On Monday (October 20, 2025), the NY Times Editorial Board posted a long, drawn-out analysis desperately claiming that there is a moderate “middle.” They are looking for something that doesn’t exist.
That is not to say that there aren’t moderates — there are. In fact, when polled without political bias, Americans tend to agree on what we want. The problem is the attempt to shoehorn a middle between a left and a right that don’t exist anymore.
Even more fundamentally, the problem is continuing to use left and right at all. But though they are stuck in their outdated worldview, they do end up making an unintentional argument for a structural change that could make a difference.
Actual policies being considered today don’t really fit the left-versus-right mold.
* Anti-vax was a fringe left-wing movement until it became a mainstream right-wing movement.
* Free trade fits more on the right than the left, tariffs more on the left — but now tariffs are right-wing (while the left pines for free trade).
* Law and order were traditionally more right, and the right was incensed regarding commutations by Clinton and Obama, but they are now comfortable with Trump pardoning 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol in 2021.
* Obamacare was modeled after the Republican response to the first draft plans.
* Typically, something like denying climate change exists is NOT right or left — the data are the data, and the solutions tend to have a right or left tinge to them. While the Republicans have been denying the problem, Democrats have put forth more market-based solutions, which would typically be more rightish.
There have been a few left-leaning policies — subsidies for sustainable energy, for example. Certainly, the left has been more in favor of DEI initiatives. But these hardly rise to the level of “extreme leftist positions.”
In fact, if anything, the problem with the Democrats is that they haven’t taken a strong stance on liberal issues. Income redistribution, support for labor, and support for social programs fit more toward the left, but the Democrats did nothing on any of these issues.
Most of the accusations of “extreme liberalism” are made up. When I ask for examples, I get things like:
* Unfettered illegal immigration
* Preference for immigrants over citizens
* “Hatred” of everything from the military to life itself
* Endorsing extreme violence
* Socialist policies
Socialism itself is a perfect example of how the way we describe things — and the words we use — are so important. The NY Times says Americans don’t like socialism. But Americans don’t know what socialism means. Socialism is the state owning the means of production. Collecting money and spending it on programs is just government.
The policies that we like to call socialist — things like better healthcare, education, and childcare — have broad-based support as long as they aren’t called socialist.
Meanwhile, under Trump, the U.S. government took ownership in Intel. Bush led the charge to bail out auto manufacturers. These actually fit the textbook definition of socialism.
Okay, you get the picture. If you look at policy today, the Democrats look like the traditional GOP, and the Republicans look like what?
As I’ve outlined above, the Republican policies being enacted at the moment, together with the flagrant disregard for the law, personal attacks on political rivals, and ignoring data, are not traditional right-wing policies.
Today’s environment isn’t right versus left — it’s bound by reality or driven by the algorithm.
The algorithm has an iron grip on politics. All social media channels have an algorithm that determines what content we see. The goal of the algorithm is not to inform or to be fair — it’s to keep us glued to our screens so that we consume more content and therefore ads.
The best way to keep people engaged — arguably the only way — is through emotional content. The more emotionally gripping something is, the more outrage it stirs, the bigger the reward on social media.
Calling people names, calling them socialists, saying that they prefer immigrants and hate whatever you care about — all have the power to provoke outrage.
If you look at the policies and claims I mentioned above, what we are calling “right-wing” is outrage-driven — invented to create outrage and draw people into the movement.
Think of the anti-vax movement. What is more emotional:
* Your child will get sick and die if they get vaccinated and doctors have been lying about it for decades? Or
* Decades of data demonstrate that vaccines are safe?
The first statement is false but much more interesting; the second statement is true but boring.
The algorithm has now extended far beyond social media to drive content for news outlets (Fox, for example) and even the president, who is more concerned about how something “plays” than what it does for constituents.
In this context, the Times article is decidedly boring and level-headed. It is not emotional; it does not excite. It’s factual. It’s just wrong because it falls into the trap of believing math describes politics and drives people to action.
It doesn’t.
But what it does get very right is that what they call the “center” now rejects both parties.
What the Times is calling “moderate” isn’t between the left and the right — it’s the people who are not as tightly controlled by the algorithm. It’s those of us who don’t take social media seriously (or spend any time on it at all).
Since most Americans are “in the middle” and we all generally support the same policy ideas (with variation, but not as extreme as claimed), the differentiating factor is the algorithm.
This creates a problem: if there are two parties and one party is algorithm-driven without any real policy suggestions and the other is not algorithm-driven, also without any real policy suggestions, what can we do to get back to some semblance of normalcy?
We’d need a third party — one that is bound by reality and not algorithm-driven (or as algorithm-driven). So how can a third party challenge the two traditional parties?
It can’t.
As the system is set up today, it is mathematically impossible for a third party to challenge the two established parties without structural change.
That goes back to the power of influence and games, as I talk about here. As much as people may not like the two established parties, voting for a third party amounts to voting for the established party you like the least.
So, a third party can’t win unless we break the power lock the two parties have.
There are a number of ways to do this… I personally like turning the house into a parliament and having people vote for parties rather than individuals. But , yes, I know, I know, that won’t happen.
But there also some simpler alternatives, one of which is ranked choice voting.
New York City and the mayor’s race is a perfect example of how this could work. Zohran Mamdani will almost certainly win. The establishment Democrats did not want Mamdani to win, nor did Republicans. In fact, the only people who want Mamdani to win are the people.
Without ranked-choice voting, Mamdani almost certainly wouldn’t have won the primary race, but since ranked-choice voting changed the power equation, he did. More on ranked-choice voting here.
Whether it is ranked choice voting, a parliamentary house, or something else, we need to have a serious conversation about the real issues in front of us.
I think this is why it is so important to understand the drivers of power and what is going on. If we keep looking left and right and mathematically carving out a center, we won’t have a viable country for much longer. Outrage-driven insanity will eventually hit a very painful wall.
But if we see who is wielding what power and how the systems are set up — one way or another — I think we have a fighting chance.
I hope so anyway.
Get full access to Masters of Influence at mastersofinfluence.substack.com/subscribe
