In his latest New York Times column David Leonhardt looks to me to be trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle:
Ideological purity doesn’t tend to play well in general elections, however. Every modern president has found ways to appeal to Americans’ fondness for consensus — even if that fondness is based partly on a naïve view of politics and even if the candidates’ appeals have sometimes been more stylistic than substantive.
Donald Trump campaigned as a defender of Medicare and Social Security. Barack Obama became a national figure by reaching out to both red and blue America. George W. Bush was a “compassionate conservative.†Bill Clinton followed a “third way.†Ronald Reagan put a sunny face on his conservatism.
As frustrated as many Americans have become, most still don’t see themselves as radicals. About 35 percent call themselves moderate, compared with only 26 percent who say liberal, according to Gallup. Another 35 percent say conservative. Even among Democrats, only about half use the liberal label, with other half choosing moderate or conservative.
Let’s see now. We have two political parties in which the most active and ideological members are insisting on ideological purity. All of the energy and money is moving towards the edges. I don’t see a great deal of room for moderation, compromise, or pragmatism.
That most Americans see themselves as moderates may not reflect the reality. Everyone is the center of his or her own universe. And patterns of residence may convince you that your political views are much more centrist than they actually are. Just because everyone you know holds very similar views to yours does not mean that the views of people in Chicago are the same as those of people in Santa Cruz.
That is why we have federalism and why federalism is better suited for a country as large and diverse as ours rather than centralizing things so that every decision is made within 20 miles of the Potomac River.
I don’t believe that the polls tells us whether people are left, center, or right or in what direction political thought is moving. What I think the polls do tell us is that ordinary people don’t think they’re getting a square deal.
Most people dont pay that much attention to politics. That said, the parties and their leaders are more polarized and you dont really get to vote for moderates since the only people voting in the primaries are the activists. Along with the inequality issue, this is another one I am pretty skeptical about changing very soon. It is why I am worried about the Democrats offering a left wing version of Trump.
Steve
Back when I started election judging, about 30 years ago, in my home precinct we had 85-90% turnout in general elections and 70-80% turnout in primaries. Now that’s shrunk to about 60% in the general elections and 40% in the primaries. 40% is about 200 people. With numbers that small a small number of committed zealots can have a major impact on results.
The whole city has followed that pattern. Citywide there use to be 60% turnout in primaries. Now there’s about 30%. In the recent primaries turnout was 35% despite the enormous amount of pre-election activity. Maybe because of it.
I think the reporting of polls discourages turnout. (My guys behind again, whats the use), or ( I was going to vote for x but looks like he’s already in and I’m busy.)
But I don’t have a clue what to do about it.
This may surprise you, but I’m a registered Democrat, always have been. My logic was that the Republican primaries were always settled in smoke filled rooms beforehand, so if I wanted a primary vote that counted for anything it had to be Democrat. That may be different today.