[P]eople in the exhausted majority have no narrative. They have no coherent philosophic worldview to organize their thinking and compel action. When they get one I suspect it will look totally unlike the two dominant narratives today.

– David Brooks, New York Times

Background

The recent spate of political violence in our country confirmed what many have long suspected: something in our democracy is profoundly broken. It is tempting to believe these issues can be fixed by enacting a certain policy or winning a certain election. But our problems run deeper than anything that can be addressed in a single election cycle. Instead, we need a new way of thinking about what we owe each other and what it means to be American. Call it a new “civic vision.”

For the past five years at the Beacon Project, we’ve been developing such a vision. Now, we want to share it with you. Over the coming weeks, we’ll be releasing a series of articles explaining the vision, called potentialism, in hopes of sparking feedback and dialogue. This is the first article in the series.

Do you think potentialism can help? Why or why not? Let us know in the comments!

A Tug Of War

In 2018, More in Common, the nonpartisan research organization that houses the Beacon Project, published an influential study on political polarization called Hidden Tribes. The study revealed that two-thirds of Americans belong to what it called the “Exhausted Majority.”

The Exhausted Majority is fed up with political polarization. They want people to disagree without hating each other and leaders to work together to address shared problems. They want to live in a world where people’s political beliefs don’t define them.

If there is any hope of restoring sanity to our nation’s politics, the Exhausted Majority is key. But there’s a problem: the narratives being offered by politicians today don’t reflect their core beliefs.

Our country today is dominated by two competing visions. Progressives focus on systems and institutions, but downplay the importance of individual choices in shaping people’s lives. Conservatives, by contrast, emphasize individual choice but underweight the importance of a responsive and effective government in ensuring everyone has a fair shot. Meanwhile, research by the Beacon Project has shown that the Exhausted Majority believes we need more responsibility from both people and government for everyone to thrive.

America is caught in a game of tug-of-war, with the Exhausted Majority caught in the middle.

To appeal to the Exhausted Majority, we need a new vision that transcends this binary.

Developing this vision has been our central mission at the Beacon Project. Over the past five years, we have interviewed hundreds of Americans, fielded scores of national surveys, analyzed millions of social media posts, spoken with dozens of experts, and engaged with classic and contemporary texts in political philosophy. Building on these insights, we put together a sketch of a new civic vision that we believe can speak to the Exhausted Majority and help address the challenges of our current moment. We call it potentialism.

The Potentialist Maxim

Potentialism is a “political philosophy” in that it starts with certain assumptions about human nature then makes claims about how we ought to structure our society based on these assumptions. The assumption that potentialism begins with is straightforward: namely, that everyone has something to offer. Call it a “gift.”

Gifts are capacities that can be used to enrich our own lives and the lives of the people around us1. They take a variety of forms. They may be small or large, from tutoring a child to playing in an orchestra. They may be beautiful or practical, from building a sculpture to repairing a water main. They may be visible or discreet, from serving as a CEO to caring for a dementia patient. Most people possess multiple gifts, with different gifts evolving over the course of life.

Potentialism then asks: in a world in which everyone has a gift, what kind of society should we build together?2

The first answer, according to potentialism, is one in which everyone has an opportunity, or right, to develop their gifts.3 This means ensuring everyone has the basic conditions—for instance, good schools, safe neighborhoods, and supportive communities—they need to thrive.4

But opportunity alone isn’t enough. A gift is a source of value, both to oneself and to others. This means that failing to develop one’s gifts would be to shortchange oneself and one’s community. Thus, developing our gifts is not just a right. It’s also a responsibility.5 This responsibility is something we uphold together, through our culture—i.e., the norms, values, and expectations we pass on to one another. In this way, potentialism advocates for both a commitment to individual development and for a culture of responsibility to share our gifts.

Taken together, these ideas form what we call the “potentialist maxim”: Everyone has a gift, and the right and the responsibility to develop that gift and share it with others.

Old Questions, New Answers

The potentialist maxim may strike you as fairly intuitive, even obvious. But despite its simplicity, it offers a range of novel solutions to the challenges we are facing today.

Polarization

To start, potentialism transcends the political binary described above. Recall that the narrative on the political Left tends to emphasize systems and institutions, while the narrative on the Right emphasizes individual choices. Meanwhile, the Exhausted Majority recognizes the importance of both institutions and individuals. In its acknowledgement of the right and responsibility to develop one’s gifts, potentialism reflects this duality.

