In 2006 and 2008, American voters gave Democrats big victories because they were mad at Republicans. In 2010, they gave Republicans a big victory because they were mad at Democrats.
Every poll on the subject shows that the voters don’t want the two parties to fight all the time, but to work together to get their problems solved.
But the parties don’t get it. Democrats, dominated by liberals, think that their victories are a mandate for expensive, bureaucratic government programs and higher taxes to pay for them.
Voters don’t want that, so they vote in Republicans — who, dominated as they are by conservatives, think they were put in to hack away at government, cut taxes, and, not incidentally, evict illegal immigrants, outlaw abortion and keep discrimination going against gays.
Voters have proved before they don’t want right-wing policies any more than they want left-liberal policies, but what they get is a clanging of the political pendulum from right to left, when most voters are centrist to somewhat conservative.
Both parties habitually marginalize political moderates, who make up close to a majority of the overall electorate.
As scholars William Galston and Elaine Kamarck point out in a new paper, the polarization of U.S. politics is not just “dysfunctional” but downright “pathological,” resulting in “politics as warfare in which contested issues are never resolved but endlessly relitigated.”
“A nation that cannot adopt and then hew to a steady course is by definition incapable of solving problems that require sustained and widely supported purpose,” they write.
Galston and Kamarck are both Democrats, veterans of the Clinton White House, and they make the point that winning the moderate vote is more important to their party than it is to the GOP.
The basic arithmetic is this: In election after presidential election, exit polls show that, on average, 47 percent of voters self-identify as moderate, 33 percent conservative and 20 percent liberal.
Democrats need 60 percent of the moderate vote to win presidential elections. Republicans can get by with less than 40 percent, but both parties woo moderates — then ignore them when the election’s over.
In their paper, written for the centrist group Third Way, Galston and Kamarck recommend steps for empowering moderates so that politicians are more likely to seek problem-solving consensus instead of pandering to their base vote.
One is open or “blanket” primaries in which candidates from both parties run against each other and the top two face off in a runoff election.
At present, primary elections tend to be low-turnout affairs in which the most militant partisans carry the day. In Washington state, turnout in the 2010 “blanket” primary was nearly three and a half times the average in other states.
California passed a referendum last year opting for the system, which will represent a major test, because more than one-eighth of all House Members hail from that state.
Galston, of the Brookings Institution, said he’d also favor some states trying the Australian system of mandatory voting — no-shows pay a fine — which also expands turnout.
Kamarck, a Harvard professor, said it would also help if all states held their primaries on the same date. Scattered all over the calendar, they tend to be ignored by most voters.
On January 3, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., raises her right hand as her son Henry messes up her hair while Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., delivers the ceremonial swearing-in in the Old Senate Chamber. Gillibrand's other son Theodore, lower right, looks on.
Each year since 1990, CQ Roll Call has reviewed the financial disclosures of all 541 senators, representatives and delegates to determine the 50 richest members of Congress. This year's report, derived from forms covering the calendar year 2012, shows it took a net worth of $6.67 million to crack the exclusive club.