SOME years ago a satirical cartoon strip set in ancient Rome, the very fine “Hom Sap” series, imagined an uprising by moderates. “What do we want? Gradual change!” chanted a band of tunic-clad centrists. “When do we want it? In due course!”

Revolts of the reasonable are hard things to pull off, not least because zealots and partisans have catchier slogans. Yet that does not dismay a growing number of America’s not-very-strident. Pointing to record levels of public disgust for the political classes, moderates fizz with innovative schemes for grabbing power from extremists of the left and right. Some are wiser than others.

More than 50 members of Congress have joined the bipartisan No Labels group, chaired by Joe Manchin, a Democratic senator from struggling West Virginia, and Jon Huntsman, a former Republican governor of Utah whose 2012 presidential ambitions were undone by wonkishness and a general lack of belly-fire. Members are called “Problem Solvers” rather than centrists, and insist that staunch conservatives and liberals are welcome.

Books and newspaper columns talk of an “insurgency of the rational” and of the “sane, pragmatic majority” taking charge. A political action committee founded by New York’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, plans to spend millions backing moderates and independents in state and federal elections, with a nicely balanced focus on promoting gun control (angering the right) and school reform (which makes teachers’ unions seethe). The Common Sense Coalition, set up by entrepreneurs and fund managers, wants an online “Army of Moderates” to lobby candidates and elected officials. Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, is said to be poised to launch a group pushing education and immigration reforms, using Republican and Democratic strategists.

The same arguments are cited, repeatedly, to explain why the time is ripe for a centrist insurgency. First, Americans are fed up with both big parties, especially in Congress, a body with an 11% approval rating in one recent poll. Self-styled “independents” account for up to 40% of the electorate by some measures. Finally, great faith is put in the power of technology to help new groups out-organise and out-campaign incumbent party machines, like small furry mammals scampering beneath dinosaur feet.

Some innovations have already sputtered out. Americans Elect, an online project to find a third-party presidential challenger for the 2012 election, failed to attract either voters or heavyweight candidates. The White House was the wrong goal, argues “The Centrist Manifesto”, a new book with a different plan to sell. The book’s author, Charles Wheelan, a teacher at Dartmouth College (and former Economist journalist), argues that a Centrist Party should focus on the Senate, aiming to win just four or five seats in moderate states. Thanks to quirks of Senate arithmetic, a handful of centrists could hold the balance of power.

The moderate start-ups tend to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal, keen on free trade and free markets, worried about social mobility and open to immigration. Some talk of curbing campaign spending and involving more ordinary voters in primaries that select candidates. In short they are brilliant, noble and good-looking people who agree with Lexington’s employer. But there is a hitch. They would struggle to win a majority in any statewide or national election in America.

Voter disenchantment is not really a mandate for technocrats to tinker, innovatively, with the status quo. Across the West, from Nome to Nicosia, alarming numbers suspect that the status quo is a con, stiffing strivers in the middle of society while those at the top (ie, the rich or politicians) and bottom (immigrants, those on welfare) are doing fine. A driving force in politics is anger, rooted in a sense that things are getting worse and politicians are either impotent or colluding to game the system.

The globe-spanning nature of that rage undercuts claims that American voter disillusion can be addressed by clever, local innovations. Yes, runaway campaign spending is a headache. But the entire 2010 British general election cost less than some individual Senate races in 2012, and furious British voters still think their politicians are money-grubbing thieves. Broadening primary-voter pools is a good idea. But moderates are wrong to think that America’s self-styled independents are inevitably allies. Most “independents” are Democrats or Republicans in all but name, studies show. About a quarter are apolitical. Very few are true swing voters. What unites independents is hatred of politicians, which is not the same thing as centrism.

Working with anger

Even the techno-utopians who talk of reinventing politics are missing the point of such digital triumphs as Barack Obama’s White House runs. Team Obama used new technology to pull off something old-school: to help supporters find voters who resembled themselves, then tell them bad things about Mitt Romney.

What might work? Try bipartisan truth-telling: explaining the global forces hitting the West and the hard work needed to remain competitive, rather than trying to turn voter anger to party advantage. That makes groups like No Labels worth a go. Try getting stuff done. The recent sight of Democratic and Republican senators working hard on immigration reform saw approval of Congress among Hispanics jump by 21 points, for instance.

Billionaires have every right to have opinions and fund their promotion. Politics could do with more reasoned debate. But beware innovative short-cuts designed to turn centrists into kingmakers, or to shunt aside the traditional parties (tempting though that is). Shrill partisans are a menace, but they enjoy a mandate from the angriest voters—and this is a perilous time to start disenfranchising the angry. The cartoon Romans were right: the rational middle must advance by persuasion, not revolution.

Economist.com/blogs/lexington