August 03, 2003
A Nation Divided
It’s something pundits on the left and the right tend to forget: politically, the country is divided almost exactly in half. According to Liz Marlantes, writing in a feature article in tomorrow’s Christian Science Monitor, such an even divide can result in extreme political tactics that cause a detrimental effect on the civility of the political debate. (Marlantes points to the California recall and the Texas exile senators as examples of extreme tactics.)
But [the use of extreme tactics are] also the result of an ongoing, and stubbornly even, political divide. Although Republicans currently control the White House and both chambers of Congress, their margins remain perilously slim, while the overall number of state legislators is almost perfectly split between the parties. With so little room to maneuver, analysts say it’s not surprising parties are increasingly resorting to extreme tactics as a way to assert dominance or gain an additional edge.
While I don’t doubt this to be the case, I think such decisions are foolish and shortsighted. With the country so evenly divided, the battle should be for the middle. By using extreme tactics, the major parties risk being viewed as, well, extreme.
It’s too early to tell what will happen within the context of the 2004 presidential election. But so far, neither party seems prepared to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the moderates. For the Democrats, this might be attributed to typical primary election posturing. Each of the candidates is eager to appeal to the party’s leftist base, and none want to run the risk of being upstaged by Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich. Only the DLC appears to understand the mistake being made by their party. Others within the party, blinded by anger and willing to sacrifice popular support for any and all opportunities to vent that anger, are marginalizing the DLC rather than heeding the warnings.
For the Republicans, no excuse readily presents itself. At worst, it appears to be arrogance that is keeping the Republicans from securing their place in the middle. With the primary uncontested and no sign so far of any challenge from a right-wing separatist, the Republicans should seize the opportunity to grab the center.
If Bush really wants to be reelected, he should realize that the general election begins now, and start doing all he can to appeal to moderates.
Posted by Greg at August 3, 2003 10:44 PM | TrackBack (1)Excellent summary of the current state of political affairs in America, Greg. I agree with your view entirely. Perhaps the reason neither party is targeting the middle at this point is because, by and large, the middle is not listening, yet. I suspect it won’t be until during, and after, the primaries that the middle will actually take the time to read and listen to what is going on in politics.
After the invasion of Iraq and a great deal of media attention had been paid to 9/11, about 50% of Americans hadn’t read enough beyond headlines about 9/11 to know that it was not Iraqi’s who highjacked the planes and slammed them into American targets. Sad, but, true.
Till the primaries and beyond, making a buck, watching prime time, and getting through dinner in time for a decent night’s sleep is proabably occupying most of the middle’s time. Then there is catching that last bit of summer vacation. That of course is premium.
Posted by: DRRemer at August 3, 2003 11:22 PMI agree with DRRemer that the center of the general electorate mostly isn’t paying attention at this point. But the base needs to know that their candidate is a centrist, so they won’t feel betrayed when the focus goes centrist later on.
A smart candidate should not be playing up their centrist credentials too much at this point. A well-positioned candidate would be centrist on most issues, but have a couple minor issues on which to campaign to the party base. A smart and well-positioned candidate would be honest about his (or her) centrist positions, and have neither any flip-flops in the playbook for the appeal to the middle in the general campaign, nor any revolt brewing from their core supporters when that effort begins.
For example, opposition to a war that’s already happened is a fine non-issue on which to fire up the base. What are we going to do, invent a time machine, go back, and un-invade? But we get to have someone agree with us, on a foreseeably moot issue where (inexplicably) the great majority of the party establishment showed a total lack of the irrelevant backbone they could have used to keep us on board and energized.
What a candidate does need from the center of the electorate at this point is name recognition. Face recognition would be good too, but name recognition is key.
Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears at August 3, 2003 11:42 PMGeorge Will expresses a similar sentiment on the debasement of the political process in “Political Thugs”, currently at “>http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will.html
Posted by: Richard Bennett at August 4, 2003 07:54 AMI have to wonder how many moderate Democrats and Republican would defect to a third party centered on centrist inspired platform, if given the chance. And how many independents would find a place and a voice in such a party?
