Democratic Divide

The role that moderates play in Democratic politics currently, the growing conflict between the centrist and progressive wings of the party, and how that conflict might come back and bite us in the midterms.

Luke Netto, Milton High School Democrats

Waking up on January 25th, I followed my regular routine as far as politics. I read the news on the Apple News app, I checked my email and made a list of what I need to do for activism, organizing, and political business, and then I read the POLITICO Playbook. The Playbook is the perfect resource when trying to ascertain what is happening behind the scenes in Washington, D.C. On the 25th’s Playbook publication, the email newsletter’s subject line was “Schumer strategy leaves some Dems seething”. Beyond the clever alliteration, the main focus of the newsletter reveals what many moderates and centrist apologetics fear as the widening gap between the progressive wing of the Democratic Party begins its strategy of attack and ostracization of the centrists.

The POLITICO Playbook states that an aide speaking anonymously “pointed out that Shumer is only majority leader because [West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema] ran centrist campaigns and won. Right now, the thin majority that Democrats hold in the Senate rests on continued control of battleground states which require moderate or, the very least, non-radically progressive ideas.

Senator Jon Ossoff, for example, as well as Senator Raphael Warnock, are arguably more centrist than many of their Democratic colleagues like Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) or Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Notwithstanding their own progressive views on items such as reproductive rights, healthcare, and climate change, the Georgia senators should not be considered progressives who won a traditionally red state. Senators taking a moderate stance to win elections in tough states is not new and is, contrary to the memory of many progressives, necessary to the continued Democratic control of the Senate.

Former Alabama senator Doug Jones won a deeply red state because of moderate and even conservative views on issues that would greatly impact the Alabaman electorate. The relationship between political ideology and election chance is not something that should be dismissed. In some cases, members of Congress cannot afford to be very progressive or they risk losing their seat to Republicans. The below chart compares the GovTrack-rated political ideology score with the current Cook Political Voter Index rating in that state. A clear correlation can be seen in the decrease in left wing ideology as the favorability of Democrats decreases.

Note that on the far right of the chart is Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema. The next most conservative is former Alabama senator Doug Jones. The dot farthest down the chart at a state with a Cook PVI Rating of R+23 is Senator Manchin.

Chuck Schumer’s refusal to warn against primarying Senators Manchin and Sinema in 2024 demonstrates a clear lack of understanding regarding the fragility of the Democratic Party. The efforts by progressives to alienate and primary moderate Democrats in moderate and conservative states will result in seats being won by Republicans.

Despite the shortcomings of some moderates on policies supported by Americans, progressives and congressional leadership should not rush to dismiss or admonish members who are simply doing what is necessary to be elected. Such actions will see the loss of the the Senate, the House, and, in three years, the White House.

If Democrats want to see gradual progress on issues that benefit Americans, they must take care when handling the moderate members of the party. The efforts by left wing progressives to remove centrists from government and to bully moderates into submission is detrimental to the overall goal of electing Democrats.