Times of strife typically provide watershed moments for people to reflect on their values and ideals. These moments demand that members of society identify where they stand and whom they stand with. The resulting dialogue among competing visions is a cornerstone of the democratic process—elections, of course, serve to decide which vision the majority prefers. It is therefore essential to understand that political parties are not just organizations dedicated to getting politicians elected.
To some extent, political parties do serve such a function. What parties also do, however, is articulate particular worldviews and provide narratives about the direction of American government. For example, Democrats generally view it as the responsibility of government to ensure a particular quality of life for citizens, imposing regulations on institutions (usually employers) to help achieve this end. Republicans, on the other hand, tend to favor letting those who earn their money keep it, respecting the right of a private business to operate with as little interference from bloated bureaucratic measures.
Such definitions are of course broad. While it gives a general understanding of where political parties have typically stood on certain fundamental issues—the role of government for example—it does fall short of expressing the nuances that exist in American politics. And it is these nuances that have proven essential to achieving the kind of great compromises needed to get America through some of its most serious gridlock. Conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans represent a dynamic that fundamentally challenges the political "establishment" in a way liberals and tea-partying conservatives can only imagine, and, as a result, have been hugely influential in determining the direction of American government.
Conservative Democrats—the so-called Blue Dogs—usually advocate fiscal responsibility, limited government and a strong line on defense policies. Alternatively, moderate Republicans also advocate a limited government, but believe in a more diplomatic approach to foreign policy as well. A great deal of nuance exists in this political middle ground, but, to the detriment of the United States, fewer politicians are calling it home following the last election. Just as moderate Republicans found their numbers diminished following the 2006 midterm elections, so too were the Blue Dog Democrats reduced in 2010. Replacing both factions are ideological purists, and the implications are likely to be severe.
On the right, Republicans owe a great deal of their political success to tea partiers. Accordingly, Republicans will attempt to ensure that members of this faction stay placated with plum committee assignment, extra staffers and other political perks. Determining the situation on the left is more difficult, if only because the left is currently too confused to even call itself liberal. The term du jour for liberals is "progressive." The difference between a liberal and progressive is unclear beyond the fact that the former is used to describe people who have yet to realize their value system and has been unpopular since the Carter administration.
Nevertheless, the 112th Congress lacks the presence of moderate Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats, both of whom will be essential in delivering the legislative achievements Americans are hoping for: small government and free enterprise, tax breaks for all Americans and much needed budget cuts. Unfortunately, the incoming Congress will comprise—particularly on the Democratic side—members that are more unwilling than ever to compromise on measures, which Blue Dogs would have otherwise enacted.
The result is gridlock. America has been there before, most recently—and most similarly—in the early and mid-1990s when Democrats had to decide whether to govern from the center or left. Democrats understood at the time that Clinton had overreached in his pursuit of liberal policies, and moved accordingly toward the middle. It is unclear whether today's Democrats are willing to make this shift. So far, considering the recent election of Nancy Pelosi to minority leader by the House Democrats, they seem to be staying committed to a purely left-wing ideology. While it would be unfair to claim that Democratic losses in the last election were all or even mostly the fault of Pelosi, she nevertheless represents the kind of "progressiveness" that was rejected by voters this year. Keeping her on the Democratic leadership team sends a message that, rather than move to the center, Democrats are intent on digging their heels in and refusing to compromise.
Elections matter. To say that the November election was a clear mandate to Republicans to govern from the far right would be ignorant of voter focus on the economy. November was not about social issues or Iraq—it was about reigning in the size of government and stabilizing the economy. With less varied political voices in Congress come next January, it is especially crucial that Democrats—liberals and "progressives"—work with Republicans to preserve the middle ground. The solution to today's greatest issues won't be found on the margins but rather where the greatest number of Americans can acknowledge their common values.