Debate:The Strange Case for “Moderate Electability”(?)

Proposition
Does the case for the “electability” of the so-called “moderates” in the major left(ish) parties in the UK really hold up when looking at their victory record?

It is virtually taken as a given (at least among “politicos” and “talking heads”) that in order for the Democratic (US) or Labour (UK) Party to take power, they must “run to the centre” and field “moderates”, or at least be led and dominated by “moderates”, meaning politicians seemingly willing to move ever more to the right of their predecessors.

This is based on the proposition that any other type of Democratic/Labour politician will simply fail to win over enough voters with particular historical examples cited being of actual or merely supposed “leftists” being seen as the cause of various defeats in the past, beginning in the 1970a.

But how strong is this case actually? How good is the record of these “moderates” (or “rightists” within their own party) actually? And under what circumstances did their victories occur?

First off, there is a strong tendency to “leftify” any leader after they lose their bid for power, particularly in the Democratic Party. Hence, while candidates such as Jimmy Carter (1976 & 1980), Walter Mondale (1984) and Michael Dukakis (1988) were touted as “moderates” who were no longer beholden to supposedly antiquated “New Deal politics” when they ran (in Carter’s case even successfully the first time). They were, upon their defeat, rapidly turned into sad illustrations of why “leftist” politics were doomed to fail. This pattern was highlighted by in his book  from 2016.

Then there is the quite factual emphasis on clearly more “leftist” candidates like Michael Foot, who did indeed lead Labour into a catastrophic defeat in 1983, or that Jeremy Corbyn was unable to unseat the Tories either in 2017 or 2019. So clearly there are example of verifiable leftists failing to win elections.

However, as the string of defeats by the (subsequently “leftified”) “moderates” in the US illustrates, running such candidates is hardly a shoe in either.

So, what if we turn our attention to the elections actually won by such “moderates”? Under what circumstances have they won and does that give any indication as to whether we should revisit the more or less unspoken notion that such “moderates” are the best (or only) chance for either Democrats or Labour to win?

Chronologically, the first of such candidates to actually win would be Jimmy Carter, who managed to oust Republican incumbent Gerald Ford, but Ford was intimately linked with and tainted by Nixon and Watergate, making his (re)election a serious uphill battle no matter the opponent. Indeed, despite the incumbent advantage, Carter managed to lose to Reagan, becoming a one-term POTUS and ushering in years of GOP rule in the White House.

Next up was Bill Clinton in 1992 who ran with more than a hint of populist economic rhetoric, promising to champion “the forgotten middle class”, though also with a lot of dog whistling about the poor borrowed from Reagan. Nevertheless, he did manage to beat Bush Sr., despite the latter having been in charge of the successful Gulf War and without any major, recent scandals (Iran-Contra was well in the rear view mirror at that time). Clinton then managed to win a second term in 1996.

Shortly after Clinton’s second victory, Tony Blair managed to unseat a Tory government mired in sleaze (after his predecessor and fellow “moderate” Neil Kinnock had failed twice, in 1987 and 1992, btw). Blair then won again in 2001 and 2005, though with declining shares of the vote and ditto turnout and against a Tory party in almost constant disarray and changing leadership, before handing over to Gordon Brown who then lost to David Cameron in 2010.

Crossing back over the pond, Barrack Obama won in 2008 after both the US and global economy had tanked as Bush Jr.’s second term ran out. Obama ran on a message of hope and there was indeed a lot of expectations that he would use the crisis as a springboard to major reforms, though these hopes turned out to be ill founded. He subsequently won as the incumbent in 2012.

Finally, Joe Biden won against Trump in 2020, after the latter had probably set a record for the number of White House scandals in a single term and, more importantly, completely botched the COVID-19 response.

So, looking back on the circumstances of these “moderate” victories, it seems to me that one stands out: Bill Clinton in 1992.

Clinton’s 1992 victory is the only one of these “moderate” victories not won as either an incumbent (with the accompanying advantage) or against an opponent heavily mired in scandals. And we have to remember that Bill Clinton, much like Obama during his first run, depicted himself as someone who would reform the system and suggesting that these reforms would benefit the middle class and create a fairer society (unlike the imagery both presented in their re-election campaigns when such messages had far less credence).

Hence, the notion of the inherent “electability” of such “moderates” seems far less impressive, or even sustainable, when looking back across their actual victories and the circumstances that led to them. Would a more “leftist” candidate have been able to win under those circumstances? It’s difficult to say. However, highlighting the extremely favourable circumstances surrounding most of these victories, does put a big question mark about how “electable” such “moderates” actually are, especially when looking at how often they have failed when circumstances have been less favourable.

But what do you think? Am I cherry picking here? Or painting a too rosy picture of the circumstances surrounding the “moderate” victories? Could the case be strengthened or weakened when looking at other parties and elections, say the social democratic parties of continental Europe or the Labour parties of Australia or New Zealand? What about this pattern in “leftist” parties in countries from outside of these areas? ScepticWombat (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I can’t help but see the phenomenon among continental social democratic parties as (at leat potentially) illustrating the dangers and dubious viability of the “moderate” electoral strategy.


 * Looking to Scandinavia, none of their Social Democrats moved as far to the right (absolutely or relatively) as seen in the Democrats or (New) Labour.


 * Still, the Danish Social Democrats only managed to form their first cabinet in the 1990s on the back of a major political scandal in the prior Conservative led government and by toppling their own, more leftist chairman at the behest of their future coalition partner (the Social Liberals). The Social Democrats thus won the subsequent election as incumbents, having initially simply taken over from the Conservatives by building a new, governing coalition when the Conservatives dropped the reins of power without calling new elections. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)