So the writer came to this conclusion after reading this other article that came to it’s conclusions from this:
I examined the data from the most recentWorld Values Survey (2010 to 2014) andEuropean Values Survey(2008), two of the most comprehensive studies of public opinion carried out in over 100 countries. The survey asks respondents to place themselves on a spectrum from far left to center to far right. I then plotted the proportion of each group’s support for key democratic institutions. (A copy of my working paper, with a more detailed analysis of the survey data, can be found here.)
Basically two surveys from over a decade ago that survey people across the planet. Not in the US…
In other words the writer is trying to present their opinion as fact.
At least in my experience, their conclusion tracks correctly. If both sides of the aisle are so diametrically opposed, to be a moderate is to want nothing to change, which generally means you’re of a demographic that is unaffected by negative policy from either side, which leads to being low information and low engagement in democracy. The moderate is the position of the status quo, and at least in my experience means they will vote against any change in either direction because they don’t want to have to think about things changing, even if it means voting against someone that could help them in the long run.
In my experience moderates have a mix of stances from both left and right sides of the spectrum so they don’t fully identify with either ideology.
If both sides of the aisle are so diametrically opposed, to be a moderate is to want nothing to change.
This doesn’t make sense because it implies that 1) the current state of US government is exactly at equilibrium between right and left. 2) there is no nuance to political ideologies, as if all leftists agree on all topics and all right wingers agree on all topics.
https://www.the-independent.com/voices/biden-moderate-democrats-republicans-conservative-study-john-kasich-aoc-a9699431.html
So the writer came to this conclusion after reading this other article that came to it’s conclusions from this:
I examined the data from the most recent World Values Survey (2010 to 2014) and European Values Survey(2008), two of the most comprehensive studies of public opinion carried out in over 100 countries. The survey asks respondents to place themselves on a spectrum from far left to center to far right. I then plotted the proportion of each group’s support for key democratic institutions. (A copy of my working paper, with a more detailed analysis of the survey data, can be found here.)
Basically two surveys from over a decade ago that survey people across the planet. Not in the US…
In other words the writer is trying to present their opinion as fact.
At least in my experience, their conclusion tracks correctly. If both sides of the aisle are so diametrically opposed, to be a moderate is to want nothing to change, which generally means you’re of a demographic that is unaffected by negative policy from either side, which leads to being low information and low engagement in democracy. The moderate is the position of the status quo, and at least in my experience means they will vote against any change in either direction because they don’t want to have to think about things changing, even if it means voting against someone that could help them in the long run.
In my experience moderates have a mix of stances from both left and right sides of the spectrum so they don’t fully identify with either ideology.
This doesn’t make sense because it implies that 1) the current state of US government is exactly at equilibrium between right and left. 2) there is no nuance to political ideologies, as if all leftists agree on all topics and all right wingers agree on all topics.