Opinion | Centrist politics are failing in the U.S. and Europe

There are three main tenets to this centrism. The defining one (at least in determining how these politicians and parties act in practice) is trying to balance the interests of everyday workers with those of the wealthy and corporations. These politicians generally let capitalism operate without too many constraints, hoping to maximize economic growth and then redistribute the proceeds. That’s in contrast to leftists in their countries who are more tied to labor unions and fairly antagonistic to the rich (Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, for example) and conservatives even more tied to corporations (think Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican).

A second tenet is support (although tepid at times) for multiculturalism. Politicians in this mold are generally more supportive of gay, lesbian and transgender rights as well as of ethnic and religious minorities than conservatives are.

The third tenet is the lack of a set ideology beyond being somewhat business-friendly and multicultural. Parties and politicians in this mode often rely on polls and public opinion to determine their positions. The Labour Party under Starmer has dumped some of its past progressive stances. And it isn’t allowing some prominent left-wing politicians to run under its banner, mostly notably Jeremy Corbyn, who was the party’s candidate for prime minister in 2019. Labour’s moves resemble the U.S. Democratic Party’s shift rightward in the 1990s.

While these nations, parties and political leaders are distinct in important ways, there is something of a shared strategy. In the 1990s, Clinton and Blair openly acknowledged trading ideas. Macron modeled his 2017 campaign after Obama’s 2008 run, and Obama took the highly unusual step of endorsing Macron. Labour Party officials have studied Biden’s 2020 victory to see whether there are lessons that might apply in Britain.

Terms such as “center left” and “neoliberal” and “Third Way” are sometimes used to describe this political approach. I’m using “centrist” because it’s a relatively neutral and vague term.

There are two clear virtues to this centrism. First, it can be electorally successful. Clinton, Obama and Macron were each reelected president. Labour won three elections under Blair’s leadership. Polls suggest Starmer and Labour are headed to a huge victory in Britain’s elections on July 4.

This short-term political success makes sense. A vague centrism maximizes a party’s potential allies and minimizes its intense opponents. In particular, it mollifies the rich. Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg and other super-wealthy people are spending heavily to back Biden but might not support Sanders or someone else more critical of the rich.

The second advantage of this approach is that it can result in great policy outcomes. Biden’s policies helped create an economic boom that has driven U.S. unemployment down to historic lows. Biden and Macron have been stalwart defenders of Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion.

But the downsides of this approach are increasingly eclipsing its upsides. First and most important, it has real policy shortcomings. An overreliance on polls means that politicians and parties of this ilk are only fair-weather friends to causes. They are particularly willing to sideline the interests of minorities. Macron and Biden have adopted anti-immigrant positions that were previously associated with the right.

In terms of economic policy, a détente with the wealthy is a real limitation. Rich people tend to be more skeptical than the general public of increased government spending and of more regulations of corporations. So centrist politicians, wary of offending the rich, often don’t address deep income inequality and instead enact economic policies that average people find frustrating. Starmer has dropped Labour’s past support of increased income taxes on the wealthy. Macron raised France’s retirement age from 62 to 64, despite huge national protests against the move.

Biden has been more liberal on economic policy than past Democrats, but he has abandoned many of the populist promises of his 2020 campaign, such as creating a public-run health insurance plan that most Americans could enroll in if they chose.

Centrist politicians and parties often defend their adoption of cautious or conservative politics by arguing that this approach is the only way to keep the far right from gaining power. But Obama was succeeded by Donald Trump. Marine Le Pen’s National Rally has gotten much stronger during Macron’s presidency. The class of Republicans that took control of the House two years ago, in the middle of Biden’s presidency, is the most radical, right-wing group to run the chamber in recent times. Biden is tied in polls with Trump, even though the Republican candidate is very unpopular. In the European Union’s parliamentary elections earlier this month, far-right parties did better than even before.

Centrists often win because the other party governs terribly and effectively disqualifies itself. U.S. voters were largely rejecting Trump in the 2018 and 2020 elections. Frustration with the incumbent Conservative Party is the main reason Labour is headed to victory.

But once in office, this centrism fails to create a strong political constituency to keep it in power. This style of politics mainly appeals to people who have liberal views on gay rights and other cultural issues and are doing well financially and therefore are generally comfortable with the status quo (like Bloomberg). Voters who are either more culturally conservative or want politicians to enact meaningful change aren’t satisfied.

So what’s the alternative to centrism? A powerful narrative that voters can connect to. The strength of far-right, nationalist parties is that they are telling a clear, compelling story, even if it’s largely inaccurate. “Our nation was doing well before all of these changes, particularly allowing in immigrants who don’t respect our culture and letting boys be girls and girls be boys. We must return to our roots,” they essentially argue.

Centrist politicians, in contrast, are trying to win with policies — and often fairly bland ones — instead of a broader argument.

There are two narratives that could match the right. One is populist: “The rich and powerful are ripping off regular people, and we will fix that.” This framing would appeal to voters in the political center, who tend to support raising taxes on the wealthy and expanding programs to help average people. Mexico’s Morena party is dominating politics there with this approach.

Another alternative narrative would be, “We want true freedom for all.” What has galvanized Americans in the left and center in recent years was the killing of unarmed Black men and the elimination of abortion rights. It’s unfortunate that the Democratic Party, instead of trying to turn the millions of people who protested George Floyd’s killing in 2020 into some kind of political movement, fixated on whatever Bidenomics is.

All is not lost. Biden could win reelection. Perhaps Le Pen’s National Rally doesn’t win as many seats as expected next month. Centrist and left-leaning parties combined still have far more seats in the European Parliament than the nationalists do.

But centrist leaders in the United States and Europe are increasingly adopting and legitimizing the positions of the far-right to win elections — and still losing ground to them.

Reading the polls and staying in the political center seems like it should work. But it doesn’t. I hope those opposed to the far-right figure out a new strategy before all of their countries are run by Trump-style politicians or the Donald himself.