The core structural threat to political incumbents is now from primary challengers, not the general election. This forces candidates to appeal to their party's most extreme base rather than the median voter, creating a system that structurally rewards polarization and discourages broad-based governance.
Related Insights
The most significant threat to a political ideology comes not from the opposing party, but from the 'lunatics' on its own side. These extreme factions can make the entire group appear foolish and unreasonable, doing more damage to their credibility than any opponent ever could.
Current American political turmoil is not about personalities but the structural breakdown of both major parties. Each has lost key voter factions, creating a chaotic period where neither can truly win. This instability will persist until a new political alignment emerges.
A savvy political strategy involves forcing opponents to publicly address the most extreme statements from their ideological allies. This creates an impossible purity test. No answer is good enough for the fringe, and any attempt to placate them alienates the mainstream, effectively creating a schism that benefits the opposing party.
Oklahoma City's mayor is elected in a non-partisan system where all candidates face all voters. This incentivizes building a broad coalition from the 70% of moderates, rather than appealing to the polarized extremes common in closed party primaries.
Mayor David Holt argues the perception of a polarized America is misleading. He believes a 70% moderate majority is silenced by an electoral system, particularly closed primaries, that empowers the extreme 15% on each side to select polarizing candidates.
The perception of a deeply divided society is largely an artifact of a political system built on competition and elections, which forces people into two opposing camps. A system based on deliberation would reveal that most people's views are not so rigidly coherent, and it would encourage finding common ground rather than winning at all costs.
Congressman Ro Khanna argues that the primary corrupting force in American politics has shifted from money to hate and extremism. The modern attention economy rewards divisive behavior with media coverage and base support, making rational, bipartisan compromise a politically costly strategy.
With over 90% of congressional districts being non-competitive, the primary election is often the only one that matters. Buttigieg argues this incentivizes candidates to appeal only to their party's extreme flank, with no need to build broader consensus for a general election.
The conventional wisdom that moderate candidates are more electable is a myth. Elections are won by turnout, not by appealing to the median voter. A polarizing figure who excites their base will often win by a larger margin than a moderate who fails to generate enthusiasm.
Political strategist Bradley Tusk claims the key to solving polarization is to increase primary election turnout from its typical 10%. He argues mobile voting could boost participation to 40%, forcing politicians to appeal to a more moderate majority rather than catering exclusively to the ideological extremes and special interests that currently dominate low-turnout primaries.
