Abigail Spanberger’s inauguration as Virginia’s 75th governor on January 17, followed closely by the legislative agenda now being advanced by her Democratic allies in Richmond, has once again underscored a lesson voters would do well to remember: when Democrats campaign as moderates, the word rarely survives contact with governing power. Moderation, in this context, is not a philosophy. It is a tactic.
Throughout last year’s gubernatorial race, Virginians were assured that Spanberger represented a different kind of Democrat. She was described as pragmatic, bipartisan, and ideologically restrained—someone who would govern from the center and resist the more aggressive impulses of her party.
Prestigious outlets reinforced that image right up to Election Day. The New Yorker portrayed her as a candidate urging Democrats to listen more. Liberal commentators emphasized that “populist” was the last word one would use to describe her, insisting instead on her grounded, results-oriented approach.
That image has not survived the transition from campaign trail to governor’s office.
The agenda now emerging from the Democratic-controlled General Assembly bears no resemblance to the moderate persona voters were sold. Despite inheriting a $2.7 billion budget surplus from outgoing Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin, Democrats are pushing for higher and broader taxes, targeting income, investments, everyday services, and tourism-related activity. Fiscal restraint, apparently, was a campaign-season talking point, not a governing principle.
On policy, the divergence is even more striking. The agenda includes expanded restrictions on speech near abortion clinics, taxpayer-funded education for those in the country illegally, sweeping criminal justice changes that reduce penalties for serious offenses, and proposals that could dismantle Virginia’s long-standing right-to-work protections. None of this reflects centrist caution. It reflects ideological alignment.
Perhaps most consequential are the proposed changes to election administration. Extending ballot receipt deadlines beyond Election Day, limiting hand-counting of paper ballots, expanding electronic voting, and joining the National Popular Vote Compact are not neutral reforms. Taken together, they represent a fundamental shift in how elections are conducted and how presidential votes are ultimately allocated—moves long championed by the Democratic left and consistently opposed by those who favor decentralization and constitutional tradition.
This is not a matter of one controversial bill or a single policy disagreement. It is about governing philosophy. The pattern is familiar: assurances of moderation before the election, followed by an agenda that mirrors the priorities of progressive leadership once power is secured. The rhetoric of bipartisanship fades, replaced by the reality of party discipline and ideological obligation.
Voters were told Spanberger would act as a check on her party’s excesses. Instead, she appears poised to facilitate them. Elections do have consequences, and governors are entitled to pursue their priorities. But voters are also entitled to honesty. When “moderate” is used as a campaign costume rather than a governing commitment, it erodes trust not just in one politician, but in the political process itself.
