The Republican primary contest serves as just the latest reminder that the ideological habitat of the political moderate, perhaps the most endangered species in American politics, is quickly disappearing. With the Tea Party driving Romney, Perry and company in a stampede towards the starboard side of the right wing, and Nancy Pelosi clamoring in opposition of the President's job-creating package of free trade deals, one is hard-pressed to remember the last time moderation and compromise were tolerated, let alone celebrated in American politics.
Yet in a recent Gallup poll, 46 percent of Americans self-identified as an "independent," and of those 46 percent, over three-quarters identified themselves as "leaning Republican or Democrat" — moderates, if you will. Perhaps "endangered species" then may be a bit of hyperbole. Still, five minutes browsing through the latest political headlines should be sufficient to convince one that these days Washington is no place for the non-radical.
Not so long ago, however, there was a time when some Republicans talked education funding, and a powerful caucus within the Democratic Party advocated for fiscal responsibility and shrinking the deficit. Ironically, these good old days are more commonly known as the Bush years. So what happened? Did the recession polarize the American public over economic issues? Did the tea party awaken the sleeping masses to the horrors of big government? Perhaps the answer there can be found, to a degree, but America's current infatuation with the political extreme can also be seen as the latest development in a trend that began many years ago.
In the short-term, the turning point came with the 2010 election cycle, which coincided with the rise of the Tea Party. While an angry popular response to a ruling party is nothing new in the United States, the way that this energy was channeled during the 2010 mid-term elections has had dire effects on the current political landscape. When the Republicans took the House, they did so largely at the expense of moderate Democratic Congressmen in swing districts, many of which were in "red states." Although Nancy Pelosi referred to them as her "majority makers," many of these congressmen also went by the name "Blue Dogs," and were known for their centrist views on fiscal and social issues. Sadly, this valuable check against the left wing of the Democratic Party now largely sits on the sidelines.
Likewise, conservative activists, galvanized by the Tea Party movement, began to root out those Republican officials who were deemed not to be "conservative enough" to represent the Republican Party. While it is the prerogative of primary voters to choose candidates that represent their views, to paraphrase one political commentator, "even Ronald Reagan wouldn't have stood a chance in a 2010 Republican Primary." Not surprisingly, when the Republicans took control of the 112th Congress, the political landscape in Washington not only featured a little more red, a little less blue, but more importantly, a lot less purple.
Are Republicans alone to blame then? Recall that the Democrats (unsuccessfully) employed the same tactics with Senator Joe Leiberman in 2006. Indeed the blame should be spread much more broadly. Political scientists have noted that beginning in the 1960's the relationship between party and ideology began to strengthen, and the two parties became increasingly ideologically polarized. This shift was exacerbated by the conservative movement of the 1980's, which caused the two parties to diverge as activists drove the Republican Party increasingly rightward. In addition, as politics became more polarized, those with weaker party attachments began to drop out of the electorate altogether, empowering the partisans who remained. While these represent only a handful of the factors which have polarized the American electorate, it is clear that the current situation we face in Washington is yet another chapter in a disturbing story unfolding in American Politics.
So where have all the moderates gone? My guess is they're still around, but they're silent. The microphone belongs to the partisans, the megaphone belongs to the tea party, and the media seems to belong to whoever is shouting the loudest at the moment. As tempting as it would be to point the finger at a bogey-man upon whom to heap all of the blame for this, that kind of behavior is a large part of what got us here in the first place. Still, I think it is fair to say the United States as a whole — each of its citizens who has ever put party before country, made an uninformed vote, or skipped an election — every one of us is to blame, and things will not get better until we all decide that there is room for centrist views in American political discourse.
