October 18, 2005
Moderates are Really Liberals
In a previous post, I defined a moderate as someone in between a conservative and a liberal. I want to correct this. This definition applies to someone who has been elected to an executive or a legislative office. For ordinary folks, the word “moderate” has an entirely different meaning. A person in the general public calls himself a moderate when he or she has the median point of view. And guess what - the median point of view in our society on a whole range of issues is decidedly liberal. Moderates, who are not politicians, are really liberals, though they do not say so.
E.J. Dionne, a Washington Post columnist, tells us that he learned from the 2004 exit polls that 21 percent of the voters called themselves liberal, 34 percent said they were conservative and 45 percent called themselves moderate. So conservatives grabbed this data and proclaimed that the majority are conservatives. And indeed, everybody seems to believe this.
But not Paul Waldman. First he looks at the Median Voter Theory that says that
"political success belongs to the party that positions itself closest to the voter who lies in the precise middle of the ideological spectrum."
Then he spills the beans about this median voter - this moderate:
"But who is the actual median voter in America? At this moment in history, that 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, and favors civil unions for gays and lesbians. Yet despite all this, those voters identify themselves as 'moderate.'"
Yes, the great majority of the 45% who call themselves moderates lean to the positions advocated by liberals. They don't like to call themselves "liberals" because the conservative noise machine has spent several decades of propaganda making "liberal" a dirty word. OK, these people do not use the word "liberal" but they still hold the same viewpoints as liberals.
Most moderates are liberals. Democrats must resist advocating more conservative positions, as some in the party advocate. They will succeed in the next election if they advocate liberal positions. Liberal positions are what the great majority of the population wants.
Give the people what they want - liberal positions - and win!
Posted by Paul Siegel at October 18, 2005 07:51 PMLOL!
Great piece, Paul, as usual.
But, explain to me this…
If the ‘moderates’ that make up 45% of the voting public are liberals, why aren’t the liberals winning? Are you saying the last two presidential nominees were just not liberal ENOUGH?
Anyway, keep believing this and pushing your agenda, perhaps it won’t be long when the Classic Liberal (ie, libertarians) gain all of your remaining sinking influence with the voters and function as the only true alternative to the republicans.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 18, 2005 08:04 PMRhinehold,
You beat me to the all-important question. If all these moderates really are liberals, then why aren’t liberals in office? Perhaps Paul Waldman missed something. Didn’t he notice the election results?
Posted by: Stephanie at October 18, 2005 08:55 PMThese are the same messed up 2004 exit polls which showed John Kerry winning the election, so it isn’t it odd to be drawing further conclusions from such obviously bad data?
Here’s an article about those polls.
Posted by: sanger at October 18, 2005 09:09 PMRheinhold and Stephanie,
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with basic math. “Most” or “Majority” means more than half. So of the 45% of people who say they are moderates, let’s conservatively say 25% (vs. 20% conservatives) are liberal. Combined with the 21% of people who call themselves liberal, this equals 46%.
I’m not saying those numbers I made up are correct. Just that the poll and Paul’s conclusions about it aren’t disproved by the latest election results.
Posted by: Burt at October 18, 2005 10:05 PMWaldman conveniently skates over the details when he describes this theoretical “median voter.” Using the same issues Waldman uses, you can just easily say that moderate voters are really conservative.
Pro-choice? Yes, moderates are that, but not in the sense that liberals are pro-choice. According to every poll I’ve seen, late-term abortion is widely disapproved of, for instance, and one can be pro-choice in instances of rape or the health of the mother but not favor the liberal position of abortion on demand. There’s also the issue of parental notification, which self-identified “liberals” are against but which is widely supported in polls. Pro choice does not equal liberal, and a good portion of Republicans are also pro-choice in certain circumstances.
Strong environmental protection? This is the same thing again. Saying that Republicans are against strong enviromental protection is itself a myth. Who is against protecting the enviroment? It’s the details of what this means in particular instances that are disagreed on. Ask a self-described moderate midwestern farmer if he should be allowed to develop, sell or farm his land because a certain endangered toad has been discovered there, and then stand back and observe just how liberal he is.
Gun control? Again, Howard Dean has come out against many gun control positions. How right wing and conservative is Howard Dean? Banning automatic rifles or making it hard for felons to acquire guns is by definiton gun control. Saying that anybody is liberal who takes a postition that can be construed as “gun control” is ridiculous. I’m a moderate Republican, but I’m in favor of some gun control, and I know plenty of Democrats with very-well stocked gun cabinets.
A foreign policy based on diplomacy and alliances?
If moderates want that, then they’re no different than Republicans. Turn the question around and ask moderates how many believe that strong diplomacy and alliances means submitting US policy to veto power by the UN or the International Criminal Court, and see how many so-called moderates profess the liberal view.
It’s all in how you put the question. Ask moderates if they think the goverment should be allowed to take and redistribute their hard-earned money to others, if race should be factor in place of qualifications in hiring or financial aid, and you could just as easily conclude that these so-called liveral moderates are actually stark raving right wingers.
Posted by: sanger at October 18, 2005 11:11 PMSanger-
His point wasn’t that moderates were raving liberals (me, I don’t like that kind of party. Too much trance music). No, his point was that in terms of the main values, moderates tend to break to our side more than yours. It’s actually backed by research. Where the Democrats have actually become more centrist over the last twenty years, Republicans have become much more ideological.
Just ask yourself: what is the meaning of Compassionate Conservatism? Why does Bush have to come up with creative names for letting polluters off easy, and logging companies cut down trees. Why is it that plans to privatize social security go over like a 70’s rock band, and that people assume that Bush should have intervened massively, quickly. Why would bush even dare to create a new medicare program if the anti-entitlement conservatives were in charge?
And how the hell did a scandal plagued, disreputable Southern Democrat hold the White House for eight years, even in the midst of the worse reversal for the legislators of the Democratic party since WWI?
This country is centered more towards the left, and that is just the truth. It doesn’t mean the center takes their cue from David, our dear editor, but it does mean that they are closer to him, than to Eric Simonson.
