Juliet Eilperin wrote an article in the October Atlantic Monthly on the struggles of moderates running for reelection in Congress. She makes an error that’s seductive enough that I want to go to the trouble of correcting it. Eilperen writes:
The most pressing issue in American politics this November shouldn’t be who’s going to win seats in the House of Representatives, but who’s most likely to lose them: moderates in swing districts. We’ve set up a system that rewards the most partisan representatives with all-but-lifetime tenure while forcing many of those who work toward legislative compromises to wage an endless, soul-sapping fight for political survival.
Thanks to today’s expertly drawn congressional districts, most lawmakers represent seats that are either overwhelmingly Republican or overwhelmingly Democratic. As long as House members appeal to their party’s base, they’re in okay shape—a strategy that has helped yield a 98 percent reelection rate on Capitol Hill.
She continues with lots of stories about how the moderates in Congress have to work hard for reelection, and how the system seems stacked against them.
But . . . this isn’t quite right. Despite all the efforts of the gerrymanderers, there are a few marginal seats, some districts where the Dems and Reps both have a chance of winning. If you’re a congressmember in one of these districts, well, yeah, you’ll have to work for reelection. It doesn’t come for free.
These marginal districts are often represented by moderates. But it’s the composition of the district, not the moderation of the congressmember, that’s making the elections close. If the congressmember suddenly became more of an extremist, he or she wouldn’t suddenly get more votes–in fact, most likely they would lose votes by becoming more extreme (contrary to the implication of the last sentence in the above quotation).
In summary
Congressmembers running for reelection in marginal seats have to work hard, especially if their party seems likely to lose seats (as with the Democrats in 1994 and, possibly, the Republicans this year). But they’re having close races (and possibly losing) because of where they are, not because of their moderate views. And, perhaps more to the point, what’s the alternative? Eilperen has sympathy for these congressmembers, but if somebody has to worry about reelection or there’d never be any turnover in congress at all.
P.S. A perhaps more interesting point, not raised in the article, is why aren’t there more successful primary election challengers in the non-marginal seats.
…. so the key 'systemic problem' in Congress is that not enough "moderates" are elected — mostly because of gerrymandering (???)
No — the systemic problem is that Congress, both Parties (..including their 'moderates'), and the electoral processes are corrupt.
The widespread gerrymandering is merely a symptom of that base corruption.
Corruption in the 'primary' system is even worse.
What exactly are your noble core principles of "moderates" that so clearly distinguish them from normal Democrat & Republican "partisans" in Congress {??} There are none.
Quite politically naive you are. Stick to facts.
Mack,
I never used the phrase "systemic problem" above so I'm not quite sure you have it in quotes. Also you seem to be conflating my views with the views of the person I'm quoting. Finally, I'm not sure why you say "your noble core principles." In any case, you're welcome to read the Atlantic article and contact its author directly.
…well OK, what was the purpose of your original post ?
It seemed a bit odd/confusing, which prompted my comments — can you sum up your primary point in one sentence ?
Did you directly contact Ms Eilperen with your comments ? Any reply ?
You, as well as Ms Eilperen, used the term "moderate";
how do you define a moderate (?) — what does a moderate stand for … in terms of core political principles.
…just asking :-)
You're spot on – median voter theory only works where the election is a close contest. The easy way to see the point is to note that if they lose it will usually be to another moderate.
What it is saying is that the careful limiting by incumbents of the number of truly contestable seats rewards extremists. In contrast, in more typical two-party parliaments the swing in seats tends to be greater, not less, than the swing in votes. This breeds tweedledum and twedledee parties furiously fighting for the unaligned middle, much to the dissatisfaction of both their bases.
Mack,
My point is that moderates (as defined, for example, by their voting patterns in Congress) are more likely to be in marginal seats (as defined, for example, as districts where the two parties each get close to 50% in the presidential election). Eilperin noted that moderates often have to fight hard for reelection and seemed to be attributing this to their moderation, a sort of virtue-doesn't-pay story. I was pointing out that, in these marginal districts, it's no surprise that they have to struggle for reelection–and maybe it isn't such a bad thing for congressmembers to be vulnerable in this way, to have to listen to the voters.
I'm not defining moderates in terms of core principles, they're just defined as voting in the middle in Congress.
And, perhaps more to the point, what's the alternative?
Right. The only real alternative, as brought up, is less gerrymandering so that there are more marginal seats. To the general lamentation of the article can be added the complaint that seniority is important in the House, so hence when the balance shifts the chairmanships go to the extremists.