Research

Conventional wisdom favors moderation, yet recent elections feature candidates who campaign, win, and govern as hardliners. We develop a model in which candidates motivated by ideology and office are better informed than voters about policy consequences. Before the election, candidates commit to a policy or remain ambiguous. Commitment sacrifices post-election flexibility, but credibly conveys information. Informative campaigns require moderate polarization. Then candidates commit only when evidence supports their preferred policy, persuading voters. With high polarization or increased office-motivation, candidates will not pay the electoral cost of letting their opponent persuade. They always commit to opposing policies: one conveying available evidence, one concealing it. Voters learn little, yet elections, not experts, determine policy. Examples from Eisenhower to today illustrate how rising polarization reshapes campaigns, voter learning, and governance.