Of course, were I part of the majority, I’d probably think the world was centered on me too.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2005 12:20 AMAnyone who thinks the last few elections were decided on issues, liberal or conservative, wasn’t paying attention. Neo con has spent untold millions of dollars making liberal a dirty word and even more in personal attacks on liberal candidates. If neo con saved the money he invested in personally attacking liberal candidates, they wouldn’t even notice the tax increases.
Posted by: Thom Houts at October 19, 2005 05:27 AMThom:
You just trotted out the old liberal canard: People love our liberal position, but those bad guys on the other side just won’t let us be heard.
If liberals truly have a platform that appeals to the people, then they would be winning elections. They wouldn’t have to resort to your canard, which is the equivalent of a teenager claiming that his sports team lost because of the referees.
In 2004, George Bush was well known to be anything but liberal. There was no question about where he stood. While in 2000, people might have just been willing to give him a chance because he had not yet been President, in 2004, everyone knew what they were getting. If the country were truly wanting to be liberal, Bush should have been voted out in a landslide.
As long as liberals take the arrogant attitude that if voters (aka the American people) would just summon up enough intelligence to understand their positions and not be swayed by the cheating of the opposition, liberals will never be successful for more than a short run. Only when they recognize that some of their positions are in fact popular, but others are odious, will they find success.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 19, 2005 08:01 AMRhinegold:
If the ‘moderates’ that make up 45% of the voting public are liberals, why aren’t the liberals winning? Are you saying the last two presidential nominees were just not liberal ENOUGH?
It’s simple. People are not voting. As i stated in a previous post , the diehards will always go out an vote.
To answer your question, why isn’t anyone getting elected that supports the liberal way of thinking? It’s simple. The candidates aren’t liberal.
That’s the problem with the Democrats (IMHO). They are, too often, trying to go after the white, republican vote. If they just stuck to their base and to the issues that most people believe in, they’d win.
Posted by: john trevisani at October 19, 2005 08:20 AMPaul, Good peice…
I think much of this comes down to the actual issue that you are discussing. Many people who are self proclaimed “moderates” are that way because they don’t care to be trapped into one particular way of thinking or the other.
For instance, I am against abortion personally, but I also understand that there are times where I believe that it is understandable (rape, medical reasons, etc). I understand that this is a freedom of choice to some extent. Therefore I am not in favor of making it illeagal, though I do support any effort that can be made to make it less of an option for those who just want to use it as birth control. And I feel that teenage girls that get pregnant should ALWAYS have to get a parent involved (unless it is proven that this would put her in danger from said parent, in which case she should probably not be left in that household anyway) and also ALWAYS go through counseling so she understands everything completely before being able to make that decision to abort…
So where does that put me? I stand pretty firmly on both sides of the issue but I don’t personally believe that either the far Right or the far Left’s way of thinking on the issue is necessarily correct.
There are a few issues that I am more Left leaning on and many issues that I am more Right leaning on. And to be honest, there are a growing number of issues that I think both Democrats and Republicans have no answers to… Does this make me a liberal? I very much doubt anyone would think that if they knew me.
No, people that are moderates are just that… Moderates. Your correct in that there seems to be some faction of the Democrats that are moving to the middle, but there are plenty of full on Liberals that have no interest in that group. And as this Presidency continues I think that there is and will be a growing group of Conservatives that are and will continue to move to the middle as well. I personally feel that there is a 3rd party (not sure which yet) just waiting for a good leader to step up to the plate. I can’t think of a better time in recent history for something like that to occure. And more and more of us “Moderates” from both sides are just waiting for that option to present itself. We have lost our faith in either of the 2 main parties. It’s time for a change.
Posted by: BradM at October 19, 2005 08:39 AMAs a moderate (albeit left-leaning), I tend to be drawn to centrist candidates, and shy away from extreme-wing folks. If we assume that most other moderates are the same way, then Paul’s data, combined with recent election results, points to one conclusion — the Democrats are farther from center than the GOP. Why else would people at the center (or immediately left of it) be voting Republican??
Or maybe another way of putting it is this — moderates don’t care about the imaginary line between left and right. We’re more concerned about how closely a candidate’s positions match our own than on which side of the line they fall.
Consider abortion, for example. Most moderates shy away from extremes like partial-birth abortions (at the FAR Left) or bans on incest- and rape-based abortions (at the FAR Right). The debate over “abortion-on-demand” is less important to us than the need to avoid the extremes is. The problem is that there are more Democrats supporting the FAR Left view than there are Republicans supporting the FAR Right view.
Honestly, the New England Democrats (Kerry, Kennedy, Dean) scare the hell out of me. I may hold many liberal views, but I most certainly do NOT share Teddy Kennedy’s vision for the world! I tend to agree more with Heartland Democrats (Clinton, Bayh, Obama) - they seem to be a bit more in touch with reality.
Therein lies one of the biggest problems the Democrats have now — they’re not one party. Messages that ring well on the coasts (pro-choice, gun control, gay rights) are offensive to many in the midwest. The message of the Republicans, on the other hand, tends to ring more universally. Mitt Romney and Dick Lugar, for example, have much more in common than, say, Edward Kennedy and Evan Bayh.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at October 19, 2005 09:06 AMGood article Paul, though it’s probably more correct to say “Moderates are really Democrats”. :)
It’s a fact that the Republicans Party has swung too far to the wacko-right. Really, I can only name three or four Republican Senators I’d consider even rational: Snowe, McCain, Lugar, and maybe Chuck Hagel — and even then, they have to bow to pressure from the extreme right.
Democrats, on the other hand, started recoiling from the McGovernites back in the 70s and have been shifting to the center ever since. In fact, I can only name about 3 or 4 real liberal Senators now: Feingold, Kennedy, Schumer… that’s about it.
The idea that the Democratic Party needs to move further to the left to win is ridiculous. You don’t put yourself into a niche to pick up more votes.
