The left, the right, the middle, and the Democratic Party

[JW]

Some time ago when I proposed that in very broad terms the American electorate could be divided into the left, the middle, and the right, that thought was greeted here with, well, derision. Which is okay. There was some interesting discussion on the topic.

However, I continue to believe that in very broad terms (let me emphasize that this is just a sweeping generality) you can divide the American electorate into the left, the middle, and the right. National elections are won in the middle. And as a conservative Democrat -- yes, there are a few of us left, but not many -- I am quite interested in how the Democratic Party can regain the middle that it has lost in recent years.

So I'm doing some reading today and come across this column by a Democratic politician who says you really can divide the electorate into the left, the middle, and the right, and that there are some specific things the Democrats can do to regain the middle.

Link and story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172518,00.html

The Politics of Polarization
Monday, October 17, 2005
By Martin Frost

As the son of an engineer, I have always been fascinated with the mathematical side of politics. Numbers don’t lie, and a new report just issued by the think tank ThirdWay provides some interesting statistical analysis of the electorate as well as some important suggestions about the future of the Democratic Party.

The report is entitled “The Politics of Polarization” and was prepared by William Galston of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy and Elaine Kamarck of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

First and foremost to understanding the current political environment is a review of voters’ self-identification by political philosophy: “In 2004, the electorate was 21 percent liberal, 34 percent conservative and 45 percent moderate,” according to the report. “This is practically a carbon copy of the average of the past thirty year – 20 percent liberal, 33 percent conservative and 47 percent moderate – with remarkably little variation from election to election.”

In other words, for every two liberals, there are three conservatives with almost half of the electorate being in the moderate middle.

If the numbers have remained stationary for the past 30 years, why have Republicans won more elections than Democrats? According to the authors, one of the main reasons is polarization. Democrats used to get the votes of a significant number of conservatives (30 percent in the 1976 presidential election).

Today, the electorate is much more polarized with liberals voting Democratic and conservatives voting Republican. Since there are more self-described conservatives than liberals, this means that for a Democrat to win, he or she must win a larger share of the moderate vote (in excess of 60 percent according to the authors) than in the past.

Therein lies the rub. In 1976, Democrat Jimmy Carter won the presidency with only 51 percent of the moderate vote; in 2004, John Kerry won 54 percent of the moderate vote and still lost the presidency by 3.5 points.

The authors also trace another alarming trend for Democrats -- a significant decline in support among married women. Republican support among married women went from 40 percent in 1992 to 55 percent in 2004. The authors note that concern about moral values was the most important issue for married women, topping even a concern about protection from terrorism.

So how do Democrats do better with political moderates and married women? The authors make a number of interesting recommendations.

First, “The Democratic Party must be able to articulate a coherent foreign policy that is based on a belief in American’s role in the world…Democrats must emphasize the importance of the American military as a potential force for good in the world.”

Specifically, they recommend that “Democrats must seize the opportunity to offer compelling alternatives to current Republican policies concerning homeland defense and the ultimate nightmare of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.”

On the social issues, the authors recommend that Democrats “show tolerance and common sense on hot-button social issues."

Specifically, they suggest that Democrats “could continue to support the core of Roe v. Wade while dropping their intransigence on questions such as parental notification and partial birth abortion. They could oppose court-imposed gay marriage while favoring decent legal treatment for gay couples and insisting that this is a matter for the people of the several states -- not the U.S. Constitution or the judiciary -- to resolve.”

Third, they recommend that Democrats adopt a more free trade position (“an economic policy that embraces global competition”) while at the same time providing a social safety net for people who lose their jobs in the process. That, of course, is the single most controversial of their recommendations because it goes contrary to the position of organized labor, a key part of the Democratic base.

Finally, they make a very interesting recommendation about the personal quality of candidates, particularly candidates for president. The authors note that “recent Democratic candidates have failed to establish the bond of trust with the electorate that is so essential to modern elections. Specifically, they note that Democratic candidates need to demonstrate, “strength, certainty and conviction.”

The authors posit that the last three losing Democratic Presidential candidates (Dukakis, Gore and Kerry) tended to talk primarily to highly educated upscale professionals who make up a significant part of the liberal base of the Democratic Party, rather than to less well educated working class voters who are also necessary for victory.

“If Democratic candidates do not ‘speak American’ as a native language, average Americans will find it hard to believe that these candidates really understand or care about them.”

