-30T14:33:00.000-07:00

If you're a Unity08 delegate, I urge you to add your support to the request for Preferential Voting in both Nominations and the Virtual Convention. This is our best chance to reverse the centuries-old discrimination against moderate candidates imposed by winner-take-all voting (as practiced today). We need your vote now, to avoid wasting it later.

Unity08 Rules!

2007-03-30T14:18:00.000-07:00

It is great to see Unity08 has finally posted their draft rules, and opened them up for public comment. Key items of note:

Unity08 encourages the “drafting” of candidates

Prospective Candidates may qualify as Candidates for the Unity08 Presidential Nomination by having, in each of ten different states, 2,500 registered voters in each of those states (a total of 25,000 registered voters) electronically sign up on the Unity08 website to support the Prospective Candidate AND by having, in each of five different states, 500 registered voters in each of those states (a total of 2,500 registered voters) sign a “hard copy” petition to support the Prospective Candidate.

All pretty reasonable. However, I was very disappointed by:

Each Delegate will have one vote to cast electronically for the Candidate of his or her choice.

Why? With potentially dozens of Potential Candidates, the gamesmanship for voting (do I vote for my favorite, or my second-favorite if they've got a better chance?) is going to be insane. We need some form of ranked-choice voting, or at least Approval Voting, to make sense of it all.

Mark Satin on Joe Klein on being "Fed Up"

2007-02-28T12:58:00.000-08:00

In a nice echo of Sam Waterson's comments, Radical Middle author Mark Satin talks up Joe Klein's Politics Lost, which is driven by the same frustraction...

with the insulting welter of sterilized speechifying, insipid photo ops, and idiotic advertising that passes for public discourse these days. I believe that American politics has become overly cautious, cynical, mechanistic, and bland; and I fear that the inanity and ugliness of postmodern public life has caused many Americans to lose the habits of citizenship.

More importantly, Mark culls several worthy suggestions for how we can up the sanity level of our political discourse. Why not give them a try?

Unity08 Brings "Law & Order" to Presidential Nominations

2007-02-28T11:39:00.000-08:00

Sorry, couldn't resist the play on words. :-) I actually really like the latest Politico essay by Sam Waterson, reprinted on the Unity08 blog. The money quote:

I'm frustrated at the obsessive playing for petty advantage that takes the place of doing the nation's urgent business. Every day I read stories in the newspaper that tell me something is very wrong with the way we nominate our presidential candidates, articles about candidates abandoning campaign finance reform measures so they can raise unlimited amounts of money, or about the candidates designing and redesigning their statements to suit the money people, the partisans and voters in primary states. I'm left without any certain idea of what the candidates represent, what they stand for, what their priority issues are and what they may be counted on to do. I crave their honest opinions on the issues that I think are crucial to the future of the country and our planet.

But the experienced men and women who designed and run Unity08 aren't reacting to headlines only. They have taken a long and deep look at causes, and they have a great idea. Not everything about our presidential nominating process needs to change, but some things need to change a lot. Unity08's plan will change only what needs improving; it aims at a moderate revolution, or a revolution of moderates, like the one that founded this nation. It doesn't intend to upset the apple cart. It means to set it right again, and put it back on track. With enough delegates signing on, it looks to me as if it has a really good shot at doing it. I hope a lot of people will join us at www.unity08.com.

Be Your Own Founding Father (or Mother)

2007-02-06T13:27:00.000-08:00

Okay, it is mostly just a cheap marketing ploy --- Founding Delegates, as far as I can tell, are no different than any other delegates -- but I still wanted to be one of the first ones to sign up. How about you?

CNN covers Unity08, but who cares?

2007-02-02T14:08:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to Unity08 for being included in CNN's coverage of the 2008 Presidential Race. It is great to see them raising the bipartisan option, but the sampling of responses highlight both the promise and perils of being middle-of-the-road. Obviously, pure partisans aren't interested, but neither are those who have lost faith in both parties, as well as the process. The challenge is to attract people who are, as the saying goes, "disillusioned but not disenchanted" -- frustrated, but not yet cynical. Not easy, but Unity08 is run by some pretty media-savvy folks, so they may well be able to pull it off...