I really think the problem is packaging. For example, as Democrats oppose tax cuts that only favor the very wealthy, I don’t hear ‘em crowing about how they cut middle class taxes last year. Democrats are all about tax cuts that help working Americans, but we aren’t very effective at getting the word out. Same with a bunch of other issues.
Posted by: American Pundit at October 19, 2005 09:15 AMDemocrat, Republican, Independent and all the variations and extremes of both must do only one thing to position itself to introduce programs, legislation and the like. That is to win an election.
Failing that, the only thing remaining to be done is to accept their temporary status and use that time constructively to mount a more serious and meaningful challenge during the next election period.
Posted by: steve smith at October 19, 2005 10:58 AMsteve smith,
Yes, mount a more serious challenge.
Based on polls, 3rd parties and independents should be trying now to mount that challenge, while both main parties laugh about them having no chance in hell of having any impact.
Great post, Paul. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said
the conservative noise machine has spent several decades of propaganda making “liberal” a dirty word.In the 2004 Presidential election, for example, 24% of John Kerry’s ads were negative, but 74% of President Bush’s ads were negative. The right wing noise machine put Kerry on the defensive for weeks at a time with their accusations that he was a “flip-flopper”, that he voted to raise taxes 85,123 times, and with the vile lies of the Swift Boat bozos. There is conclusive evidence that negative campaigning works, and thanks to people like Joseph McCarthy, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, the Right goes negative early and often, and has for decades. Why should they stop? It works.
Posted by: ElliottBay at October 19, 2005 11:54 AM
Paul et al
You mistake preference for goals with methods of achieving them and you miss the importance of details.
I would like to eliminate poverty. I just know that there are limits to what government can accomplish in this area.
I am for a clean environment, but some of the command and control methods no longer work against today’s challenges and we need a market based alternative.
I am in favor of gay marriage, but most Americans are not. That one just has the polling wrong.
We all want diplomacy based on negotiation and strong alliances, but sometimes we can’t get them when we need them. And most Americans also don’t want to be pushed around by the vague notion of world opinion.
So the analysis is simplistic. Liberals are always looking for excuses and they mistake goals for methods. Most of us like the goals, but we don’t like the methods. For example, I would match my personal environmental record against anyone, but that doesn’t mean I agree with all the big government programs that are supposed to make it better.
Talk to the moderates about HOW to achieve the laudible goals and you will explain why conservatives have been more often winning.
Posted by: Jack at October 19, 2005 01:15 PMMaybe another aspect of this is the differences between moderates and ideologues. Let me be VERY clear here - ideologues exist on BOTH ends of the political spectrum. Having said that, IMO the primary differences between moderates and ideologues are:
Paul: I am one of those “moderates” as mentioned by Waldman. That paragraph explains my politics to a tee, as far as it goes.
Elliot: I believe you are on the money with your post. I think it truly reponds to Sangers post.
I also don’t believe “MOST” Americans are opposed to gay rights just as they’re not all opposed to abortion under certain conditions.
I am related to several folks who are your black & white idealogues who believe “the war” was just, that the tax cuts were the “right” thing to do.
They also believe Rush Limbaugh is a real patriot.
I am voting with our beloved editor!!!
Polls indicate that most Americans are not against gay rights, but they do oppose gay marriage. I think that may change, but it is the case now and it goes beyond the traditional right side of politics.
Most Americans do not oppose abortion in all instances, nor do most Americans support it – in all instances. Most people want abortion to be somewhat restricted, although not illegal. Both ends of the ideology spectrum fight against the middle on this one.
Most people also think they are moderate, even when they are not. The war being just or not is not an extremist issue. It has been changing with the changing fortunes of the war, but generally about as many people think it was just as not. It depends on how you ask the question and when. A moderate would be ambiguous about the justice of the war, but would not be surprised either at supporters or detractors, because he would have been both, maybe even at the same time.
I do find it interesting that liberals think that moderates support them when election results, at least for the last couple of years, have proven otherwise. I think it comes down to what I wrote above about confusion of goals and methods. I have never met anyone who was pro-war, pro-poverty or anti-environment. But there is a lot of room for disagreement about the ways and means to achieve peace, prosperity and a clean environment. A moderate might understand that. Liberals tend to see some kind of manipulation.
Elliot is talking about pragmatism, which is the basic ideology of most Americans. But none of us is pragmatic all the time. When someone is pragmatic about something we care about, we get really upset. Take the abortion issue again as an example. It doesn’t much concern me and I can be pragmatic. Let the states decide. Some restrictions might apply some places. Other places it might be very open. How many of you accept that pragmatism?
ElliotBay,
“Maybe another aspect of this is the differences between moderates and ideologues.”
I think you’re right about this. Moderates tend to either ignore or be repulsed by the ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum. However, I think you may be wrong about who moderates would consider liberal ideologues. Kerry, for instance, was just as much of an ideologue as Bush II… and as far as the election went he obviously had the less popular ideology.
Posted by: Stephanie at October 19, 2005 04:10 PMJack,
“It doesn’t much concern me and I can be pragmatic. Let the states decide. Some restrictions might apply some places. Other places it might be very open. How many of you accept that pragmatism?”
As a start, I could accept that. But only because I think it would make it easier in the long run to significantly reduce the number of abortions (the murders of unborn babies) that take place in this country. However, I doubt that makes me pragmatic concerning the issue.
Posted by: Stephanie at October 19, 2005 04:16 PMAs a moderate (albeit left-leaning), I tend to be drawn to centrist candidates, and shy away from extreme-wing folks. If we assume that most other moderates are the same way, then Paul’s data, combined with recent election results, points to one conclusion — the Democrats are farther from center than the GOP. Why else would people at the center (or immediately left of it) be voting Republican??
Or maybe another way of putting it is this — moderates don’t care about the imaginary line between left and right. We’re more concerned about how closely a candidate’s positions match our own than on which side of the line they fall.
Consider abortion, for example. Most moderates shy away from extremes like partial-birth abortions (at the FAR Left) or bans on incest- and rape-based abortions (at the FAR Right). The debate over “abortion-on-demand” is less important to us than the need to avoid the extremes is. The problem is that there are more Democrats supporting the FAR Left view than there are Republicans supporting the FAR Right view.
