Why the center is so important

[Silverhair]

Let us say that the national issue of Wheeland is "Striped Roses". Opinion on the issue has crystalized into two opposed camps, the lows (Low numbers) and the highs (High numbers.) Like on most things the population in Wheeland is distributed on the issue in a bell curve. The peak of the curve is at 9 on a scale of 0 to 20. The Extreme lows are at 0 & the extreme highs are at 20. When a Wheelie votes they will vote for the candidate that is closest to their own position. So if the High run a 13 candidate, and the lows run a 7, then people all the way up to 11 will vote for the low candidate and the lows win in a landslide. Next election, an open election the lows run a 6 candidate and the highs run a 12. The election is a squeaker and there are charges of election fraud. Get the idea? The center will vote for the closest candidate. Both sides now get smart and the lows run a 8.5 and the highs a 9.4, the highs win in a narrow margin.

With some exceptions, the center vote decides the winner. Like it or not, that's how it works.


ODD CIRCUMSTANCES: There are two situations where this will not work.

1. One end splits due to a third party, weakening their voting block. Although sometimes it is difficult to see who was help or hurt by the third party spoiler. I think we can safely say that Bush v.2 owes a "Thank You" to Nader. Perot just confused things royally. I thing Bush v.1 would have still lost.

2. The public is mad at the incumbernt and want to fire him, no matter what. The lows have won with a 8.0 candidate, and the guy has been terrible. Even the lows are complaining about him, but with the power of his position in the party he defeats his rival for renomination and is able to run again. The highs can now move more to the high numbers than they have before and still win. They run a 15 candidate. Conventional wisdom says that he is too high to win, but he wins handily. Example: Carter vs Reagan. Clinton vs. Bush v.1

Examples:
Ike - Stevenson The public was very concerned about war with Russia and Ike was a war hero general. Ike was closest to the public's position.
Nixon - JFK, very close. (Both were strong anti communists.)/ Goldwater - LBJ Landslide - GW too far right
Nixon - HHH Comfortable win for Nixon. Public wanted to fire LBJ and HHH was LBJ VP, tainted by association. Convention was a disaster too.
Nixon - McGovern SUPER LANDSLIDE
Ford - Carter - comfortable win Carter was a centrist and Ford was tainted by Nixon.
Carter - Reagan Comfortable win Massive public anger with Carter. All Reagan had to do was reassure the public that he would not blow up the world.
Reagan - Mondale SUPER LANDSLIDE Mondale went waaay left.
Bush v.1 - Duke Comfortable win. Duke was too far left of center. (ACLU membership, Pledge of Allegiance, Soft on crime, soft on defense (Duke was an idiot to ride in that tank. It wasn't that he actually looked bad in it, but that it was too obviously a photo stunt so it had the opposite effect on voters.)
Clinton - Bush v.1 Very Comfortable win. Public was mad at Bush over broken promises and fighting a war but stopping before it was finished. Clinton was a centerist. Perot confused the picture.
Clinton v - Dole Landslide. Wierd - What the hell were the Reps thinking? I guess Dole was a sacrificial lamb. Clinton was a centrist and Dole had no issues.
Bush v.2 - Gore Squeaker Bush hugged the center while Gore continually reinvented himself but was generally on the left. gore had victory in his hands, handed to him by Clinton, and threw it away with inept campaigning, and childish behavior in the debates. Gore should have had a landslide victory, but he blundered.

Looking at 2004. Special circumstance 1 - Nothing on the horizon. No ultra right wing challange to Bush v.2 appears to be developing. The right will be united. Special condition 2. - Too early to tell. But the closer we are to the center, the better our chances.

[poskonig]

1. I rarely see Republicans having these conversations.

By the way, is George W. Bush a centrist?

Campaigns are about more than issues and ideology. They involve all sorts of other factors like footwork, fundraising, organization, message clarity, et cetera.

Given that ALL THREE MAJOR GROWTH GROUPS in the United States, minorities, professionals, and working women, all lean Democratic, liberals MUST turn out their base if they wish to survive.

In addition, there were several elections the Democrats lost in 2002 merely because they were outhustled by the Republicans. There is no excuse when this happens.

[Silverhair]

5. Of course things are more complicated.

In a post it is needful to over simplify and look at only one or two factors. My posts are windy enough without complicating them further. There are many issues and they actually divide more complexly than pure left right. There is also and up & down. But I wanted to focus on the role of the center.

I wanted to draw attention to a general trend, to the forest instead of the trees. I wanted to look at the long wave instead of the ripples on the wave.

No, Bush is not a centerist, but in the 2000 election he hugged the center, and Gore ran a really bad campaign.

Also, I am responding to so many who are saying that the center isn't important, that mobizing the base is what is needed. The great numbers are in the center, and whever that great mass goes to wins.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. Yes, George Bush is not a centrist AND

Mondale and Dukakis are not "far left."

Mondale's somewhat remote personality was no match for Mr. Kindly Uncle Actor who had just gotten off a (silly, useless) "victory" in Grenada. Reagan was comfortable on camera, and Mondale wasn't. Also, Mondale was dumb, dumb, dumb to make "I'm going to raise your taxes" practically the first sentence in his acceptance speech. That sound bite played on TV nonstop, without the accompanying explanation.

Dukakis was just the worst campaigner I've ever seen. I used to cringe about his screw-ups on a daily basis. My friends and I used to wonder half-seriously if he was trying to throw the election.

You can look up their platforms on the Internet. There is nothing in them that would be repugnant to the American people, but I'd bet that the vast majority of Americans had no idea what their platforms were, because they were so inept at selling them. You might have heard "Mondale/Dukakis is too liberal" from a 1980s voter, but if you had asked, "Why is he too liberal?" odds are good that the voter would have not been able to answer.

Here's my take on it: The Republicans are what they are. When selling themselves to the general public, they run on being "regular guys," but they signal their real intentions to their base through such moves as speaking at Bob Jones University or holding $25,000 a plate fundraising dinners for the RNC (they did this in Portland while I was living there).

They are master propagandists and experts at making the people think that shit is fudge brownies. As much as I hate their ideas, I have to bow in admiration at their command of popular psychology.

They promote their initiatives proudly and don't pander to the center so much as try to convince them that THEIR ideas will benefit them, even if it means spinning fantasies of a return to the alleged golden age of the 1950s.

They have a coherent, easily explainable platform: more freedom for large corporations and rich people, less freedom for "undesirables."

They put all their candidates through thorough training in how to meet the press and deal with the public.

They massage their base constantly. Here in the Twin Cities, for example, there are continual reports of Republican elected officials speaking at fundamentalist churches.

They are tireless in getting out the vote. Did you know that Oregon went to vote by mail partly because the Republicans automatically sent absentee ballots to all their registered members?

For the past twenty years, the Democrats have done little but react to the Republicans. They have swung between the extremes of acting as if they were ONLY for feminism and affirmative action and cynical dissing of their base. They have pushed positions, such as NAFTA, that were highly unpopular with their traditional base, without making a case for these positions. They have gone after the same corporate donors that the Republicans rely on, and in doing that have been forced to dilute their message.

The Dems need to come up with a coherent vision for the future that will benefit working and middle-class Americans of all types and then send their elected officials out into the communities to "preach the gospel." They should preach this message most intensively to their base: ethnic organizations, labor unions, women's organizations, liberal religious groups, peace and justice activists, youth (especially youth), and environmentalists, but also groups that used to be solidly Democratic but no longer are, such as farmers.

The idea of "appealing to the center" presupposes that the Center is some solid, unchanging bloc of opinion. That's nonsense. The Center is whatever the competing ideologies make it. The Center is an amorphous collection of opinions that can be changed with the proper appeal.

[ModerateMiddle]

37. Excellent post Lydia

The idea of "appealing to the center" presupposes that the Center is some solid, unchanging bloc of opinion. That's nonsense. The Center is whatever the competing ideologies make it. The Center is an amorphous collection of opinions that can be changed with the proper appeal.

This is so spot on. It's how the policies are sold that makes a huge difference. Give lumber companies free rein to cut as much as they want? "Healthy Forests" Strangle the innovative natures of most of our country's teachers and make their job one that could almost be replaced by computer programs? "Leave no child behind"

I do disagree with this part of what you said, "They have a coherent, easily explainable platform: more freedom for large corporations and rich people, less freedom for "undesirables.""

Although the "hidden" message is always the latter part, the former part is never part of the "general message". "Freedom for large corporations" is sold as "competition" and "market forces", but much like "state's rights", they only use these things when it is convenient. They don't want the market forces when those forces would hurt them - suddenly they are all in favor of government intervention (see "imminent domain" and the energy grids). And the owners of the Texas Rangers didn't have a problem with stealing land for their stadium which vastly enhanced the value of their "free market team".

The concept that there are "undesirables" is a strong conservative message, although never so openly stated. The way that affirmative action is presented by the right wing is telling. They enforce the notion that this is a zero sum game, and someone "less capable" is taking your job. "Welfare moms" are eating bon-bons and watching soaps while you slave away to support them. The "have-nots" are coveting your "stuff" (even if you have very little) and are to be feared. Anything different than you is "wrong". Having other people be "wrong" is good, because it makes you feel more "right" than you would otherwise.

The center-left does a poorer job of selling its message. Partly because it is a democratic group. We don't just annoint "representatives" and support and agree with them. We have LOTS of spokespeople, and their messages differ. We don't explain that by hearing the cacophony of voices we get better policy. And we're more likely to get people to huff off in disgust rather than display the patience to work through the system to get heard.

[Silverhair]

38. Yes, the center drifts.

Absolutely you have to track, and educate the center. But you can't ignore them or as we frequently see posted, act in a condecending manner toward them. (Remember Hillary's cookie remark? That needlessly alienated a lot of Jane Homemaker women.)I see a lot of DUers posting that all we need to do is mobilize the base to win.

We need to do the things you have said, certainly. You are not ignoring the center.

Also there are some issues that the center won't accept. We need to let go of those issues.

[dpbrown]

84. Hear, Hear!!!

Precisely written and beautifully summarized.

The vision is not to reach the wafflers in the "mushy middle" but to redefine the core and bring back the voters who've given up or left the Party.

Eighty million people opted not to participate in the last Presidential election, and only 100 million did. Of the 100 million, roughly 20 million would be considered the "middle" under the 40/40/20 rule of the DLC and election consultants.

Twenty million is only one quarter of 80 million.

The answer is in redefining what it means to fight for populism, equality, tolerance, and fairness instead of trickle-down, aristocracy, forced redistribution of wealth upwards, and military adventurism.

Then those who've left the Party or quit participating in the process will more than overshadow the "mushy middle" so-called Independents.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[edward]

61. "in the 2000 election [Bush] hugged the center"

Really? He never said he was a centrist or a moderate. Did he?
It is puzzling when people say that; other than propaganda from his campaign and media complicity, did anyone actually believe that?
People who voted for him seemed to genuinely believe in the right wing agenda.

[aldian159]

14. I see someone else has

read The Emerging Democratic Majority by John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira. If not, read it. It will make you feel better.

[Silverhair]

19. Unfortunately, the Reps are making strong gains with...

the young and the latinos. We can't count on them as being automatically ours. We need to identify issues that resonate with them, or find the issues that they don't like with us. Latinos tend to be more strongly religious in the Catholic church and some of our positions, especially towards homosexuality, don't go down well at all with the more macho Latin culture.

[dusty64]

23. I don't agree that

selling out our values for votes is a way to win elections. Despite being wrong on every issue, I'll give the rethugs something. They NEVER appear to sell out their base and even though they flip flop constantly on many of their core issues, they put up a veneer of not doing so. It's unfortunate that our side would have to explain why denying a segment of society their basic rights is unAmerican and unconstitutional, but that is what we should do. Gay people have every bit of a right to the same benefits and treatment that other groups expect. The first thing the Democrats have got to do it STOP allowing the rightwing and the media to define them and distort their positions. They DO need to push an agenda of their own that serves the People and the Planet and contrast it with the horrid policies of the rethugs. Basic fairness for ALL is not one of the things that can be compromised.

[birdman]

30. Bush was presented to the electorate as a centrist

In politics the perception is more important
than the reality.

[Tinoire]

2. Things fall apart

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand;
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries
of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

William Butler Yeats

[Silverhair]

4. So that's where Harry Turtledove got the title of that book from!

Bet you didn't expect that response did you?

[Tinoire]

8. Lol no, and to be perfectly honest

I have no idea what you're talking about. Who is Harry Turtledove?
I'm so into politics and activism right now that I have certain lacunae.

Thanks

[Silverhair]

11. Alternate History Fiction writer.

He has a series of books that begin with the South winning a certain critical battle that the North won by an extremely lucky accident. After the battle, England puts pressure on Lincoln to stop the war as unwinnable. (They seemed ready to do that but when the North won that battle, the English kept quite.) He then follows the new history line, attempting to use historically accurate people, develpments and movements. In "The Center Cannot Hold" a Hitler like person comes to power in the Confederacy in 1933. I haven't read the next book in the series yet. I am waiting for it in paperback.

He also has a series where aliens invade earth in 1942. And he has a lot of other alternate history books.

[Tinoire]

15. Sounds very interesting! Thanks

I don't agree with the premise of your original post but I do appreciate the time you took to put it together and the manner in which you presented it... I've printed it out for later reflection. I'm a vehement Leftist who believes that the party risks losing more and more people like me because of that center but your analysis may make me look at this differently. Actually I shouldn't say "because of that center" but because that center has shifted so far to the right in the last decades that it's no longer really the center anymore...

Peace and thank you

[sangh0]

34. re: The center cannot hold

If you read the rest of that stanza carefully, you might find that it makes an argument in favor of the center. I re-post the stanza with my own emphasis

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

When the center can no longer hold, mere anarchy is loosed, and the worst are passionate. IMO, it's a statement about the effects of polarization.

It's my belief that the fascists are encouraging political polarization for several reasons:

1) It's makes their opponents seem more extreme
2) It's discredits the majority in the center as lacking in passion and principle.
3) It discourages reasonable debate where each side gives the other a modicum of respect and consideration

[Silverhair]

36. Yes.

A gov't by the extremist of either side, us or theirs, would be a horror.

[aldian159]

16. and Chinua Achebe

[piece sine]

6. joni mitchell...!!

of course...that's where I've heard these words sung.

[piece sine]

3. your gentle scholarship is much appreciated

It's hard to look adversity right in the eye but you do. This post hurts because it's true. But it's also a beacon of hope because if enough Democrats work together to hold the center, we're in.

And it's the only way in. Just look at history without blinking, as you do.

The center. Does that mean Kerry? Gephardt? DU wants Dean and the posters here are all but certain to vote.

If and when the flamers come, remember we're all on the same side. I fear some people around here are not fond of dispassionate analysis.

[dusty64]

24. Dean's record is

actually quite moderate. Most of his supporters realize this and while they may wish for someone a bit more progressive, are hungry for REAL opposition and the ability to shake up the system. It will be interesting to see how the corporate media distorts his record to make him appear, exactly what I expect them to do to chimp's record in reverse. We saw them turn his disturbing time in Texas into a thing of beauty and they will no doubt do this again.

Yes President Gore made many mistakes in his campaign, but lets not get too far off track. The smears and lies spread about him by the media as well as their softball treatment of the chimp was also a BIG part of it. Add in the HUGE vote fraud in Florida as well as Tennessee and you know he didn't really lose. We are going to have to work very hard to not allow this crap to happen again, no matter who the nominee is.

[AP]

7. The middle is where all the votes are.

Gore was not on the left. He ran in the middle. He never made a single attempt to coopt Green voters with a more liberal message.

Mondale wasn't too far left. He was very boring, very corporate, and made one dumb comment about rasing taxes. But that wasn't hyper liberal.

The only candidate who ever made it past the primaries who wasn't moderate was Goldwater. He lost in the worst popular vote landslide in the modern era. He was a disaster of a candidate.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

64. The middle is where the votes THAT REALLY MATTER are

IOW, they are the "swing" votes that nudge someone like Bush past 50%. And I am afraid that the center is currently leaning right.

[KG]

9. yes, i think it's vitally important to

capture the vote of those think sharpton should chose don king as a running mate. we need those kind of people on our side! :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Three Points

Carter blew a thirty three point post convention leead to beat Ford 50 -48%.... Hardly a comfortable win and few thousand votes in some key states would have given Ford an Electoral College win....


Mondale and Duke were traditional liberals.... Neither of them favored cutting the Pentagon budget or advocated a major shift in the prevailing foreign policy paradigm...


Their real or perceived liberalism contributed to their defeat but there were other factors in play including the power of the incumbency and being the vice president of a popular president.....


I do agree with your major point....


Politics is played between the forty yard lines and elections are usually won in the middle...

[Silverhair]

12. True.

In my posts I usually over simplify for the sake of brevity, and to focus attention on my primary point.

[Silverhair]

13. Yes, I need to make a slight but important modification.

Instead of the actual position, I need to have said, "Position as percieved by the general public." That allows the the "lows" and the "highs" the ability to tar each other.

[Minstrel Boy]

17. The center is liberal, it just doesn't know it.

And it doesn't know it, because for too long the left has allowed the right to define the terms.

Orwell wrote that "The word fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'" In America, something similar has happened to the word "liberal." Which is extraordinarily sad, because it's a fine word, and most Americans, it could be said, still espouse generally liberal values.

[Silverhair]

18. Actually, I think the center is more liberitarian.

On social issues the center seems to be left, but on fiscial issue it seems to be right. On National Security, it is a bit more right. People are pretty angry still over 9-11. The terrorists were Arabs, and there have been a lot of Arab Islamic terrorists so lots of ordinary people aren't real selective about which Arab country we beat up, as long as somebody gets it. I don't think the anger has fully vented yet either. That's why Bush is able to hold his approval rating. Their message is a gut level emotional one. Ours is more cebereal. Not saying I like it, but that my analysis. I could be wrong.

[FDRrocks]

20. Most people I talk to support socialized health care...

and don't step over homeless people.

[ModerateMiddle]

28. The center certainly doesn't self-identify as liberal

I forget the exact numbers, but far more people identify as either conservative or moderate than do as liberal or progressive in the general population (of course the population of DU does not look like this).

There are three issues on which people polarize: Abortion, Guns and the Death Penalty. How these issues are framed is critical.

For example, positing "gun control" as "promoting responsible gun ownership" would sell better. "A woman's right to choose" looks way more mainstream if it is sold as "not something a government should dabble in". We have great family values, we just don't see all families as resembling "Ozzie and Harriet" any more.

The reason that quite a few in the center lean conservative is that the conservatives have spent decades now packaging their ideas in forum tested terms that appeal to their moderate instincts.

[FDRrocks]

21. What about, uhm... errr..

The 50% that don't vote?

My only critique of your message was that Gore lost. He didn't lose.

[ModerateMiddle]

26. That 50% that don't vote

If polls work because a "sample" is generally representative of the larger population, then it makes sense that the 50% who don't vote are already represented by the 50% that DO vote, in terms of political positions. More voters would be good for our nation because it might drain some of the apathy, but the new voters are quite likely to be spread out in the same numbers as those who already vote.

[birdman]

29. The 50 % who don't vote have no political position

Politically minded people vote. They don't sit home and sulk
because nobody is addressing their issues - they don't have any.

Even people who don't like the two major parties will find a
third party if they have a political bent.

The "mobilize the non-voters" strategy has floated around in Democratic circles for decades but the same people always vote no matter what
the issues or candidates.

You have to work with the electorate that's there.

[ModerateMiddle]

33. I agree that you have to work with the electorate

that is there. However, I also believe that there is a huge swatch of folks who DO vote that aren't "politically minded". They vote because they believe that it is important, but not so important that they need to be well-informed. Those who do keep themselves well-informed are the minority in this country. The rest vote for someone (or in most cases - against someone) for various reasons, many of which have zero to do with actual policy matters

:cry:

[Iverson]

22. a couple of comments

1968 - RFK assassinated after winning the California primary.

1972 - dirty tricks, Eagleton, "Democrats for Nixon"

2000 - We'll just have to disagree about Gore "generally on the left."

The theory of the important middle has always been easy to understand, even by us wacky lefties.

The problem with your summary is that it decontextualizes centrism. The center isn't always the center, and at some point the little boy has to point at the emperor and say he has no clothes, so it'll be all right for the rest of us to acknowledge the righward drift of the center.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. The center is very mobile

If Nixon were running today, he would be portrayed as a "radical leftist," because he proposed a guaranteed annual income, expanded the food stamp program to its present scale (it had formerly been a small experimental program), and founded the EPA.

In that context, what do right and left mean?

[Iverson]

78. the center is narrowly mobile

It only seems to move to the right, and no one in the center seems to mind that.

[pinerow]

25. The only thing I see in middle of the road is road-kill.

eom

[JVS]

27. On what grounds do you assume a bell curve distribution on the issue?

[sangh0]

35. The facts

It may not be a perfect picture of a bell, but polls and studies strongly indicate that most people's position hover around the "center"

on edit: Or at least, they THINK they're hovering about the center

[IrateCitizen]

40. Maybe as an aggregate, yes...

But when you are talking about individual issues, that is another matter entirely. Please see my post #39 below.

[sangh0]

48. Only as an agregate, yes

but I would point out that this thread's initiator acknowledges it's a simplistic method of analysis. However, simplification can often lead to significant results.

Presidential elections are about politics at the wholesale level. Given endless anounts of time and money, a pres. candidate could target each and every voter based on their individual set of opinions. In reality, that doesn't happen, so candidates are forced into appealing to huge groups of people.

[IrateCitizen]

51. Not an "electoral aggregate", an "issues aggregate"

That's what I'm referring to here. And I think that it's a dangerous way of thinking that leads to a lot of false conclusions, and therefore, a lot of mistaken strategies.

Once again, I ask you to read my post #39.

[sangh0]

53. Not an "electoral aggregate", an "issues aggregate"

You're absolutely correct. You're also right to say that this kind of analysis can lead to false conclusions, etc. However, there are circumstances where this kind of analysis can be useful, so long as one remembers that it's not the only sort of analysis available. It's a tool, and should be used only when the circumstances justify it's use.

IOW, while you are right to point out the dangers of using this type of simplification, that doesn't mean there's no value in simplification.

[JVS]

44. I wouldn't be so sure. Take abortion as an example

People gravitate around two different polls on the issue. One group sees it as a Woman's right the other group sees it as murder. Nobody seems interested in the centrist compromise which would be heavily regulated but still legal abortion. I've never heard anyone take the middle ground and say "Well it is killing a child, but women should also be able to control her reproduction. We need to balance this so I think it should just be like gun control wit lots of background checks"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. I Disagree

Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare....

I think that's where most folks are.....

Abortion should be legal and safe but society should encourage abstinence for teen agers, birth control for adults, and adoption as an alternative to abortion...

[sangh0]

49. There's a difference between

characterizing a person's opinion on one issue, and characterizing that person's opinion over a wide variety of issues.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. Bingo.......

It is a bell curve that tilts to the right...


Approximately 18% of Americans define themselves as liberal...


Approximately 40%% of Americans define themselves as moderate....


Approximately 30% of Americans define themselves as conservative....


These numbers have been fairly constant for four, five decades....

You can ignore this reality......

You can deride this reality....

You can deny this reality....

But at the end of the day it's still a reality......

Bookmark this post..... If the Pukes are able to charactirize our candidate as out of the mainstream we loose....


I'll leave it to an enterprising DUer to find the link... It's a Harriss poll that's been linked here before....

[IrateCitizen]

47. Who defines those terms???

I love it when someone trots out labels and a bell curve as if it were proof that somehow the country was tilting to the right.

How do you explain it then, with an issue like universal health care, that somewhere around 65 percent of Americans support it? I would hardly call such a position "conservative", or even "moderate" according to the current terms of debate.

Also, if Americans are so conservative, why does an overwhelming majority say that they would be willing to forgo tax cuts if the money they would get back would be applied toward education? What about the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans cite "protecting and preserving the environment" as a major concern? Would you still characterize those people as "conservative"?

This is the danger that you encounter when you go off of one-dimensional analyses and application of labels. You get an unrealistic picture of reality, and therefore, any prescriptions you apply toward winning in politics are bound to fail.

I would suggest you read my post #39, below.

[sangh0]

50. Who? The individuals themselves

The polls I've seen, which had results similar to those reported above, ask people to identify themselves.

[IrateCitizen]

52. Exactly my point

Many voters define themselves as "moderate" or even "conservative" while supporting many progressive/liberal causes (like the ones I listed in the previous post to which you replied). This is probably attributable, more than anything, to the demonization of the word "liberal" over the past 25 years.

But I ask you this -- does this reality mean that we should abandon progressive or liberal positions on issues, even if they are supported by a clear majority of the electorate, just based on the fact that these same people don't identify with the simple label of "liberal"?

[sangh0]

54. No

I'm not sure why you're even asking. There often seems to be an assumption that someone who thinks that the center has a great impact on our elections is, by definition, arguing that we should "abandon" something or other.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. Bingo......Again.....

If someone says America is a center right nation they are describing a phenomenon not applauding it....

The first thing they teach you in Poli Sci is the difference between the emperical and the normative... The way things are versus the way you think things ought to be....

As to universal health insurance, folks believe the government should be the insuror of last resort.... Most folks get their health insurance through their jobs and they like it like that....

A workable plan would build on that foundation....

[IrateCitizen]

57. You're digging your hole even deeper again...

If someone says America is a center right nation they are describing a phenomenon not applauding it....

The only thing you described in the post above is the way that people in the United States perceive labels. That's it. The point of my reply was to point out to you the danger of basing your "reality" on such a tenuous footing, without looking at the broader underlying issues that might come into conflict with such an analysis.

The first thing they teach you in Poli Sci is the difference between the emperical and the normative... The way things are versus the way you think things ought to be....

And the first thing they teach you in hard sciences (I'm actually an engineer, but it meant PLENTY of mathematics, chemistry and physics in the process) is that one observed experiment without a control group does not a theory or law make. You've taken one highly subjective poll (for the reasons I pointed out above) and put it forth as proof of a universal truth. The fact clearly is that it is anything BUT one.

As to universal health insurance, folks believe the government should be the insuror of last resort.... Most folks get their health insurance through their jobs and they like it like that....

What "most folks" are you talking about here? If you're talking about middle-upper class white collar employees, you're probably right. But if you're talking about retail sector employees, working class people who can't afford the premiums or deductibles, the unemployed, etc. -- I'd hardly suspect that your assertion would hold "universal".

IOW, your viewpoint is betraying its bias as coming from a certain perspective, without attempting to see it from a number of DIFFERENT perspectives first.

Finally, the way in which you pulled out just one issue I cited and attempted to twist it into a different argument is duly noted. Now, in the name of intellectual honesty, how about going back and addressing the TREND that I brought up? You know... the one that discounts the single poll you cited above as a basic truth.

ON EDIT: The ONLY thing I agreed with from your initial post was that if the Republicans are able to portray us as being out of the mainstream, we lose.

[sangh0]

58. I suspect something went unsaid

The only thing you described in the post above is the way that people in the United States perceive labels. That's it.

That's true, but I think there's an assumption at work here that has gone unsaid. Simply put, when it comes to politics and campaigns, perceptions count, and it would be ill-advised to ignore this. That doesn't mean that we've discovered a previously unknown law of political physics. It's just something significant that ought to be considered. Of course, a more detailed, complex, and accurate tool would help clarify the issues. However, that doesn't mean there's no value in taking a wide view, even if that results in a loss of detail.

[IrateCitizen]

62. First off, you've interjected yourself into a squabble between 2 others

I think that might be a major source of the confusion, because I'm replying to DemocratSinceBirth in this exchange and not you.

Secondly, I think it's important to address this point...

However, that doesn't mean there's no value in taking a wide view, even if that results in a loss of detail.

Loss of detail, no. But the danger here is that, with the approach that DemocratSinceBirth put up there, is that it can result in a loss of basic REALITY -- by portraying the electorate as much more conservative overall on ISSUES than they really are.

[sangh0]

65. Too bad

If you object to "interjecting", complain to the mods

[IrateCitizen]

67. Dammit sangh0, that's not my point

My point is that the interjection might have been what caused some of the confusion as to "why I am even asking this question." I was simply saying that you might have misconstrued that my responses were directed toward something that YOU had written; when, in fact, they were not.

I only "complain to the mods" when the situation warrants it. Clearly this is not (yet) ;-) the case.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. I Said America Was A Center Right Nation....

I never said it was a right wing nation.....


Strawmen are so easy to knock down.....


If American politics was a football field the election would be won between the forty yard lines.....


I would put the American electorate between the forty and forty five yard line... Slightly north of left field.....

It's interesting that the one candidate who won on a platform that was arguably removed from the mainstrean came from the right....

[IrateCitizen]

71. Well, you should know, considering how many you've lost today

Strawmen are so easy to knock down...

Once again, I notice that I bring up several points regarding political strategy, and you reply by telling me about the weather.

It's interesting that the one candidate who won on a platform that was arguably removed from the mainstrean came from the right....

Yeah. And I'm certain that double-digit inflation, the Iran hostage crisis, the oil embargos, and all that other stuff had nothing to do with that. Nah, nothing to see here, move along.

IOW, while you might be deluding yourself into believing that you're winning the argument, in reality you're just being delusional.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. "considering how many you've lost today"

Is this a contest....

If I win do I get a prize?


I don't know what your point is.....

Is it that Americans are so stupid that they don't know how think about the issues?


That there is a groundwell of support for a left wing agenda just waiting to be awakened?

[IrateCitizen]

82. Left-wing, definitely not (regrettably)

But center-left, sold in the correct manner? Absolutely!

Or perhaps the better argument is to get out of this false dichotomy between left and right altogether. I'd suggest that you take a look at some of the works of Rabbi Michael Lerner, particularly his book The Politics of Meaning. You can access stuff of his more "in brief" at http://www.tikkun.org.

Probably the best example of this kind of politics was the late Paul Wellstone. He was a liberal, but not an ideologue -- and in his own words described politics as being "about the importance of people's lives." He didn't try to force stances down people's throats -- he listened to their concerns and sold them on solutions, and then worked for them.

But most of all, it was clear that he valued the people he went to Washington to represent. As such, he worked for a society that valued THEM. In short, that's all people really want -- to be valued. It's just too bad that commercialism has twisted the valuing of people into being based on personal wealth.

But that's a whole other discussion, one which I feel is connected and would love to have, but would probably clog up this thread even greater than we already have. ;-)

ON EDIT: Fixed typo

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. K....

I start from the premise that America is a center-right nation
not a right wing nation...If it has anthying like a twin that twin would prolly be Australia... Both nations are infused with a strong strain of individualism....

That being said center leftists and center rightists* get elected all the time cuz both center leftists and center rightists are close enough to the middle.....

Also, you are right that values are important....That is an important component of electing a candidate....

Folks will vote for a candidate that shares their values even if they don't agree with him or her on all the issues...

I hate global descriptions but most Americans are individualistic... I don't mean they are inherantly selfish but they learn from birth to pull their own weight....

*These terms are so imprecise but I don't know what to use in lieu of them.... Human behavior can't be broken down into mathematical formulae....

[IrateCitizen]

88. Bollocks!

Human behavior can't be broken down into mathematical formulae....

It can't! Well dammit all to hell! There goes that thesis idea! :evilgrin:

I hate global descriptions but most Americans are individualistic... I don't mean they are inherantly selfish but they learn from birth to pull their own weight....

Yes and no. Have you ever lived in a predominantly rural area? I grew up in one, and the reason I ask is because there is a much greater sense of community in rural America. They still realize the value that is inherent in taking care of one another.

I started a couple of threads last week on courting rural voters, looking out for farmers, etc. One responder -- a small farm owner in the Midwest -- told a story of how she was having trouble putting fence up on her farm. She left to go to town to get some supplies, came back, and her neighbors had put the fence up for her. Another poster told of a farmer who broke his leg prior to harvest. The other farmers around him all chipped in and did the harvest for him.

I think you're mistaking learning the value of doing your share of work with being the same as "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps". They're not the same thing, and it's one of the great propaganda coups ever embarked upon to get people to think that they are the same. If you spent a good deal of time living in any area of rural America, you'd learn that to a great many people, cooperation and community are values that are still held very important.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. You Incorrectly Assumed My Thesis Was Based On A Single Poll....

It's two hundred plus years of American history that demonstrates that folks who deviate too far from the mainstrean tend not to be elected.....

I'm sorry that history and political science lack the precision of the hard sciences...

It's hard to reduce two hundred plus years of American history to a lab experiment.....

How is America not a center right nation?

It has the least developed safety net of all the major industrialized democracies with the possible exception of Japan...

The percentage of GDP collected in taxes is one of the lowest of all the major industrialized democracies....

You incorrectly assumed that I was using the Harris poll to make "global" conclusions when I was basing my conclusions on over two hundred years of American history....

[IrateCitizen]

80. Hey, I can only go off of what you cite -- I'm not a mind-reader

You cited the Harris poll as the basis for your thesis. Now, if you want to bring other things into the mix, go right ahead. I'm perfectly accepting.

And I also would not disagree that the American electorate is to the right, overall, of the Canadian electorate or that of any Western European nations. I just don't think, based on polls on individual issues, that it is as far to the right as you think it is. But then again, we are venturing into subjective territory that is based on how two people differently interpret the data they have access to and the perspectives from which they view the world around them.... :shrug:

[IrateCitizen]

60. Please point out where I said we should "abandon" anything...

I'll give you $100 if you're able to.

My point (which was made in response to the other poster, not you) was that it is foolhardy to base political strategy solely on the way in which people assign highly subjective labels to themselves, without looking at the way they line up on individual ISSUES instead.

THAT is why I am asking the question, and judging by the other poster's response, I am left wondering why I even try to discuss issues in detail on these boards. :eyes:

[sangh0]

66. Here's where

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=614989&mesg_id=618133

But keep your money. Or, even better, give it to charity. If you need a recommendation, PM me

My point (which was made in response to the other poster, not you) was that it is foolhardy to base political strategy solely on the way in which people assign highly subjective labels to themselves, without looking at the way they line up on individual ISSUES instead.

And for the umpteenth time, I agree with that. However, NO ONE has suggested that we base strategy SOLELY on this analysis.

[IrateCitizen]

69. Reading comprehension 101

My full quote:

But I ask you this -- does this reality mean that we should abandon progressive or liberal positions on issues, even if they are supported by a clear majority of the electorate, just based on the fact that these same people don't identify with the simple label of "liberal"?

Asking you whether or not we should abandon positions that I clearly support -- and so does the majority of the electorate -- is not the same as advocating said abandonment myself. I'm rather disappointed that you would attempt to twist it as such.

IOW, nice try, but not even close. As for charities and causes, I'm quite familiar with many I already donate to. ;-)

[sangh0]

70. You implied

that someone else was saying we should abandon position. No one said that.

[IrateCitizen]

75. By your assumptions

My assumptions were different, in that DemocratSinceBirth used one poll based on highly subjective self-labeling to advocate the point of view that the electorate is skewed slightly to the right. The automatic implication -- especially when concern is expressed for the Republicans painting us as "out of the mainstream" -- is that we had better be careful not to adopt any position "too far left".

The purpose of my posts was to point out the fallacy of such an argument, when many specific issues show views of a clear majority of voters in line with progressive positions, REGARDLESS of what label they might assign themselves.

[sangh0]

85. Not by assumption

You asked if I thought the analysis meant we should "abandon" some things. My response was that I didn't even know why you would ask such a thing since no one had mentioned anything about abandoning anything until you brought it up.

The automatic implication -- especially when concern is expressed for the Republicans painting us as "out of the mainstream" -- is that we had better be careful not to adopt any position "too far left".

Not automatic, at least, not for me. I've said this several times, --and a few of those times it was in response to something you posted-- that it might mean changing the WAY we promote certain policies, but not a change in the policy themselves.

And yet, you keep saying that the "automatic implication" is that we abandon positions/principle/etc.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. I'm Enjoying This Debate....

with you and Sangho.....

It's hard to talk about something as amorphous an the American electorate with the precision an engineer or a product of the hard sciences desires but one can make assumptions about different electorates.....

Surely, the American electorate is to the right of the electorates of most of western Europe and Canada....


Most Americans like the rough and tumble of unbridled capitalism while most Europeans are apalled by it...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Bingo

They ask folks if they are conservative, moderate, or liberal....

A strategy that is based on the notion that people are so stupid they don't know what they are is not a very good strategy....

I think when folks say they are conservative or liberal they know what they are saying....

[IrateCitizen]

59. That's OK -- don't address ANY of the points I brought up

I should have known better than to interject anything resembling two-dimensional (forget about three-dimensional!) thinking into a debate on electoral strategy here on DU. I guess intellectual honesty is not a common trait when the goal is to debase the discussion into a cable-news style match of soundbytes rather than a PBS-style investigation of nuance. :eyes:

What you fail to note again and again and again is how you can completely ignore the effects of propaganda over the past 20 years (the demonization of the term "liberal") toward the political labels that most people would assign themselves.

And I would expect someone like sangh0 to make this point as well, given how much sangh0 likes to weigh in on threads exploring the effects of propaganda.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. I Agree That The Term Liberal Has Been Demozined....

No argument from me....

But my analysis of politics starts from the premise that most folks want to be left alone.... They are anti-statist and only look to the government when they are in need....

[IrateCitizen]

77. OK, then let's expound on this a bit...

But my analysis of politics starts from the premise that most folks want to be left alone.... They are anti-statist and only look to the government when they are in need....

Being a progressive, I don't believe that it is the role of government to "support people" either. However, I DO believe that it is the role of government to help create the climate for a fair and just society.

Ensuring that ALL people have access to health care is part of that. A majority of voters seem to agree.

Ensuring that measures are taken toward stewardship of the environment for future generations is part of that. Once again, most voters would seem to agree.

Investing adequately in the education of our future generations is part of that. Once again, most voters would seem to agree.

