The Centrist Mirage: Why the Middle Has No Political Home

In today’s political and media landscape, the dream of a dominant center remains just that — a dream.

There is no shortage of commentary decrying the sharp political division in the United States. Along with this usually comes the observation that the two major political parties are failing the American public who, deep down, want to see a government dominated by centrists. There are three reasons this is unlikely to happen for a very long time. The information ecosystem, those who are willing to stand up and be counted, and a playing field that is tilted all combine to render the centrist dream just that, a dream.

A Changed Information Ecosystem

The argument that voters want centrism has been around for a long time. Perhaps when linear legacy corporate media platforms dominated, there was at least a kernel of truth to the thesis. After all, the platforms dominating that information ecosystem were structured to communicate with the widest number of people as possible. By definition, this reduced the influence of the extremes. In that world, saying “damn” was considered strong language.

The onset of high-speed internet has led to an information ecosystem dominated by digital platforms, including social media. Suffice it to say this has resulted in the platforms reaching audiences, narrowing and deepening. Now, the country appears to be a set of competing tribes. Gaining attention is the first step in communicating. In our new world, you get a sitting governor of one state telling the lieutenant governor of another state to “go fuck yourself.” Call me Old School, but this sea change in where people get their information has not increased the quality of public discourse.

All of this is simply to say the communication environment surrounding political debates is no longer one where a strong center exists.

The Myth of the Silent Moderate Majority

Nancy Jacobson, the CEO of No Labels, recently authored an Op-Ed piece arguing if this very silent majority came together, victory would just be around the corner. She identifies the need for a “groundswell of voters, business leaders, and state and local officials committed to turning this tide.”

Good luck with that. Moderates are moderates across the board, very much including their participation and involvement with electoral politics. To unite under one umbrella, there first has to be an umbrella, as in an actual and real political party. As to a “groundswell,” that could help create that umbrella, as well as take advantage of this supposed majority who so strongly desire a centrist government, count me among the skeptics.

For Jacobson, there is an unmet desire for centrism is being thwarted by what she describes as the unlikely coalition of the far right and far left on that form a majority on matters of policy at various times in Congress. Jacobson calls the group the Burn-It-Down Coalition.

She explains that it’s not so much that centrists left their respective parties as it Is the parties abandoning the centrists. She highlights that fully 45 percent of voters are independent, indicating that the politicians are failing the centrist majority. There is plenty of research indicating significant numbers of independents are behaviorally every bit as partisan as those who register with either party. In other words, viewing this 45 percent as being a monolithic group of centrists is not justified by the facts.

Perhaps a more accurate description of the Burn-It-Down coalition would be the unification of one group of strongly ideological partisans uniting with partisans committed to the opposite ideology in each respective party. Populists fighting to undo establishment policies they view as protecting the status quo. In fact, our elected politicians reflect the voters who put them in office.

A Tilted Political Playing Field

The third leg on the stool is gerrymandered districts that result in a limited number of districts that are genuinely competitive between Republicans and Democrats. This does not mean they cannot switch parties during wave elections. They do. Still, overwhelmingly, most elections (at least non-statewide campaigns) are won or lost on primary day. This is not opinion. It is fact.

Moreover, history shows there is little benefit to politicians who rebel against the base of their party to advocate for centrist policies. Please provide me with a single instance of a centrist challenging a strong partisan incumbent and winning. The opposite is very much the case. Tell me if you have some extra money and want to bet on Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman winning his inevitable primary. Happy to make that wager.

This dominance by the base is neither new nor limited to one party. Talk to former center-right Senator Jeff Flake about it. He stepped aside when it was clear he had zero chance in a primary during the first Trump Administration. Better yet, consult with Liz Cheney, who did stick around only to be trounced in her Congressional primary.

Time after time, “work with leaders in both parties to find commonsense solutions” has proven to be a loser in a primary. For Democrats, “stand up and fight for progressive solutions” is your winner. In the Republican Party, for now, it is “support President Trump and fight for his policies” that gets the job done.

Before anyone screams, this shows one party to be committed to principle and the other to be a cult, which is also not accurate. One of my colleagues long ago said the question these primary voters are really asking is: “Which of these candidates is most like me?” The placeholder for getting to that question changes from election to election. In the Republican Party, it used to be “most conservative.” Now that populists have gathered together to eliminate the Bush Republican Party, the question connects back to populism every bit as much as its current symbol of it.

The Hard Reality

Even if there were this sleeping giant centrist majority, awakening and organizing it is a pipe dream. The communications ecosystem does not support centrism in any fashion. I know of no instances of this imaginary centrist majority ever rising up. Zero. On an unlevel playing field (the map), every incentive is to not be the centrist in a primary in both parties.

Remember this: It is shaky ground to argue there is a market for advocating for the supply of centrist policies. That ground gets even shakier when the argument is that there is a demand for the supply of those centrist policies. There is no indication this will change anytime soon. What do you think?