An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Does The Republican Party Need Its Moderates?

binnekill17lg.jpg

Amid continuing signs that the Republican party is stuck and unable to chip away at President Barack Obama’s election winning and potentially political-support sustaining coalition, once again the question has arisen: Doesn’t the GOP need its moderates?

To hear some conservatives say it, No way. Moderates are described as wishy washy, people who don’t have the clarity of vision to take a quick and/or all-the-way stands or they’re– using the ultimate insult term — “RINOS” (Republican In Name Only.)

But the key question has become:

Is it more desirable to be a RINO who might be looking for a new and different way out, or a “real” elephant who seems intent on making a sharp right turn towards the political graveyard?

This question becomes more even compelling when you ponder two tidbits.

The first, are these recent polls that show Obama’s popularity generally rising, many more Americans feeling the country is finally back on the right track — and indications from other polls that the Republicans are less popular than Venezuela, legalizing marijuana or China.

And, second, is this piece in The Politico which echos what we have repeatedly written here. I’ve noted in many posts that Obama has pieced together a coalition of (very satisfied) Democrats, (largely satisfied) independent voters and GOPers who are not into the current GOP’s prevailing talk radio political culture. Many of those would be Republican moderates — a species some say is vanishing but nonetheless symbolic of the party’s larger problem: George Bush is no longer in office, the party took a big hit on several issues such as Hurricane Katrina and the economy, and it can no longer afford to be a party that seemingly talks to and appeals largely to its own conservative political base. EARTH TO NEWT, ERIC AND MITCH: These people agree with you already so start trying to win over the others..

Matthew Dallek writes in The Politico:

Some Republican commentators, including Karl Rove and Michael Gerson, have argued that Barack Obama is breaking his campaign promise to govern as a “post-partisan” president. But before they rush to criticize Obama, they need to put their own house in order. The GOP’s moderate wing has declined in recent decades, and the size of the Republican coalition is shrinking.

If the Republican Party is to reestablish its dominance in American politics, it must rebuild a national coalition that includes independent and moderate voters and elected officials. In the 1950s and 1960s, Republicans had a robust centrist wing typified by President Dwight Eisenhower, New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller and New Jersey Sen. Clifford Case. Influential think tanks like the Ripon Society proposed moderate policy ideas that proved to be both popular and effective.

A personal on that:
I’m a prime example of what Dallek is talking about. As a Baby Boomer. my hero was…Nelson Rockefeller when he was New York Governor and I was in high school. Somewhere in Connecticut buried in an old box there’s even a Super 8 movie I filmed of Rocky in 1968 as he delivered a speech at Yale, making a slight mistake: “It’s great to be here at Harvard again!” Even so, college students loved him — even though Republican primary voters and particularly conservatives didn’t.

I was a registered Republican for a while, and my favorite politicians were moderate Republicans but I never liked Nixon at all, and totally dropped my Republican party registration once Nixon embarked on his Vietnam-era divide and rule rhetoric — even though I had strongly supported the Vietnam war (until the invasion of Cambodia). For a while I became a Democrat (my favorite Democrat was Washington’s Sen. Scoop Jackson) but over the years voted for some Republicans…including Ronald Reagan and, in the 2000 California primary, John McCain (I even re-registered as a Republican to do that). For years I’ve been an independent voter who felt edged out of the current GOP. MORE:

Republicans were at times indistinguishable from liberal Democrats. They embraced elements of the New Deal. They were Republicans who believed in the efficacy of government power but stayed loyal to their party because their parents and grandparents had been Republicans.

While Rockefeller Republicans virtually died out in the 1960s and ’70s, other moderate Republicans — from the Midwest, the Mountain West and the Northeast — continued to influence internal debates about politics and policy and were part of a conservative-dominated, big-tent coalition. Their moderate policy prescriptions also held influence.

During the 1970s and ’80s, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan generated support for their party by appealing to centrist and independent voters, thereby enlarging the GOP’s coalition and helping to make conservative Republicans the nation’s political majority. These presidents championed numerous conservative ideas such as tax cuts, but they also embraced more moderate policies that were important factors in the GOP’s ascendance.

Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency, endorsed national health insurance and forged diplomatic relations with communist China. Ford treaded softly on social issues while Reagan raised taxes, negotiated arms control agreements with the Soviet Union and signed legislation strengthening Social Security.

There’s a lot more so read it in full.

