The model we used back then was one developed by political theorist Christoper Wlezien. Essentially, he postulated that the voting public is like a thermostat—reacting to public policies that they deem “too hot” by punishing the incumbent party. Donald Trump’s victory may have, in part, been the result of voters rejecting four years of Democratic policies that they viewed as too reliant on increased government spending—leading to an inflationary economy that dogged their everyday lives. Whether that was the case or not, perception became reality, and Republicans gained control of all three branches of government.
The beauty of this “thermostatic model” is that it can be applied to either party. In fact, political scientists have argued that after both the Eisenhower and Reagan administrations, voter mood shifted against their conservative policies and ushered in periods of liberal rule (Kennedy and, after a brief Bush interregnum, Clinton). So, when voters perceive excessive government “activism” (from the left or the right) it’s countered by a swing in the other direction. Ideally, this creates political equilibrium.
Back in 2021, we wrote: “Americans are, by nature, suspicious of an over-active government—it’s literally in our political DNA. The Constitution is basically a primer on how to limit government action and protect citizens from overly zealous leaders.” It seems this ‘thermostatic’ model kicked in again in 2024, and my guess is the founders of our republic would see this as a good thing.
As we also wrote three years ago, “Whether you’re on the left, the right or in the middle, this may be the most positive feature of our political culture.”