Third Way: Is There A Middle In Politics Anymore?
Bloomberg Creative
Every presidential election, political pundits will argue that whoever can win over moderate voters will win the presidency. There is always a warning that if either party leans too far to the left or the right, they will lose the independents, the swing voters, and the moderates who carry the election every year. However, that is not necessarily true. In fact, there has not been a clear middle in politics in years as a result of political polarization. While the Republican party and leaders have moved further to the right, the American public has moved further to the left. Additionally, the parties are more ideologically cohesive, ensuring no overlap of moderate politicians. This has huge ramification on elections and who candidates should appeal to in order to win.
At the elite level, with leaders and political parties, there have been vast shifts in recent years. Both political parties have grown more ideologically cohesive, meaning Democrats support liberal policies and Republicans support conservative policies. There are now only about 2 dozen moderate Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill versus 160 from 1970-1972.
Since this time, the gaps between the least conservative Republican and least liberal Democrat have grown, making it less likely there is any common ground to find. The Republican Party leans much farther right than most traditional conservative parties in Western Europe and Canada, according to an analysis of their election manifestos. The Democratic Party, in contrast, is positioned closer to mainstream liberal parties. The polarization at the elite level is important because scholars have found elite polarization leads to voter polarization since voters take cues regarding policies from their elected officials.
Voters, therefore, have always shifted away from the middle because of this elite polarization. In fact, even voters who consider themselves moderate, often are not truly. Rather, moderates are all over the ideological map and the moderate category seems less an ideological destination than a refuge for the innocent and the confused. In other words, those who identify as moderate tend to be less politically engaged and therefore accept the identity that causes the least issues. We tend to think they are independents or that they are swing voters, but they are kind of closeted partisans for the most part. They tend to vote in one party consistently. This fact then explains the recent polling, that overall, in 2021, an average of 29% of Americans identified as Democrats, 27% as Republicans and 42% as independent. These independents often are not true independents, they just do not want the identity of a party selection.
Further, when responses to questions were scaled together to create a measure of ideological consistency, the median Republican is now more conservative than nearly all Democrats at 94%, and the median Democrat is more liberal than 92% of Republicans. As partisans have moved to the left and the right, the share of Americans with mixed views has declined. A second factor to consider is that the nation has moved slightly to the left over the past 20 years, mostly because of a broad societal shift toward acceptance of gay rights and more positive views of immigrants.
Due to these facts, many wonder why then is it assumed that moderates carry elections and that moderate policies are necessary for victories? A lot of these assumptions rely on median voter theory which suggests that, with two large parties of roughly equal size, political competition will pull both parties towards centrist policy stances. Parties of both left and right can be assured the votes of radicals who have nowhere else to go.
It is the wavering swing voters’ who determine the contest, and their movement back and forth between the two big parties is thought to yield a healthy periodic change from one government to another, and to ensure that the party of opposition sees winning over the swinging voter as its path to power. This is necessary with a two-party system to ensure power periodically shifts back and forth.
Yet in contemporary America, as in many older democracies, the share of switching middle-ground voters is much lower than the number of people who perceive themselves entirely estranged from the political process, and refrain from voting at most elections. In such contexts, victory then goes to the politician who can draw out the disenfranchised into the political arena, even if only temporarily and even if based on extravagant and ultimately unfulfilled promises.
The ‘politics of the lesser evil’ that has often inspired many to line up behind centrist candidates to defeat a common rival risk losing its rationality since the opposing party can still win with more extreme voters. In these circumstances, prospects for electoral victory, as well as dangers of demagoguery, lie in energizing the forgotten, the cast-aside and the estranged. That is a problem for democracy, not only because it encourages fleeting charismatic politicians who fail to deliver on their promises, but it pushes voters more and more to the extreme as they begin to see that moderate policies don’t win elections.
The median voter theory is outdated given recent polarization issues. Median voter theory presupposes agreement on the central issues dividing an electorate. In the 1950s and 1960s, the left/right cleavage was central, and stances on that political spectrum could accurately be mapped onto voters’ socio-economic backgrounds. Today, however, the theory disintegrates as groups on the left and right agree on certain policy issues. Far left Democrats and far right Republicans might both support an anti-establishment politician. Therefore, politics does not move to the center, it moves further to the extremes as long as politicians can find a way to bring those extreme voters out.
In conclusion, there really is no true “middle” in politics anymore. Americans are highly polarized. Elections come down to bringing out voters who feel their views are not represented, not pulling towards the middle. Politicians need to shift their perceptions of the electorate to win elections. This lack of middle is important to understanding the effects of polarization and how that impacts voter- politician relationships. It is clear the median voter theory is not a good indicator for political outcomes. It is important to understand how American politics has shifted in the last few years to make real changes within it.