POL: The Myth of the Political Center

[John Galt]

Reading the thread about the midterm elections spurred me to post about what I think is the myth of the political center. I think there are several problems with the idea that a candidate who stakes out the middle ground would win elections in a landslide.

First, the political center means VERY different things to different people. Many people like to call themselves moderate (look at the number of people on this board who adopt that label). Yet, these moderates look nothing alike. What is the political center position on Iraq? What about gay marriage (maybe it is civil unions, but that is the position of most democrats)? What are the most important issues to this center (I'll bet the answers are all over the map)? In truth, I don't think anything resembling a unified political center exists in America.

Second, the center is a constantly moving target. Clinton as president had very few "liberal" policies passed. He signed onto welfare reform which was easily one of the most "conservative" pieces of domestic legislation in a while. He also expanded the death penalty more than any other president and was probably the most hard-on-crime President ever. Compare welfare reform with the ADA passed by Bush I and the numerous laws passed by Nixon and it makes you wonder where the center is located. Bush II has given one of the biggest entitlements in American history (especially since FDR). Clinton was far to the right of Carter and in many ways he was right of Nixon. Yet, many brand him "far left" or part of the extreme left. Such rhetoric doesn't strike me as idle chatter either. I don't think most people know where the middle is, much less appreciate how it has changed so much in so little time.

Third, people win elections; issues don't. This is further afield than my other objections, but I really think a cult of personality matters a lot more than issues. Jesse Helms got elected for many reasons (incredibly responsive to constituents, name recognition, people liked him) that had nothing to do with his policy preferences. Most candidates get reputations that shape how issues are viewed, but I would say that issues rarely (although occassionally the do) change the outcome of elections. Trust and character matter much more (and that includes trust in the party).

So, I just don't buy the idea that politicians all over the country are too stupid to find this "political center" and get elected by running for the "moderates."

[MrBigglesworth]

This is a great post, because I was thinking the same thing when someone in the 'evolution of your politics' thread mentioned that a center party would sweep elections: the center is not a defined set of stances, people that are considered moderates are often just liberal on the economy and conservative on social issues, or vise versa, or some other permutation. So what would the platform of a 'moderate' party be? The middle doesn't really exist.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Holy crap.

I'm in agreement with both JG and Mr. Biggles in one thread.

{faints}

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Holy crap.

I'm in agreement with both JG and Mr. Biggles in one thread.

{faints}

*Gets out calendar, jots down note, prepares for oncoming apocolypse*

[albionmoonlight]

I'm agree 100%

I think of myself as a liberal. But depending on the issues at which you look, I have what would be thought of as some pretty right wing views.

This is why a third party will have a very hard time winning in America. Everyone loves the idea of a third party--because they envison that party as agreeing with everything they do. As soon as a 3rd Party started to become a reality, a lot of people would get off the boat because the party would have to start taking a stand on something. And that stand would piss off ~50% of registered voters.

Oh--and I totally agree with the personality thing. Listen to some speeches of Regan or Clinton. It is no wonder that they got elected. When they were talking, you wanted to agree with them, even if you didn't.

[TroyF]

I'll disagree.

There is a large middle ground, and for most of those in the middle, there isn't ONE SINGLE hair trigger issue that will swing the election. They may have opinions on gay marriage, the death penalty, immigration, and abortions, but they aren't going to base their vote soley on one of those issues.

You are exactly right when you say those issues are all over the map when it comes to the center. Those who are in the center naturally have views that are all over the map. It's why they are in the center in the first place.

I think the center is large and that a moderate candidate with some charisma and a halfway sensible plan would sweep the extremists of both sides out of the way with ease.

[revrew]

I agree that "middle" isn't what wins elections, either. The "middle", IMO, is usually the ground that's left when you don't know exactly what you stand for and the extremes of the parties on some issues leave you cold to both.

What I might post in the other thread, however, is that the base of voters (meaning those 35-65: those that vote, run for office, get involved at the local level, form the planks, stump for their guys) for each party has been left behind by their respective parties.

