Election Day: A ‘Mandate’ or Just Another Reactionary Swing?

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” – Abraham Lincoln

Every election season, like clockwork, brings about the same refrain: “The people have spoken, and they want change!” It’s the victory cry of the winning party, often accompanied by declarations of a sweeping mandate for radical reform. How many times have we heard this? And yet, in how many of those cases was that “mandate” backed by more than a slim majority? Do our leaders really believe that winning by a narrow margin grants them permission to push the most extreme policies on their platform? Or do they just hope we won’t notice?

Let’s get real. Election results in the U.S. rarely represent a seismic shift in voter beliefs. Instead, they often reflect a fed-up public voting for the lesser evil—voters sick of the last party’s failed promises, policies, or general shenanigans, ready to try something, anything, new. The more extreme, self-serving rhetoric, and unhinged policies of one party drive people to vote for the other, and vice versa. It’s less an endorsement of one vision than a weary attempt to escape the last one.

So here’s the real question: Are these so-called mandates truly endorsements of a winning party’s extreme policies, or are they simply a reactionary swing—a rejection of the last round of crazy shit?

Reading the Room: Voter Intentions vs. Politician Assumptions

Politicians have a knack for reading slim majorities as blank checks, interpreting narrow wins as an open invitation to push extreme agendas. It’s as if they think winning by even a hair validates their most radical platform positions. But here’s the reality they’re missing: a lot of voters aren’t necessarily voting for them—they’re voting against the other party’s policies. They’re rejecting the last round of “crazy shit” and hoping for something more balanced, not for more extreme swings.

Look at recent elections, and you’ll see this pattern. After the Obama administration’s progressive policies, including the Affordable Care Act, the backlash helped fuel a rise in conservative energy, leading to Donald Trump’s win in 2016. That election was less a sweeping mandate for Trump’s policies and more a reaction against what some saw as liberal overreach. Then, when Trump’s administration veered into far right territory—proposing deeply conservative policies that would overhaul federal agencies and concentrate power under the executive branch—many Americans felt pushed too far to the right, triggering a backlash that fueled the 2020 election of Joe Biden.

It’s a cycle. Swing voters, especially, are not clamoring for an agenda from either party that veers too far off the mainstream path. Sure, both parties have die-hard supporters cheering them on, but these supporters are not the majority. Most Americans aren’t particularly interested in either a far-left “woke” agenda or far-right Project 2025 ideals—they want stable governance that addresses real, everyday issues. They want a government that works, not one hell-bent on re-engineering the social fabric to match fringe agendas.

When politicians mistake a narrow win as a green light for extremes, they alienate moderates and independents—the very people who likely tipped the election in their favor. This dynamic is why both parties frequently overestimate their support, ignoring the fact that many voters simply want the lesser evil. They’re frustrated with extremes, and they’re voting out of frustration, not necessarily loyalty.

So, next time a candidate interprets a slim victory as a mandate for radical changes, they should take a step back. Chances are, people didn’t vote for them because they’re all-in on their platform; they voted because they couldn’t stomach the last round’s extremes. It’s not so much an endorsement as a plea for sanity.

Do you think a narrow election win justifies pushing extreme policies, or should it call for more moderation?

The Pendulum of Power: Why America Swings Between Extremes

American politics often feels like a chaotic pendulum, swinging wildly between the left and right with each election cycle. At first glance, this constant back-and-forth may seem like it creates more turmoil than stability, but there’s a certain logic to it. This political “chop” keeps us from tipping too far in either direction, functioning as a natural check on extreme ideologies that most Americans, especially centrists, find unpalatable. While it’s not a smooth ride, it creates a form of balance, like an unsteady keel that keeps the ship from capsizing.

Many voters sit in the moderate middle, wary of the radical shifts each party tries to impose when it holds power. These moderates often find themselves reluctantly voting for one party simply to avoid the extreme policies of the other. They aren’t necessarily enthusiastic supporters of either side but are often forced to choose what they see as the “lesser evil.” This pragmatism drives the pendulum, preventing any single ideological extreme from gaining too much ground before the pendulum swings back the other way.

The pendulum effect brings some unintended benefits. For instance, no single faction can easily push their agenda too far without being swiftly checked by the other side. Over time, policies that are too far from the median voter’s preferences tend to be dialed back, even if it happens in a jagged, sometimes erratic fashion. Whether it’s progressive policies that outpace public sentiment on social issues or conservative platforms that alienate moderates by going too far on social or economic conservatism, voters find ways to rein in the extremities before they get out of hand.

This unsteady equilibrium keeps the U.S. on a surprisingly stable, if bumpy, path—preventing, at least on average, the country from veering too far off the centerline. As frustrating as the process may be, it’s as close to “even keel” as the system seems capable of producing. The American public, particularly the center, acts like a moderating force, ensuring that no one agenda dominates the ship for too long before it’s called into question.

Yet, politicians too often misread this dynamic as a mandate for their own side’s vision of sweeping change, rather than recognizing it for what it is—a public intent on keeping extreme views in check. The pendulum is driven by an electorate that is less concerned with endorsing one party’s agenda wholesale and more interested in resisting the excesses of whichever ideology currently holds power.

Misinterpreting a Slim Majority as a Mandate for ‘Crazy Policies’

One of the most persistent miscalculations in American politics is the belief that a slim majority signals a mandate for sweeping, often extreme changes. Time and time again, we see slim majorities in Congress mistaken as a green light for pushing the party’s full agenda—no matter how out of sync it might be with the country’s majority views. Instead of governing with moderation, both parties frequently use these razor-thin leads to pursue policies that alienate middle-ground voters. It’s a playbook that might fire up the base, but it leaves moderates disillusioned, frustrated, and ready to switch sides by the next election cycle.

This strategy has several unintended, and harmful, consequences. For one, policies passed under the banner of a narrow win tend to divide more than unite. When one party believes a slight majority justifies a hard-left or hard-right agenda, it alienates a large portion of the electorate that values compromise and incremental change. These voters, the ones not easily swayed by partisan rhetoric, are turned off by ideological posturing and by proposals that seem more tailored to satisfy extremes than address real, day-to-day issues. Instead of feeling represented, they’re left feeling ignored—or worse, used.

Secondly, this misreading of a slim majority creates a cycle of disillusionment. Voters watch as politicians take a narrow victory and immediately lean into “crazy policies,” driving wedges between communities and catering to small factions instead of the broader public. With both parties frequently guilty of this, it’s no surprise that more Americans are growing weary of both sides. Trust in political institutions erodes when neither party appears to genuinely aim for the common good, focusing instead on capitalizing on whatever narrow advantage they currently hold.

Personally, I’ve noticed that government tends to function more smoothly when control is split between parties—when, for instance, one party holds the House and the other holds the Senate. A divided Congress forces collaboration and compromise, usually resulting in more moderate and broadly accepted outcomes. When each party knows it needs the other to move forward, the more extreme elements are often sidelined, and we get policy that addresses core concerns rather than fringe agendas.

This kind of forced cooperation tempers the drive toward ideological overreach. It creates the conditions where legislators are more likely to find middle ground, aligning with the preferences of the country’s vast moderate middle. It’s not perfect, but it’s less volatile—and it seems to be a natural check on the urge to interpret slim wins as mandates for extreme action. When politicians work across the aisle, they produce policies that stand a better chance of lasting, and they avoid the divisive pendulum swings that make it difficult for Americans to feel at peace with their government.

Have you ever voted for a candidate you didn’t fully support just to reject the alternative? How did that impact your view of “mandates”?

A Dire Warning: The Tyranny of the Majority and Its Threat to Stability

One of the greatest dangers in a democracy is the “tyranny of the majority”—the phenomenon where a narrow win is used as a license to disregard the interests of nearly half the population. In a political landscape where winning by even a slim margin is interpreted as a sweeping mandate, this concept poses a serious threat to stability. When one party wins the popular vote by, say, 51%, it’s tempting for them to proceed as if they hold the overwhelming support of the public. But let’s put that into perspective: a 51% majority means that 49%—almost half the population—is likely not on board with the victor’s agenda. That’s an enormous segment of Americans who risk feeling sidelined, their perspectives marginalized and their voices drowned out.

History shows us that sidelining nearly half the populace isn’t just undemocratic; it’s also a recipe for backlash and political instability. The “tyranny of the majority” concept goes back centuries and remains a cautionary principle in democratic governance. When the winning side imposes its will without regard for those who voted differently, they effectively silence the minority. This often leads to resentment, polarization, and an energized opposition ready to swing the pendulum back as soon as possible.

The only real antidote to this volatility is bipartisan effort and policy moderation. Leaders from both sides must seek common ground to craft policies that appeal to a broader coalition and don’t alienate nearly half the electorate. Policies that stem from consensus, rather than dominance, are more resilient, less divisive, and have a better chance of benefiting the public as a whole. Reaching across the aisle may feel like a compromise to the most fervent partisans, but it’s precisely that willingness to compromise that prevents the pendulum from swinging too violently with each election.

Ignoring the minority’s perspective after a close win not only dismisses a significant portion of the population; it also sows seeds of future backlash. In this way, the “tyranny of the majority” fuels the cycle of political overreach and reactive swings. Without moderation, each side may push hard when in power, leading to continual cycles of reversal and a fractured society. Instead, a commitment to policies that acknowledge and respect both the 51% and the 49% can offer the country much-needed stability and peace.

In a healthy democracy, victory should come with a sense of responsibility—not just toward the winning coalition but toward everyone. Recognizing the necessity of representing all Americans is the foundation of durable, fair governance, and it is the best safeguard against the dangers of majority rule run amok.

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.” – Cicero

Consequences: The Perils of Mistaking Victories for ‘Mandates’

Politicians would do well to heed this warning: treating an electoral win, especially a slim one, as a blank check for extreme policies is almost a guarantee that voters will turn against you in the next cycle. In America’s increasingly polarized landscape, voters are more than willing to use their ballots as a reset button. If one party leans too hard into an ideological agenda, they’re likely to face a swift backlash, shifting control back to the opposing party. This constant power-shifting isn’t just a headache for politicians—it destabilizes governance itself, making long-term planning all but impossible.

Imagine a ship tossed on a tempestuous sea, swaying violently from one extreme to the other. People are getting seasick, desperately longing for stable ground. This is what American politics increasingly feels like: a turbulent journey that prevents real progress, leaving citizens weary and frustrated. The policies passed by one administration are overturned by the next, creating an environment where nothing is permanent, and governance itself becomes little more than an exercise in reversal and retrenchment.

The broader impacts are alarming. This instability extends beyond policy to the economy, which thrives on predictability and consistency. As politicians continue to chase and impose extreme policies, they unsettle the economy, rattling investors, slowing growth, and ultimately weakening America’s global standing. In a world where the second-largest economy, China, stands ready to assume global leadership, this erratic governance is a gift to our rivals. China, with a dismal human rights record, would not only impose its own standards on international trade and policy but would have the leverage to influence fundamental rights and freedoms around the world. Our political swings don’t just affect us—they weaken our position on the global stage, and the consequences of this could be felt for generations.

Closer to home, social upheaval is another consequence of this unchecked swing between political extremes. Consider the issue of abortion: with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the country now faces a patchwork of 50 different laws governing reproductive rights, creating unprecedented confusion and disparity. What was once settled policy—something that provided a level of predictability for all sides—has devolved into a chaotic patchwork of state-specific regulations. This example highlights how radical reversals and the pursuit of extreme agendas lead to inconsistency, a divided populace, and an environment where stability is nowhere in sight.

Politicians should understand that their duty is to govern for all, not just for the narrow slice of voters who put them in office. When they ignore this principle, they create the very conditions for the next backlash. A single-minded pursuit of a radical agenda may energize the base, but it also alienates moderates, energizes the opposition, and keeps the nation trapped in cycles of reactionary policy swings. It’s a dynamic that leaves the ship of state lurching dangerously—politicians and citizens alike need to realize that without moderation, the price we all pay grows steeper, and the dangers of destabilization will only continue to mount.

Would you support a third-party candidate focused on balanced, common-good policies, even if it meant stepping away from traditional party loyalty?

Observing the Madness from the Middle: The Dangers of Partisan Extremes

Standing in a third position, free from the grips of either major party, I have a clear vantage point to see the madness on both sides. The more I observe, the clearer it becomes that if we allow either party to pursue its most extreme agenda unchecked, it poses an existential threat to the stability and future of our country. Both sides accuse each other of driving us toward disaster, yet neither seems willing to look in the mirror and acknowledge the role they play in this spiral. Where has all the common sense gone? Can’t we see the craziness we’re embracing?

