Barack Obama’s election in 2008 was an insurgent victory amidst the stalemate in American politics. He ran as an agent of change and a challenge to the establishment in both the Democratic and Republican parties. He promised a new pragmatism that would replace partisanship with intelligent and effective responses to complex problems. Obama’s incredibly broad appeal, especially among young people, came from his insurgent qualities. His race, his professional background, and his inspiring rhetoric combined to make him appear as a compelling outsider who would reform the tired politics-as-usual in Washington D.C.

Since he assumed the presidency in January 2009 Obama has lost his insurgent appeal. This is not because of a change of heart. Despite his repeated efforts to tackle complex problems (from health care to deficit reduction), the two party system in Congress has blocked all productive actions. Democrats have consistently pushed for more spending, more regulation, and more protection of special interests. Republicans have been equally stubborn in their efforts to strip government power, encourage free markets, and enforce moral strictures in society.

The two parties have stuck to their inherited positions, even though they do not match the serious problems of our present era. Democrats and Republicans have forced the president to dumb down his creative policy efforts for the sake of stale and ultimately ineffective compromises on spending, or an acceptance of the status quo for health care and government entitlements. The two party system in Congress has suffocated the possibilities for insurgent reform that Obama’s election initially breathed into American politics.

Pragmatism needs new oxygen in Washington, and it will only come from a new political party. Citizens committed to creative problem solving, experimental policies, and even a little sacrifice need an organization that will bring their voices into the mainstream. They need a fund-raising body to challenge the Democratic and Republican money machines. Most of all, they need a powerful national leader – someone whom opponents cannot ignore or dismiss, someone to mobilize a broad following.

The history of American politics is filled with national insurgent leaders, many of whom came to prominence during moments of partisan stalemate and ineffectiveness – moments precisely like our own. Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, in particular, transformed the political structure of American society by forcing the dominant parties to address new issues. They created new political organizations that energized debate, increased public participation, and unleashed years of productive legislative work. These men abandoned partisanship for a populist focus on the national interest.

President Obama can do the same. Despite his legislative setbacks, his popularity remains very high. In addition, his campaign vision of pragmatic change is as compelling as ever. He can only capitalize on this by decisively abandoning the partisan structure that is holding him back. Obama must stop speaking as a “Democrat,” and address himself to the nation as the “Pragmatist” that he is. In their best moments, Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt did the same.

Now is the perfect time for Obama to drop this political bomb. Members of Congress are preparing for the November 2010 elections at a moment when their standing in the eyes of the American public is barely better than that of convicted felons. Voters are clearly fed up with the two-party system and they are looking for an alternative. No one in either party, other than the president, has shown an ability to mobilize this pervasive sentiment. The Tea Party Movement has drawn on public anger, but it also lacks a compelling national leader.

Obama should follow Jackson and Roosevelt’s script. He should call on all members of Congress to declare whether or not they are willing to join him in embracing a new Pragmatism that requires three things. First, they must pledge that it is their collective responsibility to address the overwhelming national challenges confronting our country – the ballooning deficit, the health care crisis, and the insolvency of Social Security, Medicare, and other government entitlements. Second, they should resign from their Democratic and Republican party posts and join together in new committees designed to bridge differences, not sharpen them. Third, the president should call on all members of Congress to join him at the White House to announce their Pragmatic movement in a major press conference. Those who do not attend will display their commitment to partisanship above country.

A third party movement has risks, of course. Members of Congress will lose some of the campaign funding they count on from their parties. The president and his advisors will not be able to exploit the traditional partisan channels for introducing legislation and disciplining House and Senate votes. These two mainstays of the two party system are precisely the impediments to effective governance. They seem permanent because they serve short-term political purposes, not the national interest.

The risks for Obama in introducing a third party are, in fact, very low. He will re-energize his popular appeal as an insurgent, he will raise money and support (as he did during his presidential campaign) along these lines, and he will shame members of Congress and other politicians into thinking beyond their party. The president has the power to breakthrough our political stalemate by breaking down the Republicans and the Democrats.

The opinions expressed in this blog are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of either Global Brief or the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.