Engaging the Moderate Majority Means Recovering Common Ground to Pursue Common Sense Solutions.
The post-election maps of 2004 supposedly proved it beyond all doubt: America is divided into two warring ideological factions, red states and blue states. Right-wing talk show hosts attack Democratic candidates, and are, in turn, attacked by left-wing bloggers. The Great Communicator gives way to the Great Divider. Yet all wars require two combatants, and every punch is answered with a counter-punch.
A powerful irony underlies this so-called "culture war", and it’s an irony powerful enough to influence who wins the next election.
Sociologist James Davidson Hunter revived talk of culture wars in the early 1990s. He hypothesized that on a wide range of issues, positions were not arranged haphazardly but tended to coalesce into two camps: the traditional and religious vs. the progressive and secular, or, more concretely, Republican vs. Democrat. Of course, no academic or political theory goes unpunished, and considerable debate continues about the existence and nature of any culture war.
The irony is this: Both Hunter and his challengers concur on one fundamental point, but a point that is largely disregarded in contemporary politics. To whatever extent a culture war exists in America, it only engages 5-10% of voters on either end of the political continuum. These are the party loyalists, those who give generously and work sacrificially for the cause, and who are most effectively motivated by alarmist rhetoric and confrontational stance. In the middle stands the vast and moderate majority, those who seek composed communication and mutual respect, and are alienated by a political process marked by the lobbing of hand-grenades and smoke bombs against entrenched opponents, turning compatriot Americans into enemy combatants.
The bottom-line? The political future belongs not to the extremists, but to the moderate middle, not to those who resort to clamor or smear, but to the party that carries a big umbrella. Of course, the political and media elite profit from culture wars over abortion, gay rights, gun control, the flag and pledge, stem cell research, and the like. But the moderate majority rejects both the extremes and the rhetoric, preferring a stance somewhere in the middle of the issue, along with a rhetoric of respect rather than demonization.
Can a Republican candidate care about more than abortion and gay marriage: Is the umbrella big enough to include those who care about the poor, the immigrant, the environment? Can a Democrat care about all life issues, not just the environment, the immigrant, and the poor, but also the unborn? Can we hold on firmly to our strong convictions while still being pragmatic about the common ground we do share and the common-sense solutions we can work together on?
These are often contentious questions. Yet the opinions that matter are not restricted to the ruling elite or party loyalist, but include the vast throng of moderates, who consider that purity may not be as important as progress, that partisan politics may not be as effective as cooperative collaboration, and that the unbending quest for perfection may thwart the obtainable good.
As a principled-but-pragmatic Democrat from the Millennial generation, I have come to realize that the sort of partisanship which drives Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, and Fox News may not be exclusively a Republican malady. It is, however, a partisanship which alienates the vast tracts of moderate middles into political apathy.
Elections are rarely won by the 5-10% of culture warriors. Which party will be the first to break with purity in order to construct a big umbrella?
To that party belongs the future.
(Ben Lowe is a Democratic candidate running a grassroots campaign for the U.S. House in IL-6. Find out more and consider joining us at www.loweforcongress.com)