The bottom line is this: The Republican party can’t win unless it’s entire strategy IS to wait for a big, fat Obama failure and it actually does happen — or if it becomes proactive in search of victory, and expands its present seemingly shrinking tent to genuinely bigger one by inviting more people in. People who might not totally agree with those already there.

Here lies the key dilemma for the GOP:

By its very nature, talk radio is a genre that must attract an audience, excite it, keep it, expand it and then deliver a specific, often narrow but potent, DEMOGRAPHIC of listeners to advertisers. In recent years — accelerated at warp-speed pace after Obama’s election — the Republican party has seemingly been influenced by talk radio political culture in policy and in the way it and its partisans communicate its positions to the American public.

But most of the American public is not in that narrow demographic. Limbaugh may have some adoring Republican moderates, independents and Democrats, but that isn’t his the prime demographic that he attracts day after day with his takes on issues that are cause his listeners to say “Ditto!” The GOP has become fixated on — and distracted by – the excitement of talk radio, deferring to its hosts, and reacting in fear when talk radio fans flood the Congress with calls and emails when hosts want Congress to vote a certain way. Dallek notes all the moderate Republicans who have vanished from holding office in recent years, then adds:

The decline of moderate and independent Republicans, according to historian Vincent Cannato of the University of Massachusetts, Boston, “is only part of the problem” confronting Republicans today. Still, “just as Democrats needed to reach out to Blue Dogs” to build their coalition, Cannato said, “Republicans need to find out who the moderates and independents are in the country — and try to figure out how to appeal to them.”

As Cannato — author of “The Ungovernable City,” about liberal Republican New York City Mayor John Lindsay — also points out, the GOP has been “unfairly tainted as the party of Southerners.” In recent years, this image has hurt their chances in other regions of the country, especially among suburban voters.

A rough road lies ahead for Republicans hoping to rebuild their party. They must recruit candidates that fit their districts, reach out to Hispanic voters among other crucial constituencies and find policies that appeal to a broad cross section of the country in the aftermath of George W. Bush’s unpopular presidency.

And the prospects? Every day there is a new sign that the GOP is moving further to the right and further away from American’s current mainstream, not just in terms of ideas and style of rhetoric, but in what appeals to younger 21st century voters.

The latest news?

A faction of the RNC is pressing hard — a conservative faction, of course — to have GOPers brand Democrats as “socialists” with one member even suggesting that partisans start calling the Democratic party the “Democrat Socialist Party.” Can you guess how that will go over with Democrats who MIGHT agree with the GOP, or independents (like me) who MIGHT find themselves unhappy with Obama but detest demonization, or Republicans who already find their party becoming too extreme and drama-prone for them?

The problem: some in the GOP know what needs to be done, many outside the GOP know what needs to be done — but there are some powerful voices within the GOP who greatly influence the party’s powerful base that will always argue why it shouldn’t be done.

And until it is done — unless Obama stumbles badly — the GOP may find that when it argues it deserves a return to significant power, or to take control of Congress again, the prevailing political coalition that includes independents and non talk show radio political culture Republicans will feel THAT shouldn’t be done.

FOOTNOTE:
On The View. Meghan McCain once again seemingly expressed the view of many independents and perhaps some Republicans about Karl Rove, the GOP strategist whose approach to politicking was not so much about coalition building but about mobilizing his party’s base because if i Republicans got 50+1 that was enough to prevail. She also came out swinging on how the party has treated moderates:

If Karl Rove thought Meghan McCain might soften her views on his use of Twitter when she cohosted “The View” today, he tuned in for nothing.

He may be employing today’s technology, McCain said, but he’s still yesterday’s news.

“You’ve had your eight years,” she said. “Now go away.”

…..She did say she specifically cited Rove “more as a metaphor” for Republicans who think that just embracing contemporary technology will bring people from the Twitter generation into the party.

The problem isn’t technology, said McCain. It’s ideology – specifically, the party’s reluctance to welcome “moderates” like herself. “We should become an umbrella party,” she said.

“Stop telling me I don’t have a place.” McCain, who campaigned extensively for her father last fall, looked generally comfortable on “The View,” though her comments at times became a little rapid-fire.


UPDATE II:
Be sure to read pollster Stuart Rothenberg’s post here at RCP titlted “April Madness: Can GOP Win Back the House in 2010?” His analysis includes some of the same points in our analysis above about the GOP’s problem and what it needs to do.

