More On Which Way the Dems Should Go

This is a non-starter. Take every poll released in the next year and compare it to how Republicans polled in '92. Thanks to the Dem strategy of not rocking the boat, people have only heard one argument, so it sounds good to them. Big deal. It'll cycle back. I'd suggest Republicans spend less time worrying about who should lead the Democrats and more time taking advantage of the next two years to pass their aggressive legislation. After the next two years of Republican rule, we'll see if Democrats (or Republicans or Independents for that matter) still want a party that mimics the White House.

 

Terrible article, for a variety of reasons.

1. The only major issue discussed seems to have been the war on Iraq. Technically speaking, that's not a 'conservative' or 'liberal' matter. Conservatives tend to be more hawkish on this particular issue. But saying that Democrats should be more tough on terrorism/Iraq is *not* saying they should be less liberal.

At the very least, the article confuses the issue.

2. Issue-oriented polls have not suddenly grown more conservative. Many issues still favor Democrats. Stance on issues determines the degree of how "liberal" the Democratic party is. A party is not "liberal" or "conservative" in some absolute, quantifiable vacuum... this poll puts the Democrats in the awkward situation of having to move to the left to create issue resonance with voters, but needing to move to the right, to square with voter belief in how "liberal" they should be.

Being "liberal" is not independent of stances on the issues. Unfortunately, I think polls like this are largely the result of Reagan's mumbo-jumbo. The "liberal is a dirty word" thing really has to go. Being "liberal" is more than wanting to raise taxes... just as being conservative is more than owning a gun and wanting war. Sadly, people often don't understand that their own stance on an issue is "liberal." Liberal has been taken to mean "extreme," in popular culture... even if the "actual" definition is not.

Then, all that's left is for the Republicans to successfully (intentionally or not) confuse the populace concerning the dual meanings (Reagan's and the actual). The Democrats are "liberal" in the traditional sense, so therefore they must be too "liberal" in Reagan's sense, since any degree of "liberal" is extreme. It's terrible logic.

Unfortunately, weak leadership gave the word to Reagan, instead of actually trying to convey the actual meaning of the word.

3. Someone else worded this very articulately on this board earlier (sorry, forgot who!) by saying:

"When the Democrats move to the center, the center moves to the Right."

This seems insightful to me. Political parties in America are sort of the reverse of what they actually should be. Instead of representing popular trends in political thought, they, instead... have come to help define what political thought is. This is the reverse of what is ideal, and the theoretical goal of a party system. We've moved from representation to dictation.

On this theory... the Democrats moving to the center simply allows the Republicans to move further to the right. The Democrats haven't claimed the center - they've just relocated it.

This is a natural flaw of having one party become the "left" and the other the "right." They become natural guardians of the interests and definitions of the left and right... when in reality, they should simply be representatives of leftist and rightist movements.

The evidence for this is ample. I mean, in common language... Democrat almost stands for "liberal," while Republican has become interchangeable with "conservative." That's inaccurate... and in some places, positively misleading.

I had more to say... but I've already waxed overly effusive .

 

This is really quite disturbing, since W is the biggest f*ckup when its comes to diplomacy and foreign affairs.

I think the Democratic problem is that they have not had a clear message like the Republicans. The Democrats also have not stuck to their guns and stood up to the President. The Democrats are the opposition party and this is what opposition parties are supposed to do.

The Democrat party in the House I think will bounce back under Nancy Pelosi. Part of their problem since losing control of Congress in the 90s was that the established Dem leadership was in serious denial about what contributed to their failure. They did not believe that there was a sea change. Pelosi has spent half of her time in Congress in the minority party. She should have a better grip on this reality than Dick Gephardt.

I also do not think that the core Democratic believes are too liberal for the US (any more than I believe that the core Republican believes are too conservative). Both parties have fringe elements, that are not in step with the rest of America. Fortunately for the Democrats, the White House is coddling the far right fringe element. If the Democrats take centrist positions, they may open the door to the White House in 2004.

 

Good post, haven. The phenomenon you're describing used to be referred to by Frank Zappa as the right wing media myth. His point was that the right wing complains constantly about the media being too liberal, so they move right, adjusting the center. The Democratic Leadership Council did the same thing, after Dems became so depressed from Reagan-Bush that they believed the only way to win was to become more Republican.

Paul Wellstone proudly embraced the word "liberal." He made the basic argument that if "liberal" meant fighting for the little people (poor, homeless, uninsured, undereducated, etc.), he was proud to be a liberal. Every Texas Democrat who spent their millions in advertising whining that they were conservatives, too, and that they didn't like liberals either got exactly what they deserved. I ran into Chris Bell at a bar not long ago. (He was smoking a cigarette, by the way, and he wasn't even good at it.) I told him to run as a Democrat this time. He said he would. He didn't really, but at least he didn't try to out-conservative conservatives (like he did with Orlando Sanchez), and he was one of the only ones who squeaked by (albeit in a Dem district, but still...).

 

Max -- for a Republican, you sure spend a lot of time worrying about the Democrats' strategy.

 

I find it interesting that when there is a poll that goes against Bush every liberal on earth wants to shout it from the mountaintop....but when there is a poll going against the Dems they scream out that it must somehow be biased or flawed.

 

The poll isn't "against the Dems." It only says that Dems should become even more like Republicans if they want to get elected, and it bases this statement on crappy, poorly analyzed evidence.

