Sometimes, it is not that hard to see the future.
When polarization is the norm, when the electorate is split down the middle and when political institutions are unable to rein in excesses, we can expect that policy swings will become more and more extreme.
With one swing of the pendulum, civil unions become gay marriage. When it swings back, reductions in legal immigration become building a wall. The next swing goes farther left, and we get DEI indoctrination sessions in our workplaces where white males are taught to feel ashamed. The next swing goes farther right, and we get masked ICE agents grabbing people outside courtrooms and hauling them off to detention camps before sending them to a continent where they have never set foot.
It is fanciful and dangerous to presume that the pendulum is not going to keep swinging to ever greater extremes. Donald Trump won the last election with less than half the popular vote, a mere 1.5% more than Kamala Harris. The recent massive No Kings protests demonstrate that far from accepting a new political norm, large numbers of voters are willing to take to the streets in protest.
And worse yet, as both sides realize how high the stakes have become, more actions that weaken democratic institutions will seem justified: undermining the election system through blatant partisan gerrymandering, abuse of the justice system to seek revenge and, most sadly, political violence.
The way to stop this downward spiral is to rebuild the political center. There must be a substantial bloc of voters whose votes cannot be taken for granted, forcing both sides of the political spectrum to moderate their positions to appeal to those in the middle.
It wasn’t that long ago when politicians would play to their party’s base to win primary elections, then reach out more broadly to gain victory in the general election. But without a political center, there is no need to broaden one’s appeal. The savvier strategy is to play only to the party base and energize the vote of those on the extremes. Thus, the pendulum swings ever wider.
While it is standard political practice, and perhaps human nature, to blame problems on someone else, in a democracy it is the voters who ultimately have to accept responsibility for the way things are. Why need we accept name-calling, disrespect, and incitement of fear and contempt from those who seek our vote? Why do we tolerate bad behavior in leaders who justify it by saying, “Yeah, but look at what the other side did!” Why do we put up with it?
How about political leaders who will argue policy preferences by laying out the facts, acknowledging both sides of the argument and making their case? How about political leaders who model good behavior and run campaigns that appeal to the best in the voters? Are we willing to vote for such candidates?
Political leaders set the tone and model for how their constituents speak and behave. How can we identify candidates who will help rebuild the political center? Consider these characteristics:
- They will speak with respect for their political opponents.
- They will propose that difficult and contentious issues be considered by well-qualified bipartisan commissions.
- They will keep traditionally independent institutions free from political influence.
- They will propose that as many public positions and organizations as possible be designated non-partisan.
When policymaking is not smothered by partisanship, you end up with better policy because more viewpoints, and creative solutions, will be considered. Such policy will be more enduring because it will have a broader base of support.
The essence of our constitutional democracy is not the opportunity for one group to suppress its opponents between elections, but to diversify power through checks and balances. Democracy runs on compromise.
For those who see the value of maintaining a political center, but who fear that compromise might undermine their core values, consider the idea of shared political space.
Jonathan Rauch, an openly gay atheist who writes for The Atlantic, penned a serious study earlier this year entitled “How Latter-day Saints Can Save American Democracy.” His analysis stems from a seminal 2021 address by Dallin H. Oaks. Speaking of advocates for religious freedom and advocates for nondiscrimination, President Oaks called for “respecting each other enough to negotiate in good faith and … caring for each other enough that the freedom and protection we seek is not for ourselves alone.” Put less elegantly, “we all have to live together,” and it is okay that all issues are not going to be resolved to everyone’s complete satisfaction.
Political parties, especially as homogeneous and polarized as ours are today, are ill-equipped to keep democracy on track. Their job is to win the game. It is the political center — moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats and independents — who are best positioned to insist on the rules of the game and mitigate polarization.
How can we as voters position ourselves in the political center? Consider the following:
- We can recognize that the Constitution does not require partisan loyalty.
- We can recognize that “what goes around comes around.” Failing to protect norms and institutions now will empower the political opposition in the future.
- We can, at least occasionally, listen to another channel or podcast to learn how other folks see things.
- We can listen with curiosity, not shock, when someone expresses different views.
- We can vote for candidates who have the characteristics on the first list.
There are several laudable efforts underway to help us all be more civil with each other. These are crucial, but not enough. Unless we rebuild the political center, there will not be the voices and institutions necessary to slow down the pendulum and keep it from swinging to extremes. That should not be our future.