The Myth of Moderation.

• Position: Brief Article

Pundits and public officials have long espoused the notion that Americans prefer to elect moderate or centrist candidates. Over much of the 1990s, the public has been told that each congressional election brings a new crop of pragmatic moderates to government. But each time those "moderates" get down to business, people complain about how partisan policymaking has become. How is it that we keep electing moderates, but get ever more bitter politics?

The answer can be found by examining the relationship between ideology and election results, say researchers at Manchester College in Indiana. Although many observers saw the 1994 election as a rejection of liberalism, professors Leonard Williams, Neil Wollman and Abigail Fuller found that moderate Democratic incumbents, not liberal ones, were more likely to lose their bids for reelection.

Similarly, though commentators saw the 1996 election as a return to the vital center, conservative Republican incumbents were actually less likely to lose than were moderate ones. Even in a year like 1998, when pundits celebrated another "Year of the Moderate," analysis from the Manchester College study of congressional incumbent candidates shows that ideological extremists lost their bids for reelection at the same rate as their more moderate colleagues.

Further, one need not be a moderate to be successful in a moderate district. The Manchester College...