If I said to you "Republicans should become a lot more liberal because blah-blah-half-assed-shoddy-evidence, and look I published it in a purty newspaper," I would expect you, as someone with conviction, to dispute this with vigor. I say, agreeing with other comments in this thread: conservatives should let liberals worry about their own politics, and they should go forth and accomplish great things for the nation with this amazing hold they have on the government.

As a side note, I am worried about Madmax. He is clearly obsessed with the future direction of the Democratic party, and he is more than a little interested in weed, as is evidenced in other threads. You guys need to do a conservative intervention with him before it's too late!

 

It might interesting to note which moderate to liberal issues that the Republicans would not support but a majority of American would unconditionally support.

For example:

Balanced Budget Amendment (links spending cuts with tax cuts)
Term Limits
Stricter Gun Laws (support the gun law changes that the police officer associations want)
Legalize Medical MJ (reclassify MJ as a drug, let states determine their own medical MJ usage)
Closure On The War Against Terrorism (set end goals for the war)
Close The School Of The Americas

etc.

 

I watched the first half of the PBS biography on Jimmy Carter last night. Both his governor and presidential campaign contained great examples of campaign techniques for Democrats. He successfully depicted Republicans as the big business party that was completely out of touch with "the little guy." He ran a very personal, hands-on, grass-roots campaign that had him out pressing the flesh with as many voters as he could reach, 18 hours per day, seven days a week.

He was a religious man, so he couldn't be touched on that front. He had an early career in the Navy, so he couldn't be called on that. In addition he was a frugal businessman who ran the family farm, so he was golden there. And his time as the governor of Georgia was spent moving the state away from racism, so he certainly had the minority vote.

Whether he was able to effectively capitalize on his strengths once he became president is still up for debate. But I think there are some great lessons for Dems in his campaign strategies.

 

It's not that interesting, Ref, on account of the fact that it's exactly the same thing with both parties. The right wing didn't exactly sit on their hands when polls slagged Clinton.

There's a difference here. People are discussing the why's and wherefore's more than just calling the poll flawed. I don't think it's flawed. I think the majority of the country is against "liberal" ideas and for both "conservative" and "moderate" ones. And I think that's because the Democrats are a bunch of sissies and they've let the right define those terms. When you get down to exactly what they consider to be "moderate" or "conservative" the story changes a little. Not drilling in Alaska and other basically environmentalist stances would be considered by most voters to be "moderate" positions. A balanced budget amendment would be considered a "conservative" position. In the meantime, Democrats have let "liberal" mean support of welfare queens and taxing and spending without limit. I don't discount the poll, except to say it's as much about semantics and the Dems lying down as anything else.

By the way, where'd you see a poll that goes against Bush? Never mind shouting from mountaintops -- I just wanna read it.

 

Here let me save you the trouble. Image the following posts:

I would post the sources.

You would say the polls are cooked (as all polls are cooked).

This would leave us at a Mexican Standoff.

etc.

BTW, are curious about one particular issue or all the issues I posted? I have never seen a poll that did not show a vast majority support for Balanced Budget Admend., Term Limits, or Stricter Gun Laws. WRT legalizing medical MJ use, I will let the state ballots speak for themselves.

That leaves the last two. I have not seen polls but I would be very surprised if these two issues when properly phrased in poll questions would not also yield the vast majority.

 

Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Range

could be added to my list.

 

This trite argument is another example why the Democratic party is out of touch with Americans. Playing the class warfare card, or the "big business" card simply does not work. Why? Because *everybody* is impacted by tax cuts. Because *everybody* is impacted by greater economic freedoms. Because the owners of "big businesses" are none other than a collection of "little guys" who own stocks in their 401k plans or other accounts.

Jimmy Carter most certainly did have great campaign techniques. Just look at the electoral voting results in 1980:
Reagan 489
Carter 49

Oops!

 

There were plenty of polls showing lukewarm support of Bush right after the election. Then he started doing his job and things slowly got better. Then 9/11 happened and Bush performed his job as well as anybody could have under those circumstances. That is when Bush started gaining popularity.

 

Nobel Prizes
Reagan 0 (negative scores not allowed)
Carter 1

Look, unbridled business freedoms could mean removing 401K plans and bringing back horrific labor practices that we haven't seen since the late 19th century and early 20th century. Class distinctions are actually more relevant than ever, T_J, when the economic gap between the top 1% of economic scale and the bottom 50% is greater than ever, and when the % of Americans living below the poverty line is unacceptable.

Weak effort, T_J. I can see your reply to this already, but for heaven's sake, don't try to argue that class distinctions are disappearing in this country. If you believe that, you need to work out some new routes to work in your SUV, see more of the town.

 

B-Bob,
I'm not making any attacks on class distinctions. I believe in them. We *need* different classes to maintain a fully functioning economy. This is very important. I'm not advocating "unbridled freedoms" for businesses. This "19th century horrific labor practices" nonsense is completely irrelevant and totally out of left field. First, the Republican party is not the extremists you make them out to be, second, the labor market -- even today's labor market -- would never tolerate that. We're speaking domestically, of course -- it's not our job to tell Indonesia or Mexico how to run their labor market.

The number of people living below the poverty line *is* unacceptable. The solution is to empower them by staying out of their way and giving them economic freedoms through a lower tax burden and more job opportunities (abolishing the minimum wage would go a long way towards achieving the latter).

My point was that the "big business" demagoguery has gone the way of the do-do bird. American voters are smarter than that -- and proved it last week.