For example: The base of the Republican party consists of people who support fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, smaller government, small businesses, and enforcing the laws of the land. A Republican who ran on these principles, I believe, WOULD garner a landslide by drawing his base to himself. Instead, the Republican leaders spend pork like a drunken Democrat to buy votes, bend over for big business to raise money, scream about defense to pander to the military and elderly populations, and make railing agianst the gays a priority to win the religious right. These are not the priorities of the true Republican base. It's evidence of the old saying, "Try to please everyone and you end up pleasing no one." The values of the Republican center (not "middle", but the "core") are dumped to chase after every possible voter.

Meanwhile, Democratic leaders seem to agree on only three issues: abortion rights, gay marriage, and getting out of Iraq. Of all the Democrats I know, these are the three LEAST commonly held positions of the "base" Democrat. If the Dems would stop alienating their own people by taking extreme positions on their most controversial issues, they could trample the current Republican regime.

Thus, I contend, it's not the "middle" that could garner a landslide, but a return to the "common man" base of each respective party. The Republican base is not the center (sorry, McCain), it's definitely "right" of middle. But until the party leaders stop leaving the flock of 50 votes to chase after the scattered few on the fringe, the parties will continue to produce double-tongued, disingenuous, confused, and ineffective campaigns.

[AgustusM]

I posted in the other thread about the "radical center" book and I do believe there is good policy decisions in there, however I also agree that where we are today a center moderate candidate has no chance to win by taking that stance alone.

sadly I believe money, party and personality is still what wins elections.

perhaps in the future we will see a third center based party emerge and establish a real challenge.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by John Galt

First, the political center means VERY different things to different people. Many people like to call themselves moderate (look at the number of people on this board who adopt that label). Yet, these moderates look nothing alike. What is the political center position on Iraq? What about gay marriage (maybe it is civil unions, but that is the position of most democrats)? What are the most important issues to this center (I'll bet the answers are all over the map)? In truth, I don't think anything resembling a unified political center exists in America.

A moderate is not a member of a political organization, they are simply "none of the above."
It is a hodgepodge of people not totally liberal or conservative.

[MalcPow]

I think this is right, and the whole concept of this big political center has felt false to me for awhile. I think what people are trying to refer to when they use it is what a few others have mentioned in this thread, basically the large percentage of people who don't feel all that strongly about a lot of things and can be swung one way or another in an election. It's not so much a center (which would imply firmly held beliefs somewhere between left and right) but a sort of mass of undecided or fairly open voters. I think this is actually a big chunk of people and it's why you're right that many elections aren't decided on issues but rather on the sorts of intangibles that appeal to people that don't feel that strongly about the issues.

And you're right, you can't really run in the middle because these voters want to be convinced of something. They'll support your ideas because you've convinced them to believe in you, or generated some other kind of momentum for your campaign, but you're trying to make them feel like they can put their trust in you, which is much more about performance than policy. But again, you have to have some kind of policies (or the illusion that there are smart people around you who will come up with them, see Schwarzenegger or W in 2000) or charisma doesn't really matter (or it's at least very vulnerable to attacks).

[Buccaneer]

Maybe this is up there with the Myth of the Red and Blue?

The best thing I've heard on this topic was on NPR in talking about another myth, the separation of church and state. Many voters have personal values - wherever they may lie - and tend to vote for the person that comes closer to his/her own values. That is why candidates professing faith values do well because a majority of people in this country still relate to a personal/congregational faith in God, whatever form that may take. Therefore, faith issues do become part of the political process because the person cannot become invalidated.

I think about what JG wrote from a libertarian perspective and come to same conclusions. People do win elections and it is about speaking the language that you can relate to. I think many voters know by now the game that is played in Wash DC, at least I would think so. It really doesn't matter what you promise (that just become media fodder) because the nature of politics is give and take, and seniority. I think voters just want someone to be a good representative and look out for the interests of the area they represent.

Bringing this back to a libertarian message, I think we will see more candidates (sometime) speaking for the issues shown in my signature but in a way that makes it appealing to voters. Does that become a centric message because it is not red or blue? I don't know because politics is not a single spectrum. I just like to think of it as an alternative to the status quo as we have come to know the past 40 years.

