The Democratic Party’s drive to the middle and the desolation it left behind
Everything in moderation, or so the saying goes. Not too much, or too little; not too fast or too slow; not too hot or too cold—but just right. This, we have been led to believe, is a reasonable, rational, practical stance on everything from food and sex, to politics and justice. It is the centrist position that appeals to our innate desire for fairness, a testament to our belief that it’s entirely possible to take the best of both worlds and form a middle path between the two. The problem is that this is a logical fallacy, and simply not true.
It sounds like it should be true, that it must be true, but it is so clearly not. If I believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness requires universal healthcare, and you believe that I don’t have the right to exist, the middle ground isn’t tax breaks for the rich. One plus one does not equal an orange. Ever since the political parties in America switched ideological positions and thereafter became purely partisan, they have had two very different visions for the country.
Republicans have long insisted on a small federal government that exists primarily to wage wars, with little to no services for the general public and therefore relatively low taxes. They have been trying to undo FDR’s New Deal vision for America, by undoing all the advancements in pulling people out of poverty with Welfare, reigning in greedy speculators with the SEC, providing for retirement in Social Security, establishing worker’s rights, a minimum wage, and strengthening unions; restoring trust in the banking system with the FDIC, and establishing world peace through the United Nations. The Republican Party has been trying to abolish all of that and more, ever since. They do not believe that government can be an agent for good, but rather believe that all government intervention is essentially nothing more than a meddlesome nanny state.
The ethos of the Republican Party is one of independence and self sufficiency. It’s an every man for themselves mentality, born out of the mystical ideal of the lone pioneer, and not on the idea that we are stronger together. It’s a romanticized version of reality that has never existed, and one that is entirely incompatible with modern civilization.
What’s exceedingly strange about this is not that Republican leaders, mostly wealthy businessmen themselves, want to return to the glory days of Robber Barons, but that so many average Americans have been convinced to follow and support this elitist ideology despite it being in direct conflict with their own interests.
As John Steinbeck once said, “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” American workers believe so fervently in the American Dream, of someday being rich, that they are reticent to attack a group they hope to one day be a part of.
These are the same people who wear the jersey of their favorite sports team and regularly speak about the team as if they are on it. “We won. We lost. We need to do this, or we need to do that.” There is no we. You’re not part of the club. You’re not on the team. You are fan, and that is all. It is the same with thinking you are somehow part of the elite when you are not. They are not thinking of you, at all, and when push comes to shove, you will not be going along for the ride.
We are a social species. We thrive when we work together to build something that no one person could build on their own. Our great success is, in fact, the result of collective effort, not individual achievement. Even our individual successes are the result of all those who have come before us. We stand on the shoulders of others.
When I hear that someone claims to be a moderate, I don’t think of a person with fresh ideas and a strong vision for the future. I think of a mediocre mind trying to hold onto the status quo, a solitary figure standing in a motionless boat, trying not to tip over. The coward who is afraid to move or make a bold decision, and so instead slowly drowns like a shark with no forward progress. That’s not pragmatism. It’s a fear of failure and a lack of imagination for something better.
The reason that people believe they favor moderates is that they themselves don’t posses an informed opinion on most issues of the day, are generally risk-averse, and feel most comfortable in what they perceive to be the relative safety of the middle. It’s the outliers who are vulnerable, they reason. Don’t get left behind and don’t get too far out over your skis, and you’ll probably be okay. The safest place is within the middle of the herd, or so they think.
The laws of nature, unfortunately, are a bit different for complex systems. If you’re not growing, you’re dying. If you’re not moving forward, you’re falling backward. The problem with politicians who cater to the whims and desires of their constituents rather than their real life needs is that this isn’t leadership. Leadership requires courage and vision, not party loyalty, personal glory, or selling your soul to the donor class.
The problem I have with political parties is that they are first and foremost interested in securing and maintaining power. This is not, in and of itself, inherently evil, because in our dysfunctional system, you can’t get anything done if you’re not in power, so holding onto power is a prerequisite for change. But holding onto power for the sake of power can’t be the end goal, and the minute it is, you stop trying to change anything. The status quo becomes foundational to your hold on power.
