There Are Reasons That Conservatives Call Themselves "Moderates" Instead Of What They Really Are

In The Long Run, Blue Dogs And New Dems Can Be Worse Than Republicans

When conservatives are allowed to appropriate the word “moderate” to describe themselves and their anti-progressive agenda, it diminishes the Democratic Party. As we’ve noted before, years of polling has indeed found that the word “moderate” tends to be one of the most positively viewed political labels in the country, indicating that many Americans identify with or favor the term “moderate” because it suggests a balanced, reasonable, and pragmatic approach to politics. The use by conservatives misleads audiences and also implies that progressives are extremists and radicals. 

Yesterday I spoke with a clueless conservative running for Congress as a Democrat, although she campaigned for Republicans and against Obama in 2008 and 2012 and voted for Trump in 2016, she doesn’t even understand that she isn’t a Democrat, treating political labels like articles of clothing that can be changed on a whim. She calls herself a “moderate” but that kind of usage and branding frames the political landscape so badly that it normalizes conservative policies and shifts the Overton Window. When these conservative so-called “Democrats” label themselves as moderates, it skewers the perceived political center to the right, making progressive policies seem radical or extreme, instead of rational, by comparison. This ugly rebranding distorts the political spectrum, suggesting that conservative positions are the default or reasonable middle ground. It marginalizes progressive policies, portraying them as deviations from the norm.

Inside the Democratic Party, this rhetoric by Blue Dogs and New Dems— whether done consciously or unconsciously— delegitimizes and undermines progressive efforts both within the party and in the broader political discourse. Progressives are forced to defend their values and positions not just against reactionary Republicans but also against members of their own party who paint them as outside the mainstream. As conservative Democrats have dominated the narrative as fake-“moderates,” it has, for decades, consistently led to compromises that dilute progressive policies, resulting in legislation that is less impactful and fails to address systemic issues effectively. Because of conservatives pretending to be moderates within the Democratic Party Medicare only covers the elderly instead of everyone, the way it was first proposed. Because of shitty “moderates,” it doesn’t include dental care, ear and eye care and is far less effective than it would have been had there been no “moderates” in the party. More recently, conservaDems pretending to be moderates (Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus particularly) ruined ObamaCare by forcing the removal of a public option, resulting in a system that expanded coverage (a good thing that was what progressives proposed) but maintained the dominance of private insurance companies (making it too expensive for millions of people and the opposite of what progressives had proposed).

Earlier, conservative Dems pulled the same kind of crap during passage of the New Deal, limiting the progressive scope of Social Security for example— mostly because they were virulent racists who didn’t want to see Blacks benefiting. And in the ‘60s conservatives within the Democratic Party, masquerading as “moderates,” watered down civil rights legislation aimed at ending racial segregation and protecting voting rights. There’s no end to this kind of betrayal. After the 2008 financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act aimed to impose strict regulations on Wall Street to prevent future economic collapses. Corrupt conservative Democrats, influenced by financial industry lobbying, pushed for exemptions and modifications that weakened some of the regulatory measures, including softening the Volcker Rule, which was intended to limit speculative trading by banks. That Republican pretending to be a moderate Democrat who I spoke with this week pushed back against progressive tax policies that would increase rates on the wealthy and on corporations.

The important thing to remember here is that the influence of conservative Democrats branding themselves as "moderates" has repeatedly led to significant— if not disastrous— compromises that dilute progressive policies. Understanding the historical examples is crucial for recognizing how internal party dynamics can shape and often limit the scope of progressive change and why it is so important to oppose Blue Dogs and New Dems in primaries.

In fact, advocating for a redefinition of what constitutes true centrism or moderation can help, emphasizing that policies promoting social justice, economic equity, and environmental sustainability are rational and necessary responses to contemporary challenges. If you hang around DWT at all, you’ve probably noticed that we’re always trying to expose the motivations behind conservative Democrats' policies, such as financial ties to corporate interests, which undermine their bullshit claims to “moderation.”