[Mac Howard]

I disagree with you John. The "middle" doesn't define an exact position - is the middle of a football pitch strictly a line right down the centre? - but covers a range of positions. In fact it's probably best described as an absence - an absence of extremes, of zealotry etc.

I also disagree that taking the "middle" political ground doesn't often give you an electoral advantage, precisely because a majority of people are not extremist. In Britain Tony Blair defeated the Thatcherite right when he neutered the union and left wing influences over Labour Party policies that had originally let in Thatcher - she had been voted in precisely to deal with left wing extremists in the union movement. Today the British Tory part of David Cameron has eventually dragged itself back into electoral contention precisely because it has sidelined the right wing, tax-cutting section of the party and is seen (not necessarily justifiably) as less extreme on Iraq. Here in Australia John Howard has succeeded as much because of the perceived left wing influence over the Australian opposition Labor party but, as overconfidence has caused him to move sharply right and the Labor party taken on a more centrist leader, the Labor party would probably win an election if held today. In fact the greatest threat to such a win is the Labor party's own far left who have not yet been sufficiently silenced.

My experience is mainly European/Australian but in that experience most people don't like extremes and will gravitate towards the centre in all but extreme situations. But would a right wing Republican win the next election? And isn't a significant argument for Democrats against Hillary Clinton that, despite all her efforts, she's seen as too liberal to be elected (besides her unfortunate marriage )? The opinion of someone from 10,000 miles south west of California is clearly of limited value but it's my guess that a significantly right or left wing candidate will not win your next presidential election unless you have both.

I think the idea of a political centre only becomes a myth if you try to be too definitive in what that means. With the collapse of communism and most of the socialist argument the original definition of right and left - the economic one - has become almost meaningless and other differences have come to the fore. This clouds the differentiation and confuses what is perhaps seen as central but I think the centre as an absence of extremes still holds.

[st.cronin]

Not sure what I think of all this, but take any two extremes - Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken, for example - and the things they have in common are vastly more important than the things they disagree on. The American vision, whatever it is, is nearly a universal among Americans. What we disagree on feels important at the time, but it really is small change.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

... and the things they have in common are vastly more important than the things they disagree on.

I'm sure it'd be possible to disagree with you more, but it wouldn't be easy.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm sure it'd be possible to disagree with you more, but it wouldn't be easy.

You're kidding, right? Tell me that you can't be that dense in not seeing the commonality among the thousands of issues. Or perhaps your ears perk up only whenever there's an extremist (or more accurately, hyperbolic) position being trumpeted on the radio?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You're kidding, right? Tell me that you can't be that dense in not seeing the commonality among the thousands of issues. Or perhaps your ears perk up only whenever there's an extremist (or more accurately, hyperbolic) position being trumpeted on the radio?

Actually I'm completely serious and I see less & less commonality on a daily basis.

This goes back to one of my regular comments from past November's, that all the talk about "divisive politics" is really just a symptom of a divided population, in other words the divisions exist at a very basic level & politics just happens to be one of the ways it is revealed.

You can probably find strong commonality on a number of issues, such as murder-is-bad, rape-is-bad, etc., but outside of those sort of things I think it's quite easy to find the divisions.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I disagree with you John. The "middle" doesn't define an exact position - is the middle of a football pitch strictly a line right down the centre? - but covers a range of positions. In fact it's probably best described as an absence - an absence of extremes, of zealotry etc.

I also disagree that taking the "middle" political ground doesn't often give you an electoral advantage, precisely because a majority of people are not extremist. In Britain Tony Blair defeated the Thatcherite right when he neutered the union and left wing influences over Labour Party policies that had originally let in Thatcher - she had been voted in precisely to deal with left wing extremists in the union movement. Today the British Tory part of David Cameron has eventually dragged itself back into electoral contention precisely because it has sidelined the right wing, tax-cutting section of the party and is seen (not necessarily justifiably) as less extreme on Iraq. Here in Australia John Howard has succeeded as much because of the perceived left wing influence over the Australian opposition Labor party but, as overconfidence has caused him to move sharply right and the Labor party taken on a more centrist leader, the Labor party would probably win an election if held today. In fact the greatest threat to such a win is the Labor party's own far left who have not yet been sufficiently silenced.

