Issues & Insights

Don’t Buy the Myth of the ‘Moderate’ Democrat

Watching a passel of Democrats in the Motor City struggle to differentiate themselves recalled my move years ago from politics to New York PR.

I was a bit confused about nomenclature in my new profession and turned to a grizzled veteran. What, I asked him, is the difference among public relations, marketing communications, advertising and the then-hot new concept of strategic communications?

“Not a (expletive deleted) thing,” he grunted. “It’s all selling soap.”

Putting aside the theatrics of Biden Bashfest II Wednesday, the faux showdowns on the first night opened a new going-forward narrative of differences among the “moderates” and “progressives.” The Wall Street Journal opined on “the sharpest ideological differences in decades.”

Don’t buy it.

Every Democrat on the stage was selling the same thing: Bigger Government. 

Let’s zero in on key domestic issues covered in the three-hour midsummer night’s nightmare, shall we?

Health care was supposedly a differentiator, with alleged middle-of-the-roaders fixing to pour cold water on Elizabeth Warren’s and Bernie Sanders’ $32 trillion Medicare for All dream.

Former Maryland Congressman John Delaney managed to squeeze in his money line — “real solutions, not impossible promises” — on four separate occasions, and called Medicare for All “extreme.” But he also shoehorned in the phrase “universal” in conjunction with health care four times, proposing “a universal health care system to give everyone basic health care for free.” That’s telling ‘em, congressman.

Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, worried about his unionized constituents, thought Medicare for All was a bit much. He just wants to move eligibility down to 50 years of age and have 60 million (roughly a third of all adult Americans) more people buy into the program. 

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar — supposed “moderates” — all threw their support behind the so-called ”public option” to compete with private insurance. 

But South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a “progressive” public option backer, gave away that ruse: “We’ll see Americans walk away from the corporate options into that Medicare option, and it will become Medicare for All without us having to kick anybody off their insurance.” 

Thanks for the heads-up, Mayor Pete.

How about immigration? Golly gee, some Democrats on the stage actually thought it was less than a terrific idea to invite the entire world in by decriminalizing illegal entry and offering free health care to anyone who shows up.

But the dissenters agreed with the radicals on the essentials of “comprehensive immigration reform:” opening the door wide to Dreamers, expanding legal immigration, and of course, the proverbial “pathway to citizenship” for illegals. Congressman Ryan even insisted we were “strong enough” as a country to “welcome” basically all asylum seekers.

Gun control. There’s that word “universal” again. This time used on seven occasions connected to the term “background checks,” which Hickenlooper claimed to have achieved in Colorado and Klobuchar and Bullock were going to make happen by taking on the evil NRA, don’t ya know. Along with consensus around “assault weapons” and closing various “loopholes.”

While we’re on the subject of the favorite word of the “moderate” Democrats, Delaney and Hickenlooper would both join Warren in providing “universal” pre-K. How would they do it? Raise taxes on the “rich,” of course.

Yes, Delaney faced down the Senator from Taxachusetts on her crazy wealth tax idea. But he (and “moderate” Klobuchar) would hike capital gains rates instead — which history suggests would reduce revenues.

Money in politics. Bullock would ban “dark money” and “kick the Koch Brothers” — who last time I looked had the same First Amendment rights as anyone else — “out of Washington.” Basically the same tack as progressives Beto, who wants to bar PAC contributions, and Mayor Pete, who thinks America should amend the Constitution to reverse Citizens United. (Since, for goodness sakes, we once passed an amendment to ban liquor!) 

And “climate,” specifically, the Green New Deal, the loudest critic of which was, again, Mr. Delaney, who considers it unrealistic. So Mr. Real is instead going to “get us to net zero by 2050” by taxing carbon, raising the Department of Energy research budget fivefold, hiking “investment” (read: uneconomic subsidies) in renewables and “creat(ing) something called the Climate Corps.”

Bullock also thinks we need to “transition” to a “carbon neutral world” and bribe — I mean “aid” — energy industry workers to get there.

Ryan? He’d resurrect the ghost of industrial policy, creating a “chief manufacturing officer” to enable America to “dominate the electric vehicle market” including batteries, solar panels and charging stations. (Solyndra, anyone?) 

In his closing statement, Delaney tried again to create some breathing space with Warren and Sanders by comparing them to epic liberal losers of the past: McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis.

But as you watch the rhetorical pushing and shoving and posturing in coming debates and elsewhere on the trail, understand that even the most “moderate” contender is far to the left of any of those three — and “selling” an agenda more radical than any political platform in our history.

What’s the real philosophical difference among the candidates? Not a (expletive deleted) thing. 

Bob Maistros, a messaging and communications strategist and crisis specialist, is of counsel with Strategic Action Public Affairs, and was chief writer for the Reagan-Bush ’84 campaign, three U.S. Senators, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He can be reached at

Issues & Insights is a new site formed by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. We’re just getting started, and we’ll be adding new features as time permits. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

Be sure to tell all your friends! And if you’d like to make a contribution to support our effort, feel free to click the Tip Jar over on the right sidebar.

We Could Use Your Help

Issues & Insights was founded by seasoned journalists of the IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to provide timely, fact-based reporting and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day -- without fear or favor.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we believe in a free press, and because we aren't afraid to tell the truth, even if it means being targeted by the left. Revenue from ads on the site help, but your support will truly make a difference in keeping our mission going. If you like what you see, feel free to visit our Donations Page by clicking here. And be sure to tell your friends!

You can also subscribe to I&I: It's free!

Just enter your email address below to get started.



  • I could live with a dottering uncle Joe and a Republican Congress. Anything else would continue to rip the country apart,

    • Joe Biden would have us back under the thumb of China though, who pose the most existential threat to this country beyond any other country or issue…save the national debt (which China owns a sizeable amount of).

  • Yours is an important post and should be stressed.

    For some reason, the GOP stopped teaching the principles of freedom and individual liberty and constitutional constraint decades ago, and act as though people will simply absorb this knowledge. It doesn’t work that way.

    I won’t hold my breath, but would it not be refreshing to hear a moderator ask, “Senator X, where in the Constitution do you specifically get the authority to do Y?”


    “Governor, I have yet to hear you use the words ‘individual liberty’ when talking about your run for the White House. Do you believe in individual liberty, and if so, your Plan X calls for universal implementation of forced healthcare, which is the antithesis of liberty? Aren’t they incompatible?”

    • Dan Bongino said it best. (Paraphrased of course). Medicare for All is not an individual ‘option’, and would be enforced by the IRS through taxation, and using the barrel of a gun if you don’t comply. Paying higher premiums for private insurance is a choice I at least can make (or not), and can at least choose to fire my insurance company if I don’t like them. We need MORE choices, and not less.

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is run by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our goal is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. We’re doing this on a voluntary basis, because we believe the nation needs the kind of cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that we can provide. 

We Could Use Your Help

Help us fight for honesty in journalism and against the tyranny of the left. Issues & Insights is published by the editors of what once was Investor's Business Daily's award-winning opinion pages. If you like what you see, leave a donation by clicking on donate button above. You can also set up regular donations if you like. Ad revenue helps, but your support will truly make a difference. (Please note that we are not set up as a charitable organization, so donations aren't tax deductible.) Thank you!
%d bloggers like this: