Moderation, although appreciated in some aspects of life such as imbibing in alcohol, gets short shrift in politics.
In Mississippi, moderate has been a dirty word as long as I can remember. Before desegregation the few politicians who declined to go along with the segregation at any cost crowd were sometimes called moderates if not liberals and communists.
I recall a fellow staff member on a Jackson newspaper writing this tongue in cheek headline on the daily weather forecast where the weatherman predicted clear skies and moderate temperatures: “Slap that man, he’s a moderate.” The boss didn’t appreciate the sarcasm in 1960.
You’d never guess it based on the tone of the national political rhetoric, but moderates actually outnumber both liberals and conservatives.
Problem is they are mostly ignored when it comes to nominating candidates in primaries as evidenced by the plethora of Democrats already lining up to try to be the one to challenge President Trump next year.
The early contenders, including California U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris who announced Sunday, are throwing as many socialistic proposals out there as Bernie Sanders who admits he’s a Socialist. The thing is, though, whoever gets nominated will need moderate votes to get elected.
William A. Galston and Elaine Kamarck wrote an article back in 2011 for the Brookings Institution that is just as relevant today as it was then.
“The need to rebuild a viable political center has rarely been more urgent,” they wrote. “But the obstacles to that renewal have rarely been more daunting.
“Our political system is structured in ways that mute moderates’ voices and block access to the middle of the road.
The result: Three consecutive elections have produced large shifts in the balance of political power, but public satisfaction with our civic condition has hardly budged.
Trust in government remains near all-time lows, and the share of Americans saying that the country is heading in the right direction has declined in eight of the past 10 years.
“The electorate’s ideological composition in presidential years has been remarkably stable for the past three decades — liberals at roughly 20 percent, moderates at 47 percent and conservatives at 33 percent. Clearly, neither political party can win, let alone govern effectively, without reaching toward the middle.
“Since the Democratic Party’s liberal base is smaller than the Republican Party’s conservative base, this is more important for Democrats than for Republicans.
Since 1976, no Democrat has been elected president without winning at least 60 percent of the moderate vote cast for the major parties.
“Moderates, the largest component of the electorate and the Democratic coalition, are not liberals in disguise. Nor are they a mushy middle. They are a distinct group: center-left on social issues, middle of the road on economics, center-right on foreign policy and more skeptical about the role of government than liberals are.”
Galston and Kamarck went on to ask: “If moderates are such a crucial and coherent political force, why is U.S. politics so polarized?
The answer lies in three structural features of the political system that reduce moderates’ influence: the primary system, the congressional redistricting system and the congressional leadership system.”
They conclude: “While there is no easy fix to any of these problems, structural and procedural reforms can make a difference.”
They propose more open primary systems in choosing candidates, taking redistricting out of the hands of legislatures and entrusting it to nonpartisan commissions, and requiring that congressional leadership “be elected by a supermajority of, say, 60 percent.
Unless one party enjoys an overwhelming edge, the first vote in each new Congress would test the majority party’s ability to create the bipartisan coalitions that are integral to effective government.”
Seems to me those are good ideas. But then I’m probably a moderate.