The Democratic Party, in theory at least, believes that government can be a positive force for good. They believe in the power of the collective; that we are stronger together than we are on our own, and that pluralism is a strength, not a weakness. America is the true melting pot, a society built on the best (and worst) that humanity has to offer, and everyone has something they can contribute, no matter how small.
Democrats believe in public institutions that support the well being of the general public. Education. Healthcare. Justice. They believe that the federal government should be advocates for clean water and air, and that we all have a responsibility to maintain a planet suitable for habitation. They generally endorse capitalism, but recognize the need for checks and balances of power. They recognize that citizens require protection from the worst excesses of greed from corporations and wealthy interests, and that free markets are in no way infallible.
In the more democratic socialist countries of the world, it has long been recognized that you pay higher taxes in order for everyone to enjoy a higher quality of life because the entire community shoulders the burden together. This has been mischaracterized as socialism, which is not only ignorant, but incorrect. Americans have been conned into believing that that we should allow profiteers to become involved in every aspect of our lives so that even basic human needs become unaffordable—but hey, at least your taxes are low. This is an illogical and moronic conclusion.
The argument for small government has always been that governments are inefficient and wasteful, full of unnecessary red tape, whereas private enterprises are efficient and lean because they are motivated to keep costs low in order to maximize profits. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how society works. You can not run a country like a business, just as you cannot run a business like a country. The question isn’t how cheaply you can do something, but rather what’s the investment you need to get the desired outcome? The moment decisions are being made based on how much profit can be squeezed out of it, the goal of providing the service in the first place becomes an afterthought.
Any politician who identifies as a moderate has one of several objectives. Either they are ideologues who nevertheless believe they need to hide their true feelings in order to appear more electable, they are cowards who have no vision for a better future, or they’re not smart or imaginative enough to express a clear vision for improving the lives of their constituents. So many people run for public office, not because they have good ideas, but because they want to be elected to higher office, for either good or evil purposes. They just want to fill the seat.
Take the Senate race in Michigan, where you have the “you betcha” bullshit from moderate candidate Haley Stevens with her generic claims of “fightin’ for Michiganders” on the one side, then compare that to the focus and vision of her opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, an Oxford/Columbia-educated epidemiologist, former Health Director in Chicago, and the son of Egyptian immigrants who advocates for universal healthcare, abolishing ICE, condemning Israel’s genocide of Palestine, and is backed by Bernie Sanders.
Stevens has Alaskan hockey mom vibes and “aw shucks” charisma, while El-Sayed is physically ripped and seems to posses an acute mind and a solid sense of humor, but most importantly, has a clear vision for a better America. Could there be anything more lame than claiming you’re going to fight for the people of your state? What’s the alternative, exactly? Fighting for your right to party?
The argument that establishment Democrats tend to make is that if they move towards the center, moderate Republicans and left leaning Independents will vote for them. This is hogwash, with little evidence to back it up. I’ve been hearing that for over a decade from my own local Democratic Party, where every slate of candidates tries to pretend they’re not even affiliated with the Party and hope no one notices and just votes for them by accident.
Even if you’re a low information, occasional voter, you have a party of preference and the less informed you are, the more likely you are to vote a straight ticket of candidates. They’re not voting for issues, no matter what they tell pollsters. No one wants to admit how ignorant they truly are and what little basis they have for deciding who they vote for. They vote for who they’ve been told to vote for.
Democrats have regularly and continually shot themselves in the foot by promoting milquetoast candidates with no ideology, no passion, and nothing to add to the discussion. They are seat-fillers and party loyalists who inspire no one. Run a candidate who takes a real stand, believes in something, and has actual ideas, and voters will be inspired to turn out. Run a status quo candidate with nothing to offer but more of the same, and they’ll stay home because the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.
We could have had Bernie Sanders, who would have swept the floor with Trump, either time, but instead the Party stepped in and essentially gave us Trump.
And they wonder why everyone is pissed at them.