# John Avlon's Independent Nation explained: the centrist tradition behind radical centrism

> John Avlon's Independent Nation (2004) argues that centrists and independents form a large, neglected part of the electorate and that centrism is both a winning strategy and a governing philosophy that puts patriotism before partisanship and the national interest before special interests. It makes the case through short political biographies of twentieth-century leaders from Theodore Roosevelt to Bill Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Critics said its centrism was really moderation and its definition too broad. For radical centrism its most useful insight is institutional: safe seats and primaries punish the centre, so the rules of competition have to change.

- URL: https://www.radicalcentre.eu/en/articles/john-avlon-independent-nation-explained
- Language: en
- Publisher: radical centre / centro radical
- Published: 2026-10-12
- Topic: Ideas & history
- Author: radical centre
- Licence: CC BY 4.0

## Key points

- John Avlon, a former speechwriter for Rudy Giuliani, published Independent Nation in 2004; the paperback appeared in 2005 with the subtitle How Centrists Can Change American Politics.
- Avlon defines centrism as putting patriotism before partisanship and the national interest before special interests.
- The book profiles leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Giuliani.
- Avlon argues that about 90 per cent of congressional seats were safe for incumbents and that primaries reward party loyalty over appeal to the centre.
- Critics said his centrism amounted to moderation and tolerance, and David Frum noted that independent movements were usually more radical than the parties.

Of the four American books that defined radical centrism in the early 2000s, John Avlon's *Independent Nation* is the one about voters and leaders more than policies. Halstead and Lind wrote a programme; Matthew Miller wrote a grand bargain; Mark Satin wrote a philosophy. Avlon wrote a history of centrist politicians and an argument about who could win.

Avlon came to the subject from practice. According to his Encyclopedia.com profile, he graduated from Yale in 1996, worked on Bill Clinton's re-election campaign that year and then joined Rudy Giuliani's administration in New York, first as a speechwriter and then as deputy communications director. He was a columnist at the *New York Sun* when the book came out. It was published by Harmony in March 2004 as *Independent Nation: How Centrism Is Changing the Face of American Politics*; the 2005 paperback from Three Rivers Press carries the subtitle *How Centrists Can Change American Politics*. He later co-founded the bipartisan group No Labels.

## The argument

The publisher's description sets out the core claim. Moderates make up a large share of the electorate, most voters prefer solutions from the centre, and independents outnumber both major parties. Clinton and George W. Bush both won the presidency with centrist strategies. So centrism, Avlon argues, is a winning campaign strategy and also a governing philosophy, one that puts patriotism and the national interest ahead of partisanship and special interests. Kirkus quotes the definition in his own words: patriotism before partisanship, the national interest before special interests.

Avlon makes the case through short political biographies of mayors, governors and presidents, around two dozen of them. The roster includes Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Earl Warren, the senator Margaret Chase Smith, Jesse Ventura, Clinton, Bush and Giuliani. Roll Call's 2004 interview with Avlon adds Truman and Eisenhower, presented as leaders whose moderation rescued their parties from their own extremes; Eisenhower revived a Republican Party that had lost five presidential elections in a row. Roosevelt gets special affection as the father of the progressive movement, a Republican president who busted trusts and protected the environment and later broke with his party. Avlon told Roll Call that Roosevelt's progressive tradition was still looking for a home.

The diagnosis is institutional as much as historical. In the same interview Avlon explains why centrists lose despite their numbers. Both parties divide the moderate majority between them. Party leaders enforce loyalty. Candidates must win a primary dominated by the base before they can appeal to the centre in a general election. And he estimates that about 90 per cent of congressional seats had become safe for incumbents through redistricting and the electoral process, which leaves the base as the only electorate that matters.

## What critics said

The reviews were mixed, and the criticisms are instructive. Kirkus called the book a middling treatise and argued that Avlon's definition had to be stretched very wide to cover figures as different as Nixon and Roosevelt; Nixon's centrism looked more like calculation than temperament, and Roosevelt fits only if the centre moves well to the left. It also noted that women barely appear. Thomas Baldino in *Library Journal* said that what Avlon described as centrism was really moderation, compromise and tolerance, though he found it a good read. The *New York Post* liked the history and complained that the book gave short shrift to principled crusaders such as abolitionists and civil rights activists.

David Frum went further. Independence and moderation are different things, he wrote, and most independent movements in American history, from the Free-Soilers to the Greens, were more radical than the parties. The centre also moves with each era, which makes a history of centrism slippery.

## What radical centrism takes from Avlon

The critics are right that Avlon's centrism can blur into moderation. Read alongside this week's other books, though, *Independent Nation* contributes something the others underplay.

From the progressive side, Avlon reclaims Theodore Roosevelt: trust-busting, conservation and a willingness to use the state against concentrated private power. From the conservative side he takes fiscal discipline and the figure of the leader who pulls a party back from its activist base, as Eisenhower did. And his most original point fits neither camp. Independence from parties is a value in its own right, and the rules of electoral competition decide whether the centre can be heard at all. Safe seats, primaries dominated by the base and leadership-enforced discipline produce partisans, whatever voters want.

Combined, that gives radical centrism a clear priority. Before arguing about any single policy, reform the rules that select the people who make policy, so that candidates have to win the middle and parties have to compete for it. Halstead and Lind reached the same conclusion with their support for ranked voting. Avlon shows why it matters through a century of examples. In Europe, where parliamentary systems and party lists shape careers in their own ways, the question carries over directly: who chooses the candidates, and to whom do they answer once elected?

Avlon's slogan pairing idealism with realism, quoted in the Wikipedia entry on radical centrism, sounds modest. The institutional reading of his book makes it more radical than it looks.

## FAQ

### What is Independent Nation by John Avlon about?

It is a 2004 book arguing that centrists and independents are a large and growing share of American voters. It tells the history of twentieth-century centrist leaders through short political biographies and argues that centrism works both as a campaign strategy and as a governing philosophy.

### How does John Avlon define centrism?

As putting patriotism before partisanship and the national interest before special interests. Elsewhere he pairs idealism with realism, arguing that each is weak without the other.

### Is John Avlon a radical centrist?

His book is usually counted among the four early-2000s works that defined radical centrism, alongside Halstead and Lind, Matthew Miller and Mark Satin. It is the most electoral and least programmatic of the four.

## Sources

- [Independent Nation](https://johnavlon.com/books/independent-nation/), John Avlon (2005)
- [Independent Nation: How Centrism Is Changing the Face of American Politics (review)](https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/john-p-avlon/independent-nation/), Kirkus Reviews (2004)
- [Making a Case](https://rollcall.com/2004/03/08/making-a-case), Roll Call (2004)
- [Avlon, John P.](https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/avlon-john-p), Encyclopedia.com (2005)
- [Independent Nation](https://davidfrum.com/article/independent-nation), David Frum (2007)
- [Radical centrism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism), Wikipedia (2026)