My experience is mainly European/Australian but in that experience most people don't like extremes and will gravitate towards the centre in all but extreme situations. But would a right wing Republican win the next election? And isn't a significant argument for Democrats against Hillary Clinton that, despite all her efforts, she's seen as too liberal to be elected (besides her unfortunate marriage )? The opinion of someone from 10,000 miles south west of California is clearly of limited value but it's my guess that a significantly right or left wing candidate will not win your next presidential election unless you have both.

I think the idea of a political centre only becomes a myth if you try to be too definitive in what that means. With the collapse of communism and most of the socialist argument the original definition of right and left - the economic one - has become almost meaningless and other differences have come to the fore. This clouds the differentiation and confuses what is perhaps seen as central but I think the centre as an absence of extremes still holds.

I think you are agreeing with John without realizing it. You're saying that both the Dem and GOP candidates will be moderates, and in effect agreeing with John when he says that "the political center means VERY different things to different people".

[Glengoyne]

I think the middle does exist, but also that it does mean very different things to different people. I consider myself a moderate because on a gamut of political issues while I'm mostly on the conservative side of the issue, there are distinct issues where I differ significantly with conservatives. So, I'm a moderate Republican or a conservative Democrat.

I also believe that moderates can sweep elections. John McCain is a Republican that would win in California. There is no Democratic counter for a Republican that can win CA. That said, I can see a charismatic conservative Democrat taking a good number of normally red states with the same effect. The difficulty with being a moderate, is winning the primary. See Lieberman as an example. He easilly wins election in a general, but he gets a challenger from the left on essentially a single issue, and he goes down in the primary.

[Peregrine]

It's tricky because as people have said, the definition of moderate and the middle does vary. I basically view the middle as mostly an area of overlap between the parties, however it also contains a lot of people who "almost" fit into one of the mainstream parties but differ on important issues. Of course there are true independents as well, many of whom have a key issue that they swing with. I think single-issue voters tend to be on a different, parallel "line" from the regular parties, which tends to be much more black and white since it is obviously easier for them to make decisions based on the one, overriding issue.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

All I know is everyone thinks they're a moderate just like they're a good driver.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm sure it'd be possible to disagree with you more, but it wouldn't be easy.

On a global perspective, the things on which the two major parties in this country agree outweighs that upon which they disagree.

We are not arguing over whether women should have the right to vote.

We are not arguing over whether those who do not profess a belief in the state religion should be executed.

We are not arguing over whether a citizen has the right to criticize the President or the Pope in the media.

We are not arguing over whether certain races of people in this country are unclean and need to be clensed from the Earth.

We are not arguing over whether citizens charged with crimes be given the basic rights of competent counsel to represent them, a trial before a jury of their peers, and the right to confront witnesses against them (among others).

We are not arguing over whether homosexuals should be executed.

We are not aruging over whether slavery is cool.

We are not arguing over whether the leader of the military should lead an armed takeover of take over of the executive.

We are not arguing over whether we should elect or leaders or whether they should be decided through heridity or a state chuch.

We are not even arguing over whether when some asshole attacks this country we should send the Army out to go get him (though, to be fair, we are arguing the hell over the methods for doing it).

Now, of course, there are arguments over the fringes of this issues (whether we should have gay marriage or civil unions; whether the government should be able to move those protesting the president into "free speech zones"; whether affirmative action is good public policy; whether someone should be allowed to put up a nativity scene in front of City Hall; whether felons should have the right to vote be restored; etc.)

But, when I stick my head up and look around the rest of this crazy (and for the most part I mean that literally) planet, I realize that we really do agree by and large on a lot of extremely fundamental issues with which the rest of the world is still struggling.

