In a democracy, we expect our leaders to serve the people. Yet, too often, politicians are more concerned with advancing their ideologies than solving problems. Whether it’s a senator voting against disaster relief in a flood-stricken district or a governor blocking access to healthcare in a state with high poverty rates, people are left wondering: Who are these politicians serving — the public or a party platform?
“The first duty of a statesman is to listen to his people — the second is to tell them when they’re wrong.”— Winston Churchill (paraphrased)
In modern democracies, leaders can be classified into three categories:
1. Populists often prioritize pure responsiveness, acting according to the demands of “the people.” Donald Trump successfully campaigned as a populist in his second term, although he has not fulfilled all of his campaign promises.
2. Ideologues justify their policies even when they may harm their constituents, arguing that their actions are based on long-term values or moral clarity—this tendency we see in the GOP nowadays.
3. Statesmen (who are mostly rare) strive to do both: they listen to the public, provide leadership, and make decisions guided by their conscience. Senator John McCain comes to mind. At Moderate Voices of America, we deeply value and uphold this principle as a cornerstone of our mission—to encourage statesmanship and bipartisanship.
The healthiest democratic systems strike a balance: strong principles, tempered by the real, lived needs of the people elected officials serve.
In an era of growing polarization and political gridlock, we often ask: Is politics about serving the people, or is it about advancing an ideology? The honest answer, though uncomfortable, is this: it’s both. But navigating the tension between the two is what defines outstanding political leadership — or exposes its failures.
Liberals believe the government should actively promote health, education, and justice. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in limiting the government’s role in the economy and in solving social problems. Moderates fall somewhere between liberals and conservatives, advocating for the rights of both sides.
Many decades ago, politics was not always driven by cynicism; often, it was rooted in sincerity. Then, many politicians genuinely believed that their ideology represented the sole path to a better future, convinced that the public would eventually recognize and appreciate it. Nowadays, politicians often acknowledge the need to serve their constituents genuinely, but persist in misrepresenting them for the sake of party dictates and self-preservation.
Leadership is not about winning culture wars or simply repeating party lines; it is about fostering a culture of innovation and growth. It focuses on protecting people, addressing their needs, and being flexible enough to adapt when ideology conflicts with reality. As political philosopher Max Weber stated, leaders must balance the “ethic of conviction” with the “ethic of responsibility”—essentially, what works. Therefore, they need both the moral clarity to lead and the humility to listen, knowing when to stand firm and when to bend for the sake of peace, justice, or the survival of their constituents.
In today’s America, the gap between ideology and lived experience is becoming increasingly unsustainable, especially within the conservative sphere. A conservative representative may oppose expansions to food assistance programs, even in a district facing food insecurity, because they believe that government welfare fosters dependency.
Conversely, a progressive politician might support green energy initiatives, disregarding that many local jobs depend on fossil fuels, all in the name of long-term climate goals. This scenario is particularly evident in the GOP, where Republicans often vote against federal aid that could benefit their district simply because they oppose “big government.” The result is a troubling politics of contradiction that ultimately causes harm.
Small Government Philosophy
The GOP often promotes the idea that small government is the solution to economic success. However, the evidence does not support this claim. Since World War II, the U.S. economy has performed better under Democratic presidents than under Republican ones. Key indicators include stronger personal income growth, higher GDP expansion, greater corporate profits, and lower unemployment rates—all of which have been documented during Democratic administrations, despite their higher social spending.
I invite anyone to research these facts and prove me wrong. For more information, read this link: https://moderatevoices.org/like-republicans-trump-is-not-better-on-the-economy/
Republicans Lack Care for Their Constituents, Yet They Win Elections
How do Republicans manage to win votes from their supporters, despite not protecting their vulnerability? Some polls have shown that these voters are aware of their vulnerable circumstances but still choose to support the GOP because of their positions on social issues, which the Republicans so well represent. Another reason is that voters generally perceive the Democratic Party as out of touch, woke, and weak. Without these reasons, the GOP would face losing streaks in elections.
False Impression: Many conservatives mistakenly believe that non-white individuals rely more on government assistance than white Americans. This leads them to view cuts to these programs as punishments for non-white communities, which is fundamentally false. Reducing social programs harms all people in need, regardless of race, penalizing those who are struggling financially.
When these politicians campaign against the very programs that their constituents depend on, often driven by ideology rather than factual evidence, they ultimately harm their political base. However, their supporters—many of whom are one-issue voters focused on social issues—continue to support them unwaveringly, even when it negatively affects them.
Medicaid – a popular social program in the U.S.
Republican-controlled red states often rely more on social welfare programs like FEMA, Medicaid, and food stamps than Democrat-controlled blue states. States such as Mississippi, West Virginia, and Louisiana have high poverty rates and depend heavily on public aid. Yet, their officials often promote “small government” and oppose federal spending for assistance.
The GOP has recently passed the “Big, Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) along party lines. This new law cuts nearly $800 billion from Medicaid over the next ten years as part of a broader initiative to offset expiring tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy through spending reductions. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill will lead to an additional 7.8 million people becoming uninsured by 2034, and 10.3 million individuals currently enrolled in Medicaid will lose their coverage.
