The Myth of The Moderate

Since Kamala Harris' defeat to President Trump Democrats have been rudderless. Tune in to any cable news channel, however, and you will hear a political pundit opine that the solution to the Democrat's woes is to moderate. In fact, the solution for any given politician or political party struggling electorally at any given time is to moderate. A brilliant solution, if it were so simple! You might listen a bit longer, waiting to hear how exactly the Democratic party should moderate, but what you will invariably hear is what amounts to little more than platitudes—"we need common sense reform that all Americans can get behind"; or "we need to speak to the real America, not the coastal elites"; or "we need to appeal to the median voter" which is really just defining the approach with the approach. 

Looking at the problem superficially a play for the middle does seem strategically sound. After all, our political system is structured as a competition between two parties that stake out positions on the opposite end of the spectrum on any given issue. It's reasonable then to assume that the party closer to the center of an issue will be able to gather more support on that specific issue. Do this across all issues and you have a winning platform. At least in theory. 

 

If you start to press, however, this theory starts to break down. So lets press. There are two ways in which a party can moderate; in issue stance and in issue selection. Issue stance is how a party positions themselves on a specific issue, whereas issue selection are the issues that a party chooses to prioritize. While neither issue stance or issue selection is immutable for political parties—priorities and policies change over time—it is not as straightforward as simply declaring a change in position.

Looking first at issue stance; the calculation in shifting positions on an issue is that some base voters may be lost, but by shifting positions more than enough voters will be gained to offset any losses. This too is true in theory but there is a very practical risk in this strategy. If a shift in position is not ideologically consistent with the broader set of policy objectives then more base voters may be lost. Further, if the shift is viewed as disingenuous political pandering the moderate voters the party is courting may not be swayed. An example of this may be the Biden, then Harris, campaign's shift to a tougher immigration policy. Right leaning voters saw this as nothing more than a political calculation for the upcoming campaign and Democrats were left trying to rationalize how the harsher immigration policy fit in their broader social justice framework. 

Further, this approach is only possible if the current political dynamic of an issue allows moderation. Take the issue of abortion as an example. If one party has taken the position that life begins at conception and all abortion is murder then to moderate is to legalize murder. Democrats can put all the restrictions they like in place but so long as the opposition believes there should be no exceptions there is no middle ground. You can run down a list of issues like this; you cannot moderate from the position of denying the existence of trans-individuals, or that homosexuals do not deserve the right to marry, or that immigrants do not have basic legal rights. 

It is also worth pointing out that there is a difference between the midpoint between the policy positions of the two parties and the true moderate position. For this let's look at health insurance as an example. The current Democratic position is somewhere between the current status quo with a government health insurance option to compete with private insurers and additional regulations, such as requiring insurers to cover preexisting conditions. The Republican position is to eliminate the public option and deregulate. In this instance the Democratic party is already around the true moderate position with Republicans solidly on the conservative side of the spectrum. This shifts the Overton Window to the right half of the political spectrum. So if by moderate we mean to pick the midpoint between the parties current positions it would mean for the Democrats to move to a center right position. If we mean to select the true moderate position then the Democrats are already there.

Already it has become extremely unclear what it would mean for either party to moderate. Do their current political positions allow them to moderate? Even if they can moderate, should they? What if they already hold the moderate position, should they compromise further and move to the midpoint? 

These questions only become more muddled when moving from evaluating individual issues to evaluating issue selection. Is a party to moderate on all issues or only social issues? All social issues or just some social issues? Should the party moderate on some social issues, some economic issues, and some foreign policy issues? 

 

If you were to survey 100 voters on their positions on issues you will get 100 different variations. Herein lies the problem that the call for moderation ignores—voters are complex with unique lived experiences informing their individual political perspective. The idea that a moderate candidate will look the same to every voter, or even a plurality of voters, is absurd. 

There is no moderate ideal for the parties to attain. Even if we were able to come to a consensus on what the moderate ideal is it is not clear to me that in a two party system this would be the political juggernaut that pundits suggest it would be. The instinct of this commentary is correct, though. We should be striving for the most broadly representative government possible. The problem is attempting to achieve that goal within our current framework. A two-party system requires voters to compromise on certain positions to vote for the party that most closely aligns with their beliefs, or vote against the party that most greatly diverges from their beliefs, or they choose not to vote at all. What is needed is a multiparty system that allows for a greater diversity in issue stance and issue selection. This wont create a moderate party, but it will the representation of voters beliefs.

The Great American Hypothesis: Multi-Cultural Democracy

America was a country founded on a set of principles; equality, personal liberty, freedom, independence, democracy. These principles were, from the very beginning, aspirational. Virtues we, as a country, should strive for; not something that had been achieved when the words were written. The Founders grappled with the contradictions that existed in our founding ethos; that all men are created equal while slavery persisted in the fledgling nation. While they did not themselves embody all of the ideals they espoused it does not make those ideals any less virtuous, or excuse later generations from striving to uphold those same virtues because their predecessors may have fallen short. 

