Successful politicians are those with an ear for what people are thinking. Recognize what’s bothering most people and let them know you hear them; if possible, offer a solution. At least, I thought I understood how it works, but I was wrong. How else can you explain why so many politicians are staking out positions with only minority support?

On the left, politicians have taken positions supporting biological men competing in women’s sports. Blue State leaders stand in the way of banning this unfair competition. Criminals here illegally get support from the same group when the federal government tries to remove them.

On the right, we have an administration levying tariffs willy-nilly against both friends and foes. The same administration berates Ukraine while asking nothing of Russia in their conflict. Neither position has majority support.

What do these positions have in common? They are highly unpopular. Sizable majorities deplore these positions, so why do supposedly intelligent politicians stand foursquare for them? The realization is that in today’s politics, you climb one rung at a time. If you don’t grab the lower rung, you have no upside.

In most cases, that lower rung is your party’s nomination. This situation means winning primaries. In my series on “The Future Party,” I noted that while primaries appear to be the democratic expression of the people’s will, the results often fall short of this ideal.

It isn’t hard to see why primaries fail to reflect the mood and concerns of the general electorate. It has to do with turnout. Primaries typically draw less than half the participation of a general election. For instance, according to the last statistics I could find, the 2022 Utah primary drew 19% of eligible voters. The General Election drew 44%. Most primaries draw less than a quarter of voters, while the General election draws 40 to 50%. Presidential elections draw over sixty percent.

It stands to reason the most avid political devotees will vote in the primaries and make up a greater percentage of the votes. So, who are these committed voters?

The more extreme partisans join parties; thereby, they are eligible to vote in the primaries, whether they are open or closed. A closed primary maximizes their vote, but even in open primaries, registered party members dominate.

So, who are these voters who have an outsized effect on who we get to vote for? Ideologues are committed to certain views or personalities. These are the convinced, who are unlikely to want to hear opposing views. They already know the “truth.”

When Elon Musk bought Twitter (now X), these were the people who moved en masse to Bluesky or those distrustful of all legacy media who switched to Donald Trump’s Truth Social. What they have in common is they are communicating with like-minded people. Where the general public favors Israel over its enemies, pro-Palestinian views are more prominent on Bluesky. The general public has long accepted Trump’s 2020 election loss, but this is a minority view on Truth Social.

If you don’t think people hold these counterviews, check the comment sections on articles in The Washington Post, The New York Times, or Newsmax’s letters to the editor. If one attacks the “Zionists” or alludes to Trump’s 2020 victory, they’re likely to find “likes” rather than criticism.

Some of the possible contenders for the Democratic presidential nod illuminate how this affects them. California Governor Gavin Newsom has arguably led the most progressive state. Still, with a population outflow and other failures, he tried to move to the middle by interviewing people with opposing views on his podcast. Savaged on Bluesky and other progressive outlets. He has since retreated into the fold.

Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro, as a jew, has supported Israel. The firebombing of the Governor’s mansion shows the opposition. While a substantial majority of Americans join in supporting the Jewish state, he faces stiff primary resistance from Palestinians favoring progressives.

I thought Shapiro would have beaten Trump in the election if nominated. How disconcerting is it in this day and age that being Jewish is such an impediment in the Democratic party?

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer humorously hid her face behind a file when she was captured on camera supporting Trump’s tariffs. Such is the fear of the power of the left-wing zealots.

On the other side of the aisle, we see Donald Trump wielding his endorsement like a sword if he’s against you and endorses your opponent, who is likely to lose in the primary, even though you can win in the general election.

As an Arizona resident, I can attest to how the situation works, with the Republicans losing most major elections while having a substantial edge in registration. The Trump-backed Karti Lake first lost the governorship and then lost the Senate race two years later. She won the primaries over candidates who were more likely to win in the general election. The Trump factor kept the popular former Governor Doug Ducey from even running.

To make the situation even more ludicrous, Trump has now endorsed two candidates for Governor. It tells us a lot about a president who is happier to show his power rather than win. Similar scenarios have played out in other states.

How does the situation improve? Given today’s challenges, we need the best people with a broader view. Instead, we’re getting people too willing to bend to the extremes.

If we’re going to retain the primary system, we at least need to increase participation. Having a single national primary day could focus the kind of attention that brings out more voters. This idea could dilute the power of the extremes.

Over the years, we’ve neutered the parties. The picture of smoke-filled rooms making corrupt selections led to the primaries. What we’ve forgotten is that we formed parties for only one reason: to win elections. They blocked niche candidates who were likely to lose in favor of candidates who were more in line with the majority.

Many election laws have weakened party fundraising and rules, preventing them from fulfilling their intended purpose. Repealing these laws and replacing them with a structure that gives the parties the best chance to win elections would be beneficial.

Parties should have control over who to support. General Motors doesn’t have primaries to determine its product line. To be judged on their sole function, parties need similar rights to assess their product as other organizations. If this means doing away with primaries in favor of more ecumenical means, so be it.

Making these changes will cause candidates to focus on winning elections and what they intend to accomplish rather than the next rung.