The Post-partisan Playbook

Six Narratives for Existential Interdependence

Image collaged by yours truly with good old fashion Photoshop.

In the rubble of the US-led global order, strange new alliances are emerging: rural conservatives and urban progressives finding common ground on local food systems; crypto-bros and progressive digital rights organizations joining forces against surveillance capitalism; indigenous land defenders and rural property rights advocates opposing extractive industries; and now, citizens from the political left and right coalescing against the oligarchic capture of our shared future. I’ve been curious for a while now about these emerging coalitions, curious about the shared human experiences that underpin them: our longing for meaningful work, our reverence for the lands that sustain us, our hope that our children's children might inherit a world worth inhabiting.

Across the world, many policy proposals actually have wide popular appeal. In the US, for example, tackling corruption, expanding social security coverage, and raising the minimum wage enjoy supermajority support, and movements such as Reboot America are building political momentum around concrete initiatives that people, rather than their dysfunctional political systems, want. But beyond specific policy initiatives, what myths can we draw on to come together and challenge the elite consolidation of power? The following six narratives are no panacea: they won't budge extremists; they won't be appropriate all the time. They are, instead, a starting point to forge pragmatic alliances that can eventually lead us toward deeper transformations in how we perceive and inhabit our world.

1. Democratize the Algorithms | The benefits of technology are our collective birthright.

As AI companies capture productivity gains derived from our collective knowledge and labor, wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of those who own these proprietary algorithms. These systems will make most jobs in modern economies obsolete. Whilst they make massively consequential decisions that shape our lives, we have no control over their design or deployment. This erosion of human agency fuels an agency deficit disorder in which individuals and communities lose their capacity for meaningful self-determination in the face of algorithmic governance. No one benefits from this arrangement apart from a small tech elite. A technology dividend —whereby a portion of AI-generated productivity gains is systematically reinvested in the communities from which that value was derived—is a low-hanging fruit in terms of finding grounds for post-partisan movement building. But more fundamentally, we must reclaim technology as a right and a tool for human flourishing rather than human replacement. Taiwan has led the way in showing how technology can be leveraged to invite citizens into the decision-making process.

2. Reclaim Your Wealth | Communities deserve to keep the wealth they create.

In the same way that no one wants proprietary algorithms to extract value from their lives, no one wants to see their community's wealth drained away by corporations with no local ties or investment. Research consistently shows that spending at local independent businesses has a multiplier effect roughly 3 times greater than spending at chain stores—meaning each dollar spent locally generates three times more economic activity for the community than the same dollar spent at a corporate chain. Progressives frame local economic circulation as a matter of justice and democratic control that counters corporate power, while conservatives often see it as preserving community self-determination, family businesses, and traditional ways of life. Both agree that economic systems should serve the people and places that sustain them rather than treating communities as extraction points for corporate profit-taking.

3. Power From Below | Decisions belong at the lowest effective level.

Conservatives understand the dangers of centralized state power, with its inefficiencies, bureaucratic overreach, and the erosion of individual liberty. Meanwhile, progressives see how corporate consolidation creates single points of failure, prioritizes shareholder value over public welfare, and lacks democratic accountability. These critiques converge on the recognition that both governmental and corporate centralized systems are increasingly vulnerable to manipulation and failure. The principle of subsidiarity—that matters should be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized competent authority— transcends the false dichotomy of having to choose between distant bureaucracies and faceless corporations. We all want decisions to be made by those who will live with their consequences, where feedback loops remain short and responsive, and where the face of the decision-maker is known to those affected by the decision itself.

4. Place-Based Pragmatism | We find common ground in shared challenges, not shared ideologies.

We often forget that our worldviews don’t need to match in order for us to collaborate. We can disagree on fundamental things, but these differences become secondary when the creek floods, the roof leaks, and the winter storm knocks out power. The tangible challenges of living in a place have a way of grounding abstract disagreements in shared physical reality. We see this most clearly after disasters, when solidarity becomes a need rather than an ideology. This is also why some of the most successful climate adaptation projects in the US have occurred in politically conservative lands, involving cross-partisan collaborations between farmers, ranchers, ecologists, and government, all without ever mentioning climate change. Organizations such as the Malpai Borderlands Group or the Quivira Coalition focus on solving real environmental problems rather than debate which party they belong to. When citizens of different political stripes are trusted and empowered to solve problems - as in citizens assemblies - they generally do.

5. Chemical Consensus | Environmental protection starts with our bodies, not abstract policies.

The moment we make environmentalism about concrete things happening in people's bodies rather than abstract policies, the political divide starts to melt away. The running joke is that the best way to turn a machoman into an environmentalist is to let them know that microplastics are lowering their sperm count. PFAFs and industrial toxins affect us all across demographic and political spectra. How we address that pollution remains a separate conversation, but those conversations can work backwards from the desired end goal of not exposing our bodies to contamination.

6. Legacy Mindset | The choices we make today outlive us all.

When we frame issues through the lens of "what are we leaving behind?" rather than policy battles, we shift from theoretical disagreements to addressing tangible concerns. There's something grounding about considering our role as temporary stewards thinking about concrete impacts on future generations. By focusing on the physical legacy we're creating—the actual soil, water, communities, and systems we'll pass on—the conversation transforms from "who's right politically" to "what practical solutions will best serve those who come after us."

Historians of revolutions often describe that magical turning point in political upheaval when citizens move from recognizing that the existing system is failing them to recognizing that others are also having the same realization. We are social creatures, deeply conditioned by what we think others think. Right now, we are, broadly speaking, divided and uncoordinated.

These six narratives are meant to re-awaken us to the power of our shared humanity. But they are just the beginning. The pragmatic alliances these narratives help forge are transactional at first—built around solving immediate problems within our communities. Their true power lies in creating the conditions for something more profound: communities built on an ethic of shared stewardship and existential interdependence.

As we work together across political divides to solve tangible problems, we want to create space for the deeper shifts in worldview that our survival ultimately depends on: from extraction to regeneration; from endless growth to dynamic balance; from economic systems at the center to biophysical realities as our foundation. These transformations won’t happen overnight, nor can they be imposed from above. They must emerge organically from communities that have already learned to work together despite their differences.

To close, I’ve concocted a guide to post-partisan communication, Finding Common Ground Without Losing Your Soul: A Depolarizing Playbook, built on the principles of this text to help folks of all cultural and political perspectives build coalitions that reimagine our collective potential. Thank you. Peace.