The Atlantic's "Surprise Party" for Unity08

2007-01-16T10:02:00.000-08:00

As the leading (only?) radical centrist magazine, it was probably inevitable that The Atlantic would spend some considerable ink on Unity08. The pleasant surprise is that they didn't merely regurgitate press releases or editorialize, but provided some fascinating background about how and why it got started:

All of the founders recognized that this new technology was poised to transform politics, just as greatly as television had in their own era. They had seen television’s effect on the political process grow more and more pernicious as the years went by, poisoning the dialogue while forcing candidates to raise ever-greater sums of money to pay for it. They recognized that the Internet, in its political infancy, was a force that could still be shaped for good.

Importantly, this isn't the lament of academic outsiders, but the very insiders (from the years of Ford and Carter) who had helped make TV the political monster that it is today -- and have undertaken a quest to redeem themselves!

The other juicy tidbit is the fact that by deliberately calling it Unity08, they've signalled that they:

envision their enterprise not as the establishment of a permanent third party but as a one-shot affair—a dose of medicine strong enough to bring the two parties to their senses.

In addition to the inherent optimism of putting all their eggs in one basket, this (and their ages) ensures that they aren't trying to turn this into an ongoing political monument to their own egos. :-)

Hear, hear!

David Brin's Pragmatic Platform

2007-01-02T08:46:00.000-08:00

Though phrased in terms of advice to the new Democratic Congress, David Brin's suggestions would also be a worthy platform for Unity '08 candidates to adopt.

Will Barack Run -- with us?

2006-12-21T13:13:00.000-08:00

Much as I admire the spirit of Unity08, I can't help be wonder whether we'll be overtaken by events. In particular, all four of the most prominent front-runners:

John McCain (R)
Rudy Guiliani (R)
Hillary Clinton (D)
Barack Obama (D)

are (to a greater or lesser extent) centrists, or at least pragmatists. If any of those get nominated, it seems like it will be hard to muster enthusiasm from moderates to oppose them. For examplel, Barack Obama is widely seen as representing what he describes as:

"another tradition to politics, a tradition that stretched from the days of the country’s founding to the glory of the civil rights movement, a tradition based on the simple idea that we have a stake in one another, and that what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart, and that if enough people believe in the truth of that proposition and act on it, then we might not solve every problem, but we can get something meaningful done.”

What centrist could possibly run against that?

Of course, it is entirely possible that partisan primaries may conspire against them, which means that Unity would have a ripe field to pick from. So perhaps the effort isn't in vain after all...

Law & Order & Good Government

2006-12-19T15:28:00.000-08:00

I gotta admit, I'm usually dismissive of celebrity endorsements, but as a big fan of Jack McCoy I was tickled to see Sam Waterson shilling for Unity08. To be sure, I didn't find his pitch enormously persuasive (even though I mostly agree with him :-), but I'm still glad he was willing to put his image on the line for what he believes.

Unity '08 Takes the "Nice" Road

2006-12-19T09:11:00.000-08:00

I was very pleased to see Unity '08 changing their holiday poll to just celebrate the nice rather than also berate the naughty. Given my previous concerns about them not practicing the high-minded rhetoric they preach, their giving up the easy fun of mocking their enemies in favor of accentuating the positive is a welcome Christmas present!

Will California elect a Unity ticket?

2006-12-08T16:00:00.000-08:00

If I was a Unity candidate (sorry, not this time around :-), that's certainly where I'd focus my energy. Because we historically lean Democrat, both parties always ignore us during Presidential elections. But, consider:

We have the largest number of electoral votes
About one-fifth of our population is Independents
We have a mostly-popular Centrist governor
The rest of the country tends to follow our lead in cultural trends

To be sure, California is big, which makes it expensive to campaign here. But California is a near-perfect microcosm of the rest of the country -- at least those states willing to elect a Unity candidate -- so I think we'd make an awesome testing ground for candidates to hone their message.

Personality-Driven Cacauses: A Good First Step

2006-12-06T11:12:00.000-08:00

I was extremely pleased to see Unity '08 announcing that it is "building out tools right now so our community members can discuss and rate candidates in a more structured way, formulate split-ticket scenarios, and even build caucuses around possible ticket combinations." This is something I've wanted for a very long time. Yeah!