Certain of the Founders believed that future generations may have different interpretations of what these principles look like in practice, or maybe hold different principles all together. Thomas Jefferson advocated for the Constitution to expire after 19 years, to be renewed or created anew by the next generation. Though we did not adopt Jefferson's approach, for practical reasons, subsequent generations have interpreted and reinterpreted the founding principles time and again. 

George Washington called the undertaking of the new American government a "great experiment". This phrase would evolve into "the great American experiment in democracy", I would call it "the great American hypothesis of democracy". Even at our founding we were a diverse nation with Europeans, American Indians, and Africans living in one country. However, only a narrow band of that population was given the rights of full citizenship, namely the white protestants. And even within that population voting rights were, with few exceptions, granted to a narrower band still—land-owning, tax-paying males. 

Even for these select few afforded the right to vote, the Founders did not trust the masses to elect their leaders. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 1 (emphasis from me);

An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants. 

To this end, the Founders believed it wise to remove the election of the President from the general populous and placed that responsibility with electors. States are responsible for administering federal elections and initially the election of those electors was primarily the responsibility of state legislators. Over time states shifted from state legislator appointed electors to electors determined by popular vote. 

Even with this shift towards democratization, well over half of the US population still was not eligible to vote. It would not be until the passage of the of the 15th Amendment in 1870 until the right to vote was extended to all adult males. However, this newly extended right was very quickly curbed with the passage of Jim Crow laws in states across the country. In 1920 the 19th Amendment was adopted extending the right to vote to women. 94 years after all men were given the right to vote through the 15th Amendment, the 24th Amendment was passed prohibiting poll taxes as a barrier to voting and provided Congress the authority to enforce this article through appropriate legislation. A year later the Voting Rights Act would ensure the right to vote for all US citizens. 

While the story of suffrage in this country is frustratingly slow and riddled with setbacks, it is an illustration of the aspirational nature of our founding principles. While we have made significant progress towards democratization and though we think of ourselves as the quintessential democracy, much like at our founding, I would argue that this is still aspirational; thus a hypothesis and not yet an experiment.

I would like to take a brief detour, if you stick with me I think it will come together in the end. I will also apologize in advance for some vulgarity. 

Back in 2004 George W. Bush was running for reelection against John Kerry. The same year South Park was in its 8th season and the week before election day they offered their take on the current state of American politics in episode 8, Douche and Turd. In the episode the residents of South Park are in the process of selecting a new school mascot and are given the choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Maybe not the subtlest allusion to American politics, but an incisive critique nonetheless. 

Two years later It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia would air The Gang Runs for Office (Season 2, Episode 8). In the episode the gang has the following exchange;

Mac: Hey, have you guys seen this? We are getting blasted in the ass by the state liquor tax. 

Dee: "Blasted in the ass"? 

Dennis: Mac, we have this same conversation every year. There's nothing you can do about taxes. 

Dee: You guys might want to think about voting every once in a while. 

Dennis: What has voting ever done? 

Charlie: Why Since... wh-what has... Why are you comin' down... Voting!?

Dennis: Who am I supposed to vote for? Am I supposed to vote for the Democrat who's gonna blast me in the ass or the Republican who's blasting my ass? 

Mac: Politics is just one big ass blast. 

Dennis: It is a coast-to-coast, nationwide ass blast.

These episodes that aired only two years apart captured a similar vibe; there is no real difference between two self-interested parties. A vibe that persists among voters still, though I think the characterization has since broken down. 

In the 20 years since these episodes aired the political landscape in America has changed dramatically. For the first time in our nations history we did not have a peaceful transfer of power when, on January 6th 2021, outgoing President Trump incited a mob to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election. Trump was impeached twice, though not convicted, and indicted on four separate counts. In 2024 Donald Trump would run for president for a third time. To update the South Park analogy for 2024, the choice would be between a giant douche and an arsenic sandwich—both bad, but one will kill you.

Democrats warned that, if elected, Trump would represent democratic backsliding towards authoritarianism in America. Since taking office Trump has validated those warnings as he has violated the Impoundment Control Act by freezing funding allocated by Congress; violated civil service protections by firing civil service employees without appropriate cause, ignored court orders to resume funding, and countless other lawless acts. 

It would be too much to say that America is an autocracy; the 2024 election was free and fairly administered and there is currently not strong reason be believe that the 2026 mid-term elections will not also be free and fairly administered. However, I think we have seen enough to declare that the great American hypothesis that a large and diverse multi-cultural democracy is not possible. At least as our political systems are currently constructed. 

