Conan O’Brien recently tweeted: “Well, I’ve officially lived a long life because people are excited Germany is rearming.” I had a similar feeling recently listening to the FiveThirtyEight politics podcast that discussed “wedge issues.” The conversation between the host, Galen Druke, and two prominent political scientists was illuminating, but the most remarkable thing was what they didn’t say. No one denounced wedge issues.
Growing up politically in the 1980s and 1990s, I was always told that wedge issues were bad, because they were “divisive.” Lee Atwater, the bare-knuckled GOP operative, popularized the term as part of Ronald Reagan’s 1984 campaign. He argued that Republicans should “drive a wedge” between the national Democratic Party, dominated by liberals, and “traditional Southern Democrats.”
For decades, wedge issues were associated with race and other fraught cultural issues that typically divided Democrats, surely one reason why so many liberals hated them: they peeled off members of the FDR coalition. In fairness, the bad odor also stemmed from perceived demagoguery. The late Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, for instance, was a demonic figure to many because he was very effective at tapping into the politics of white resentment to pull traditional Democrats rightward.
But now it seems the odor has dissipated, at least among political scientists and operatives. Sure, there are still some ugly wedges, but wedge issues as a generic category or tool are now recognized for what they always were: normal politics. A general definition of a wedge issue is simply any position that divides an opposing party while largely uniting your own. Politicians often talk about “70-30 issues,” i.e. issues where there’s a clear majority. Logic alone dictates that if seven out of 10 Americans are on one side of an issue, it will divide one party, since neither party has close to 70 percent support.
Education long served as something of a wedge for Democrats because most voters thought Democrats were better on it. But, as Glenn Youngkin’s successful race for Virginia governor last year showed, that’s no longer the case. The resentment over pandemic policies, combined with the fears of critical race theory, served to push many Democrats and Biden-voting independents to vote Republican. At least for now.
As discussed on the FiveThirtyEight podcast, wedge issues have a tendency to swing back and forth across the political spectrum. Opposition to gay marriage was decisive for George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004, but it would be a loser for any Republican now.
What’s interesting about today’s politics is how both parties have a hard time responding to wedge issues. Because they are dominated by their bases—and the base’s stranglehold on primaries—conceding that their political opponents have a point is cast as surrender to the enemy.
Part of Bill Clinton’s brilliance as a politician was his ability to turn wedge issues to his advantage by migrating toward the 70 percent position whenever possible. Clinton recognized that welfare and affirmative action were very effective wedge issues to be used by Republicans. Rather than concede Republican framing of the issues, he coopted them.
He acknowledged, at least rhetorically, that there were problems with the status quo and proposed reforms that satisfied the moderates and independents. He endorsed welfare reforms that emphasized work and offered a “hand up, not a handout.” On affirmative action he proposed “a mend it, don’t end it” approach. His base hated it as much as the GOP base did, but neither had any place to go.
To his credit, Joe Biden did something similar with “defund the police,” a radical idea popular only with a tiny fringe of his party. In his State of the Union speech, he said the answer to our crime problems and our police problems is to fund training to address problems. But mostly, Biden has been incapable of building on that example, which helps to explain why his approval rating is far closer to 30 percent than 70 percent.
The GOP, meanwhile, is struggling with a particularly peculiar wedge issue: Donald Trump. Trump divides the right while uniting the non-right, which is why Democrats are more eager to talk about him than Republicans are.
Regardless, the great irony is that despite decades of talk about how wedge issues fuel polarization, they are, in fact, a key to curbing it because they illuminate areas where a majority of Americans can find common ground. And they remind parties that they shouldn’t take the voters who matter most—the persuadable ones—for granted.
It is interesting that Education has become a “wedge” issue, not to be confused with the salad. Messing with our kids is sure to get all parents concerned. Take CRT. If it stayed in Academia and was solely whether there were discriminatory passages in our laws such as the disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine we would never hear about it. When however there are passages in books supposedly available in elementary schools that teach white people are oppressors then CRT becomes a bridge too far. Books that describe babies as racists, (the Ted Cruz kind) it is a bridge too far. The next misstep in schools is when they stray from birth control and STD’s for young teens to gender identity discussions with 5 year olds parents will naturally have issues.
Education will be up front and center this fall. It will harm the Democrats greatly. Why? These attempts to manage society, social structure, normalize various aspects of sex and race look like propaganda. If you know a parent who thinks sexualizing a 5 year old is good thing I doubt they’ll find much support from other parents. Age appropriate is an actual thing. It is not something to be scoffed at. Tell parents they should have nothing to do with their child's education beyond the head scratching at such an insane idea, parents will react. Just as security soccer moms were a thing so to will be parents.
What Democrats do not understand is getting out way beyond your skis. Gay marriage became accepted in the country well before the Supreme Court decided. Present an argument for looking at minority mores and accepting them the American public will do so if they seem reasonable. Teaching white children they are responsible for slavery and there will be push back. Messing with a child's sexuality at age 5 and you’ll be swiftly booted off your school board.
We have all read recently of gay teachers pain that they cannot have conversation with their students about their sex life. What they miss, what they are seemingly clueless about, is age appropriate conversations. They should not have nor have any interest in having is a conversation with a 5 year old about their sex life.
Finally, overwhelmingly Parents want one thing taught in schools. Science, Technology, Language Arts, Math. Especially with younger children. Schools should not be a place to socially mold political thought or political activism.
I think this analysis is obsolete.
Today's politics, especially for Republicans, consists almost entirely of *negative* campaigning, not positive policy pronouncements.
Hence when a voter asks themselves, "do I agree with the XYZ policy supported by the candidate" there are *three* possible answers:
1. Yes, I support that, so I will vote for the candidate.
2. No, I do not support that, so I will not vote for the candidate.
3. No, I do not support that, but I don't really care about it as much as I am afraid of the other side, so I will vote for the candidate.
Because of this, if the GOP is successful in demonizing the Democrats, their fellow travelers can include of an odious collection of Q-Anon, white nationalists, pro-Putin, pro-insurrection, anti-vax, etc. and *still* be on tap to re-take power in Congress this November.
Hence the GOP can still be completely controlled by Trump and it won't matter, even to people who "hate" Trump because the GOP has figured out that the name of the game is making people hate the Democrats *even more*.
Now apply this new reality to "wedge issues". While Mr. Goldberg is correct that Biden and the Democrats can't afford to support issues that are only supported by a small number of Americans, that is simply not true for the GOP. The reason is that the GOP has been far better--ten times better--at negative campaigning.
And while it's true that many people in 2020 voted for "not Trump" for president, far *more* people vote for "not Democrats" because most Democratic voters were still voting for their *policy* goodies like free health care and environmental concerns.
Negative campaigning is all upside and very little downside from the campaign perspective. You don't have to defend a policy and you can even usurp the other side's policies when it's convenient as the Republicans did with Biden's spending programs in 2021.
In fact, the only "challenge" with negative campaigning is *morality*: you ultimately need to be willing to sacrifice the health and even sovereignty of the country in order to win, e.g. make people more afraid of Biden than they are of Putin.
But that's a challenge Republicans have risen to.