Honestly, the New England Democrats (Kerry, Kennedy, Dean) scare the hell out of me. I may hold many liberal views, but I most certainly do NOT share Teddy Kennedy’s vision for the world! I tend to agree more with Heartland Democrats (Clinton, Bayh, Obama) - they seem to be a bit more in touch with reality.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at October 19, 2005 05:04 PMElliottBay, fantasic post. You hit the nail on the head.
I do find it interesting that liberals think that moderates support them when election results, at least for the last couple of years, have proven otherwise.
The last couple years is a pretty short timeframe, Jack. If you look back over the last few decades, you find moderates sick at the thought of more Nixon/Ford nuttiness, so they turned to Carter (who many people forget was also a conservative Democrat). Then those same people become Reagan Democrats, then they become New Democrats, then they become Compassionate Conservatives…
Paul’s right. Give moderates what they want and you get the election — the exception of course being the automatic re-election of a sitting president during a war no matter how much of a wingnut he is. FDR skated to four terms on the war issue and GW got his second by telling people terrorists would cut their heads off if they didn’t vote for him.
Kerry, for instance, was just as much of an ideologue as Bush II
How so, Stephanie? You’re wrong on that one. Kerry was clearly the centrist candidate — even going so far as to pledge he would drop his (very moderate) social agenda if it endangered the Democrats plan to balance the budget (pay-as-you-go for those around here who suffer from short-term memory loss). It doesn’t get more pragmatic than that.
AP
Not sure how you qualify Kerry as the “Centrist” candidate is you look at his overall voting record instead of just one or two issues. This site has a pretty good non partisan listing of how a candidate voted on issues and where it puts them in the political spectrum:
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kerry.htm
I do agree that moderates will change votes based on the person instead of the parties over the years unlike the party faithful. Trying to label them as liberals or conservatives seems kind of idiotic to me if anyone looks at the history of moderates but it seems to suit Paul Waldman’s purpose to fit them into a catagory.
Posted by: Mike P at October 20, 2005 09:11 AMI do agree that moderates will change votes based on the person instead of the parties over the years unlike the party faithful. Trying to label them as liberals or conservatives seems kind of idiotic to me if anyone looks at the history of moderates but it seems to suit Paul Waldman’s purpose to fit them into a catagory.
Agreed. Moderates — by nature — have rejected the liberal vs. conservative model of politics. So trying to fit us into one pool or the other is an exercise in futility.
By definition, a moderate is someone who believes in moderation — avoiding extremes. Neither the far left nor the far right appeals to us. Suggesting that we should vote far left because we’re slightly left-leaning does’t make sense. As soon as the Democrats learn this (or the Republicans forget it), the Democrats will start winning elections again.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at October 20, 2005 10:27 AMAP
I am the most moderate person around, by your historical definition.
I have voted with the majority in every presidential election when there was majority since I reached the age of majority. So what you are saying is that moderates would have voted Carter in 1976 (it was a rookie error on my part), Reagan in 1980 and 1984, Bush in 1988. In the elections of 1992, 1996 and 2000 nobody won a majority, so either way works and in 2004 the majority went with Bush. How many of the “moderates” in the blue column have such a stellar record?
I think that both Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were good presidents, so that also puts me in the majority moderate column on both counts. Now that we have defined moderate to include people like me, what is the problem with the Democrats?
Paul,
I think that this argument is an example of why the Democrats have failed over the past few years. They have focused so much on trying to convince the moderates that “you really are like me, you just have to be smart enough to figure it out. Let me educate you.” The result is a message that is pedantic and demeaning to moderates.
Instead Republicans have said this what I believe in, do you agree with me? The result is a message that is inviting and enticing to moderates.
Howard Dean tried this in the Democratic primary, and it worked until Democrats got scared that they would offend moderates. They may have, but the may have had a chance at a competing message that would allow moderates to engage on the message rather than be beaten into accpetance.
The Democratic Party needs to realize that moderates aren’t just “stupid, scared liberals,” but thoughtful people who want to engage on a message that is pragmatic and idealistic.
Kennedy did this well as did Clinton and Regan. Guess what so did W. Who’s next?
Posted by: Rob at October 20, 2005 02:03 PMAP,
“How so, Stephanie? You’re wrong on that one. Kerry was clearly the centrist candidate…”
Sorry, AP. I’m not convinced. I pay more attention to what people DO then to what people SAY. If you listen to Kerry’s words, sure he seems centrist. But if you look at how he VOTES he doesn’t seem the least bit centrist.
Now, take Bush. He’s more centrist then conservative when it comes to his actions. As much as he TALKS about making a conservative sweep in regards to conservative social issues… the results were not nearly so strong as his words were. Just like the war. He talked a good game, but when he actually played he sucked. That’s why I’m…um…irritated at him and his administration at this point.
However, Kerry’s centrist talk was totally unconvincing because he didn’t have the actions to back it up. Kind of like Hillary Clinton there. She talks to the center now, but her history doesn’t back that up and I’m not so stupid as to believe she won’t change back were she elected as President.
Talking a good game around election time is important to get votes, but for some of us who actually look it’s unconvincing when their records speak for themselves toward the extreme one doesn’t lean towards.
Posted by: Stephanie at October 20, 2005 03:02 PMJack
Your abortion example illustrates how well the right has distorted the average American’s view of abortion. If you just listened to the mainstream media on this issue, they merely amplified what was being touted in the right-wing echo chamber. From that discussion, you would think that late-term abortions (referred to by the RWEC as “partial birth”, in a brilliant stroke of misrepresentation) were common and barbaric. Hence, moderates responding to surveys indicate their opposition to this rare and medically necessary practice, almost always done to protect the mother’s health or to remove a severely deformed fetus. So what do your guys propose, force the woman to risk her life or health, or to have a baby that’s doomed to die in a short and painful life? No, it was just a wedge issue, one designed and promoted to dupe the average voter, normally progressive and liberal, into adopting an anti-abortion stance at least to some degree. This way, these craven politicians could pass a law that affects only a tiny number of unfortunate mothers while reaping the benefits of the equally duped rabid anti-abortionists for striking a courageous blow.