In a two-party system, when one of the parties has abandoned the democratic process, as the Republicans have, it leaves pro-democracy voters with a single option. When there is a single legitimate option there is no choice, and where there is no choice there cannot be democracy. 

It would be too much to say that America is an autocracy, but we are no longer a democracy. 

The Case for Incumbency

2024 was the year of the election as countries across the world held elections. As the results of these elections came in a trend began to emerge. By the middle of the year it was evident that there was a broad backlash against incumbent governments. And it really was a global trend; ParlGov global research has tracked the elections of 10 major countries and for the first time since at least the 1950s every governing party lost vote share in 2024. 

For American political pundits the questions very quickly became, "would America follow this global trend?" But as quickly as the question was asked it became muddled. Yes, Democrats held the Presidency and the Senate, but Republicans held the House, and the Supreme Court was dominated by Republican appointed Justices. Control of the federal government was divided, and while Democratic President Joe Biden experienced low approval ratings with a 56% disapproval rating as of the midpoint of 2024, House Republican governance was conspicuously dysfunctional and the Supreme Court has experienced a net disapproval rate since the overturning of Roe v Wade.

To further complicate the question the Republican Presidential nominee was a former President who had lost his previous reelection campaign to the current President, and by July 21, 2024 Joe Biden had dropped out of the race to be replaced by his Vice President, Kamala Harris. This created a real question of whether Trump would be burdened with the incumbency label, having served as President less than four years prior, or would Harris as a member of the current administration.

We have since gotten our answers to "which candidate did voters identify as the incumbent" and "whether America would follow the anti-incumbent trend". Republicans were able to hold on to the House of Representatives while winning the Presidency and flipping the Senate, placing control of the government squarely with Republicans. This result was foreshadowed as far back as January 2024 when Gallup asked voters whether President Biden and most members of Congress deserved reelection.

This finding was reaffirmed in October when Gallup again asked whether members of Congress deserved to be reelected.

As evident by these results, the sentiment towards incumbents deteriorated over the nine months from January to October 2024 when only a plurality, not even a majority, of respondents felt their own Representatives in Congress deserved to be reelected. 

This begs the question, though, what exactly do voters want when expressing an anti-incumbency preference. To be anti-incumbent is an abstraction, after all. To move from an abstraction to a fleshed out position one must first identify who, or what the incumbent is; and as stated earlier, that was at the very least muddled in the 2024 election cycle. Even after the incumbent is identified a set of policies, or lack thereof, must be prescribed to the incumbent that voters do not support. 

In the case of the 2024 election the economy was the most important issue to voters. President Biden and Democrats were seen as both responsible for the inflationary environment of the past few years due to increased federal spending in response to COVID, as well as the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and were viewed as not having taken action to meaningfully reduce prices. 

Given that voters ranked the economy as their top issue in the 2024 election, and thought candidate Trump would be better able to handle the economy, it would seem that the nature of voter's anti-incumbency preference was motivated by economic policies. 

Outside of issue preferences of the 2024 election, there is some additional polling that may help further shape the anti-incumbency concept. First, pollsters find that an increasing percentage of Americans identify as independents rather than Democrats or Republicans. Furthermore, a majority of Americans believe we need a third-party option in our elections.

Second, between 2000 and 2020 32% to 43% of the eligible voting population is not participating in elections. Of that cohort between 11% and 18% reported not voting because they were not interested or felt their vote would not make a difference and 8% to 25% reported not voting because they did not like the candidates or campaign issues. This is a significant portion of the population that is disengaged from our political system because they do not think that system is responsive their beliefs.

These findings would seem to suggest anti-incumbency is not necessarily partisan or even issues based, but rather a rejection of our political system as a whole. Viewed in this light, the anti-incumbency vote was perhaps more of an abstraction than a rejection of a specific set of policy prescriptions after all. 

If I was to synthesize each of these poll results into a single expression of voter sentiment it would be this; voters want a responsive government and do not feel like that is what they are getting. This is further supported by the disapproval ratings for all three branches of government. But what does it mean for a government to be responsive? 

There are two ways in which a government can be responsive; it can be responsive to voters or it can be responsive in its ability to perform its duties, what I will call actionability. While distinct, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive qualities of government.

I do want to be careful here not to diminish or discredit the dissatisfaction expressed by voters in the series of polls cited above, or in the 2024 election. After all, I too want a government that is responsive to my political persuasion! However, I think it would be a mistake to not address the contradictions between voters' expressed preferences and their revealed preferences. Namely, voters' expressed preference for a government with greater actionability and their revealed preference of, at best, vacillating between a normal governing party in the Democratic Party and a party that is seemingly uninterested in governing in the Republican Party. Now some may say this is an unfair characterization of the Republican Party, but this is a party that failed to adopt a party platform in 2020 and the 118th Congress, led by Republicans, was by far the least productive Congress in at least 40 years. Whether or not one agrees with Democratic policy positions and governance, if voters desire a government with actionability then they should be voting for politicians other than what Republicans have offered.

