And what this tells us about the state of electoral politics

A truly profound aspect concerning the current debate surrounding gun control is how little debate there seems to be among the American public. This is not to say the issue of gun control is simple. Gun control can take many different forms with varying effects. Additionally, other factors have been proposed as contributing to the relatively high level of violence in the United States such as the high level of poverty, the drug war, the mental health system, violent media, and not having prayer in public schools (some of which are more legitimate than others). But on the simple question of whether or not one supports expanding background checks to purchase a gun a Washington Post-ABC poll from April 2013 shows support at 91% and opposition at 8%. By contrast, a Rasmussen poll from March 2011 showed that 11% saw Communism as preferable to the current system of American politics and economics.

What this comparison demonstrates is just how unresponsive the Republican Party is to the American public and, in contrast, how centrist the Democratic Party is. The Democrats supporting Communism in terms of level of popularity would be roughly analogous to the current Republican stance on gun control. Poll after poll concerning a wide swath of issues show that ideologically speaking, there exists no Democratic member of Congress that is to the Democratic base what the vast majority of Republican members of Congress (i.e. Tea Party members/supporters) are to the Republican base.

There is something in political theory known as the median voter theorem which can be used to explain how parties cater to voters. What it states is that given the situation in a two party system in which the sole motivation of the two parties is to win, they will both converge upon the position of the median voter in order to secure a majority of the vote, effectively rendering the two parties identical. Of course, since the primary assumption of this theory, that the sole motivation of politicians is to win, is not wholly accurate, the theory itself does not play out perfectly in the real world of politics. However, we can see the theory somewhat demonstrate itself in practical terms as politicians often “play to the middle” or try to “court the independent”.

However, if there was one party that is more responsive to the median voter it would be the Democrats. Issue after issue, from the minimum wage, to gay marriage, to gun control, to government development of renewable energy, to equal pay for women, to even the specific provisions of the Affordable Care Act, Democrats have shown themselves to be, on what amounts to their staple issues, profoundly in line with the majority of the American people. On an issue like gay marriage, one that the left has long embraced, the Democrats only came around to it once the polls showed support at or greater than 50%.

In May 2012, the same month Obama announced his support for gay marriage, a Gallup poll showed 50% support and 48% opposition. Another poll a full year earlier showed a majority of 53% support for the issue. As recent as the 2008 election none of the leading Democratic primary candidates for President supported gay marriage despite 40% of Americans stating their support in May of that year. While 40% is not a majority, this poll demonstrates just how unresponsive the Democratic Party is to their base. If 40% of the American public held a right wing stance on a certain issue one can be sure it would be the stance of the Republican party. Again, on the issue of gay marriage a poll from March 2014 showed support at 59% and opposition at 34%. In spite of this not a single Republican currently being discussed as running for President in 2016 has budged on the issue. Even the supposedly “libertarian” (a word that seems to become more meaningless in American politics with each passing day) Rand Paul has stated his support for “the historic and religious definition of marriage”.

This is far from the only grossly unpopular stance that the Republican Party has taken. A United Technologies and National Journal poll from October 2013 showed that on the issue of cutting Medicare 81% felt it should not be cut at all, 18% felt it should be cut “some”, and a paltry 4% felt it should be cut “a lot”. In spite of this, Representative Paul Ryan’s budget for the 2015 fiscal year, which cut Medicare spending by $129 billion over the 2015-2024 period in relation to the Congressional Budget Office’s current-law baseline, passed the House with support from 219 out of 233 House Republicans. Of the 12 Republicans that voted against it most cited the bill not being conservative enough. There exists similar levels of support for cutting Social Security, with 18% saying they want it to be cut “some” and 3% saying they want it to be cut “a lot”. It should be noted here, however, that it is not just the Republicans, but President Obama as well who has effectively advocated for cutting Social Security through tying benefit increases to chained-CPI. This approach, which has earned Obama praise from both Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, would cut benefits over the next decade by $130 billion.

Possible reasons abound for why this disparity in base responsiveness may exist. The most obvious is that of money. What right wing positions may lack in popular support they make up for in financial support. Another possible reason is what can only accurately be described as cheating: namely gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and other various forms of voter suppression. There is also the potential issue that the far right is far more willing to engage in electoral politics than the far left, who see the process as not being worthwhile.

Without critiquing or endorsing the ideas listed above I present an alternative theory: as the right moves farther to the right, the left becomes increasingly fearful of sabotaging itself in elections by taking on left of center positions. The logic goes like this: moving farther to the left hurts the Democratic Party’s ability to win elections. As the Republican Party moves farther to the right the stakes of losing an election goes up. Therefore it is in the Democratic Party’s interest to move to the middle in order to prevent the event of having the far right take over the government. As Republicans move farther and farther to the right the Democrats are dragged along with them in order to lower the risk of the Republicans taking power. What the Republicans have effectively done by taking on such far right stances is scare leftist individuals from attempting to move the Democratic Party farther to the left, as doing such could result in far right dominance of the government.

This cycle seems destined to drive the country, or at least the two parties, perpetually farther to the right. With the rise of figures like Elizabeth Warren there seems to be some renewed energy on the left in the realm of Democratic politics. This renewed energy seems potentially capable of forcing the Democratic Party to reconsider its long term electoral strategy because the current one may win in terms of elections, but it does not win in terms of the issues.

– Drew Weber