This was, very nakedly, a manipulation and one that your guys have gotten VERY good at. It really does suck. So please don’t give me the disingenuous “We’ve just got better ideas” crap. You know that a large part of the conservative base has garnered its support on just these dishonest tactics.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 20, 2005 05:11 PMMental Wimp
What did I say that you didn’t like? I said that most Americans believe that abortion should be legal with some restrictions. Further, I said that a pragmatic approach would be to let the people of the states decide on what those restrictions would be. That would mean there would be some variation among jurisdictions and we could see which worked the best. Very pragmatic.
Partial birth abortions are wrong and probably should be illegal. That is not an extremist view and I am not scaring anyone with that. I have read that it is rare, as you say, but not that it is medically necessary. The doctors remove the baby part way and kill it. If it can be removed - alive - part way, it can be removed - still alive - all the way without harming the mother. When that is not the case, we could talk. The fact is that they don’t want the baby alive. It is done to perform an abortion when a normal abortion is no longer safe, but at that point the baby also has options. It is gruesome and that is why even moderates tend to oppose it.
I don’t oppose abortion. But I don’t like it and I would have restrictions. That is a mainstream American view. Other views are on the extremes.
Jack
Brilliant job of dividing the issue and addressing only half so you can sound logical. Please, why do you think anyone would abort at that stage? Laziness? Spite? Where the hell do you get your information? From physicians and research or from anti-abortion literature? Come on, Jack. If it were a viable, healthy fetus and could be simply delivered, don’t you think they would? Do think they do this lightly? Do you have any sense of what extremes both the mother and fetus are at when this is done? Your cartoon version is a cruel hoax that you guys try to perpetrate for slimy little political ends. You’re not “saving lives”, you’re electing politicians at the expense of some very disadvantaged women. And it sucks. Big time.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 20, 2005 06:05 PMI don’t know why they have to kill the baby. That is the question. If they deliver the partial birth (i.e. the head comes out) and they will soon deliver the rest, why kill it first? That is why there is not medical reason for this procedure.
You are focusing only on this one issue. I assume that you find the rest of what I said logical and reasonable. And BTW - YOU brought up the partial birth abortion, not me.
Posted by: Jack at October 20, 2005 06:21 PMJack
No, you brought it up, because you mentioned the polls that show a majority against “late term abortion”, an issue that the right-to-lifers pumped through the “partial-birth” abortion (a term they invented specifically for this emotional campaign). Now, Roe v. Wade acknowledges that states can regulate late term abortions, so it’s not really an issue unless you pump it up into one.
“Why kill the baby?” Again, disingenuous. It’s a fetus until it’s born and that’s a function of the legal need for a bright line between the two. I feel a great deal of resistance from you to even consider the realities of the situations that such a procedure is used in. If the fetus is severely deformed and not viable, and thus destined for a painful death if delivered, and if it is delivered fully, it is legally a severely deformed and soon to die baby and relieving it of its pain and distress by killing it is now murder. This distinction is legally clear, though the ethics are necessarily fuzzy. Yes, this is a rare situation and this is why the procedure is rarely used. I bet if you polled the American public about it, though, they would grossly overstate the frequency with which it occurs, because the right-to-lifers and the politicians who pander to them have grossly exaggerated its importance in the issue of abortion for their own ends.
The reason I focus on this issue, is that it exemplifies the way in which politicians can twist facts to move large segments of the population to support them as they fish for votes from extreme groups. This behavior often victimizes people in extreme situations who already have more to deal with than you or I ever will and who have zero power to lobby for themselves. The same with scorched-earth budget cutting of social services, stacking governmental agencies with incompetent cronies, and pushing into unnecessary and poorly considered wars. They are all of the same fabric. I don’t mean to imply it is only right wingers and Republicans who will twist or select facts, we’re both not that naive. It’s just that those guys do it so much more often and with such utter lack of regard for the facts that they don’t even feel a need to educated themselves about what they are addressing. It sickens me whenever we have a government that behaves in that manner. I hope we can rise above it some day soon.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 20, 2005 08:31 PMI hope YOU can rise above it. When I said late term, that is what I meant. I wasn’t thinking partial birth. I was just thinking about a time when the baby would be a viable human being outside the womb.
Women should not be allowed to have abortions when the baby would be clearly viable. What you are describing is infanticide. If you want to go that route, it is your business, but I hope you can see that the bright line is not so bright. If the baby comes out all the way, it is murder. If you keep the feet in until you kill it, it is abortion. I, like most Americans, see a technicality not a bright line. You don’t see the line either. If you did, you wouldn’t have a problem just letting the baby die after it was out. Surely that would be more convenient.
In any case, it shows who among us is the extremist. I am willing to compromise on this subject. I am willing to let the people decide and recognize that reasonable people will come up with somewhat different formulations. This, BTW, is the mainstream. Extremists are for or against abortion in all cases. That is what you are advocating.
Your anger at my moderation is very interesting. There is no compromise for you, is there? Your anger is misplaced. A reasonable person reading what I wrote would not share it. I guess we see why the Dems can’t attract the moderates.
Jack,
MW has used angry language and thus made himself appear immoderate. As to the facts, however, he is largely correct. The banning of this particular procedure is absolutely a ploy, as MW put it “one designed and promoted to dupe the average voter, normally progressive and liberal, into adopting an anti-abortion stance at least to some degree.”
It’s true that the average American, including most liberals, myself included, are appalled at the notion of abortion being used at a late stage of pregnancy for entirely elective reasons. Reasonable people disagree as to whether criminalization of abortion under certain circumstances is appropriate. I’m personally uncertain. But the Republican use of this issue has certainly been dishonest (pro-choice site), even if the abortion rights folks have been dishonest (pro-life site) in suggesting that the D&E or D&X abortions covered by the “partial birth abortion” are never used except when medically necessary or when there is no chance for a delivery of a healthy baby. Certainly the opponents must admit that they are rare, while the proponents must admit that the ban passed DOES allow for an exception to save the life of the mother.