Voters are not fully at fault for this contradiction, however. Our system presents voters with a theoretical false dilemma, but practically only allows for two legitimate options in any election. Not only is there not only a Democratic and Republican side to any issue, but voters also do not consistently hold Democratic or Republican perspective on every issue. People are complicated and their political perspectives are equally heterodox. 

While there are two ways in which a government can be responsive, my read of the motivation behind the anti-incumbency vote is a frustration with the actionability of government more so than the responsiveness of government to voters. As we saw with voters' top issue being the economy, voters were responding to inaction from the Biden administration on prices. Further, Gallup has also found that a majority of Americans would like their elected leaders to compromise on issues. That's not to say that responsiveness to voters is not also important, so I do want to come back to it, but first I would like to examine the second form of responsiveness; government's actionability. 

What I think is being overlooked by the anti-incumbent voter is the value of institutional knowledge. In the past several years we have seen examples of the benefit of legislators with deep institutional knowledge and those without. Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi was able to effectively govern the House of Representatives as Speaker of the House with a very narrow, ten seat majority, because she understood the levers of power available to her. Republican Representative Kevin McCarthy, on the other hand, may be the prime example of a legislator who did not have deep institutional knowledge; his tenure as Speaker of the House also oversaw a narrow, ten seat majority, was extremely dysfunctional and punctuated by his own caucus removing him as speaker and McCarthy resigning soon after. While both wielded the Speaker's gavel with similar majorities the Senate and White House were aligned Pelosi and not McCarthy, creating different incentive structures for both; Pelosi to enact meaningful legislation to advance Democratic priorities and McCarthy to obstruct and frustrate Democratic policies. To that end, McCarthy could be considered a success. Although, as the earlier polling cited, American voters want their elected officials to compromise on at least some issues. Further, control of Congress has been divided before and not been as unproductive as the 118th Congress and no other Speaker has been removed by their own caucus.

Congress is a complicated institution with a set of arcane rules operating in a larger governmental structure that only adds additional layers of complexity. Institutional knowledge gained from having served in Congress allows for individual legislators to have actionability within this system and as a result create a government with actionability. This is not to suggest that institutional knowledge is the only knowledge valuable to a legislator. There is value in having a Congress made up of Senators and Representatives with a diverse set of backgrounds and expertise. Expertise that allows legislators to effectively regulate certain industries and backgrounds that makes legislators genuine representatives of their constituents. 

Beyond institutional knowledge, an incumbent will have existing relationships with other legislators who they know they can work with to enact, amend, or block legislation. More senior legislators are more likely to get high ranking positions within party leadership and on committees. This allows those legislators to set the agenda for the legislative session as a whole or for specific committees. Ultimately, seniority means influence and legislators with influence have greater actionability to be able to deliver results for their constituents.

This is to argue that if voters want a government with actionability, basing their vote on an anti-incumbency zeitgeist is not the means to achieve that particular end. What this is not an argument for is an inherent virtue of career politicians. Politicians that do not need to be responsive to voters often end up being lazy or corrupt, or both. In fact, to ensure we have a government with actionability we need a government that is responsive to its voters. 

To that end a majority of voters think that there should be term limits for members of Congress. While on its face support for Congressional term limits and anti-incumbency may seem to express the same sentiment I think there is a nuanced distinction between the primary expression between support for each. The anti-incumbency vote did actually result in a responsiveness to voters, at least in electoral results. As such, and for the reasons laid out earlier, this seems to be an expression of frustration with the governments actionability, or lack thereof. Imposing term limits, on the other hand, appears to be an attempt on the part of voters to reclaim some government responsiveness.

The issues laid out with a blanket anti-incumbency vote apply just the same to term limits. Further, to impose term limits on Congress is to treat a symptom of the problem—entrenched politicians—and not the underlying issue—an electoral system that makes it overly difficult to remove lazy, incompetent, or corrupt politicians. Congressional term limits would remove both those legislators that are effective along with those that are ineffective, without discretion and with no mechanism to ensure those ineffective legislators are replaced with effective ones. 

Gerrymandering, campaign finance issues, and our first-past-the-post electoral system all contribute to a system where elected officials become entrenched and become less accountable to their constituents. In a better system, not even an ideal system, elections would be the mechanism to remove unpopular elected officials, making term limits obsolete. Improving our elections systems would allow voters to retain the effective and popular representative while removing the lazy, incompetent, and corrupt. 

I would argue the reason we do not have a government with actionability is precisely because we do not have a government that is responsive to its voters. To fix the former the latter must be addressed.