The problem with the theory predicting that candidates will be compelled to adopt centrist positions to get elected is that it assumes centrist voters will reliably choose the candidate whose policy positions are closest to their own. But centrist voters mostly have other things on their minds — from economic anxieties to foreign crises, cultural animosities and candidates’ personalities.
The authors of a recent analysis of ideological extremism in presidential elections over the past several decades — including the landslide defeats of Barry Goldwater and George McGovern — concluded that the electoral cost of extremism was “negligible” compared with the effects of other economic and political factors.
Goldwater in 1964 and McGovern in 1972 probably did a few percentage points worse than they would have if they had been more moderate, but they lost mainly because they were challenging incumbents who presided over election-year economic booms.
In contrast, Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Barack Obama in 2008 had the good fortune to run in years when economic recessions undermined the political appeal of their more moderate opponents, and they both won easily.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member