  • paulhosse
    As a moderate, I can tell you that we are often looked upon as the voice of reason and common sense. No political party, or anything else for that matter, operates in a vaccum. It is the moderates who have had the most success in finding solutions that everyone can accept. In terms of the GOP, it has been the moderates who have had the most success. If there is any group to bring the GOP back from the brink of extinction, it will be the moderates. And its high time we take our party back.

    Paul Hosse
    Another Opinion
    http://hosse.blogspot.com
  • superdestroyer
    GD,

    Obama never uses the term deportation. IN the Obama Administration, if you make it to the U.S., you get to stay. It does not matter if you overstay your visa or sneak across the border. As long as someone wants to come here, the Obama Adminitration is willing to support them. No one in power in the Democratic Party is willing to support inproving border security, deport illegal aliens, or do anything to control immigraiton. The idea that employers should do the job of ICE and CPB is laughable. People will immediately accuse the employers of profiling and the ACLU/trial lawyers will quickly sue any employer that trys to ask about immigration status.
  • No one in the Democratic party has proposed "open borders" or "unlimited immigration." Try to find a link to that SD.
  • CStanley
    All basically correct and already noted in my comment, SD (the lack of trust that the govt will address both parts of the issue, enforcement along with a form of amnesty.) Well, the one part I'd dispute in what you are saying is that the govt already did comprehensive reform- that's untrue, they passed the first part with a promise to do the second and then didn't do so.

    I'm sure you and I will have to agree to disagree on whether or not we should deport everyone who's already here, but I do understand the concern about an ongoing porous border. It's disingenuous to say that we're potentially going to accept the people that have already crossed over illegally but stop the flow of illegal immigration, and then fail to follow through on the second part of that (which is what happened in the 80s.)
  • superdestroyer
    CStanley,

    The government did comprehensive immigration reform back in the 80's and it was a massive failure. The government refuse to establish the enforcement and border control that was promised. Instead the U.S. went thorugh a decade of open borders and unlimited immigration that people did not pay attention to during the dot.com boom and the real estate boom. Now you have states like California with massive budget deficits, bad schools, and sprawl caused, in part, by unlimited illegal immigration.

    The solution is not to repeat the mistake of the amensty from the last time. While the Democrats are proposing free college and free healthcare paid for by middle class tax payers, the Democrats are still proposing open borders and unlimited immigration.

    There is no way that progressives can reconcile their hatred of sprawl and pollution with their support of open borders and unlimited immigration. The only reason that makes sense is that their hatred o Republicans and the middle class exceeds their ability to make sound decisions.
  • CStanley
    SB- I agree with your stated position, and I felt that the comprehensive plan that was sought a couple of years ago- championed by McCain, on a bipartisan basis with those who would work with him (frankly, it seems to me that most Dems want to ignore the issue or demagogue on it to point out racism/bigotry/xenophobia on the other side, and then obviously there are Republicans who won't have anything to do with a plan that isn't all about enforcement, fences, and punishing the illegals who are here.)



    The idea behind the comprehensive plan was to get past the problem you mention, that in the past when amnesty was granted the govt didn't follow through with enforcement. A comprehensive plan would do both simultaneously- sort of grandfathering in the people who are here, amending the laws to allow for a reasonable continued flow of immigrants that we can assimilate, and shore up enforcement of fair laws to prevent massive influx that we can't handle.



    But it didn't gain much support on the Dem side (I don't remember anyone blocking it, just that it was ignored) and on the GOP side the hardliners said that enforcement had to come first (and encouraged their constituents to loudly oppose the plan on the basis that history had shown that we can't trust the government on following through.) Plus, some of the hardliners won't even accept any form of amnesty at all-nothing short of rounding up every illegal immigrant and deporting them would satisfy those people- but McCain (and Bush, actually, I should give credit where due because he was on what I consider the correct side of this issue and expended political capital supporting this plan) tried to do was marginalize the extremists and get support for the only practical plan anyone has come up with.



    And now, of course, it's being ignored once again.
  • StockBoySF
    CStanley, "Oddly though since you mention immigration- when the GOP tried to tackle it, it blew up."

    I actually don't know what the Republicans were trying to do around immigration and I honestly don't know what the Dems were trying to do, either. But I recall (at least I think I do) McCain taking a sympathetic view of children born here to illegal immigrants.... and that I liked.