“I am fed up with career politicians. I am tired of going into the voting booth and holding my nose to pick the least worst candidate on the ballot.” – Todd Wilcox

The problem goes deeper than policy—it’s psychological. We’re all influenced by cognitive biases that color our perception and warp our judgment, often without us realizing it. The confirmation bias, for example, makes us more likely to accept information that aligns with our pre-existing beliefs and dismiss information that challenges them. This makes it incredibly easy to overlook or excuse harmful actions by “our side” while condemning the same actions in the other. But here’s a challenge: be honest with yourself. If the other candidate or party did exactly what your preferred candidate or party did, would you defend it? Or would you call it out? This is a vital question to ask because if you find yourself making excuses only when it’s “your team,” it’s a clear sign you’re blinded by bias.

This pervasive bias, both among politicians and voters, has contributed to the disappearance of “common sense” politics. We’ve replaced the desire for balanced, thoughtful policy with a hunger for winning at any cost. Politicians have little incentive to find compromise, and voters often cheer for extreme positions simply to see “the other side” lose. The tragedy is that, in the end, everyone loses. Partisan policies that cater to the extremes create division, instability, and a lack of trust in our political system.

Moderate policies, on the other hand, offer a pathway back to stability. These policies, grounded in pragmatism rather than ideological purity, aim to serve the broader population—not just the base of one party or the other. A focus on moderation could bridge divides, addressing core concerns without pushing radical shifts that alienate half the country. Common sense should not be a radical concept, but here we are.

So let’s ask ourselves: Why do we accept this endless cycle of partisan hostility, blind to the fact that it’s eroding the foundation of our democracy? The path forward doesn’t require abandoning our values, but it does require seeing beyond the biases that blind us to what’s in our own best interest. When we set aside partisan loyalties and insist on balanced, moderate policies, we can finally steer our country back toward common sense—and maybe even find some common ground along the way.

“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Conclusion: A Call for Balance and Level-Headed Leadership

As a Christian, I don’t seek a “Christian nation.” I believe that such a nation risks becoming an idol, something people worship instead of God, confusing the kingdom of man with the Kingdom of Christ. Nor do I want the Orwellian nightmare of an authoritarian liberalism that divides us into narrow tribes and tears apart the social fabric in the name of unity. These extremes—whether religious or secular—stray far from any concept of the common good and threaten the stability that is essential to a healthy society.

What we need is leadership rooted in balance and grounded in responsibility for the common good. Leaders who can set aside the seduction of partisan victories to prioritize the nation’s long-term stability, and who govern with humility, respecting the diverse perspectives and values of our people. Leaders committed to sustainable policies that unite rather than divide. This means avoiding the tyranny of the majority, where one faction imposes its will without regard for the nearly half of the country who may disagree. The alternative is a future where today’s overreach becomes tomorrow’s backlash, leaving the country caught in a perpetual, destructive swing from one extreme to the other.

But make no mistake—this responsibility doesn’t fall solely on politicians. It’s on each of us as voters. We have to be honest about the choices we’re making. If we continue to vote without thinking critically, if we blindly support our parties even as they veer toward extremes, then we’re responsible for the turbulent swings, the chaotic policies, and, ultimately, the instability of the nation we leave behind. If we keep buying into the lie that our “side” can do no wrong, we contribute to this cycle—and if it continues unchecked, it will lead to our nation’s capsize.

I don’t expect most to listen. I know that many will keep voting along party lines, clinging to ideology instead of reason. But one day, if we reach that breaking point, it won’t be some outside force that took us down. It will be us. When that day comes, I won’t enjoy be the one saying, “I told you so”— or it will simply be too late.

He has told you, mortal one, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God? – Micah 6:8 (NASB)

Excerpt

Every election brings cries of a “mandate for change”—but are slim victories really endorsements of extreme policies, or just rejections of the last round of chaos? Misreading narrow wins fuels endless swings and instability. It’s time for leaders committed to common-sense moderation, not partisan extremes.