Evidence collected by the Beacon Project confirms potentialism’s cross-partisan appeal. We find that about four in five Americans—regardless of political party—agree with a version of the potentialist maxim.6 This suggests potentialism may help transcend our current political divisions by offering a new civic vision that appeals to Americans across the political spectrum.7

Education

Outside of polarization, perhaps the most relevant area for potentialism is in education. Experts have noted that our current educational system is poorly suited to prepare young people for the challenges of the modern world. Much of the curriculum is a vestige of an era when schools were designed to train factory workers, not to equip students to thrive in the 21st century. As Sir Ken Robinson argued in a popular TED talk, we are “killing creativity.”

A potentialist approach would begin with the idea that every child has gifts to offer society. Their education—whether through traditional schooling, apprenticeships, vocational training, or other pathways—should be designed to help them explore, develop, and share these gifts. Opportunities for adult education should ensure that people can explore and cultivate new gifts later in life. Potentialism thus argues that a priority should be to make excellent education available to all Americans regardless of age, class, or background.

Furthermore, because potentialism affirms not only people’s right but also their responsibility to develop their gifts, education would not just be about training but also about instilling a sense of civic duty. Striving to achieve one’s potential should be considered not just something one does for oneself but also for others: not just a personal quest, but a moral one. This idea is closely related to the ancient view that education is not just an exercise in learning facts but also in character formation. Thus, potentialism advocates for more civic education and emphasis on civic virtues.

Healthcare

Healthcare is a contentious issue in America—one that took center stage with the controversy around the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and then, more recently, with the assassination of UnitedHealthCare CEO Brian Thompson last year. While the US drives much medical innovation around the world, conservatives and liberals alike agree that the healthcare system is overly costly, complex, and unequal in its distribution of care.

While healthcare does not feature prominently in headlines these days, according to recent research by More in Common, this topic remains among the top most issues to Americans.

When advocating for fixing this dysfunctional system, many organizations frame the conversation using the value of care. A report by the World Health Organization, for example, stated that healthcare “is the embodiment of human rights in the practice of care.”

Potentialism takes a different approach. To the potentialist, healthcare isn’t just about care; it’s also about agency.

When people depend on employers for healthcare, as is the case in the US system, leaving one’s job means losing health coverage, thus opening the risk for catastrophic financial loss in the case of a health emergency. Consequently, people remain in suboptimal jobs just to preserve their benefits—a phenomenon known as “job lock.” This stifles people’s agency and their ability to develop their gifts because it prevents them from taking entrepreneurial risks or exploring other ways they can pursue their potential.

The potentialist advocates for systems that ensure that people are not prevented from exploring and developing their gifts due a loss of health insurance. As an example that could garner bipartisan support, a state-sponsored program could offer free health coverage to individuals (and their families) pursuing adult education or starting a business.

Status and Respect

In today’s world—particularly among today’s youth—becoming an “influencer” has become a hallmark of success. This is part of a larger phenomenon whereby success is marked by titles, salaries, and follower counts. Meanwhile, essential work—such as that performed by teachers, mechanics, and caregivers—is undervalued.

Potentialism offers a different path. According to potentialism, the value of one’s gifts does not depend on the number of “likes” they get or the scale of their influence. Instead, they depend on the goodness-of-fit between the capacities of the giver and the needs of the community.

By this metric, someone who spends ten years working with a disabled child should be afforded just as much respect as someone who started a company. Thus, potentialism advocates for a redistribution of respect in our culture for the myriad ways, large and small, that people can enrich their own lives and the lives of the people around them.8

AI and the Freedom Paradox

Maybe you have heard: AI is coming for our jobs.

In theory, this should be great news! We should all be looking forward to 8-hour workweeks and spending the rest of our time mastering the ukulele or finally reading War and Peace.

But there’s a problem. Most visions of an AI future involve some sort of massive wealth transfer, so everyone can reap the productivity benefits generated by our new robot companions. Yet a recent meta-analyses of such programs—including a large study funded by Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI—showed that people who receive cash are, on average, no happier than those who don’t.

These findings are a thorn in the side of those who argue that advances in artificial intelligence, when coupled with massive wealth redistributions, will lead to substantial increases in social welfare.

One possible reason for these findings is what we might call the Freedom Paradox. Social science shows us that the more control people have over their lives – that is, the more freedom they have – the happier they feel. Yet, paradoxically, studies also show that too much freedom can actually diminish happiness. With no demands on one’s time, it is far too easy to get sucked into Instagram’s infinite scroll.