I also grew up in a rural area, and have seen the idea of people helping each other out as members of a common community in action. I've seen that the most effective people for ADMINISTERING help are those in the same neighborhood and community. And therefore, I'm leery of any effort to interject the Federal Government's control to the local level. Once again, by your definition, most voters would agree.

But somehow I see myself as very left-wing, while the majority of voters see themselves as "moderate" or "conservative". How can this possibly be, unless the self-assignment of political labels is highly subjective, and doesn't really tell us anything definite other than how people view themselves, regardless of how they view issues?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. I Am In Complete Agreement With Your Agenda...

I consider myself a traditional liberal, a welfare state liberal, a garden variety liberal depending on your choice of terms....

While we both are in favor of universal health isurance we might differ on the path to get there....

on edit- I will also embrace the term -center leftist....


Using contemporary American political figures I would put my self to the right of the Kucinch and Sharpton , to the left of Lieberman, and possibly Dean and phisophically aligned with Clark, Gep, and Kerry....

[IrateCitizen]

83. That's quite alright...

While we both are in favor of universal health isurance we might differ on the path to get there....

That's OK, because eventually single-payer will win out simply because it is the more efficient system. Just look at how much trouble the UK is having with their two-tiered system as compared with the single-payer systems of Scandinavia, Germany, France, Canada, etc. ;-)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. I Wouldn't Have A Problem With Single Payer

as long as folks can buy supplemental insurance.....

That would also be the quickest way to garner popular support....

I wouldn't want to prevent rich folks from accessing any additional medical care they wanted as long as poor folks are guaranteed a basic level of care....

We could go on and on... I don't want to eat the rich.... I just expect them to be good citizens and give back in taxes a little of the weath this nation has given them... It is the infrastructure that ensures the order of things that allow them to be successful.

[IrateCitizen]

39. I find your analysis dangerously oversimplistic

You are making the common (and dangerous) mistake of plotting voters out on a bell curve, as if their beliefs were monolithic in placing them at some point on a linear scale. The reality is that most people have beliefs that are conservative in some areas, and may be incredibly liberal in others. Many of us here on DU (myself included) represent those rare manifestations in which almost ALL beliefs are liberal, in some cases "off the scale".

The American Prospect ran an excellent series of articles on this in a recent issue (I believe it was September 2003). One article in particular spoke of this situation in which most people have both authoritarian and nurturing aspects in their personalities, and that the trick of effective campaigning was not necessarily to cater to one or the other (which is what you seem to be doing, by advocating "moving to the center"), but to instead do the best job of playing to the side of their personality that your party represents.

An excellent example of this "duality" at work (summarized in the TAP article) would be a fictitious working-class family, in which the father is a member of a trade union. This voter may have an authoritarian household in which he is the patrician "head of the family", but still exercise nurturing values in the workplace through his union activism. Likewise, a junior executive of a corporations may express it in the other direction, maintaining a more "nurturing" home environment, but playing an authoritative role in the workplace.

The key to winning is not necessarily "moving to the center" -- although, I agree with you that no election can be won without them. The key is to successfully sell the ideals of the Democratic Party -- ideals more associated with the "nurturing" side of people -- as appealing to their more "nurturing" characteristics.

This could be done to the working-class union father by talking up ideas of economic fairness, reining in corporate excesses, and so on. It could be done to the corporate junior executive by standing up on issues like sensible gun control measures (i.e. the assault weapons ban) and environmental protections. Meanwhile, members of the "base" won't feel abandoned, because you'll be hitting THEIR issues as well.

To place this analysis in some kind of linear perspective, as you have done, is dangerously deceptive. It doesn't accurately reflect the reality of voters out there, and therefore, offers up false prescriptions for capturing them. While I appreciate the effort that you have put into it, I find too much at fault with it to accept it as a viable working model.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. Yeah, what Irate Citizen said

:-)

[IrateCitizen]

42. You know what they say about great minds, Lydia...

They think alike... and they are often unpopular. ;-)

While I see a more "3-D" analysis of voters to be more accurate, as do you, for many such an idea is automatically rejected out of hand in favor of a 2-D (or even 1-D) frame of reference that can only offer false prescriptions, because it portrays things in terms of false realities.

But what do I know... I'm just a crazy "leftist" trying to doom the Democratic Party to the days of McGovern and Dukakis. :eyes:

[MrPrax]

43. The center is good...

because it is ambiguous and as such politicians don't have to commit to any real platforms...just appeal to polls.
The folks who pay for the politicians like it because it gives them latitude on their various lobby interests.

Notice I just call them 'politicians' whatever label you would put on a politician and it's party that will rule in favor of the nebulous center is virtually the same.

Perish the thought of pursuing rational inclusive policies and doing them because their right and the best thing for a nation and its people...oh what a minute...Centrist claim to be doing that. Doh!!

[tom_paine]

73. Serving up Dole in '96 was about soldifiying Bushevik power

"See, running a normal, Old School campaign won't work. Let us loose Uncle Karl and the New Plumbers and we'll show you how to play the media like a fiddle!"

Dole was the Poster Boy for the Death of the (Old-School) Republicans.

Republcians aren't even really Republicans anymore. They are Busheviks. Bootlicking servants of the Empire.

[tom_paine]

74. Serving up Dole in '96 was about soldifiying Bushevik power

"See, running a normal, Old School campaign won't work. Let us loose Uncle Karl and the New Plumbers and we'll show you how to play the media like a fiddle!"

Dole was the Poster Boy for the Death of the (Old-School) Republicans.

Republcians aren't even really Republicans anymore. They are Busheviks. Bootlicking servants of the Empire.