At the same time, I hope they make it easy to similarly form issue-based Caucuses, to advocate different policies. Personalities are important, and perhaps essential, but since we know so few of the potential candidates we need to give them an easy way to find communities, not just vice versa.

Is the Middle just for Moderates?

2006-12-01T14:51:00.000-08:00

While I appreciate the sentiment behind Unity08's list of Top 10 Reasons Why the Moderate Middle Matters, I had to cringe at their choice of tone:

Moderates are the only ones with the desire to find common ground.

For one thing, those of us in the radical middle absolutely want to find common ground, we just approach it differently. More importantly, though, I believe there many people who consider themselves good liberals or conservates who also care about finding common ground. While I appreciate the need to stake out a rationale for existence, claiming to be sole possessors of a particular good seems, well, immoderate. :-)A better choice, IMHO, would've been something like:

Moderates are totally committed to finding common ground.

That is, why not focus on what's good about your side instead of (implicitly) dissing others? I realize I may be making a mountain out of molehill, but this sort of talk feels inappropriate for an organization that is committed to promoting civility. I'd urge them to the extra mile to ensure they communicate in an inclusive and welcoming manner -- so that they retain the moral authority to lecture others!

Ethical Realism: A Foreign Policy for Unity '08

2006-11-03T10:33:00.000-08:00

One of the most conentious issues dividing America today is our role in the world. Many would have you believe the choices are either isolation (let's leave everyone alone so they won't hate us) or imperialism (they all hate us anyway, so let's take them over first). Of course, the real world is much more nuanced than that. But more importantly, there actually is a coherent way to think about morality and pragmatism in foreign policy, and it is called Ethical Realism. It is being promoted by the New America Foundation, and even some Democrats are jumping on board.

I believe that if Unity '08 is to achieve its goals, somebody needs to claim this sort of moral high ground. Perhaps the Unity '08 must remain too resolutely non-partisan to take such a stand, but I'd love to see some of the putative candidates do so. If not, perhaps we in the grass roots need to take the initiative...

2006: Year of the Centrist Democrat?

2006-11-02T10:36:00.000-08:00

As the party currently not in power, the Democrats appear to making a concerted effort to win over less-liberal voters. Is this a genuine change of heart, or cheap political oppoturnism? Does it even matter, or is the important question how quickly the Blue Pups learn to play politics?

We may not have all the answers, but we invite you to explore the questions with us over on Centroids.

Getting the Word Out

2006-11-01T14:20:00.000-08:00

I've decided to follow my friend Seth Godin's advice and try some free things to increase my visibility, starting with a Technorati Profile and Squidoo Lens. Let me know if it helps. :-)

A [Proposed] Political Platform for Unity '08

2006-10-30T14:07:00.000-08:00

Billy Rojas just proposed a 21-page Political Platform for Unity '08, which is being discussed on the Centroids mailing list. While I'm sure everyone will find things to disagree with (I know I did :-), it is am impressively comprehensive approach to what he sees are the key challenges facing America. Can you do better?

Unity stalks the Radical Center

2006-10-26T11:02:00.000-07:00

Elrod makes a good case that 2006 marks the Revenge of the Independents, as well as perhaps the larger point that purely partisan politics is both sterile and self-defeating. Intriguingly, he also picks up on E. J. Dionne's observations about the "mad-as-hell" radical center -- an alternate interpretation of our favorite phrase, which we've already dissected on Centroids.

An Alternate, Libertarian-leaning Cabinet for Unity '08

2006-10-22T16:46:00.000-07:00

Not to be outdone, Centroid David R. Block responds with his own pragmatic yet Libertarian-leaning Unity '08 Cabinet, with a ticket headed by:

* President: Mike Huckabee
* Vice-President: Joe Lieberman

I can only hope that the "real" Unity '08 candidates are as forth-coming and fore-sightful with regards to their actual cabinet choices!

Proposed Ticket & Cabinet for Unity '08

2006-10-19T07:52:00.000-07:00

While Unity '08 focuses virtually all of its attention on the Presidential ticket, Billy Rojas goes one step further by proposing a comprehensive Unity '08 Cabinet and Staff. While some names are well-known (e.g, Guliani and Stephanopoulos), others are more obscure (at least to me), and some are for entirely new posts (e.g., Mark Satin for Internet Communication). Still, knowing Billy I'm sure there's a solid rationale for each position, and I would hope at least a few of the Unity '08 candidates give it a long, hard look.