    I'm not even sure of my own solution... other than it's a complicated issue, especially where it involves illegal parents with children who are US citizens.... We've given "amnesty" (or whatever it was called) in the past to illegal immigrants.... But then the government doesn't follow through on keeping the illegals out, so the illegal immigrants continue to cross into the US. Then both parties use for their own benefit the horrible situation (because it is horrible- I'm sure those illegal immigrants felt so totally hopeless in their mother countries to feel the need to leave their families and come here)....

    And then we have the immigrants who do want to come here with their families but can't.

    In the first link below the article mentions some immigrants who co-founded some huge US companies... including Intel... I think the US should be doing everything it can to keep obviously smart and motivated people who want to immigrant here to move here.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/business/12im...

    http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/family...

    Immigration is a huge and complicated issue and there is no easy solution to it. But I think that one policy would be to allow illegal immigrants the chance to stay in the US if they have children who are citizens, and as long as those parents are otherwise law-abiding "citizens" who are productive.
  • The fact remains, I am not obligated to pay for private school for anyone I don't choose to. My goal, the national goal, is better educated kids. And not just those who can attend private schools. It's pure taxation without representation. We don't vote on those schools, and some teach philosophies or religion that the federal government has no right to support. Even for those that don't, we are giving public money to private for-profits that can't make it on their own. If they can't attract enough students to be economically viable, perhaps they should lower their costs.
  • superdestroyer
    DQ,

    Believe it or not, but blacks do better in South Carolina than in Chicago. The same can probably be said of Detroit. When HBO wanted to do a documentary on bad inner city schools, they went to Baltimore Maryland to a city that has been run by black Democrats for decades and found a school where learning was virtually impossible. The did not go to South Carolina or Mississippi.
  • Don Quijote
    No democrat will oppose the union. So the people of D.C., and Detroit and a dozen other cities will be filtered through the appalling school systems to a life of ignorance and poverty.


    According to your logic, the south which is full of "Right to Work" States in which unions are either non-existent or very weak should have high educational achievements with very low costs. Is this the case?
  • superdestroyer
    What is more likely: That the Republican Party manages to overcome all of the demographic disavantages and the Democrats passing out money to everyone in sight or that the country continues down the road to being a one party state where the rich isolate themselves from the problems that are currently occuring. As the so-called progressives have said here, it is more important for the government to have control instead of people living in safe neighborhoods with good schools and with a vibrant private sector.
  • StockBoySF
    CStanley, "The article gives absolutely no detail about that [teh China trip for the son], and I have a VERY hard time believing that the scholarship itself pays for international travel for the recipients..."

    From the article, "We would like Mr. Obey and his colleagues to talk about possible "disruption" with Deborah Parker, mother of two children who attend Sidwell Friends School because of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. "The mere thought of returning to public school frightens me," Ms. Parker told us as she related the opportunities -- such as a trip to China for her son -- made possible by the program."

    The article says the trip was "made possible by the program." I saw no reason to assume the article was wrong and assume that what the article really meant (if it did indeed mean it) was "the trip was made possible by local businesses who sponsor kids (or some other group to sponser kids)." I took the story at face value. If it is indeed true that local businesses supported the kids then the article is distorting the facts.

    Nonetheless the article was linked to and commented on about tax dollars being used to send kids to private schools, whether those schools are or are not affiliated with a religion.

    While I certainly think more money needs to be spent on education, the point is that your (and my) tax dollars could be sending children to madrassas or Catholic high schools or Baptist schools or Mormon schools.... Even if tax dollars are not diverted from public schools those tax dollars would have been used in some other program and the sum of all those programs are causing a debt to the country.

    If the US government has extra money to spend on education, then why not spend it on public schools, which would help more kids, than expensive private schools which only helps the kid that goes to that school?
  • CStanley
    Agreed, SB. (I wouldn't put abortion in one of the problem categories, though, other than perhaps shoring up the push for supporting adoption and making sure that hardliners don't go overboard in politically opposing birth control.)



    Oddly though since you mention immigration- when the GOP tried to tackle it, it blew up. That's another case where I feel that moderates didn't give credit where due to McCain, for the political price he paid by trying to moderate the hardliners within the party on that issue. When someone within the party is willing to take it on the chin like that, why not try to help him even if you have some other areas of disagreement or disappointment around the edges with him?
  • StockBoySF
    CStanley, "So, now that voters are taking them to task for that, is it the principles that should change or should the party recommit to those principles and slowly work at regaining trust?"

    That's actually a really good way of thinking of it.... And I think that the attributes mentioned, '"small government, personal responsibility, spending restraint, government reform and term limits"' are all good (well except I don't agree with every office having term limits).

    So those are a few issues that the GOP needs to regain Americans' trust on.

    But there are other issues, i.e. abortion and immigration that may be just as important to some people as these issues, and the GOP needs to come up with a cohesive, principled message.

    The GOP doesn't have to reinvent itself entirely and a lot of their ideas are great. If they just had some credibility and didn't turn everything into a partisan hack fight.
  • CStanley
    GD- I think it's pretty obvious that the statement that jwest made applies to the elected variety of Democrats.
  • regardless of whether the China trip is a red herring, the main point remains. The education that all taxpayers pay for should be available to all. Most of us don't have school age kids, but we all pay to educate our young. We don't want to pay for your kids' private school. That's your job. If we think the public school system is broken, it's our duty to fix it, not to wheedle taxpayer money out of the system for private school for some.

    I agree that some changes are necessary in public school, and I think some are stupidly administration-heavy. Teachers should be paid MORE not less, but that should be merit based. We need to be able to remove underperforming teachers and surplus administrators. We don't need to fund private schools. If they're so demonstrably great, they can apply for grants, or convince investors to ante up.

    jwest. sorry, but I just trashed your assertion that no Democrat will oppose teachers' unions.
  • CStanley
    So tell me exactly what the Republican Party does which would actually attract moderate voters? What do the Republicans stand for?

    You just wrote a long commentary about how the GOP didn't govern according to its principles. So, now that voters are taking them to task for that, is it the principles that should change or should the party recommit to those principles and slowly work at regaining trust?
  • CStanley
    Stockboy, I had to go check the link because I was so baffled at your harping on trips to China, which I'd never heard come up in this context before. So, apparently one of the things this mother praised about the opportunity this scholarship afforded her child was the opportunity for this trip. The article gives absolutely no detail about that, and I have a VERY hard time believing that the scholarship itself pays for international travel for the recipients (more likely, the school offers that trip and local businesses sponsor kids who need financial help- at least that's how those things typically work.)

    At least if you're going to go off on a rant about it, do some fact checking and I bet you'll find that that part is a total red herring.
  • StockBoySF
    CStanley: "Something obviously will have to change before the GOP will regain majority status, but in my view it's the opinion of the moderate voters that has to give."

    Why should anyone change their opinions to support the GOP? We have two main political parties (and a few lesser ones) and the people get to choose which party best fits their own ideas.

    This is the perfect example of my comment, "If the Republican Party wants to continue to be a party of exclusivity, without regard for differing opinions, and the Republican goal is to "convert" people over to their way of thinking, then the answer is "No. The Republican Party does not need its moderates."' The GOP is counting on gaining suport from people who change their ideas, their beliefs and values. Well that's a whole lot of changing people have to do to support a party they're not inclined to join.

    The GOP (as DaGoat pointed out) claims to be for "small government, personal responsibility, spending restraint, government reform and term limits."

    However when the economy was good there or there was a budget surplus and the GOP was in power did the GOP do anything to support their values? It seems that the GOP did everything it could to grab and consolidate as much power as possible.

    And Bush also campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" and that the US should not engage in nation building.... We see where that went and while we did have to attack our enemies in Afghanistan, we choose to invade Iraq. And it is Iraq that has cost us a couple trillion dollars (and still counting).

    If the GOP actually had passed bills towards their agenda of being a small government, fiscally responsible, encouraged personal responsibilitym, etc. then more Americans would listen to them. Instead the whole GOP leadership says one thing and does another when they think no one is looking. Or they believe that no one will remmeber at the polls.

    So tell me exactly what the Republican Party does which would actually attract moderate voters? What do the Republicans stand for?
  • billd123
    Another conservative that has been gaining some serious momentum is Peter Schiff. In 2006 he correctly called the real estate bubble and resultant bank crisis and now is being drafted for senate in 2010. Check out his site to learn more about his policy platform: http://www.schiff2010.com
  • StockBoySF
    It doesn't matter whether money is or is not "taken" from the public schools to support the private schools. Whenever tax dollars are diverted to private schools then the public is supporting it. This is a federally funded program, which means my tax dollars I send to the IRS help support it....

