Scott Galloway (of Prof G podcast fame) and Jessica Tarlov (the token liberal member of “The Five” on Fox News) recently launched a podcast called “Raging Moderates,” positioning themselves as the voices of reason in the middle of America's political landscape. They argue that they are not tethered to party lines, claiming a balance between extremes that is the perfect middle ground.

Yet, the policies they advocate for—from wealth redistribution to climate alarmism—are decidedly leftist. What Galloway and Tarlov, and many self-proclaimed moderates, misunderstand is that their so-called moderate positions are simply different forms of government overreach.

The real myth is that a moderate middle exists at all.

In today’s political discourse, moderates often present themselves as reasonable, balanced, and free from the radicalism of either the far left or right. And while I applaud moderates for not wanting to blindly follow a single political party’s ideas, most moderates in America don’t support policies that would result in better government or society.

The truth is that the so-called moderate viewpoint is still heavily rooted in an acceptance of big government — government that is unconstitutional (i.e. outside of the specific limits placed on it by the Constitution). Often, the moderate variation on policies lies in where and how they want the government to intervene. For example, a moderate might oppose certain aspects of progressive economic policies but still support an expanded welfare state or increased environmental regulation.

This doesn’t represent a balanced middle ground but rather an ongoing push for centralized power.

More government, regardless of where or how much more, equals more control. More control equals less freedom.

The Founding Fathers had a much clearer understanding of what balance meant. They didn’t envision a political system where people negotiated the degree to which the federal government should control various aspects of our lives. Rather, they designed a constitutional republic limited in scope, with clear separations of power and checks and balances.

In Federalist No. 48, James Madison warned that power could easily consolidate and grow if left unchecked. He argued that “power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” To Madison, there was no middle ground between government overreach and a properly limited government. The Constitution was designed to restrain that overreach, ensuring that the federal government would protect individual liberty rather than micromanage every aspect of daily life.

Thomas Jefferson also spoke to this balance in government power, cautioning against allowing it to expand in all directions. He said, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”

This is a key point: moderates, whether in favor of social programs or economic regulation, are still contributing to this expansion of government. They aren’t in the middle. They’re just sometimes slightly less inclined to increase federal control. However, in truth, the real political continuum isn’t left vs. right — it’s actually about how much government power is involved.

On one end of the spectrum, you have total government control (tyranny), and on the other end, anarchy (no government at all). The Founders sought to erect a limited constitutional republic, something squarely in the middle of that continuum.

This is where true balance lies — not in the so-called moderate middle that Galloway and Tarlov promote, which inevitably leads to more government control and less freedom.

The moderates who seek a larger federal role in social issues or economic matters are not aligned with this balance. They have simply drifted from one end of the spectrum — tyranny — at a somewhat slightly slower pace in certain areas than the progressive left.

What they fail to see is that the direction of movement is still the same: toward more government, less personal freedom, and a further deviation from constitutional principles.

The balance the United States needs is not a compromise between left and right but a return to constitutional limits on power. This is not an extremist position, nor is it far right. It is, in fact, the most stable and sustainable form of government — one that preserves individual liberty, limits federal overreach, and fosters prosperity by allowing states and citizens to govern themselves.

Imagine if we returned to a government that adhered strictly to the constitutional limits of its power. You would keep more of your income, as federal taxes would decrease without endless government programs. States would have more autonomy, making decisions for their citizens without interference from Washington. Freedom would expand and innovation would be fostered, with individuals and communities solving their own problems rather than relying on the federal government to do it for them.

It’s time to reject the myth of the moderate middle.

If Americans want a stable, prosperous future, we must turn back to the balance that the Founders set forth — a limited government rooted in the Constitution.

Brady Smith is a fellow with the Freedom Rising Fellowship Program at the American Journey Experience and a policy advisor for The Heartland Institute.