Which US political party has more Centrists?

[Vice President Christian Man]

I'd say Democrats have more but I'd argue that centrists are some of the least represented in Congress.

[OSR stands with Israel]

In the House: Democrats

In the Senate: Republicans

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

Without a doubt Democrats. Especially when you consider how barely left of center even the more "extreme" left-wing of the party is in the grand scheme of things. Republican centrists are mostly democrats or independents anyway.

[Ferguson97]

Democrats, both among elected officials and registered voters.

The so-called "moderate Republican" is near-extinct. They've either left the party, or continue to self-identify as a moderate despite becoming increasingly radicalized along with the rest of the GOP.

[Vosem]

Yeah, obviously Democrats. The Republican Party has a coherent platform for remaking American government/society, and Democrats are made up of those who oppose this, many of whom are very milquetoast/otherwise-small-c-conservative in their beliefs.

[Unpoisoned Chalice]

Yeah, obviously Democrats. The Republican Party has a coherent platform for remaking American government/society, and Democrats are made up of those who oppose this, many of whom are very milquetoast/otherwise-small-c-conservative in their beliefs.

And what exactly is this "coherent platform for remaking American government/society?"

[Vosem]

Yeah, obviously Democrats. The Republican Party has a coherent platform for remaking American government/society, and Democrats are made up of those who oppose this, many of whom are very milquetoast/otherwise-small-c-conservative in their beliefs.

And what exactly is this "coherent platform for remaking American government/society?"

To gradually lower taxes and repeal social services and regulations, causing (this is the crucial word: every right-wing American believes there is causation here, and that is why the platform appeals even to people who are not very well off) the economy to grow much faster and make everyone much better off than they are now. That is the platform in a nutshell, but there are numerous social attitudes that correlate with supporting it, most particularly on supporting gun rights (in polling in US states after 1990 or so, spikes for gun rights always precede spikes for fiscal conservatism), but also in religiosity and a general lack of trust for the institutions of American society.

Democrats are generally against this. Many actually want to create new social services and regulations, but of course under the present climate in public opinion this is impossible, and when a little bit was done in 2009-10 it was poisonously unpopular.

[Unpoisoned Chalice]

Yeah, obviously Democrats. The Republican Party has a coherent platform for remaking American government/society, and Democrats are made up of those who oppose this, many of whom are very milquetoast/otherwise-small-c-conservative in their beliefs.

And what exactly is this "coherent platform for remaking American government/society?"

To gradually lower taxes and repeal social services and regulations, causing (this is the crucial word: every right-wing American believes there is causation here, and that is why the platform appeals even to people who are not very well off) the economy to grow much faster and make everyone much better off than they are now. That is the platform in a nutshell, but there are numerous social attitudes that correlate with supporting it, most particularly on supporting gun rights (in polling in US states after 1990 or so, spikes for gun rights always precede spikes for fiscal conservatism), but also in religiosity and a general lack of trust for the institutions of American society.

Democrats are generally against this. Many actually want to create new social services and regulations, but of course under the present climate in public opinion this is impossible, and when a little bit was done in 2009-10 it was poisonously unpopular.

I like this as a summary of the GOP platform and the party's functional role in U.S. politics. What do you think would need to happen for the right to remake government and society? Perhaps my interpretation of what that would constitute is too expansive but I am unconvinced that modern conservatism is capable of supplanting liberalism politically or intellectually.   

[Vosem]

Yeah, obviously Democrats. The Republican Party has a coherent platform for remaking American government/society, and Democrats are made up of those who oppose this, many of whom are very milquetoast/otherwise-small-c-conservative in their beliefs.

And what exactly is this "coherent platform for remaking American government/society?"

To gradually lower taxes and repeal social services and regulations, causing (this is the crucial word: every right-wing American believes there is causation here, and that is why the platform appeals even to people who are not very well off) the economy to grow much faster and make everyone much better off than they are now. That is the platform in a nutshell, but there are numerous social attitudes that correlate with supporting it, most particularly on supporting gun rights (in polling in US states after 1990 or so, spikes for gun rights always precede spikes for fiscal conservatism), but also in religiosity and a general lack of trust for the institutions of American society.

Democrats are generally against this. Many actually want to create new social services and regulations, but of course under the present climate in public opinion this is impossible, and when a little bit was done in 2009-10 it was poisonously unpopular.

I like this as a summary of the GOP platform and the party's functional role in U.S. politics. What do you think would need to happen for the right to remake government and society? Perhaps my interpretation of what that would constitute is too expansive but I am unconvinced that modern conservatism is capable of supplanting liberalism politically or intellectually.   

