Red and Blue politics are pointless

and Left versus Right is useless, too.

Once upon a time, people used to describe themselves as moderates. Politicians, too.

And there was a notable partisan crossover along the political spectrum — it was possible be be a Democrat and be more conservative than a Republican and vice versa, because ideology did not define party identity.

Alas, the 1970s are over. And 1960s were never as people imagine them.

A combination of the Reagan revolution, Clinton triangulation, the 2000 election, and Trumpism have brought about a political realignment not in partisan politics but in how people perceive political reality.

For more than two decades, we’ve been conditioned to think in terms of Red and Blue — with its impetus beginning with Reagan culling many conservative Democrats away in the 1980s and became part of our political discourse in the 33 days it took before Florida was finally turned from gray to red after the 2000 election.

Neither George Bush nor Al Gore won an absolute majority in the Sunshine State.  Since 2000, Florida has gone to the winner of the Electoral College 4 out of 5 times.  The losing presidential candidates have never gotten less than 47% of the vote.

It’s junior Senator, Rick Scott, won with 50.05% of the vote in 2018.  The other Senator, Marco Rubio, won reelection in 2016 with 52% of the vote.  And Governor Ron DeSantis, who was elected in 2018, won with a plurality of 49.6% and raw vote margin of less than 33,000 votes.

Still want to paint Florida Barn Red?  It’s Coral Pink at best.

And Florida is not alone. In 2000, 5 states had margins of victory of less than 1%. In another 8 states, the margin of victory was between 1% and 5%.

In 2012, Barack Obama won the state of Michigan with just over 54%, Obama won 11 other states with closer margins than that (including Flordia which came in with a margin of victory of less than 1%).

After 2016 election, Donald Trump showed (weirdly) foreign leaders maps of his Electoral College victory. He won 30 states plus part of Maine. Eleven of the states he won had margins of victory of less than 10%, three of them were won with margins under 1%. He might have embraced his victory less romantically with a map showing 19 red states and 11 pinkish ones. It would have probably also been helpful had Trump been shown a map with the states he won with pluralities, six of which are battleground states, shaded differently. Understanding the closeness of a contest produces a realist view of the tenuous nature of winning — just ask the Cincinatti Bengals.

The Left versus Right dynamic is no better. As important as ideological purity is to those of the far ends of the political spectrum, staking out moderate positions is the key to remaining politically relevant for many politicians. When gerrymandering is not possible, moving towards the center of the political spectrum is the best way to preclude being booted out of office by voters.

And it’s not terribly hard to find politicians of the same partisan stripe who hold distinctly different positions along the ideological spectrum.

Take the case of two Pennsylvania Republicans in the House of Representatives: Scott Perry and Brian Fitzpatrick. Perry is a hard core conservative whereas Fitzpatrick follows a long line of Republicans in Bucks County who are decidely moderate.

Why so moderate? Some of it has to do with the fact that the southern half of the county is Philadelphia suburbs, some of it has to do with the fact that the county has trended more and more Democratic for decades, and part of it is historical.

When I was in college, thanks to Ken Bennett - a long time friend, roomate, and fraternity brother, I received what Harold McPherson would have termed a “political education” about Bucks County. Ken and, more importantly, Ken’s parents were liberals and registered Republicans. Their reasoning was simple, they wanted to vote in GOP primaries to ensure the the least conservative Republican won.

What made Bucks County politicians so moderate was the risk that straying to far from the political center enjoined.

Fitzpatrick belongs to four congressional caucuses that place him far closer to the middle of the political spectrum than to his ultra-conservative GOP colleagues. So much so that in his three election races, he has drawn primary opponents who have won about a third of the vote each time. Had any of them beaten Fitzpatrick, the seat would have likely flipped to the Democrats.

Not that the Democrats, historically the more populist party, have had the perspective to view its moderate and right of center congressional colleagues in realist terms. While Republicans more than the Democrats eschew the concept of ideological relativism, it is the political Left that undervalues issue concurrence.

A recent article in Fivethirtyeight.com highlighted the trials and tribulations of being moderate Democrats in the House¹. If you find yourself frustrated by Senators Manchin and Sinema balking at the Build Back Better, keep in mind that the often underreported politics of the House yields the same conclusion — moderates make majorities.

While the renunciation of RINOs² within the GOP could impede them from winning majority control of Congress, it’s more likely that Republicans who fail to show fealty to Trumpism will be jettisoned from chairmanships and leadership positions after swearing in a Republican Speaker (or seeing McConnell become Majority Leader again). It would be poor politics for the Democrats to not give tours of its sizable tent in such cases.

1. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-drove-9-moderate-house-democrats-to-hold-up-their-partys-agenda/

2. Republican In Name Only