substack.com

Shmoderation is the future

2026-05-12 · 10:03 UTC ·Matthew Yglesias ·8 min read

Brief

Yglesias argues on May 12, 2026 that the practical project of winning voters who hold a mishmash of views should be reframed as “shmoderation” rather than the staid label “moderate.” He recommends a problem‑solving, eclectic political brand exemplified by the House Problem Solvers Caucus (co‑chaired by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick and Rep. Tom Suozzi) and documents Suozzi’s mixed record — typically voting with Democrats but breaking with the party on issues such as gender self‑identification in sports and supporting the Laken Riley Act — as the kind of electoral performer this approach rewards. Drawing on Astead Herndon and Amanda Litman, Yglesias emphasizes that many voters lack cohesive ideologies; he also uses G. Elliott Morris and Lakshya Jain’s analyses to explain why GOP members stick with Trump (primary incentives) and why Trump disapprovers don’t uniformly back Democrats. He concludes the strategy rests on courting cross‑pressured voters, but notes progressive concerns about authenticity could constrain a full party pivot.

Why it matters

Matthew Yglesias (Slow Boring) on May 12, 2026 proposes the label “shmoderation” as a rebrand for eclectic voters who mix progressive and conservative positions and to shift emphasis from the bland label “moderate” to a problem‑solving political identity.

Key details

  • He points to the House Problem Solvers Caucus — co‑chaired by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R‑PA) and Rep. Tom Suozzi (D‑NY) — as working examples of shmoderates; Yglesias notes Suozzi votes with Democrats most of the time but has broken with the party on gender self‑identification in sports and voted for the Laken Riley Act.
  • Yglesias cites Astead Herndon and Amanda Litman on the prevalence of voters without cohesive ideologies and invokes analysts G. Elliott Morris and Lakshya Jain to explain GOP conformity to Trump, primary incentives, and why many Trump disapprovers still don’t back Democrats.
  • He argues the electoral case for shmoderation is courting ‘cross‑pressured’ or ‘closeted’ Republicans and highlights policy patterns (e.g., minimum‑wage initiatives winning in red states vs. affirmative‑action measures failing in California), while warning progressive skepticism about authenticity could limit adoption.
Cleaned source text

Who cares what you call an eclectic politician who appeals to the hodgepodge of views of heterodox voters?

͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Shmoderation is the future

Matthew Yglesias

May 12

READ IN APP

Representative Brian Fitzpatrick speaks during a bipartisan news conference on infrastructure. (Photo by Bill Clark)

I’m a little bored with the Twitter “moderation wars” in which people debate whether more centrist candidates are better at winning elections.

But I have noticed a funny thing recently where, as anti-moderation advocates start articulating _their_ vision of what winning candidates look like, they appear to be reinventing moderation from first principles.

On the other side, every time I sit down with a group of moderates who want to chart a course for promoting moderate politics and moderate politicians, the one thing they absolutely agree on is that we should not use the word “moderate” to describe what we’re aiming for.

Moderation sounds boring, blah, uncool, and everyone hates it, including moderates.

So here’s an idea that I think may solve all our problems:

Forget about moderates and moderation. That’s lame. Let’s instead listen to Astead Herndon, who points out that lots of voters have eclectic beliefs that don’t fit into tidy boxes, with some views coming more from the progressive bucket and others that are more conservative.

What would we call this kind of eclectic, outside-the-box, bucket-mixing person?

Well, not moderate, that’s for sure. Let’s call him shmoderate.

The problem solvers’ caucus

What do shmoderates want? Well, they are distinct from both progressives and conservatives in that they don’t particularly want elected officials to pursue a dogmatic policy agenda. As Amanda Litman says, these voters “do not have cohesive ideologies.” They have real problems that they want solved.

Amanda Litman

@amandalitman

Exactly this. Voters do not have cohesive ideologies. They have problems they want solved - and they want candidates they can trust to solve them.

Astead @AsteadWH

Most advice for Democrats is ideological — be more centrist or progressive etc. But I’ve met so many voters who beliefs don’t fit in that box, or choose pieces from all buckets. IMO — it is much important to have clearly articulated vision as a candidate than to calibrate to

12:51 PM · May 2, 2026 · 4.61K Views7 Replies · 3 Reposts · 44 Likes

So to that end, shmoderate politicians should probably reject ideas like “centrism” and instead form something like a problem solvers’ caucus. In fact, one such caucus already exists in the House of Representatives, and is co-chaired by Representative Brian Fitzpatrick on the Republican side and Representative Tom Suozzi on the Democratic side. Both of these shmoderate problem solvers are strong electoral performers who’ve won tough seats.

What does a problem-solving shmoderate like Suozzi do?