I actually think this is basically inevitable if you assume continuous conservative control of the judiciary. At the moment, the Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, and the US Senate (which confirms new members of the Court) has a substantial natural Republican advantage. (Ie, the GOP lost the popular vote by 4 points in 2020, but tied Senate seats, 50-50; in 2016, they lost by 2 points, but won 60-40, and so on and so forth). However, in 2022 Democrats did unexpectedly well in Senate races, which shows this kind of thing is not guaranteed.

In the Civil Rights era, the Supreme Court made numerous 'progressive' decisions which were very unpopular at that time (most notably Loving, legalizing interracial marriage), but it was uniformly the case that the public came around to their views after several decades.

More generally, I think there is a generally declining trust in government institutions in the United States which corresponds to a rise in 'movement conservatism' (Gingrich's victory in 1994 and subsequent currents which came from it), and that demographic trends suggest this decline in trust is likelier to accelerate than decelerate in the near future, which makes me think that the Democratic party is likelier to resemble the Republican party over time than vice versa. So the way conservatism could supplant liberalism politically is through control of the Supreme Court and declining trust in government; I substantially think this is already happening, with Dobbs having been a very visible sign of it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'intellectually' -- at least by stereotype, academia in the United States has been dominated by what you might call the 'cultural left', internationalist and sympathetic to redistribution and disadvantaged groups in society, since something like the 1910s. I'm not sure that's likely to shift anytime soon, but I'm also not sure that it's really necessary. I think the influence of academia on society will decline as there are fewer young people and information is more broadly available, but this is something I've thought through less than the above.

[Unpoisoned Chalice]

Yeah, obviously Democrats. The Republican Party has a coherent platform for remaking American government/society, and Democrats are made up of those who oppose this, many of whom are very milquetoast/otherwise-small-c-conservative in their beliefs.

And what exactly is this "coherent platform for remaking American government/society?"

To gradually lower taxes and repeal social services and regulations, causing (this is the crucial word: every right-wing American believes there is causation here, and that is why the platform appeals even to people who are not very well off) the economy to grow much faster and make everyone much better off than they are now. That is the platform in a nutshell, but there are numerous social attitudes that correlate with supporting it, most particularly on supporting gun rights (in polling in US states after 1990 or so, spikes for gun rights always precede spikes for fiscal conservatism), but also in religiosity and a general lack of trust for the institutions of American society.

Democrats are generally against this. Many actually want to create new social services and regulations, but of course under the present climate in public opinion this is impossible, and when a little bit was done in 2009-10 it was poisonously unpopular.

I like this as a summary of the GOP platform and the party's functional role in U.S. politics. What do you think would need to happen for the right to remake government and society? Perhaps my interpretation of what that would constitute is too expansive but I am unconvinced that modern conservatism is capable of supplanting liberalism politically or intellectually.   

I actually think this is basically inevitable if you assume continuous conservative control of the judiciary. At the moment, the Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, and the US Senate (which confirms new members of the Court) has a substantial natural Republican advantage. (Ie, the GOP lost the popular vote by 4 points in 2020, but tied Senate seats, 50-50; in 2016, they lost by 2 points, but won 60-40, and so on and so forth). However, in 2022 Democrats did unexpectedly well in Senate races, which shows this kind of thing is not guaranteed.

In the Civil Rights era, the Supreme Court made numerous 'progressive' decisions which were very unpopular at that time (most notably Loving, legalizing interracial marriage), but it was uniformly the case that the public came around to their views after several decades.

More generally, I think there is a generally declining trust in government institutions in the United States which corresponds to a rise in 'movement conservatism' (Gingrich's victory in 1994 and subsequent currents which came from it), and that demographic trends suggest this decline in trust is likelier to accelerate than decelerate in the near future, which makes me think that the Democratic party is likelier to resemble the Republican party over time than vice versa. So the way conservatism could supplant liberalism politically is through control of the Supreme Court and declining trust in government; I substantially think this is already happening, with Dobbs having been a very visible sign of it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'intellectually' -- at least by stereotype, academia in the United States has been dominated by what you might call the 'cultural left', internationalist and sympathetic to redistribution and disadvantaged groups in society, since something like the 1910s. I'm not sure that's likely to shift anytime soon, but I'm also not sure that it's really necessary. I think the influence of academia on society will decline as there are fewer young people and information is more broadly available, but this is something I've thought through less than the above.

Conservatives have placed a lot of trust in the Supreme Court and with good reason. The broad reach of judicial review makes it the most powerful single entity of the federal government. I'm not inclined to say that the current Court is likely to shape future public opinion in a rightward direction though. The Roberts Court has delivered Obergefell and Bostock in addition to Dobbs. An example of why I think the intellectual element in political struggles is so important is that the subsequent public acceptance of progressive rulings from the Warren Court was ultimately driven primarily by popular culture, journalism, and education. Conservative weakness in these three areas deprives the right of a critical source of power. Belief in the necessity of progressive social change has only grown stronger in recent years (which necessarily suggests state action) even as trust in government has declined.