There are extremists on both sides of this issue, but the moderates are not being honestly served by the current efforts of politicians pandering to the pro-life crowd. That the PBA bill does not provide an exception for severely damaged fetuses in addition to the life of the mother makes it an extremist bill.
Posted by: Walker at October 21, 2005 02:09 AMjoebod
That neo con uses personal attacks rather than issues to gain votes is no canard, it’s a fact. 40-45% of us will vote dem for president regardless and 40-45% of us will vote rep for president regardless. That 10-20% in between is the ‘moderate’ to whom this topic is addressed and it is to that same percentage that extreme views left or right are least persuasive but to whom negative imaging is more persuasive than weighing the issues. If this sounds condescending, I confess it is. Those who are pursuaded by negative imaging are idiots. And if you don’t think neo con campaigning ISN’T pandering to the idiots with negative imaging, how do you account for the countless millions they spend on it? Call it a canard if you like, or point and shout “Liar, liar, pants on fire” but facts are facts. neo con doesn’t have to spend millions to convince their 40% any more than liberals have to spend their millions to convince our 40%. That money is spent to persuade the so called moderates, and in that effort, neo con spends his money on negative imaging.
I am the most moderate person around, by your historical definition.
I agree. :)
And thank you for reiterating my point that the majority votes moderate (though you missed the “war president” exception to the rule in 2004).
But if you look at how he VOTES he doesn’t seem the least bit centrist.
How so, Stephanie? All his votes in the last decade or so are pretty centrist — or are you talking about even further back, like the 60s? That seems kind of unfair, especially since GW was a coke-sniffin, skirt-chasin drunkard at the time and you seem to believe he’s changed since then.
And thanks for the link, Mike P. I don’t know who makes up the ratings there, but they show General Wes Clark being more liberal than Kerry. That’s not right.
Walker
Sometimes there are limits to what you can do. Something like partial birth abortion may be one of those things. In the rare case of it being the absolutely only way to save the mother’s life, you could probably argue the case and win in court. But you can’t make a law defining such an odious thing.
There are times when we have to fall on our swords for the greater good, do what is right and risk the consequences. Moral dilemmas and science fiction tales are full of such things. The classic case is if you would kill a serial killer before he killed anyone. If you killed Charles Manson or Mohamed Atta the day before they committed their first crime, should you be exempt from punishment?
I am actually fairly immoderate in some abortion cases. I believe we should abort severely handicapped babies, but most liberals recoil at the idea that we would use abortion for “search and destroy” based on disability. I also take the logic of abortion on demand to its conclusion, and I can’t get upset about abortion being used to choose the baby’s gender, as it is sometimes done in China or India. I have seen liberal feminists go into fits about that one.
Thom
How do you define “Neocon”? Originally, neocons where former radical leftists (like David Horowitz or Irving Kristol) who saw the error of their ways and became proponents of the free market - hence the “neo” part of Neocon. Neocons and their descendents today are mostly found in the muscular diplomacy camp and still are proponents of free markets. Very few evangelicals fit comfortably into the Neocon camp and the abortion issue is not particularly important to Neocons.
Mental Wimp,
“If the fetus is severely deformed and not viable, and thus destined for a painful death if delivered, and if it is delivered fully, it is legally a severely deformed and soon to die baby and relieving it of its pain and distress by killing it is now murder. This distinction is legally clear, though the ethics are necessarily fuzzy.”
As a mother of children with disabilities I find this whole argument very offensive. While my children are not disabled in a “severely deformed” or painful manner, over the last few years I’ve networked with many parents whose children are or were. Some of these parents chose birth against the recommendations of their doctors, despite the fact that the prognosises were miserable. The prognosises were wrong!!! Children who were told (or their parents were told) would never walk do walk, never to speak do speak, wouldn’t survive have survived. Kids with disabilities are sometimes the happiest most loved children around. And parents who believe their doctors prognosis so completely that they don’t try are fools.
Prognosises are just guesses. They’re not reality and a fatal prognosis DOES NOT mean a child will die in the near future.
The ethics of this issue aren’t fuzzy at all and the legality of this form of murder is unethical, which is why so many people fight against it.
Let me ask you some questions. If a person is diagnosed with cancer and their prognosis is that they have a week left to live, should we anesthetize them and suck out their brains? Most people say ‘no!’ because the worst case scenario is that they do only have a short time to live and should have that time to do so. The best case scenario is that the prognosis is simply wrong and the person lives for a month, six months or six years longer.
“…because the right-to-lifers and the politicians who pander to them have grossly exaggerated its importance in the issue of abortion for their own ends.”
If elderly people were being singled out and killed, either because their presence endangers the lives of those around them (like people with alzeimers who still “sneak out” and get in their car and drive) or because it is too inconvienent for their families to care for them, would you think that’s okay? The people who are against abortion would say ‘NO!’ and they feel the same way about people killing babies. It is an important issue to those who recognize what is happening, even if you are too caught up in the politically correct notion of what a fetus is by scientific definition to recognize this for yourself.
“This behavior often victimizes people in extreme situations who already have more to deal with than you or I ever will and who have zero power to lobby for themselves.”
This is simply false. While I am a person who by most peoples’ standards “already [has] more to deal with than [most Americans] ever will” neither I nor my fellow parents of children with disabilities have “zero power.” Parents of children with disabilities have plenty of means to advocate for themselves. The government even helps them do it. Organizations train them to do it. There’s federal grants to start up such organizations. There’s national programs and associations to help facillitate advocacy efforts. On this, you are simply misinformed. Parents of children with disabilities can be very powerful people, they simply have to chose to be such a person.
