The media frequently portray the U.S. population as being hopelessly divided along partisan lines on many social policy issues, such as abortion, gun regulation, and immigration. This portrayal is often inaccurate and nearly always incomplete. It may often be true that, given only two extreme options for a social policy issue, a majority of Republicans would prefer one option while a majority of Democrats would prefer the other. However, given a fuller range of options, it is frequently the case that a more moderate option would be preferred by majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
If majorities of all partisan groups agree on options to address many social policy issues, why do these issues remain so apparently controversial and intractable? There are two main reasons, which are important to distinguish. First, the people at the extremes are typically much more vocal than more moderate people within each party and the media amplifies those extreme voices, because it is more interesting to portray a conflict than a consensus. Second, federal and state legislators are typically much more extreme in their views than the citizens they represent, because of structural factors such as gerrymandering, partisan primaries, and unlimited “soft money” contributions to campaigns.
The goal of the Center for Moderate and Social Policy is to address the first of these two reasons, by highlighting areas of agreement across parties on social policy issues and providing moderate commentary on current social policy events. We will also occasionally comment on the structural factors underlying the second reason; however, the solutions to those structural issues are already well understood and there is no indication that our leaders currently have any interest in pursuing those solutions.