This exact point was recently raised by Joe Rogan in an interview with Bernie Sanders (excerpted below and edited for clarity):

JOE ROGAN: I’m a big supporter of social safety nets. What worries me is that if all the jobs are gone and everything gets automated, even if people have universal basic income, they don’t have meaning. How do you find meaning if all you’re doing is just getting a check and you can just stay at home and stare at the TV?

BERNIE SANDERS: That’s the trillion dollar question. I don’t have an easy answer to it.

Potentialism offers an answer. The Freedom Paradox emerges when there are no demands on our time. Yet potentialism does place such demands—namely, the responsibility to develop and share one’s gifts. By imposing guardrails (in the form of social norms) around our behavior, we can thwart the shiftlessness that could emerge with more free time.

(Sam Altman, if you are reading this, we suggest you make the following modification to your next cash transfer study: urge people to spend more time developing their gifts!)

Loneliness and Alienation

In 2023, the US Surgeon General issued a report arguing that Americans were experiencing a “loneliness epidemic.” Americans are increasingly feeling anxious, isolated, disconnected, and alienated from their communities.

Addressing this complex issue will undoubtedly require efforts from multiple sectors, but potentialism offers one perspective. According to potentialism, gifts aren’t developed alone. Instead, they are “collectively emergent,” meaning that it’s easier for people to develop their own gifts when others are developing theirs. Simply put, we thrive together.

This has two implications. First, it suggests that it is to everyone’s benefit—not just those who are socially isolated—to invest in civic infrastructure that increases opportunities for social connection. (A recent More in Common report called the Connection Opportunity confirms that people want to connect with others to solve problems in their communities.) Potentialism thus calls for greater investment in public infrastructure, including public transportation and so-called “third spaces”—that is, areas like parks and libraries that provide opportunities for connection.9

Furthermore, potentialism views loneliness as not just a policy problem but also a culture problem. Our modern culture of individualism, which touts the virtue of self-interest, has frayed our social bonds and exacerbated social isolation. This means that we need to reform not just our institutions but our civic culture: to replace our modern culture of individualism with a “culture of connection.”

A Bold Aspiration

Potentialism is straightforward, yet it differs in meaningful ways from the prevailing political narratives of our time. It centers social justice and personal responsibility; opportunity and agency; institutions and culture; community and the individual. In its assertion of the individuality of gifts, it advocates for human autonomy and self-exploration; in its assertion of the responsibility conferred by these gifts, it advocates for personal obligation and civic duty.

Yet potentialism is not a form of milquetoast centrism. It offers clear positions on a range of issues, including (but not limited to) those mentioned above. It casts its eye upon society and sees too many cases where people continue to be unfairly deprived of the chance to develop their gifts. It also sees too many cases where our culture has failed to adequately reflect the moral dimension of self-improvement.

It is our hope that potentialism becomes a serious alternative to the prevailing political philosophies of our time. Perhaps one could identify not just as a liberal or progressive, conservative or libertarian, socialist or communist, but also as a potentialist—someone committed to the core belief that everyone has both a right and responsibility to develop and share their gifts10.

We are aware that this is a bold aspiration. But it is also increasingly clear that our political moment cries out for such boldness. Millions of Americans are fed up with business-as-usual and are hungry for new, creative solutions to our country’s challenges. As we approach America’s 250th anniversary, surely we can do better than the status quo, and we owe it to ourselves—and to future generations—to try.

What’s Next

We are growing a community of thoughtful, engaged people who are exhausted by the political dysfunction in our country and eager for new solutions. Our aim is for this community to provide feedback and share those ideas with a broader audience. As this community grows, so too will our chances of expanding this movement and enacting real change.

That community starts here, with you. If you know someone who you think would be interested in advancing any of the ideas presented in this article, please share it with them! We are looking for thought partners, policy experts, scientists, philosophers, friends, allies, skeptics, funders, collaborators, readers, and sharers—anyone who is intrigued by our thinking and wants to help build something new. If you have any ideas about how to advance this work, please let us know by reaching out to [email protected]. And if you haven’t yet signed up to follow this newsletter, please do so!

Over the coming weeks, we will be offering a series of additional reflections on potentialism, including:

• A more precise definition of “gifts” and how we identify them

• A deep dive into rights, responsibilities, and the limits of each

• How potentialism relates to other frameworks (e.g., the “Abundance Agenda”) and political parties (e.g., Elon Musk’s “America Party” and Andrew Yang’s “Forward Party”)11

• How potentialism relates to other political philosophies (e.g., liberalism)12

• Other implications for our current political moment

This is the start of a great adventure, and we look forward to taking it with you.