Overview of The Shifting Meaning of “Moderate”
This New Yorker conversation on The Political Scene examines how the label “moderate” has become slippery in Democratic politics, especially amid recent primary battles between self-described progressives and establishment candidates. John Alsop argues that the word no longer maps neatly onto ideology, strategy, or voter behavior: it can mean centrist policy positions, a mixed ideological profile, or a preference for bipartisan dealmaking. The episode uses recent races in Michigan and Wisconsin to show how hard it is to read too much into individual results, and suggests that candidate quality, local issues, and media narrative-making often matter as much as ideology.
Key Takeaways
The “moderate vs. progressive” frame is useful, but often oversimplified
- Alsop says the term moderate lacks a fixed definition.
- In practice, it can describe:
- a centrist on the left-right spectrum,
- someone with a mixed set of left and right views,
- or a politician who emphasizes bipartisanship and pragmatism.
- The conversation repeatedly returns to the idea that political labels are often more shorthand than analysis.
Recent primary results cut both ways
- Michigan Senate primary: Abdul El-Sayed, running as a progressive outsider, narrowly defeated Haley Stevens, who represented the Democratic establishment.
- Wisconsin gubernatorial primary: Francesca Hong, a progressive/Democratic socialist, lost narrowly to David Crowley, who was seen as the more moderate, electable option.
- Together, the results show that:
- progressives are not uniformly surging,
- moderates are not uniformly winning back ground,
- and polling/narratives before primaries can be badly misleading.
The media tends to overstate momentum
- Alsop is skeptical of the way journalists turn scattered results into a single national trend.
- He argues that the press loves a clean story—“progressives are rising” or “moderates are back”—even when the evidence is messy.
- He notes that some of the early “progressive wave” narrative came from very blue districts, which are not representative of the broader electorate.
What “Moderate” Actually Means in Today’s Democratic Party
The term has become politically unstable
- Alsop argues that “moderate” is a moving target because the political center shifts over time.
- Issues once seen as extreme may become mainstream, and vice versa.
- He points to immigration and Israel/Gaza as examples where the old center has scrambled:
- support for abolishing ICE, once seen as radical, is now closer to mainstream in some Democratic circles,
- attitudes toward Israel have shifted sharply in recent years.
Even “moderate” candidates often sound populist
- Haley Stevens, for example, is often treated as a moderate, but she also used working-class, populist language.
- Alsop suggests that “moderate” and “populist” are not necessarily opposites.
- Many candidates want to appear reasonable, competent, and fighting for working people at the same time.
“Moderation” is often a self-presentation strategy
- Some politicians proudly adopt the label.
- Others reject it or try to relabel their positions as common sense.
- The episode notes that even politicians thought of as moderate may take hard-edged positions when the politics demand it.
The AOC / “Woke One Was Crazy” Moment
Why the comment mattered
- The episode revisits Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s remark that “woke one was crazy,” referring to Francesca Hong’s past rhetoric.
- Alsop sees this less as a full abandonment of progressive ideas and more as an attempt to distance the movement from politically toxic slogans from 2020, especially “defund the police.”
What it signals
- Progressives are aware that certain slogans and media frames can alienate voters.
- But Alsop does not think this necessarily means the left has abandoned its underlying policy goals.
- He draws a distinction between:
- the language used,
- and the substance of the policy positions.
The political risk for progressives
- Acknowledging that old rhetoric was “crazy” may help with electability.
- But it can also insult or alienate voters and activists who still believe those movements were necessary and justified.
What the Episode Suggests About Democratic Politics Going Forward
Candidate quality matters a lot
- Alsop stresses that charisma, message discipline, and the ability to handle attacks matter as much as ideology.
- He points to Zohran Mamdani as an example of a candidate who can defuse attacks and make radical-sounding politics seem more approachable.
Not all “progressive” voters are the same
- The episode argues against assuming that voters in New York City, Michigan, or elsewhere are motivated by the exact same politics.
- A statewide race in a purple state should not be treated as identical to a city primary in a deep-blue district.
The next major test will be the midterms and beyond
- Alsop says the real evidence will come from:
- the midterm elections,
- the House/Senate split,
- and eventually the 2028 presidential field.
- He suggests that a few specific races could shape the narrative:
- Mary Peltola in Alaska,
- Sherrod Brown in Ohio,
- Roy Cooper in North Carolina,
- and again Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan.
Bottom Line
The episode’s central argument is that “moderate” is not a stable political category—it is a label that changes depending on the issue, the moment, and who is doing the defining. Recent primary results do not prove that moderates are back or that progressives are taking over. Instead, they show a Democratic Party in flux, where local dynamics, candidate skill, and shifting issue politics matter just as much as ideology.