This is an opinion from the Center.
At its best, politics is practiced between the 40-yard lines. That doesn’t mean that centrists in either party are inherently superior—or inferior—to a principled progressive or committed conservative. But if the objective is to achieve measurable policy objectives, then those who are willing to come most of the way to midfield are far more likely to accomplish their goals than those who set up on their respective goal lines to yell and scream at each other from the safety of the shadows of their own goalposts.
But this type of pragmatism is decidedly out of fashion in contemporary politics, where the two parties have retreated beyond their respective end zones, past the bleachers, and into the parking lots. Democratic congressional primaries last week in New York City were the latest manifestation of this trend, as a troika of ultra-progressive candidates soundly defeated their establishment-backed opponents to move their party’s House caucus even further leftward when the new Congress takes office next January.
Republicans have doubled down on the same strategy from the opposite extreme throughout this primary season, nominating Donald Trump’s preferred challengers over traditional conservative incumbents. Both parties have fully embraced the concept that motivating existing supporters should take precedence over efforts to persuade undecided voters. The result is a political landscape on which both parties are focused almost entirely on the needs of their respective ideological bases and paying only the barest attention to the majority of voters who occupy the political center.
This trend has been intensifying for many years (Bill Clinton’s New Democrats and George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism are artifacts of an increasingly distant time). But it has accelerated during the Trump Era, as Republicans relied heavily on a MAGA-centric message to excite their loyalists, and Democrats have more recently determined the benefits of a similar approach to rally their DSA faithful.
To better understand the extent of the polarization that has shaped American politics in the 21stcentury, let’s take a moment to deconstruct those two acronyms that now define the outermost parameters of public discourse. “Make America Great Again” became the defining slogan of Trump’s initial campaign back in 2016 and it quickly became a descriptor for those voters who placed their allegiance for the candidate himself over most traditional tenets of conservatism . While the Democratic Socialists of America are a formal organization in a way that MAGA is not, they also represent an emotional instinct more than a specifically articulated set of policy goals. Members of both movements prioritize issues that are important to them (Israel and health care for DSA, crime and voting security for MAGA, immigration and abortion for both) But the passions that drive them are tribalism and solidarity, accompanied by a deep suspicion and animosity toward those who are not part of their tribes.
More than any single policy disagreement, it is these hostilities that drive the divisions in our politics and our society. Political leaders have long understood that external threats are the most effective way of keeping their own supports unified. (Even the Wizard of Oz told Ephelba in Wicked that the reason he demonized talking animals is that “The best way to bring folks together is to give them a really good enemy”) But both sides have so perfected this technique that their mutual disdain for each other has become the most important motivating force in the vast majority of competitive campaigns.
As MAGA and DSA gird for the battles this November that will determine control of Congress and lay the groundwork for the 2028 presidential election, it appears that the side that is more effective at stoking the fury of their followers and directing that rage toward the opposition will prevail. But the vast majority of the exhausted electorate simply wants a respite from the anger and the noise. Which will not happen, not this year.
Somewhere between the extremes of these two acronyms, most Americans would happily welcome a calmer, more productive, and more unifying alternative. It is entirely possible that one or more of the dozens of presidential aspirants preparing for the 2028 sweepstakes might sense this yearning and might frame their own campaign accordingly. Many of us would welcome such a candidate and the accompanying calm.
Want to talk about this topic more? Read more of Dan’s writing at www.danschnurpolitics.com.
.png.webp)