Galston and Kamarck may not have all the answers for the Democratic Party, but their report deserves serious discussion by both Democratic leaders and the rank and file.

Martin Frost served in Congress from 1979 to 2005, representing a diverse district in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. He served two terms as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, the third-ranking leadership position for House Democrats, and two terms as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Frost serves as a regular contributor to FOX News Channel, and is currently a fellow at the Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He holds a Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a law degree from the Georgetown Law Center.

[GrantDawg]

People really derided you for saying American politics can be divided in "Left, Right, Middle?" I actually thought that was a given.

[QuikSand]

People really derided you for saying American politics can be divided in "Left, Right, Middle?" I actually thought that was a given.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of typing exactly that.

[QuikSand]

If you're interested in the source report, rather than just spin about it, here's a link:

The Politics of Polarization (http://www.third-way.com/news/tw_pop.pdf)

[Klinglerware]

It's an interesting article. However, elections are not always won by making one's self palatable to the moderate voters. Voter turnout in the United States in general is relatively low, there are probably just as many (if not more) votes to be had by trying to get members of your base who otherwise would not vote to turn out to the polls. So, an alternative to moderating is to make yourself even more tethered to your party's platform and hammer home the message to the base in order to get more of your potential base to vote. This is a strategy the republican used effectively in 2000 & 2004.

[CamEdwards]

It's an interesting article. However, elections are not always won by making one's self palatable to the moderate voters. Voter turnout in the United States in general is relatively low, there are probably just as many (if not more) votes to be had by trying to get members of your base who otherwise would not vote to turn out to the polls. So, an alternative to moderating is to make yourself even more tethered to your party's platform and hammer home the message to the base in order to get more of your potential base to vote. This is a strategy the republican used effectively in 2000 & 2004.

True, but they have a larger base to work with than Democrats do. Not to mention that the far left in this country can either vote Democratic or Green.

A couple of weeks ago I interviewed the governor of Wyoming, who's a Democrat. He recently told a gathering of Democrats in his state to basically ignore the national party, that it wasn't reflective of Democrats in their state.

The funny thing was one of Dean's deputies from the DNC was in attendance at the meeting. I gather he wasn't very pleased with the governor's comments (no matter how correct they might have been).

[Klinglerware]

True, but they have a larger base to work with than Democrats do. Not to mention that the far left in this country can either vote Democratic or Green.

A couple of weeks ago I interviewed the governor of Wyoming, who's a Democrat. He recently told a gathering of Democrats in his state to basically ignore the national party, that it wasn't reflective of Democrats in their state.

The funny thing was one of Dean's deputies from the DNC was in attendance at the meeting. I gather he wasn't very pleased with the governor's comments (no matter how correct they might have been).

Excellent points, Cam--the Republicans do have a much bigger, unified, base to work with. The advice in the article is probably more geared towards the Democrats.

Interesting comment by the governor of Wyoming--that is the exact strategy that Northeast corridor Republicans have to use in order to have a fighting chance in the majority of elections in that region...

[albionmoonlight]

The Democratic base is also much less homogenous than the Republican Base. If you think of modern Republicans--the two big groups comprising the party are Big Business and the Religious Right. Other than on a few issues (immigration comes to mind), these two interests don't really have much to do with each other and can unify behind each others' policies.

The Democrats have a lot more people who don't really like each other to fit under their umbrella--people whose core interests are pretty much at odds--like environmentalists and union members. And free speech advocates and political correctness watchdogs.

It's just tougher to come up with policies that can keep all of the base happy AND appeal to (or at least give lip service to) moderates at the same time.

[Brillig]

...court-imposed gay marriage...
Holy crap, Batman! The courts are forcing people into gay marriages! Damn those liberals!

...

Someone's editor needs to be fired.

[JW]

People really derided you for saying American politics can be divided in "Left, Right, Middle?" I actually thought that was a given.

Several people said this is such a broad generalization that it is meaningless. I disagree there. Many political writers talk of this broad three-way divide. So they were actually deriding the idea, not me personally.

And thanks quicksand for finding and posting the original report.

My main interest in this is that, well, I have held my nose and voted Republican in the last two national elections, because I considered Bush the lesser of two evils. I would like the Democratic Party at the national level to become inclusive, not less inclusive. An example would be abortion, where the writer lays out a quite reasonable imho moderate opinion. Polls show that most Americans do not want abortions banned, but they do want some restrictions, for example. But the left fights violently against even reasonable restrictions, such as reasonable parental notification laws, and this hurts them.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties, imho, have moved away from the middle, and perhaps the stage is set for a new party or a reformation of one party to capture the middle by main force, not by default, as the Republicans have done in the last two elections.

[Warhammer]

When you start worrying about your political base and cow-towing to them is when you begin to lose elections. Typically, your base will vote for you no matter what. So, in a national election, you gear your platform towards the moderates, and then run ads to demonize your opposition. The ads are necessary to make sure your base does not stay home during the voting.

Those ads are used to mobilize the base, while you platform should lure in the undecideds in the middle.

[Ryche]

You definitely have to suit our politics to your geography. You can be a Democrat in rural areas, but you better be a conservative one, sometimes prolife even. You can be a Republican in urban areas, but you better be a liberal one, sometimes supportive of gay marriage even.

Good reason why party 'platforms' are so stupid. They should at most be broad principles. But when I look at any party platform, I just see so many things that make me cringe. Some ideas are just not electable in some areas.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Here's the thing. It's widely accepted that the reason why Bush picked up four million votes from last time is pretty simple ; the vast majority were from evanglicals who sat out the 2000 election because of Bush's DUI conviction and the other assorted things about his pre-conversion life. In other words, Bush won because the base did come out. Not the whole reason, as Kerry ran a horrible 80's style campaign in 2005 and other assorted blunders, but that's beside the point.

The real point is this. This "huge" shift to Republicans over the last few decades isn't a national thing. Between 1974 and 2004, the party breakdown of House members from the eleven former states of the confederacy reversed -- from two-thirds Democrat to almost two-thirds Republican. This massive transformation is the key to understanding why the GOP has controlled Congress since '94.

Of course, the main narrative within the national media about said "revolution" has been that it is not confined to any single region, and that the country as a whole has become more conservative and more Republican. Like most politically-charged narratives, even a cursory analysis of this narrative shows that it is not true. In reality, the vast majority of Republican gains in the balance of power since 1990 have occurred within the south.

The stat's bear it out. In the 101st versus the 109th Congress, in the non-Southern states, the partisan balance in the Senate is the same (41D, 37R versus 40D, 38R). It's the South that changed (15D, 7R v. 4D, 18R today).

Basically, since '78, there has been almost no change in the breakdown of ideological self-identification in this country, there has been an enormous change in the breakdown in partisan self-identification. The two coalitions have become ideological, and so conservatives have become Republicans. The south is by far the most conservative region in the nation, soi it is not a huge surprise that the exodus of conservatives from the Democratic Party occurred mostly in the South.

Neither the country nor the south has become more conservative. However, the south has become a lot more Republican. And that, in a nutshell, is the so-called "Republican revolution." In the next ten-twenty years, the same thing will happen in the Northeast as moderate Republicans become a more endangered species than moderate Democrats have ever been.

This of course is not even going into the fact that the Democrats could win the House and Senate next year if they grow a set....

[GrantDawg]

You could also divide American politics into the top and the bottom. The people with power on top, and the regular citizen on bottom.

The difference between left and right then is that the left uses lube when on top, the right just plain screws us. Either way, we're... :DE


I agree with that assessment as well. :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm going to try to make this one little point the only participation I have in this thread. Won't promise it, but I'm gonna try.

Neither the country nor the south has become more conservative. However, the south has become a lot more Republican.

As one of those who made the switch (in practice if not in membership), I might quibble briefly that the south actually became "a lot less Democrat" than it did "a lot more Republican". Like I said, a minor quibble & only relevant as a nitpicky distinction; the point of it being that I'm not at all sure that those of us who crossed over didn't so much fall in love with the R's as we came to loathe what the D's had become.

I don't see the D's getting us back, but I do see it possible for the R's to find us staying away from the polls a lot more frequently.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Actually, as far as you generation goes Jon, no I don't. Well I shouldn't say the Democrats should write off the South, they should more heavily go after the West and Southwest than trying to win back the South. Democrats can make up this structual deficit. I say do it in the non-Pacific West. Montana, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona (Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho are probabaly too far gone to win). All five of these states went for Bush, for 32 electoral votes. However, three of the five governors and four of the ten senators of those states, as of right now, are Democrats.

The fact is, South hasn't changed as much as the parties have changed around them. The Democrats had a lock on the South and it was cemented by the D's looking the other way on race and civil rights. LBJ was spot-on when he said that passage of the civil rights laws in the sixties would cost the Democrats the South. Starting with Hubert Humphrey (before he became VP) a push was mounted by the northern factions of the Democratic Party to embrace civil rights, and that was the start of the fracture.

Nixon was all too happy to begin taking advantage of the situation, with his law and order emphasis, which was an early example of code words, where the black=crime synapse took root.

Then there was of course Vietnam. Johnson's problem was that he was too unsure of himself, which was so odd for a self-made man. The loss of Vietnam was something a lot of prideful "heritage" southern males couldn't abide by.

So the Republicans latched hold of that framework too, that D's were both soft on crime and soft on defense. What Republicans uniformly would say to me is that they were "strong on defense", which in substance amounted to little more than huge DoD budgets and lots of bellicose rhetoric. And it worked.

So today you still have the Southern males heavily into militarism, with a jingoistic flag-waving bent to it, coupled with a helping of overt religiousity for flavoring.

Democrats are right to avoid trying to placate these types. It wouldn't work anyway - a whole generation of good ole boys has grown up despising Democrats for sins of their own fantasies' creation.

However, young people today live and work in situations much, much more diverse and integrated (racially, culturally, by gender, and by sexual orientation) than when you or a lot of the middle-agers here were young. Yeah, there's still a fair ways to go, but the experience of white males interacting with competent and intelligent non-white-males imprints a very strong and lasting concept.

What the Republicans have done has been great tactically, but I think ruinous strategically. They have sided with the baser instincts of humanity.

[Passacaglia]

I'm going to try to make this one little point the only participation I have in this thread. Won't promise it, but I'm gonna try.



As one of those who made the switch (in practice if not in membership), I might quibble briefly that the south actually became "a lot less Democrat" than it did "a lot more Republican". Like I said, a minor quibble & only relevant as a nitpicky distinction; the point of it being that I'm not at all sure that those of us who crossed over didn't so much fall in love with the R's as we came to loathe what the D's had become.

I don't see the D's getting us back, but I do see it possible for the R's to find us staying away from the polls a lot more frequently.

This is a pretty interesting topic to me. I remember in high school, reading in my history books that some thought the 1980 election could be considered a "re-shifting election" or some such notation. I mostly attributed that to Reagan. Since I was 3 years old at the time of that election, I have no real knowledge of the Democratic Party in the 60's and 70's. What was different about it before 'the switch'?

[JonInMiddleGA]

What was different about it before 'the switch'?

Honestly, speaking just for this former D, I'm not really sure it's all that different. In hindsight, they were nearly as liberal then as they are now.
The difference in me and, for example, a Zell Miller, is that I'm young enough (i.e. have fewer years invested in the party to overcome) that I finally reached a point of being throughly fed up with it which simply became a greater weight than years of tradition et al could counter.

Something Ewiak said rang very true to me, the part about how "Neither the country nor the south has become more conservative". I find that very true where my own politics are concerned; my positions on a lot of issues aren't substantially different than they've been throughout my adult life. My policies haven't changed, it just took some time for me to reconcile the disparity of my preferences & my voting habits, having to overcome decades of D. voting that stretched solidly back to at least FDR (not by me personally, but by my family, my peers, my geographical area, etc).

I'll leave some of the more enthusiastic political historians to debate the shift from Left to Far(ther) Left, hopefully though I've given you a sort of personal account of what really "shifted" to account for the voting pattern change.

[JW]

Actually, as far as you generation goes Jon, no I don't. Well I shouldn't say the Democrats should write off the South, they should more heavily go after the West and Southwest than trying to win back the South. Democrats can make up this structual deficit. I say do it in the non-Pacific West. Montana, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona (Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho are probabaly too far gone to win). All five of these states went for Bush, for 32 electoral votes. However, three of the five governors and four of the ten senators of those states, as of right now, are Democrats.

The fact is, South hasn't changed as much as the parties have changed around them. The Democrats had a lock on the South and it was cemented by the D's looking the other way on race and civil rights. LBJ was spot-on when he said that passage of the civil rights laws in the sixties would cost the Democrats the South. Starting with Hubert Humphrey (before he became VP) a push was mounted by the northern factions of the Democratic Party to embrace civil rights, and that was the start of the fracture.

Nixon was all too happy to begin taking advantage of the situation, with his law and order emphasis, which was an early example of code words, where the black=crime synapse took root.

Then there was of course Vietnam. Johnson's problem was that he was too unsure of himself, which was so odd for a self-made man. The loss of Vietnam was something a lot of prideful "heritage" southern males couldn't abide by.

So the Republicans latched hold of that framework too, that D's were both soft on crime and soft on defense. What Republicans uniformly would say to me is that they were "strong on defense", which in substance amounted to little more than huge DoD budgets and lots of bellicose rhetoric. And it worked.

So today you still have the Southern males heavily into militarism, with a jingoistic flag-waving bent to it, coupled with a helping of overt religiousity for flavoring.

Democrats are right to avoid trying to placate these types. It wouldn't work anyway - a whole generation of good ole boys has grown up despising Democrats for sins of their own fantasies' creation.

However, young people today live and work in situations much, much more diverse and integrated (racially, culturally, by gender, and by sexual orientation) than when you or a lot of the middle-agers here were young. Yeah, there's still a fair ways to go, but the experience of white males interacting with competent and intelligent non-white-males imprints a very strong and lasting concept.

What the Republicans have done has been great tactically, but I think ruinous strategically. They have sided with the baser instincts of humanity.

I think you are wrong in your assessment of the South. There are a lot of Southern males like me who are not what you describe. I remain a Sam Nunn, Scoop Jackson type of Democrat, or a John Breaux type of Democrat, who can be strong on social issues but also strong on defense and foreign policy. Certainly you are not going to describe John Breaux as "heavily into militarism, with a jingoistic flag-waving bent to it, coupled with a helping of overt religiousity for flavoring." If the Democratic Party would give just be reasonable in some areas, they could get a lot of people like me back, because I do not like the Republican Party at all. But I am not going to vote to put John Kerry or Al Gore in the White House, or Hillary Clinton.

[Raiders Army]

What do you get for "thinking outside of the box"?

[panerd]

You could also divide American politics into the top and the bottom. The people with power on top, and the regular citizen on bottom.

The difference between left and right then is that the left uses lube when on top, the right just plain screws us. Either way, we're... :DE

I saw a comedian one time, it might have been Lewis Black, who summed up American politics pretty nicely...

A Republican stands up in Congress and shouts "I have a really bad idea!" then a Democrat stands up and says "And I have a way to make that idea even shittier!"

[Buccaneer]

I would raise my hand as one who has derided the notion that the country is divided into three camps. I believe in that the polarization of America is a myth propagated by politicians and the media.

<CENTER>THE MYTH OF A POLARIZED AMERICA </CENTER>
By Robert J. Samuelson
Newsweek contributing editor - Washington Post columnist
December 4, 2003


(See DDC response below)

One of today's popular myths is that we've become a more "polarized" society. We're said to be divided increasingly by politics (liberals vs. conservatives), social values (traditionalists vs. modernists), religion (fundamentalists vs. everyone else), race and ethnicity. What has actually happened is that our political and media elites have become polarized, and they assume that this is true for everyone else. It isn't.

Anyone who lived through the 1960s, when struggles over Vietnam and civil rights spilled into the streets, must know that we're much less polarized today. It's not a close call. Unlike then, today's polarization exists mainly on the public stage among politicians, TV talking heads, columnists and intellectuals.

Still, the polarization myth persists. Consider a new report from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which bulges with public opinion data that show (it says) "rising political polarization and anger." Actually, the data - stretching from the late 1980s until now - don't show that at all.

It's true that over this period political allegiances have shifted slightly. Republicans gained, Democrats lost. As late as 1987, about 35 percent of adults considered themselves Democrats, 26 percent Republicans and 39 percent independents (including those who "don't know"). Now, it's a dead heat: 31 percent Democrats, 30 percent Republicans and 39 percent independents. Gaps on some issues between political parties have predictably widened. If Democrats favoring a stronger military become Republican, party differences on that issue will rise.

But polarization - a visceral loathing of your opponent - increases only if partisans feel more rabidly about their views. Here, little has changed. One standard survey question is whether Democrats and Republicans consider themselves "strong" party members. In the late 1980s, slightly less than half of Republicans considered themselves "strong" Republicans; it's still slightly less than half. Among Democrats, about half are now "strong" and were then, too.

Beyond partisan divisions, Americans share many basic beliefs. After Sept. 11, 2001, patriotism remains high. Most people (two-thirds or more) believe that hard work promotes success. Indeed, many opinions have hardly budged since the late 1980s. Surveys asked whether:

The United States should be "active in world affairs" - 87 percent said yes in 1987, 90 percent now;

"Government should restrict and control people coming into our country" more than it does - 76 percent agreed in 1992, 77 percent now;

"There is too much power concentrated in the hands of a few big companies" - 77 percent said so in both 1987 and 2003.

What's more important is that the changes that have occurred - generally outside politics - signal more, not less, tolerance, as the Pew data show. There seems to be a general shift in attitudes, led by changes among the young. Consider race. In 1987, 48 percent thought it "all right for blacks and whites to date"; now, 77 percent do. Something similar has occurred on homosexuality. By a 51 percent to 42 percent margin, Americans believed in 1987 that "school boards ought to have the right to fire teachers who are known homosexuals"; now that's rejected, 62 percent to 33 percent.

Today's polarization mainly divides the broad public from political, intellectual and media elites. Of course, sharp differences define democracy. We've always had them. From Iraq to homosexual marriage, deep disagreements remain. But the venom of today's debates often transcends disagreement. Your opponents - whether liberal or conservative - must not only have bad ideas. Increasingly, they must also be bad people who are dishonest, selfish and venal.

Among politicians, the bitterness reflects less political competition, especially in the House of Representatives. Democrats and Republicans increasingly have safe seats. In 2002, 83 percent of House incumbents won at least 60 percent of the vote; in 1992, only 66 percent of incumbents won with that margin. As a result, members speak more to their parties' "bases."

There's less need to appeal to the center. The Founders saw the House as responding quickly to public opinion. But "the barometer is broken," says veteran congressional correspondent Richard E. Cohen of National Journal. As for media and intellectual elites - commentators, academics, columnists, professional advocates - they're in an attention-grabbing competition. They need to establish themselves as brand names. For many, stridency is a strategy. The right feeds off the left and the left feeds off the right, and although their mutual criticisms constitute legitimate debate, they're also economic commodities. To be regarded by one side as a lunatic is to be regarded by the other as a hero - and that can usually be taken to the bank through more TV appearances, higher lecture fees and fatter book sales. Polarization serves their interests. All this distorts who we are and poses a latent danger: someday we might become as hopelessly polarized as we're already supposed to be.

[Buccaneer]

But having said that, I agree with the notion of the article in the politics of polarization but I just believe that the American people are generally less polarized (there is much more common ground than divisive ground). We tend to highlight our differences more than we celebrate our sameness.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

But having said that, I agree with the notion of the article in the politics of polarization but I just believe that the American people are generally less polarized (there is much more common ground than divisive ground). We tend to highlight our differences more than we celebrate our sameness.

But maybe the difference here is that political organizations fighting for votes and media organizations fighting for viewers have realized that they can sell easily with polarizing messages and they can't figure out how to sell common ground themes. It seems to be one of those things like negative campaign advertisements where the public consistently polls as not liking them, yet study after study shows them to be remarkably effective. What we say and what we do are not alike. Polls may show that we have a great deal of common ground, but when it comes to voting we respond most strongly to polarizing messages. How many people here voted against a candidate in 2004, instead of for one? In that case I think the interesting question is whether these messages only recently became more effective or whether they have always been effective and the political and media markets have only recently come to appreciate that fact. I suspect the latter.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Polls may show that we have a great deal of common ground...

Depending upon the poll question (and its wording), that's the result I question most of a lot of times.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I apologize for the length of this post, but it seems awfully germaine to the discussion of the direction of the Democratic party, and it's just so good. Barak Obama wrote this blog post a couple weeks ago as a response to comments he had received after the John Roberts confirmation.


To the Daily Kos Crew:

I read with interest your recent discussion regarding my comments on the floor(1, 2, 3) during the debate on John Roberts' nomination. I don't get a chance to follow blog traffic as regularly as I would like, and rarely get the time to participate in the discussions. I thought this might be a good opportunity to offer some thoughts about not only judicial confirmations, but how to bring about meaningful change in this country.

Maybe some of you believe I could have made my general point more artfully, but it's precisely because many of these groups are friends and supporters that I felt it necessary to speak my mind.

There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate. And I don't believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position. I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt. That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.

I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design.