The Republicans' aggressive strategy on judicial appointments and the anti-majoritarian features of the U.S. Constitution (two Senators per state, Electoral College, etc.) provide a basis for right-wing optimism regarding the future of America. However, the furthest I can see this is going is something akin to the 70s-90s pushback against Keynesianism: temporary and non-transformative. I don't see deconstruction of the administrative state or social reaction as attainable without a Copernican revolution in the minds of Republican politicians and the opinion professionals. The economic proposals coming out of the current Congress make it rather difficult for me to see the GOP as ready to govern.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Yeah, obviously Democrats. The Republican Party has a coherent platform for remaking American government/society, and Democrats are made up of those who oppose this, many of whom are very milquetoast/otherwise-small-c-conservative in their beliefs.

And what exactly is this "coherent platform for remaking American government/society?"

To gradually lower taxes and repeal social services and regulations, causing (this is the crucial word: every right-wing American believes there is causation here, and that is why the platform appeals even to people who are not very well off) the economy to grow much faster and make everyone much better off than they are now. That is the platform in a nutshell, but there are numerous social attitudes that correlate with supporting it, most particularly on supporting gun rights (in polling in US states after 1990 or so, spikes for gun rights always precede spikes for fiscal conservatism), but also in religiosity and a general lack of trust for the institutions of American society.

Democrats are generally against this. Many actually want to create new social services and regulations, but of course under the present climate in public opinion this is impossible, and when a little bit was done in 2009-10 it was poisonously unpopular.

Counterpoint: Republicans run on trans athletes and gas stoves while Democrats have a coherent socially liberal agenda with varying degrees of government intervention in the market. In their last trifectas, Democrats passed several economic bills with a clear Keynesian bent while Republicans flailed around and passed a deficit increasing tax cut bill without any meaningful spending cuts or privatizations.

[Ferguson97]

Yeah, obviously Democrats. The Republican Party has a coherent platform for remaking American government/society, and Democrats are made up of those who oppose this, many of whom are very milquetoast/otherwise-small-c-conservative in their beliefs.

And what exactly is this "coherent platform for remaking American government/society?"

The GOP does have a platform for remaking government/society, it's just a gross cocktail of incompetence and cruelty.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Vosem, the GOP is not more coherent ideologically than the Democrats and havent been since the "Reaganite three legged stool" broke down in 2006 and 2008 and that is why the Democrats have been the more dominant of the two parties since then. It is why the Democrats have largely been able to shape the agenda since then while the GOP has been more or less reactive to whatever goes on rather than being able to set it themselves.

This was not true from 1980-2006/2008 but this is why the Republicans were the more dominant of the two parties then and especially when it came to being able to set the agenda in which case they absolutely were the more dominant of the two parties.

[Saint Milei]

The GOP for sure sadly

[Progressive Pessimist]

Democrats, both among elected officials and registered voters.

The so-called "moderate Republican" is near-extinct. They've either left the party, or continue to self-identify as a moderate despite becoming increasingly radicalized along with the rest of the GOP.

It's more so that the current "centrists" in the GOP are a bygone era's extremists. The party has moved so far right that Ken Buck now looks reasonable compared to an Andy Biggs, for instance. The right wing spectrum has moved so far right that what used to be considered far right is now closer to the center.

Basically, Republicans who have broken clock moments are rare "centrists" compared to the standard of the majority of the party being clocks with no hands whatsoever.

[Vosem]

Vosem, the GOP is not more coherent ideologically than the Democrats and havent been since the "Reaganite three legged stool" broke down in 2006 and 2008 and that is why the Democrats have been the more dominant of the two parties since then. It is why the Democrats have largely been able to shape the agenda since then while the GOP has been more or less reactive to whatever goes on rather than being able to set it themselves.

This was not true from 1980-2006/2008 but this is why the Republicans were the more dominant of the two parties then and especially when it came to being able to set the agenda in which case they absolutely were the more dominant of the two parties.

I don't think the Reaganite three-legged stool was particularly ideologically coherent; it seems like all three of the legs had rather different priorities, and in fact the Democrats were united in generally opposing their excesses. Since then, the GOP's fundamental ideological premise ("spending cuts causally lead to economic growth") is one that's been accepted by basically everyone in the party, including moderates, while the Democrats have a much larger range of opinions regarding what is to be done and are united mostly by not thinking that -- and even then not necessarily (per referendums -- and even opinions voiced by your moderate Democratic Congressmen -- it seems like some do think that but oppose the GOP because it is perceived to be full of religious extremists or racists).

There's no reason to think the party which is dominant would be the more coherent one. If anything, the reverse seems likelier to me -- if a party is dominant, some people will join it out of pure power-seeking, and they'll have a scattershot collection of worldviews. Dominant parties probably tend to get less coherent over time, and I wouldn't be surprised if they start out that way, too.