Kentucky's extreme politics excludes centrist voters

As hard as it is to believe, 30 years ago Kentucky was a swing state. Not just a swing state but a bell weather state—we had a well-established reputation for backing the man who would go on to win the presidency. Likewise, our Senate and congressional races were almost always fiercely competitive. Nowadays Kentucky is a ruby red state. We have not voted for a Democratic president since Bill Clinton and the GOP has super majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly.

Kentucky's political transformation

How is such a radical transformation possible? The answer is simple enough, both parties have drifted from their traditionally broad approach to partisan competition. In the United States, parties originally existed as ideologically homogenous big tents, with only the loosest set of political principles uniting members. The result was that Republicans had both rural conservatives and urban liberals. Likewise, the Democratic Party had a vibrant right and left-leaning wing.

Al Cross: Kentucky lawmakers are running the public’s business like its personal business.

This is no longer the case. Each party has a firm ideological stance and they expect their elected officials to fall in line or face the consequences. The effects of this are a double edged sword in some ways. The transformation of our parties does make it easier for voters to know what each party stands for but it also leads to lazy partisanship. Voters do not really need to know much about candidates if candidates of the same party hardly ever vary.

Extreme partisanship excludes centrist voters

Perhaps more frighteningly, this ideologically driven partisanship leaves out the vast majority of voters who do not inhabit the political extremes. Polling shows that the vast majority of Americans hold relatively moderate views on abortion, LGBTQ issues, education and economics. Yet these views are rarely represented by either major party.

This problem takes on a unique flavor in states that are dominated by only one party. The truth is that most of these states are composed of moderates (running from center left to center right) and one extreme group. Looking more closely at Kentucky will let us put this in more concrete terms—the Bluegrass State’s average voter is either a moderate or a conservative. This is not to say the state is devoid of progressives, yet they are unlikely to make up an important bloc of voters anytime soon.

Are you ready for the primary? Submit your letter to the editor here.

This has become a problem for the Kentucky Democratic Party. Instead of appealing to the center that could help them win elections, the party is run by left wing activists wedded to the idea that the only sort of Democrat worth running is a progressive advocate of diversity, equity and inclusion. The electoral results of the last several decades have proven just how ineffective this strategy has been—one prominent statewide official does not a healthy party make.

It is often said that our national parties have infected the state and local branches. Perhaps they have. But that does not mean that these parties should not put up a fight—that they should lose sight of the fact that the primary goal of politics is to win elections. The Democratic Party of Kentucky should remember this hard truth as they work to rebuild the damage of the Republican dominated Trump era. If they do, there is a real chance they could bring a great many centrists into the political fold.

Jeffery Tyler Syck is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Pikeville.

This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Kentucky politics is extreme on both sides, centrists win elections