The same principle holds with respect to issues other than judicial nominations. My colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, spoke out forcefully - and voted against - the Iraqi invasion. He isn't somehow transformed into a "war supporter" - as I've heard some anti-war activists suggest - just because he hasn't called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops. He may be simply trying to figure out, as I am, how to ensure that U.S. troop withdrawals occur in such a way that we avoid all-out Iraqi civil war, chaos in the Middle East, and much more costly and deadly interventions down the road. A pro-choice Democrat doesn't become anti-choice because he or she isn't absolutely convinced that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an operation without a parent being notified. A pro-civil rights Democrat doesn't become complicit in an anti-civil rights agenda because he or she questions the efficacy of certain affirmative action programs. And a pro-union Democrat doesn't become anti-union if he or she makes a determination that on balance, CAFTA will help American workers more than it will harm them.

Or to make the point differently: How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line? How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation's fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist's threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy?

I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton. But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.

Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won't be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate. Because the truth of the matter is this: Most of the issues this country faces are hard. They require tough choices, and they require sacrifice. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress may have made the problems worse, but they won't go away after President Bush is gone. Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy or fiscal policy that calls for serious sacrifice. We won't have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism while avoiding isolationism and protecting civil liberties. We certainly won't have a mandate to overhaul a health care policy that overcomes all the entrenched interests that are the legacy of a jerry-rigged health care system. And we won't have the broad political support, or the effective strategies, required to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of numbing poverty.

The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job. After all, it's easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it's harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart. It's easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It's easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that's our job. And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will. This is more than just a matter of "framing," although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It's a matter of actually having faith in the American people's ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.

Finally, I am not arguing that we "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up. Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully. I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response.

My dear friend Paul Simon used to consistently win the votes of much more conservative voters in Southern Illinois because he had mastered the art of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," and they trusted him to tell the truth. Similarly, one of Paul Wellstone's greatest strengths was his ability to deliver a scathing rebuke of the Republicans without ever losing his sense of humor and affability. In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.

In that spirit, let me end by saying I don't pretend to have all the answers to the challenges we face, and I look forward to periodic conversations with all of you in the months and years to come. I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up. And I, in turn, will always try and show you the respect and candor one owes his friends and allies.

[JW]

And excellent piece by Obama. This guy is far too smart to make it in national politics, lol. I don't agree w/everything he says, but, just as he was saying, he says things in a sensible way.

And JonInMiddleGA, I don't think that the notion that there is in very broad terms a left, a right, and a middle has much at all to do directly with polarization. It could just as easily be described as a broad spectrum that can be broken into three -- or two, or four, or more -- parts. But since we have two major parties, it seems to me to make sense that we have true believers of each party and those who are somewhere in between.

[Buccaneer]

JW, I think one of my points is that while someone may "belong" to a political party or voted for a particular politician does not mean one would label that person correctly. I fully believe that there are many in both parties that do not support half of the political platform. I think for a good majority of Americans, political parties are for voting purposes and not for idealouges. Maybe I see it more out here in the West (where Independents make up a sizable percentage of voters) because we are not rooted as much into the traditional political machineries. (That is why I get pissed whenever I see "red/blue state" which is inaccurate and stupid.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

And JonInMiddleGA, I don't think that the notion that there is in very broad terms a left, a right, and a middle has much at all to do directly with polarization. It could just as easily be described as a broad spectrum that can be broken into three -- or two, or four, or more -- parts. But since we have two major parties, it seems to me to make sense that we have true believers of each party and those who are somewhere in between.

I think I got lost somewhere in there. I don't think I disagree with anything you just said in theory, but (guessing here that you were referencing my comment questioning how much common ground there is) I don't know that agreeing with you in these general terms is incompatible with believing that there's less "common ground" than sometime seems to be suggested.

Borrowing from your quote above, I'd say that 4 parts could be split into 4,000 & get a more accurate portrayal of the "middle". (or of the left segment or the right segment for that matter).

[Flasch186]

Honestly, speaking just for this former D, I'm not really sure it's all that different. In hindsight, they were nearly as liberal then as they are now.
The difference in me and, for example, a Zell Miller, is that I'm young enough (i.e. have fewer years invested in the party to overcome) that I finally reached a point of being throughly fed up with it which simply became a greater weight than years of tradition et al could counter.

Something Ewiak said rang very true to me, the part about how "Neither the country nor the south has become more conservative". I find that very true where my own politics are concerned; my positions on a lot of issues aren't substantially different than they've been throughout my adult life. My policies haven't changed, it just took some time for me to reconcile the disparity of my preferences & my voting habits, having to overcome decades of D. voting that stretched solidly back to at least FDR (not by me personally, but by my family, my peers, my geographical area, etc).