Here are some broader implications:
The OBBBA’s Medicaid cuts will have significant effects on families, healthcare access, and state budgets.
Experts warn that the bill may increase healthcare costs for individuals and families, even those not enrolled in Medicaid. Hospitals with high Medicaid enrollment may experience fluctuations in patient volumes and revenues, posing particular challenges, especially for rural hospitals.
These changes could hinder the ability of some facilities, particularly in red states and rural areas, to sustain care, especially with potential declines in uncompensated care revenue. GOP supporters may experience greater negative impacts from these policies.
Key Reasons Red States Depend More on Federal Aid
1. Higher Poverty Rates: Many red states, especially in the South, have higher poverty rates, leading to more residents—such as children, pregnant women, and disabled individuals—qualifying for Medicaid. For example, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and West Virginia have some of the highest poverty rates in the country.
2. Lower State Revenue and Greater Federal Support: Red states contribute less funding to Medicaid and rely more on federal matching funds. The FMAP ensures poorer states receive more federal dollars per state dollar spent. For instance, Mississippi’s FMAP is about 77%. In comparison, wealthier blue states like New York and Massachusetts have an FMAP closer to 50%, even though they contributed more funds to the federal government than the Republican-controlled red states.
3. Delayed or No ACA Medicaid Expansion: Many red states have refused or postponed Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), resulting in fewer low-income adults qualifying for the program. Ironically, these states often allocate a larger share of Medicaid funds to individuals with disabilities and children, leading to higher costs per recipient.
Enrollment Numbers
The red states like Texas and Florida have millions enrolled in Medicaid, particularly children and pregnant women, despite not expanding the program. Texas, with the highest number of uninsured individuals, spends billions on Medicaid, mainly using federal funds. Yet, these Republican politicians disparage welfare programs, portraying them as a burden or a curse rather than the vital lifeline they truly are for many struggling families.
Affordable Care Act (ACA) / Obamacare
During President Obama’s administration, Republicans criticized the Affordable Care Act (ACA), attempting to repeal it unsuccessfully over 60 times, despite knowing it was vital for their constituents.
Blue states expanded Medicaid early, providing coverage to millions. Although many red states initially rejected Medicaid expansion, public pressure and financial incentives led states like Arkansas, Montana, and Louisiana to adopt it. Recently, South Dakota and North Carolina, both with Republican leadership, also passed Medicaid expansion. Even in states that haven’t expanded Medicaid, the ACA contributes significantly to health coverage for children, pregnant women, and individuals with disabilities.
Florida and Texas have some of the highest ACA marketplace enrollments in the country, with Florida leading at over 4 million enrollees. Despite strong opposition to the ACA from their leaders, these states benefit greatly from federal marketplaces and premium subsidies. Residents of red states in rural areas have fewer insurers, leading to larger government subsidies to offset higher premiums.
According to data from 2022 to 2023, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida—categorized as red or purple states—had some of the highest average premium subsidies per enrollee. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that over 90% of enrollees in many red states received subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In contrast, in some blue states, such as Massachusetts and New York, this figure was closer to 60–70%, primarily due to the presence of more employer coverage and separate state programs. Therefore, it is evident that Democratic-controlled blue states take better care of their people than Republican-controlled red states.
So, here is the political irony: While red-state politicians campaigned against Obamacare, their residents heavily depend on its benefits and would face greater hardships if the ACA were repealed. Although they often advocate for cutting “welfare,” many constituents rely more heavily on federal assistance programs, meaning that cuts could have a profound impact on rural residents in those states.
Which States Have More Natural Disasters?
Republicans have shown disdain for FEMA, advocating for its dismantling due to their belief in a small government. However, this concept is not based on reality. In each of the past natural disasters, when the destruction exceeded its capacity—and it always does—the state has consistently sought federal government relief.
Historically, red states have received a larger share of FEMA disaster declarations. According to FEMA records from 2000 to 2023, the states with the most major disaster declarations are Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Mississippi.
FEMA disproportionately benefits red states, allocating 82.8% of its disaster relief funds to them. The Southeast, including Florida, received the largest share of aid. Texas is currently experiencing one of the worst disasters in its history, and from all indications, it appears to rely heavily on the federal government for relief. Despite this support, lawmakers in these red and purple states, which frequently receive assistance for various disasters, are still pushing to dismantle FEMA. Who are they kidding?
It’s one thing to raise concerns, but it’s another for voters in those Republican states to face the reality of their situation. If it weren’t for Democrats, they wouldn’t have access to the programs they primarily benefit from, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the CHIPS and Science Act. These are solid legacy programs compared to ephemeral tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
We need leaders who can hold strong principles without losing sight of the people they serve. We need representatives who know when to fight and when to compromise—not ideologues. And above all, we need to remind those in power that politics is not about performance — it’s about results in reality.
Please visit our website for more informative articles: www.moderatevoices.org
Nicholas A. Owoyemi, CFA
Moderate Voices of America (MVA)
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
(212) 406-1958
info@moderatevoices.org