Because I have children with disabilities I’m actually more likely to get an audience with a politician and sometimes even very powerful politicians than the average American. I even have the power to help shape LAWS about individuals with disabilities by joining committee boards. And as far as Wisconsin goes, it is the DEMOCRATS that are trying to take power and funding away from parents of children with disabilities and the individuals with disabilities themselves.
“It sickens me whenever we have a government that behaves in that manner.”
Then I suggest you steer clear of Wisconsin’s Governor, Jim Doyle, and his administration.
Posted by: Stephanie at October 21, 2005 03:56 PM****WARNING****
This is a lengthy post in response to a question AP asked me twice. You may want to skip this one.
AP,
You asked, Pundit, so I guess I must write it all out. I was looking at the link Mike P. provided for this specific discussion. Though, I’ve looked at other similiar links before.
On abortion:
“Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)”
I don’t see how a 100% rating would be centrist, even most people who support choice aren’t going to get a 100% rating there.
On budget:
I’ll give you that one. No contest.
On civil rights:
“Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)”
Again centrist.
On corporations:
“Rated 0% by the US COC, indicating an anti-business voting record. (Dec 2003)”
Not centrist. While too much pro-business stuff is bad, most people realize we do need corporations for our country to survive.
On crime:
“Opposes death penalty except for post 9-11 terrorists. (Jul 2004)”
Personally, I find that stance confusing, but…
“Rated 63% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation. (Dec 2000)”
Seems centrist and because of this…
“Establish an FBI registry of sexual offendors. (Oct 1996)”
I’ll give him it.
On drugs:
I can’t give you any comment about what’s I would think is centrists for drugs. I’ve no idea.
On education:
This… “Nothing good about vouchers can’t be done in public schools. (Oct 2003)” and this… “Voted NO on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (Mar 1999)” seem to contradict each other, but without knowing more about both I can’t say for sure.
But I consider this… “Voted NO on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. (Jul 1994)” …against freedom of religion.
And this… “Rated 100% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)” …I mean, even teachers should hear ‘no’ sometimes.
On energy:
“Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)”
He’s typically liberal here, which I think is a good thing, but I’m not sure whether it’s actually centrist or not.
On environment:
“Rated 53% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment. (Dec 2003)”
Centrist.
I especially like this one… “EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)”
On families:
“Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. (Dec 2003)”
Not centrist.
On Foreign policy:
“Voted YES on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons. (Sep 2000)”
At this point a lot of Americans want trade sanctions with China just to get their jobs back.
He seems typically liberal here, and I doubt he’d be viewed as centrist by the moderates. Not that Bush would either at this point.
On trade:
“Rated 33% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues. (Dec 2002)”
He’s a bit more into globalization than I’d guess the average American is at this point.
On government reform:
“FactCheck: Yes, Kerry was absent from Senate 76% in 2003. (Oct 2004)”
Very bad!
“Voted YES on banning “soft money” contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)”
Good!
“Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)”
Bad!
“Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions and corporations. (Apr 2001)”
Good!
“Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)”
Bad!
I’ll give him this one, but just because I want the big money out of campaigns. Besides, he did run a cleaner campaign. It was still dirty, but it was cleaner.
On gun control:
“Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)”
I live in Wisconsin. There’s no way this would seem centrist to me, despite the fact that I don’t own a gun myself.
On health care:
“It is morally wrong to leave so many Americans uninsured. (Aug 2004)”
While I agree, many tax payers don’t want to pay for insurance for everyone, so this isn’t centrist.
On Homeland Security:
“Rated 20% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record. (Dec 2003)”
This probably means he’s centrist. Though, at election time people didn’t trust him to keep them safe, which was undoubtably influenced by negative campaigning from Bush.
On immigration:
“Amnesty to anyone here over 5 or 6 years. (Sep 2003)”
I’m too opinionated on this issue to judge fairly, but I certainly hope this isn’t centrist.
On jobs:
“Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-labor voting record. (Dec 2003)”
This seems centrist to me, but that’s probably only because I live in an area heavily dependent on union jobs.
On principles and values:
“FactCheck: No, Kerry is 11th most liberal, not 1st in Senate. (Oct 2004)”
Still very liberal, considering it’s out of 100 people.
Not centrist.
On SS:
“Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)”
Again, probably not centrist.
On tax reform:
“Rated 14% by NTU, indicating a “Big Spender” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)”
Not centrist.
On technology:
While there’s not a lot to go on here…
“Member of “Digital Dozen” of tech-savvy legislators. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on Internet sales tax moratorium. (Oct 1998)
Voted YES on telecomm deregulation. (Feb 1996)”
This leads me to believe he’s more pro-technology then the average American, but it’s hard to be sure.
On war:
I’m too opinionated to determine what’s centrist, but as far as votes go he lost this one.
On welfare:
I’m biased here too. But, I think he’s more pro-assistance then the average American.
Finally:
“John Kerry is a Libertarian-Leaning Liberal.”
That sums it up. 11 left-of-center positions, 7 that seem centrist, 6 I’m too biased to call.
But, as per their graph, Bush and Kerry are equally far from center in opposite directions.
“George W. Bush is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative.”
Posted by: Stephanie at October 21, 2005 05:26 PMStephanie
There are disabilities and then there are disabilities. There were three babies that were delivered to my good friends who lay inert in their isolettes for between one and three weeks before dying. This was over 50 years ago. Now that genetic condition can be detected prenatally. What point is there in carrying such pregnancies to term only to watch the babies slowly suffocate? And what political power could this couple bring to bear were the option of late-term abortion denied them now?
Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 21, 2005 06:49 PMMental Wimp,
Without any knowledge of the specific disorder that occured, I can’t really advise you. Generally speaking…
“What point is there in carrying such pregnancies to term only to watch the babies slowly suffocate?”
Hold the child(ren) for those precious week(s), giving comfort and love. Cherish the child. Experience the joy and the heartache that is part and parcel of being a parent, even if it is at an accelerated rate. These moments may not be long, but they will be precious. Better that than to kill the child before he or she even has a chance to draw his or her first ragged breath. If you’re friends wanted children, do you honestly believe they’d grieve less for having never been able to touch their child? Do you honestly believe a child doesn’t suffer during an abortion?