Let me go back to that polling of gteh word “moderate” for a second. I got carried away with myself for a moment. In 2020, Gallup found that about 35% of Americans considered themselves “moderate,” (reflecting a desire for middle-ground solutions and a distaste for perceived extremes on either end of the political spectrum) making it a more popular identification than liberal or conservative. Pew Research has found that many Americans prefer candidates who are described as “moderate,” both Republicans and Democrats. Although “moderate” is a political weasel word, for many voters it carries positive connotations such as fairness, open-mindedness and practicality, making it a favorable label for politicians who want to attract a wide range of voters, especially independents and those disillusioned with partisan politics. It helps politicians appear more appealing to a broader audience, making it a valuable tool in political branding, even when their policies may align with conservatism rather that with traditional notions of moderation.

Let’s remember, in the Democratic Party, conservatives use the word “moderate” to describe their anti-progressive politics. The Blue Dogs for example, always refer to themselves as “moderates,” never as “conservatives,” yet so many of them— including most of the founders— eventually become full-fledged, unapologetic Republicans! The use of the term “moderate” within the Democratic Party, is a strategic maneuver to obscure conservative policies and make them more palatable to the broader party base and the general electorate. By calling themselves “moderates,” Blue Dogs avoid the negative connotations associated with being labeled “conservative,” allowing them to maintain influence and appeal to centrist and swing voters without alienating the Democratic base, but still pushing their Austerity agenda. This obfuscation misleads voters about the real policy impacts and intentions of these politician. Although the moderate label might provide short-term electoral gains by attracting a broader voter base in some cases, it leads to long-term policy inconsistencies that hinders the party's ability to present a coherent and unified and popular vision for progressive change. By aiming for a so-called “middle ground,” these “moderate” policies perpetuate the status quo rather than challenging and transforming it. The influence of moderate-conservative factions within the party has drastically diluted its progressive identity, leading to internal divisions and a lack of clear direction on key issues and hurting the ability of the party to attract young voters, as we’re seeing right now. Remember, millions of eligible voters eschew the system altogether, recognizing the inherent contradictions in a party that claims to be looking out for the little guy but financed by wealthy special interests.

Among the dozens of Blue Dogs and New Dems who presented themselves as “moderates,” helped derail progressive policy initiatives and then officially joined the GOP include Richard Shelby (AL), Parker Griffith (AL), Bobby Bright (AL), Artur Davis (AL), Mike Parker (MS), Gene Taylor (MS), Phil Gramm (TX), Greg Laughlin (TX), Ralph Hall (TX), Nathan Deal (GA), Virgil Goode (VA), Billy Tauzin (LA), Jimmy Hayes (LA), Rodney Alexander (LA), Charles Canady (FL), Andy Ireland (FL), Ben Nighthorse Cambell (CO), Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Joe Baca (CA)…

If you’re wondering what brought this on today, it was what’s going on in my old home town, San Francisco, where fake moderates have been taking over ever since they murdered Harvey Milk and George Moscone, gutting the progressive movement. Gil Duran reported that Señor Trumpanzee was in town by noting that “In 2021, billionaire tech executive Chamath Palahapitiya briefly considered running for California governor on a moderate-sounding platform of low taxes and school reform [a weasel word for gutting public schools]. This week, the former Democratic Party megadonor will co-host a fundraiser for convicted felon Donald Trump in Pacific Heights. In reality, Palahapitiya was neither moderate nor a believer in Democratic Party values. He was a zealot clothed in vaguely centrist branding that obscured a politics so extreme that he’s all-in for Trump 2024. And he’s not the only Silicon Valley plutocrat masking himself with bland labeling.”

The term “moderate” has become a buzzword in San Francisco politics as venture capitalists bankroll a campaign to win control of City Hall. The conflict typically gets framed as a struggle between progressives and moderates, with tech interests funding the latter. 