Update: Billy has kindly posted a brief justification for each candidate.

Shaping an "American Agenda" by asking the right questions

2006-10-16T12:20:00.000-07:00

It their recent update, it is nice to hear that Unity '08 has actually been hard at work tackling the tough issues, especially the challenge of articulating a coherent agenda:

Taking into account the very helpful suggestions and debate that you have conducted here on the web site, we have designed an innovative and powerful way to approach the issues. We call it the American Agenda. By polling, the delegates and public will determine the crucial issues confronting the country. We will present on the website a panoply of expert opinions on each crucial issue, spanning the full spectrum of responsible solutions. Through discussion, debate and polling, the delegates will settle on the questions that the candidates should answer relating to each issue. Unity08’s American Agenda will be the questions; the candidate’s answers will represent his/her American Agenda and platform. We think it takes the silly party platform process of the two parties and stands it on its head. We would be surprised if the media doesn’t take the Unity08 American Agenda of questions and present them forcefully to all candidates, regardless of party.

I commend them for taking responsibility to ask the right questions, rather than trying to force an artificial consensus about the answers. Polling isn't a perfect solution, but (if they frame it well) is probably the optimal one, so I wish them luck.

Why not a Third Party?

2006-09-26T09:04:00.000-07:00

Over on Centroids, we're have a spirited discussion about the necessity -- and impossibility! -- of starting a third party. While Unity '08 explicitly avoids this goal, I suspect it will face many of the same issues. In particular, I agree with Billy Rojas's claim that you need both a Personality and Platform in order to generate a viable movement. Unity '08 -- as a neutral middle ground -- starts with none of these, though there is still hope that such might emerge...

The Importance and Danger of "True Believers"

2006-09-13T11:51:00.000-07:00

Prolific Centroid Billy Rojas just posted an article about
True Believers, which ought to be required reading for anyone trying to start a third party. It raises the question, "How do you build a solid core of True Believers while still being open-minded enough to embrace all truth?" Billy doesn't claim to have all the answers, but he sure provides a few good questions...

In Praise of Factions

2006-09-07T14:56:00.000-07:00

One of the biggest challenges of a movement (even if it isn't a "party") is to articulate its core values. Right now, there just seems to be a vague (if sincere) commitment to "civil discourse about substantial issues." But, that only goes so far. A quick scan of the forums indicates lots of voices, but little progress towards any meaningful consensus. In such a world, the gatekeepers can frankly draw pretty much any conclusion they want!

What's the solution? As strange as it may sound, I think Unity '08 needs factions. That is, it needs well-defined groupings that can attract adherents, articulate consensus policies within their realm of shared values, and compete for "hearts-and-minds" within the larger, civil space that Unity '08 has carved out.

To be sure, factions are usually a dirty word -- much like partisan! But really, they're the only way I see to form any sort of coherent group identity, lest Unity '08 degenerate into a mere amorphous blob.

The trick is to figure out how to allow factions to self-organize around their preferred (and shared) principles, while still maintaining allegiance to the higher goal of civility...

Mark Satin on Unity '08

2006-09-06T18:20:00.000-07:00

Thoughtful independents seeking ways to dramatically improve government have long turned to draft-dodger-turned-New-Ager-turned-pragmatic idealist Mark Satin for well-researched, insightful critiques of emerging political trends. Find out why he considers Unity08 The Most Promising Political Initiative of Our Time!

Welcome to the Unity '08 Watcher Blog

2006-09-06T13:55:00.000-07:00

Welcome to UnityWatch, sponsored by the Centroids community of RadicalCentrism.org. The goal of this blog is to provide an outside perspective on the Unity '08 political movement. As centrists and independents, we are excited about the vision of Unity's founders, and impressed by their organizational goals. However, as principled centrists we worry that their lack of a coherent philosophy may hinder development of a sufficiently strong community to make a lasting change in American Politics.

Still, our goal is not so much to criticize Unity as it is to celebrate the positive aspects of what they do, and provide constructive input on how they might become more effective. Stay tuned!

Sincerely,

Ernie Prabhakar, for Centroids