[netcan]

It's always true that the election system itself plays a big role in how/what candidates get elected. It's also true that the US electoral structure was a huge factor in Biden or Trump's election. Change the structure of the primary or main election, get different results.

That notwithstanding, it's also true that elements of Trump or Bidens' success might translate.

In any case, the "The whole "socially progressive, economically middle of the road" political coalition that would win every election on HN." is arguably the most successful coalition in western (and many non western) democracies for decades.

Depending on vantage, political classifications like "progressive" and "middle of the road" are relative, and we don't usually agree on the bounds. But if

If you compare changes though, these orientations have been politically powerful for decades. ...

Normative beliefs around gay rights, minority rights, secularism, women's rights and such have been marching forward, call it progressing. Circa 2005, gay marriage was fringe and ilegal almost everywhere. Obama, Clinton & other prominent US democrats occasionally even had to pretend to be against gay marriage, for elections. Within <15 years, gay marriage is legal in the US, most of western europe, etc. A religious-conservative position on a lot of issues is considered fringe now. 15 years ago, condoms were still politically controversial. Bush cancelled HIV prevention initiative because condoms.

Meanwhile, the economic middle-ground is approximately in exactly the same place as it was in the 90s. This might be breaking down ATM, but very generally, the conservative position from the 80s became the middle ground. Barriers to trade, corporate shields, tax structures and such haven't changed much since that shift.

[qsort]

> If you compare changes though, these orientations have been politically powerful for decades

They have, but they usually don't go toghether, that was my point.

Social rights advocacy usually goes hand in hand with far-left positions, while more centrist economic policy usually implies conservative social positions.

I believe it's been a policy driver because it's kind of an "elite ideology", which is overrepresented in educated or powerful circles, which have relatively more soft-power.

[ZeroGravitas]

It all makes sense. If you're part of group X which is legally excluded from wealth or power, you're hardly going to be impressed by a system that says "lets judge everyone's moral worth as a person on their inherited wealth".

So the best way to increase support for market based economics is to remove such government interventions.

But instead the market-based people often team up with the bigots slowing prpgress on both fronts.

[netcan]

I don't think these narratives are ever definitive, but I think this rendition isn't really operative.

>> Social rights advocacy usually goes hand in hand with far-left positions

Maybe to some extent, but mostly I think this is a product of being "in opposition." You get to be more blunt, fiery & vanguard in your rhetoric when you are in opposition. Also party fringes tend to group somewhat.

In any case, "centrism" has been relative to a previously conservative economic outlook and a previously liberal social outlook. A party representing the economic left wing agenda combined with the social conservative social agenda of the 1950s-80s would have bombed in the following decades.

Maybe "elite ideology" has been further right economically and further left socially than the mainstream... but that position tends to be well represented as centrist factions of large parties.

There aren't fringe factions representing these positions because mainstream parties already do. The UK does actually have such a party, the Libdems. They sometimes act as punisher for labour or tory candidates that stray from the middle ground. IE, they get labour votes when the labour candidate is overly radical in rhetoric, and conservative votes if the conservative candidate is overly reactionary. But, any recent British PM would have been at home in the LibDem party.

There's no need for a centrist party that defines political orientation the same way the main factions do. Even in real multiparty systems, this kind of centrism is usually a small, short lived and inconsequential victory. The problem isn't that the ideas aren't popular enough. They're too popular. Both major parties already court these voters.