I'd much rather be talking about whether tax cuts should be targeted to the middle class or the wealthy instead of whether homosexuals have the right to live.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

On a global perspective, the things on which the two major parties in this country agree outweighs that upon which they disagree.

While those baseline concepts are generally accepted, the very definintions of some of them are so disputed that it renders even that acceptance as fairly moot. (take your crime-and-punishment example)

And on the "when some nut attacks" point ... well, you probably should have left that one off your list altogether, it hurts your point instead of helping it.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And on the "when some nut attacks" point ... well, you probably should have left that one off your list altogether, it hurts your point instead of helping it.

The authorization to use military force against those responsible for the September 11th Attacks was passed 1 week against the attacks with 518 members of Congress voting for it and only one member of the entire Congress voting against it. (Barbara Boxer).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authori...essional_votes

I will grant, of course, there is huge debate over the effectiveness of the methods that the current executive has used to fight the war on terror.

But the idea that either party responded with "restraint and timidity" to September 11th was invented wholecloth by Karl Rove.

Again, IMO, the argument in this country is at the margins (How best to respond to the September 11th attacks) and not the heart (Whether to respond to the September 11th attacks) of the major issues.

But, your point is taken about this quickly becoming a semantic discussion. Probably best to leave it as an "agree to disagree" point.1

1 Which reminds me of when my friend was trying to get a sports talk radio show off the ground and he had a couple of guests on to make predictions about the NCAA Tournament, and the two guests didn't agree on a certain team, and after about 20 seconds one of them said that they would just have to agree to disagree. And my friend yelled at them "You can't agree to disagree! This is SPORTS RADIO!"

Maybe you had to be there, but it was pretty funny.

[Ksyrup]

The Democratic Party was fairly solidly behind Bush on 9/11...until they got killed in the 2002 mid-term elections. Then they realized they had to take positions wholly opposite of Bush to give voters a reason to vote against him (or for them). And, of course, the administration's miscalculation on what it would take to win and get out of Iraq has made this task far easier for the Dems than it could have been. Initially, they seemed to be switching positions simply in response to the elections; thereafter, there was enough fodder for those changes that it looked somewhat principalled.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually I'm completely serious and I see less & less commonality on a daily basis.

This goes back to one of my regular comments from past November's, that all the talk about "divisive politics" is really just a symptom of a divided population, in other words the divisions exist at a very basic level & politics just happens to be one of the ways it is revealed.

You can probably find strong commonality on a number of issues, such as murder-is-bad, rape-is-bad, etc., but outside of those sort of things I think it's quite easy to find the divisions.

No, I believe you are wrong. There are many, many more commonalities than there are divisions within politics. Here's why:

The end results of the political process is not talk but the laws themselves. If you compare what would be perceived as political "extremes": a town in UT vs. a town in MA, I suspect that you would find that a vast majority of the laws will be very comparable. One would allow for local quirks and traditions but since it was the politicians elected by the voters that produced the laws, based on the will of the people, the divisions are not apparent in reality. Now if you would to go back 150 years, such distinctions in the laws would be much greater, I believe. What we have now is just the opposite because of a much stronger federal govt. forcing homogeneity (sp?). I deal with the land development laws, environmental regulations and economic development and find very few differences among the many communities throughout the country. I suspect if you consider law enforcement, public safety, public health, voting rights, zoning/land use, transportation, park&recs, etc., there would very few differences there as well. All of these things directly affect you and me and everyone else and I see very few "divisions" and even less so in the future.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think you are agreeing with John without realizing it. You're saying that both the Dem and GOP candidates will be moderates, and in effect agreeing with John when he says that "the political center means VERY different things to different people".

But where I disagree with John is in his conclusion that the middle ground is a myth. It may well be ill-defined and cover a range of ground. It may well be that politicians mistakenly believe or deliberately misrepresent their position as central. But that does not mean that it doesn't exist. Indeed, to say so merely plays into the hands of the partisan and justifies their distortions.

There is no question in my mind that there is a middle ground and that it has enormous appeal for a significant part of the electorate and that a political party that genuinely moves towards this centre will often benefit electorally.