DRAFT: Moderates Being Squeezed Out of Political Significance

4-10-24

Moderates are being largely squeezed out of political relevance by a combination of extreme gerrymandering and the resultant polarization, plus the self-segregation of American society by education and income.

According to many surveys, moderates have consistently represented from one-third to 40 percent of American voters. We are a diverse lot, including middle-of-the-roaders, leaners to one of the parties, independents, some highly engaged, some unengaged, and idiosyncratic. The one thing we share is: We aren’t one of them, meaning strong partisans of either party.

But extreme gerrymandering in states like my own Illinois has transferred electoral decision making from the general to the primary election. You know how it works: in many states, the dominant party redraws districts and cherry picks its voters, while concentrating the minority party’s voters in fewer districts.

The result is districts that resemble dangling earrings and beer can openers, I swear, rather than coherent electoral districts. Even more important, the dominant party in each district, often from the Left or Right wings, respectively, controls the primary, which become the election. Unorganized moderates lack the numbers and oomph to participate in these primaries.

Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court washing its hands of any compactness requirement in redistricting (cite case[s]), Illinois went from __ Ds and __ Rs in its congressional delegation. Today, there are 14 Ds and 3 Rs. Other states (cite one or two, e.g. TX maybe).

In the good old days, there were more contests in the general election, in which each party generally had to appeal to moderates to win.

Moderates have been effectively squeezed out of American politics by a combination of polarization and gerrymandering. Moderates can organize to regain a significant role, either as a third party or as a faction(s) within one or both major parties—but it won’t be easy. Here’s how.

Moderates used to play a role as often the deciding factor in who won election. When I was growing up post-World War II, “regular” party organizations had much more influence on primary nominations and were less ideological. When I was a member of the Illinois House, abortion was not on our legislative radar screens, and guns were just becoming an issue.

I contend that moderates were often the bulwark of American society, establishing Aristotle’s “mean,” or equilibrium. It’s why the moderate Eisenhower was selected over the conservative Robert Taft for the GOP’s presidential nomination in 1952. Then, beginning about 1960 Movement Conservatism emerged and has largely dominated the Republican Party since.

District elections for Congress and state legislatures tended to be more competitive, because gerrymandering into weird-shaped districts was less prevalent. Where one party dominated, there tended were often factions within that one party, in which moderates played a role in primaries.

In other words, party candidates needed to appeal to moderates to improve chances of winning election.

Today, more states and district are one-party dominant, generally controlled by the Left and Right wings, respectively. Disorganized, diverse moderates lack the votes to challenge those who lead the parties, so the parties can ignore them. And, I fear, moderates are tuning out of politics because of the lack of appealing candidates from either wing.

So, even though moderates are arguably the largest identifiable voting group in American politics, we are largely ignored.

The options to regaining a role for moderates are limited: a third party, or a faction(s) within one or both parties. If moderates so numerous, why has there never been a successful third party movement since A. Lincoln and colleagues created the Republican Party in in 1850s, nearly two centuries ago? The many third party efforts since failed largely because they failed to win any places at the table, that is, elections into government, and second, lacked a compelling message.

Moderates are, well, too moderate, and their centrist positions “fail to stir men’s souls,” as Daniel Burnham said when encouraging Chicago leaders to “make no small plans.”

At present, I don’t see a moderate political movement replacing on of the two major parties, although in a post-Trump period, whenever that might come to be, the Republican Party will likely become unmoored to any compelling political messaging. Trump is rather a cult figure, and there is, in fact, no adopted Republican platform at present to guide the party.

So, the key to success for a moderate third party or factions is, in my mind, to: Start small, present a compelling message, win some congressional and legislative seats, and use that success to build out—just as the Republican Party did in the 1850s. And start in the suburbs.

In Illinois, and elsewhere, suburbs, long the bastion of the GOP, have become surprisingly diverse, generally well-educated, and open to new change and new ideas. Republicans have lost most legislative seats in the ’burbs in the Prairie State because of exquisite Democratic gerrymandering, and a passionate Trump devotee at the top of the Illinois ticket in 2022.

(The suburbs are fertile ground for new parties/factions, because they are purple in political disposition, and open to new ideas.)

But what ideas? Society, in my mind generally seeks order, harmony and prosperity. Simple as that. That means law and order, a favorable business climate, and finally, though not last, a superior education system, which underlies everything else in a successful society.

Illinois and the U.S. have never been able to rise above mediocrity in education achievement. Many suburbs do reasonably well in student achievement, and suburbanites favor good education across all segments of society, because they know its value to a healthy nation.

How to package education? The great slogans have been pre-empted: Ronald Reagan wordsmiths came up with Make America Great Again and It’s morning in America. Trump has so embraced MAGA that it would be toxic if another group tried to adopt it, as Trump did.

Ideas: The Golden Apple Party (education focus); The Order and Prosperity Party; The Prosperity Party