I'll leave some of the more enthusiastic political historians to debate the shift from Left to Far(ther) Left, hopefully though I've given you a sort of personal account of what really "shifted" to account for the voting pattern change.


not to dissolve this thread, but I would say that your admitted hatred and fervor for the disintegration, or as you put it, "War against the left" doesnt lend itself as congruent with your stance that you havnt changed much OR that your conversion is represntative of the 'slight' shift you describe. Your anger towards the D would stand to pass as evidence of a much deeper 'switch' then the one you say is so slight.

[JonInMiddleGA]

not to dissolve this thread, but I would say that your admitted hatred and fervor for the disintegration, or as you put it, "War against the left" doesnt lend itself as congruent with your stance that you havnt changed much OR that your conversion is represntative of the 'slight' shift you describe. Your anger towards the D would stand to pass as evidence of a much deeper 'switch' then the one you say is so slight.

1) All we can do here, best I can tell, is have you take me at my word that my "politics" (i.e. the values, beliefs, etc. that dictate my positions on political issues) are essentially the same as what they've for as long as I've been political. I really can't think of much I could do to prove that to you, so you'll have to either take it at face value or reject it, not much else to do there I don't think.

Now, going beyond that, I think I see what you're seeing as incongruous & perhaps I see how to help reconcile it better, or at least I can try.

It'd be easy enough I suppose to argue over the degree of change in direction of the D's over the past 20-30 years. On the whole, I'll stick with my general statement of "they were nearly as liberal then as they are now". So that does create some confusion then, since if they haven't changed much & I haven't changed much, where does the enmity come from? (which I think is basically what you're questioning).

What I didn't expand on enough, I guess, is the amount of increased consciousness/awareness I gained over the years about how their actions & my beliefs so often were at odds. Probably a combination of things that caused the heightened awareness: we (hopefully) get wiser as we get older and gain experience, there's certainly a lot more information readily available now than there was 20 years ago, I believe politicians of both stripes are probably a little less capable at disguising their intentions now than then
(or the increased info stream makes it easier to catch them at it).

Add all those up, plus the natural human emotions of ... I dunno, frustration, anger, embarassment, et al, at having been so personally foolish for quite a number of years (at having worked rather blindly at cross purposes with myself) ... well, hopefully that makes clearer how the degree of disdain can rise to my particular level in spite of the absence of dramatic changes from either actor.

Put much more simply: I know & understand both me & them a lot better now than I used to.

[Flasch186]

i understand your side however it seems a bit disingenuous when above you say you have "little time invested in the party" then insinuate wisdom through the years.

However you can also simply point out that you and I come out on different sides of the fence more times than not and wash all of it away anyways, so what the hell are we talking about anyways. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

... you say you have "little time invested in the party" ...

Do read that part again, I meant that as "relative to the time Zell Miller had invested in the party". BIG difference, IMO, in how "vested" he is versus me.

(that bit was in reference to why I was able to break those ties while he could not, in spite of having a number of similar feelings about the party)

[MrBigglesworth]

First and foremost to understanding the current political environment is a review of voters’ self-identification by political philosophy: “In 2004, the electorate was 21 percent liberal, 34 percent conservative and 45 percent moderate,” according to the report. “This is practically a carbon copy of the average of the past thirty year – 20 percent liberal, 33 percent conservative and 47 percent moderate – with remarkably little variation from election to election.”...In 1976, Democrat Jimmy Carter won the presidency with only 51 percent of the moderate vote; in 2004, John Kerry won 54 percent of the moderate vote and still lost the presidency by 3.5 points.
I just read the article, and not the source paper, but from the article it appears that this guy is making a major logic mistake. People who call themselves moderates are actually heavily liberal. Consider that Democrats have won the moderate vote in every election since 1988. According to National Election Studies, 56 percent of moderates in 2004 associated themselves with the Democratic Party, while only 31 percent leaned Republican.Today, according to opinion polls, the median voter is pro-choice, wants to increase the minimum wage, favors strong environmental protections, likes gun control, thinks corporations have too much power and that the rich get away with not paying their fair share in taxes, believes the Iraq War was a mistake, wants a foreign policy centered on diplomacy and strong alliances, favors civil unions for gays and lesbians, favors increasing spending on SS, wants to spend more to help the poor, etc. Democrats already have the moderates.Why haven't Dems won elections? Easy, 9-11 and Iraq.