Well, he’s eclectic. He votes with Democrats most of the time, but he has also criticized the party’s take on the use of gender self-identification for assignment to school sports teams, and he voted for the Laken Riley Act. And of course, as a guy who’s focused on solving problems, he does things like respond to Trump’s election by calling on Democrats to find ways to cooperate with him rather than engage in root-and-branch opposition. And faced with a politician like Zohran Mamdani who _does_ identify himself in strident ideological terms, Suozzi says thanks, but no thanks.

When people diss moderation and dismiss the relevance of ideology, it’s candidates like this — strong shmoderates — they mean to elevate, right?

Upgrade to paid

Shmoderation everywhere you look

One of the favorite voices of the moderation skeptics is G. Elliott Morris, who recently wrote an insightful piece about how Republican members of Congress decline to break with Trump over anything even though he’s become deeply unpopular. As he points out, this badly jeopardizes the G.O.P.’s ability to hold the House. But it can still be rational for individual members of Congress, because they need to be able to win primaries. Breaking with the pack would jeopardize their ability to do that.

I might add that even if a Republican member _does_ break with Trump and overperforms, they still might lose. And if they lose as a party loyalist, they can get other gigs. But if they lose as a shmoderate who assembles an eclectic voting record and demonstrates independence from the party’s unpopular leader, they might not.

Lakshya Jain recently wrote a piece noting that the share of the public that says they will vote for Democrats in the midterms is a lot lower than the share of the public that says they disapprove of Trump.

His interpretation is that Democrats are being weighed down by unpopular left-wing views. Morris disagrees and says no one should expect Democrats to do well with these voters, because “Two-thirds of the Trump disapprovers who aren’t supporting Democrats for the midterms are actually just closeted Republicans.”

But what distinguishes a closeted, Trump-disapproving Republican from a normal one?

Well, it’s probably that in a political party that’s increasingly defined by conformity to Trump’s will, these closeted Republicans have more eclectic preferences. You can’t stick them in a box, and most of their views are probably in line with normal Republican ideas (that’s why they’re Republicans), but they clearly have some other views that cut the other way.

They are, in other words, shmoderates. And they’d probably be more likely to vote for a shmoderate Democratic candidate, especially if the party had an overall more shmoderate image thanks to having recruited and supported a broad array of shmoderate figures.

What are we talking about here?

Of course policy positions and ideology aren’t the only things in politics that matter. Jared Golden and Vicente Gonzalez are both strong electoral performers, but if you dropped Golden into South Texas and Gonzalez into northern Maine, neither would play very well.

That said, I often see people downplaying the role of ideology in favor of emphasizing candidates’ vibes or their authenticity or how they’re outsiders and want to fight the gerontocracy, but in practice this praise is only directed toward more left-wing candidates.

They’re supporting Graham Platner, in other words, but they’re not backing Seth Moulton or Matt Mahan as younger candidates who are taking on the party establishment. It’s not that the candidates they’re supporting are all exactly the same. Platner and Abdul El-Sayed are very different kinds of candidates on a vibes level, just like Golden and Gonzalez.

But it’s not confusing or mysterious that there are Platner/Sayed crossover fans who also really like billionaire investor Tom Steyer’s progressive rebrand. These are people who care about ideology.

But if you, as a progressive, care about issues and ideology, I’d encourage you to open your heart to the possibility that other people do too; they just have different issue priorities or ideological views.

It’s true that most people don’t have a “cohesive” ideology and that most cross-pressured voters hold a kind of mishmash of views. But the mishmashes aren’t random or totally unpredictable. There are way more people who align with Democrats on health care and Republicans on crime than vice versa. There’s almost nobody who wants to ban abortion but is fine letting trans women self-identify into women’s sports leagues, while there are lots of people who have the opposite view. Ballot initiatives to raise the minimum wage routinely win in red states while affirmative action initiatives fail in California.

If people want to call this brand of politics shmoderate rather than moderate, I don’t really care. But it seems kind of obfuscatory to me.

My suspicion is that the sticky wicket here is in fact authenticity, which does matter in politics.

A lot of sincerely left-wing progressives do see the tactical case for shmoderation. But they wouldn’t want a political party full of authentic shmoderates with lots of staffers who sincerely rate Golden and Gonzalez and Suozzi and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez as their favorite politicians and media figures who celebrate them with Mamdani/A.O.C.-scale coverage.

So to prevent that outcome, it’s helpful to discuss the electoral dynamics in a somewhat obfuscatory way: as if there’s nothing anyone can really clearly say about what voters think or what kinds of politicians are good at winning their votes or what specific moves to the center would be more efficacious.

Share

Slow Boring works because of the support of readers like you. Discounts are available forgovernment employees, as well as students and teachers.

Like

Comment

Restack

© 2026 Matthew Yglesias

548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104