“And what political power could this couple bring to bear were the option of late-term abortion denied them now?”
My main suggestion would be to research it and use what advancements are available to counter-act the defect. If there are no methods, then advocate for the necessary funds to do the research it would take to treat the condition. Again, without knowing the specifics of the disorder, there’s not a whole lot of advice I can give. But if everyone’s choice is just to abort such children, and never even try to devise away to save their lives… That’s not a choice I would or could make.
Believe me when I say I know I’m lucky. I have three precious children which I carried in my own womb. I treasure my children. I don’t have to worry too much about their life expectancies, because their disorder isn’t fatal. However, I’d like you to realize this… Most people who discover what my life is like, what I have to do for my children, the stress I go through just to get them the care they need, most people who discover my life without knowing me first are shocked by my attitude. A lot of people think I would be totally justified in walking away, or berating my children, claiming that they somehow destroyed my life, or that I should have aborted them or whatever nonesense such people come up with. Though I appreciate that your friends had a very difficult burden to bear, and I grieve for them for it, my life isn’t easy. And yet, I don’t regret one moment of my time with my children, even when they drive me to tears of frustration.
The simple fact is that my most severly disabled son, the one who probably will never “grow up and move out,” the one who, excepting some grand miracle, will not be able to be mainstreamed in school, the one who may never be able to say “I love you,” the one who still, at five years of age, doesn’t understand that he can’t bounce up to a moving car to “pet” it, the one who is such a picky eater that he’s at the 5% for weight and is at risk of being diagnosed with failure to thrive on top of everything else, this one child is the most naturally happy person I’ve ever met. He brightens every day with his smiles. He loves everyone he knows and everyone he doesn’t know, but has the opportunity to meet. He feels joy over some of the strangest things, and brings joy to all those around him for it.
Why would any parent want to destroy their chance for having such a child of their own?
Posted by: Stephanie at October 21, 2005 08:20 PMjack
I can accept your definition of neo con in a simplistic sort of way. I think it goes far beyond free market preference to corporate diefication, but that’s splitting hairs. My last reference to neo con had nothing to do with the degeneration of this topic to abortion. I was addressing joebod’s misguided assertion that dubya was voted in on the basis of issues. While in this sense neo con included the paleocons who contributed to the personal attacks of the last four elections, mid terms included, I was pointing out the neo con tendency to AVOID issues and concentrate on personal attacks. For example, you point out that abortion is not a very important issue to neo con… that may be, however neo con has no problem whatsoever in whipping bible thumpers into a frenzy about it to get their man elected. It was neo con who leaned on the catholic church to refuse communion to Kerry and other pro choice catholic candidates. A year later, they don’t give a rat’s ass who gets communion, do they?
Referring to Democratic ideology is a bit of an oxymoron. Will Rogers famous line, “I belong to no organized political party — I am a Democrat” is still true today.
Democrats today are in the same position as the Republican party in pre-contract on America days. Prior to that,they were mostly anti-Democrats. With the “contract” they finally produced a positive agenda and began taking control of the government.
The Democrats have also allowed the Neo-Cons to distill all issues into “Abortion”. Come on folks, there is more going on than that wedgie issue. Let’s take it back to the basic issue of individual rights. How much do we want “Big Brother” involved in family planning? IMO,it appears that the abortion issue is merely the camel’s nose under the tent in creating a Christian Evangelical overlay for American society.
To the extent that we moderates are social pragmatists, why are we not holding the Neo-Cons accountable for the outcomes of their demogoguery and ideologically-driven policies? Their concepts do fit on bumper stickers better than ours, but the results are social and international chaos.
I believe that until we can come out with our own version of our belief structures, we will be stuck playing defense. The problem with only playing defense is that - no matter how good you are, eventualy the other side will score. FWIW, we could do a lot less than the ideology espoused by FDR, the four freedoms:
The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want — which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear — which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor— anywhere in the world.
One Neo-Cons politician was quoted as saying, “We can’t allow the rights of the individual to create discomfort for society.”
Until we can speak with as disciplined a voice as the Neo-Cons, we can’t sustain a working majority and return supremecy to the individual.
Thom
You just don’t know what a neocon is. You are simply using the term to describe something you don’t like. The term has a history of its own. It is associated with free markets and muscular foreign policy. It is not associated with abortion or even politics in particular.
Can you name someone who you think is a neocon?
Posted by: Jack at October 22, 2005 06:05 PMPaul Waldman is right.
Most people do hold those opinions and they are sensible positions. I call myself a “moderate” but lately, some would call me “liberal.” I would have answered the poll as a “moderate.”
The problem is that the Democrats are tied with “liberals” and people still think Dems are all about “tax and spend” and people that are worried about their money and taxes still think Republicans care about their money. The fact that Republicans only care about corporations and don’t give a damn about the middle-class is somehow lost on them.
It’s all P.R. The Dems are losing the PR war. Because, in reality, more people support Democratic positions than Republican positions. People that really study the policies and issues would agree with so-called “liberal” positions. Rush and his ilk have succeeded at demonizing liberals, and people still think liberals are wearing flowers and smoking pot in the back yard.
The good news is, this current crop of Republicans are damaging their party big-time. Each day, people are seeing the ugliness of an agenda full of hatred, bigotry, selfishness, imperialism, corporate greed, corruption, arrogance, and contempt for the democratic process. We should thank Bush for showing people the true face of the modern Republican Party.
Stephanie, did the Christian Coalition give any Democrats better than 0%? Do you really expect the CATO Institute to give a Democrat a good rating on business?
As I pointed out, that website rates General Clark as more liberal than Kerry. That’s just not right.
I asked which of his votes made you think Kerry wasn’t a centrist, and all you did was spew back what somebody else — motivated by whatever — thought about him.
I’m sorry, I just thought you might have formed your own opinion of Kerry based on what you found out for yourself.
Posted by: American Pundit at October 25, 2005 08:30 AM