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at August 4, 2003 11:15 AMSince Bush has the advantage of incumbancy, in order to present a moderate centrist position, he must establish moderate, centrist policies. He hasn’t done so in two and a half years, but if he starts now, he might do so convincingly.
Posted by: Trevor Stone at August 4, 2003 02:35 PMI am not full convinced that Howard Dean is an out of touch liberal. I mean he did not support The President’s Iraq War but then again most of the world and millions of Americans did not.
Posted by: Jake at August 4, 2003 05:22 PMI think this is a mostly a fairly accurate view of the situation. I would disagree that Dean is particularly leftist, rather he would fit in nicely with the center-left categorization in European politics. Kucinich would fall firmly in left, and sadly doesn’t stand a chance. Dean is being characterized by the “liberal” media as too leftist to even be taken seriously. As Pete noted after doing some research on his own, Dean is much more centrist than you’d think.
As has been noted, Bush will have to start making serious moves towards the center if he wants the easy win the GOP keeps predicting.
Posted by: rev_matt at August 4, 2003 05:36 PMYou may have tipped your hand a bit with this statement: “Dean … would fit in nicely with the center-left categorization in European politics.” I can’t argue with that.
To be fair, Dean is somewhat all over the map on issue-specific policies. He’s largely drawn support from the progressive left, though. It could be that his supporters are further left than Dean. I think Dean, and his competitors, realize this. Wherever Dean ends up, it’s clear he’s drawing his support from the left.
Posted by: Greg at August 4, 2003 06:19 PMGreg: That is SO true.
“Since Bush has the advantage of incumbancy, in order to present a moderate centrist position, he must establish moderate, centrist policies. He hasn’t done so in two and a half years, but if he starts now, he might do so convincingly.”
How, exactly is Bush a far right president?
When I ask that question I qualify it with this statement…
Except for religious stances, which have only strengthened his base and eroded the base of the Democratic party. Which is the reason why he will have the highest percentage of the “black vote” and Hispanic vote in history for a Republican. His religious stances on societal issues and issues of core Christian morality have been the core reason for his success…especially in the south and midwest (the bible belt). In the urban centers he has little support (the porn belt).
It is time recognize that the center is *not* where elections are won. The drive for everyone to become *centrist* is a major reason why we have a near 50/50 split. Everyone wants to be the same. The 2004 winner is going to win because he is different and energizes the electorate.
Dean is much more moderate than the GOP would like, but he leans left enough that he can unify the Democratic left with the NRA. Now that’s a trick!
Bush’s problem isn’t going to be the middle, his problem is the other extreme wing of the GOP. Right now, the neocons are orgasmic, but the true conservatives are starting to belly ache about Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility.
My prediction is that Bush sinks or swims on the economy and that security will mean diddly squat in 2004. Why?
There are two scenarios:
1. There are no more terror attacks here, all is calm and a change of the guard will have little impact
2. We suffer another terror attack, it shows Bush is asleep at the wheel and he is easily defeated.
If the job market is still in the tank, and outsourcing is still stripping jobs… Dubya is finished in 4.
Of course, I am still hoping for impeachment or a trial for treason before then, but I am not counting on the Congress to have the guts to enforce the Constitution.
Robbie D
Posted by: Robbie D at August 5, 2003 09:17 AMQuick question: if “the center is *not* were elections are won,” why are Deanophiles knocking themselves out to convince everyone that Dean is really a moderate?
Posted by: Greg at August 6, 2003 04:49 PMGood question, Greg. I beleive that Dean knows he has to counter the Liberal-branding for PR purposes. I think it matters more in the media’s perception than the voters’, and right now the media is the target.
However, I do think that if Dean becomes the “centrist” he will have a harder time winning.
These are just my opinions, based on nothing else.
Robbie
Posted by: Robbie D at August 6, 2003 05:16 PM
