The Political Middle

Have I talked about this before?  If I have, stop me.

(or rather... stop reading!)

We have in this country a political spectrum ranging from far right (extreme conservatives) to far left (extreme liberals), both of which are deemed extreme only in relation to the "political middle", who are neither liberal nor conservative, or perhaps vary from one to the other depending on the issue.

Based on the way primary elections are held in this country, and based on how the dialogue (or should I say demagoguery) around issues goes, you might think that the extremes are the largest factions of the electorate.  Not so.  They're just the loudest.  Moderates are not all that vocal, precisely because they are not rigid ideologues convinced of their positions.

So, think of the political spectrum as being like the famous "Bell Curve" (aka the Standard Normal Distribution):

The dark brown shaded area on either side represents the most extreme ideologies of the political right and political left.  These are sometimes referred to as the "activists".  The medium tan areas are not as active politically (although they may volunteer), and are perhaps not as ideologically "pure" as the activists, but still share many of the same core beliefs and general worldview.  They are the "straight-ticket" voters, the "single-issue" voters, the part of the "base" that candidates feel they need to secure in order to get their party's nomination, financial support and volunteer labor. 

The beige section in the middle are the moderates ("independents" who don't necessarily register with a party).  Those closest to the peak of the curve are the true "swing voters", able to vote situationally depending on the times, the issues of the moment, and the particular candidate.  The graph that follows puts it in a bit different light.  If we ask the question of a voter "how liberal are you", the answers we might get look something like this:

The basic problem that both major parties (Democrats and Republicans) have is that the "base" (the activists and straight-ticket, single-issue voters) turn out for the primary elections and therefore determine the parties' candidates for the general elections.  So the candidates we get to choose between are either significantly left or right of the middle, either more conservative or more liberal than most, and by quite a bit.

Then in the general election, the two major parties fight over the middle, the independents and moderates.  And normally, there are a good number of voters in the center-left and center-right that stick with the inertia of their "usual" party affiliation.  These folks may find it easier to move a little more to the right or left to align with the chosen candidate on their side of the middle, than it is to move all the way up and over the hump to the other side, even if the candidate is an extremely articulate and compelling draw.  

So it winds up that whatever dollars are spent in the general election, are focused on winning the 5-10% of the electorate that hovers near the middle - those who decide at the last minute, are least convicted about a particular ideology behind the issues, and are more interested in how the process affects our civil discourse and the business of governing.  They may vote more on gut instinct than anything else, and are not usually easily swayed by extremism, stridency and vitriol, which is a lot of what you hear in the primary season.

In all of this, I have to wonder why no one has come up with a Moderate Party.  Wouldn't you think that a party (and its candidate) who targets the 68% of the electorate clustering around the political center, would win elections year after year after year?  Wouldn't it become a political dynasty?  That party's primaries would try to select a candidate that is closest to the center politically, one who is adept at sensing the times and appealing to what is best for the community at large, both taxpayer and beneficiary... the civil-tongued voice of both reason and compassion, of independence and community.

I think that's why third parties to date have not succeeded.  They follow the same general pattern; they are driven by activist ideologues, supported by their small but loyal base, and as such do not appeal to the center.  Libertarians are one example, Socialists another.  These tend to also form a spectrum of their own, only not right and left (conservative and liberal), but near and far (statists and individualists). Think of it as wanting government to be near to us... or far from us.  We depend on government, or we fear it.  Any successful Moderate Party would need to be aware of both spectrums: a conservative/liberal ideology and an immanent/distant government.

Wouldn't Congress function so much better if 68% of its members were Moderates, and only 16% conservatives and 16% liberals?  The extremists could keep the Moderates honest, inform everyone of the issues and the implications of landing on one side or the other.  The moderates then would form compromises and get stuff handled with a minimum of rancor.

So... what shall we call this new party?  And who should be our standard bearers?  Maybe the Common Sense Party, whose acronym (like the Republicans have the "GOP") could be "ATM"... for All Things in Moderation.  Its mascot could be the owl, wise and still.  And for leaders, how about Colin Powell, Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman?  Alan Simpson & Erskine Bowles, maybe?  Or two younger Senators, Scott Brown, R-MA and Mark Pryor, D-AR?  The National Journal sorts the Senate by ideology here.