But words like moderate and centrist are political weasel words with no set definitions.

“There is no ideology of the moderate— no set of views held by all moderates,” UC Berkeley cognitive scientist George Lakoff wrote in The Political Mind. “There is no single set of policies that defines a ‘middle.’”

The dictionary defines a moderate as someone who avoids extremes, but that also means different things to different people. 

“My political leanings are moderate,” Elon Musk wrote in 2022 while trying to buy Twitter. He then turned the site into a booster rocket for anti-Semitism, racism and right-wing conspiracy theories.

Garry Tan, the Y Combinator CEO leading the tech campaign to capture City Hall, also calls himself moderate. But he seemed quite extreme when he tweeted “die slow” at seven progressive members of the Board of Supervisors in January.

In May, Tan hosted Republican megadonor Peter Thiel for a discussion of politics and religion in a converted church near Dolores Park [a block from where I used to live and then a working class neighborhood]. The two have longstanding ties because Tan worked at Palantir, Thiel’s surveillance tech company. But Thiel, who supported Trump in 2016 and helped put anti-choice Republican J.D. Vance of Ohio in the U.S. Senate, is hardly the person a Democrat would summon for a Jesus talk in an election year.

Just as telling is Tan’s relationship with Balaji Srinivasan—  the lead evangelist for something called the Network State, a cult movement that urges tech leaders to take over existing governments or create new tech-governed territories. 

In October, Tan spoke at the Network State conference, where he depicted his efforts in San Francisco as part of Srinivasan’s movement.

Srinivasan’s politics are shockingly extreme. He envisions a future in which tech-aligned San Franciscans form a “Gray” tribe that dons gray T-shirts emblazoned with tech company logos, buys up city blocks, bribes the police department to serve tech interests and pushes all “Blues” (Democrats) out of Gray-controlled zones. Srinivasan compares this process to “de-Nazification” after World War II.

“Take total control of your neighborhood,” he said on a podcast last September. “Push out all Blues. Tell them they’re … unwelcome.”

Some dismiss Srinivasan’s rants as trolling, but many take him seriously. Thiel lobbied Trump to appoint Srinivasan as head of teh Food and Drug Administration. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Angel List co-founder Naval Ravikant have invested in the Balaji Fund, which aims to create new cities modeled after Srinivasan’s dystopian ideas. Srinivasan also advises Pronomos Capital, a firm backed by Thiel and Marc Andreessen that’s planning new tech-run cities around the world.

There’s an old Mexican saying: “Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are.” The same can be said of policy choices, which reveal one’s true political leanings. 

Tan and his faction uniformly push Republican policies. They favor repeals of both criminal justice reform and police reform. They reject evidence-based harm reduction strategies such as overdose prevention. They want to punish addiction and poverty with cruelty and jail cells.

We know these policies will fail because California already tried them. These approaches do not represent a “middle ground” of any kind. So why do Tan and his supporters get away with calling themselves moderate and/or “common sense,” as Tan did in the New York Times?

The answer is that we don’t yet have the correct language to describe what’s happening. A group of wealthy tech figures with right-wing beliefs is investing heavily to push the city’s political compass to the right. To do this, however, they are partnering with a group of traditionally moderate Democrats who are happy to find themselves lavished with money and support.

Perhaps Srinivasan is right. San Francisco’s tech-funded political faction may not be Red (Republican), but it isn’t quite Blue (Democratic) anymore. Instead, we may be witnessing the emergence of a new Gray shade in local politics— a breakaway bloc of mercenary San Franciscans in a lucrative alliance with some wealthy tech extremists who openly despise progressive Democrats and now seem increasingly aligned with the authoritarian criminal Trump.

There's no going back— and at the risk of sounding hopelessly nostalgic— let me just say that San Francisco was a much better town before the Big Tech Revolution came to the Bay Area. Equating extreme individual or familial wealth with anything at all besides greed and avarice has always been a politically fatal mistake.