    I don't blame the mother for wanting the scholarship so her kid can go to a school that is better than the public school her son would go to. And I'll also point the son got to go to China because of the scholarship.... again paid for by my tax dollars.... What makes her so special that she gets tax dollars to support the eduction of her children when every parent wants the same for their kid?

    So why would I as a taxpayer with children (I don't have children, but let's say I do) want to apply for the program, but am turned down because of the limited space. I'm still supporting it even though my kid didn't get in. Why do I want my tax dollars diverted from some other program to pay for another's kid to go to a good school and go to China with his class?

    If the mother chooses to have children then she is expected to support them to the best of her ability. But she can't expect her children to travel the world and go to schools where the rich and famous go to, especially on taxpayer money. In case you haven't been paying attention there's a budget deficit and the US needs all the money it can get. There is not enough tax payer money to send poor kids off to China just because they want to go as part of their class.

    If public money is used as scholarships, then this is just another type of public assistance... and I thought the Republicans were against public assistance.

    And if the scholarship program was funded by the school, then that's a different story. The DC scholarship money spends federal tax dollars. I'm all for experiments and funding schools and programs which improve education. But there should be no expectation on the part of parents that their kids will get to jet around the world on public money.

    The answer would seem to be that we should throw MORE tax dollars at schools so more kids can go to China (or where ever). It was Bush who pushed for the "No Child Left Behind" law and he has held up its provisions as how we should go.... But it was also Bush who didn't fully fund the program. Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth.... :)

    Bush got the best of both worlds... He received kudos for supporting this great legislation, which he used to show that he cares about kids and that translated into a certain number of votes for him and other Republicans. However because he didn't fully fund it he didn't have to face the wrath of his party members who support low taxes and low government spending. Not that he would have faced their wrath anyway... Bush doubled the national debt while he was in office and no one in the GOP cared until it was an election year.

    So I'm surprised the GOP can sleep at night... they may pass laws that have great provisions, and which they use as examples of their values to be re-elected but then they don't fund those proograms.
  • CStanley
    Some of you have taken me too literally in my reference to McCain. I certainly realize the headwind that he faced, and that the electeion was largely a referendum on Bush- and it wasn't my intent to redebate all of that.

    The reason I responded and focused my subsequent comments toward Polimom is because she seems to represent the independent voters who are still very unsure about returning to the GOP any time in the near future. She listed some of the things that are ongoing issues, which continue past the last election cycle's focus on being 'not Bush'.

    Hemm said:
    By fate or design, aren't most moderates also independents? Both parties exhibit absolute opinions that represent the far ends of the spectrum, so isn't a moderate by necessity required to pick a party based upon subtleties?
    Yes, but I'm attempting to discuss 'which' subtleties they use as their metrics. It seems to me that the majority of independent voters are unaffiliated not because they're really ideologically neutral, but more often it seems that they agree with conservative ideology (as it exists in US politics) on some things and liberal US ideology on other things. I would think then that they'd prioritize the principles on which those agreements or disagreements are based and then figure out which party matches up best at the moment.

    My specific complaint is with the independents who are more center right, but somehow felt that they'd be supporting something close to what they believe is right by electing a pretty ideologically left leaning president to serve with a pretty ideologically left leaning Congress, during a time when the country is so insecure that we'll put our trust in such politicians even if we'd otherwise not do so.

    Obviously there are some unaffilliated voters who do favor the particular mix of left wing ideology that we're now getting, and their votes made sense but those who are more center right who voted for Obama are just baffling to me.

    I guess if I were more of a centrist I'd definitely be a 'divided government' type, and since none of us can influence the makeup of Congress very substantially that would mean always voting for the presidential candidate that's of the opposite party from that which controls Congress at the time. Even as a conservative, I'm starting to feel that way.
  • jwest
    GD,

    As the article clearly states, not one penny of the money involved in this voucher program was taken from the public school funds. This was additional money, allocated so that at least a few children could escape the liberal hellhole known as the D.C. pubic school system.

    These kids weren’t going to madrasses, they were at Sidwell Friends along with Obama’s kids.

    D.C. schools have the highest per-pupil spending of any public school in the country. Higher than Beverly Hills, or Palm Beach or any other community you can think of.

    Money is not the answer. That is what the new Secretary of Education was trying to hide by burying the report. The problem is the teacher’s union protects incompetents and is focused on providing the teachers lifetime employment and benefits at the expense of the children’s education.

    No democrat will oppose the union. So the people of D.C., and Detroit and a dozen other cities will be filtered through the appalling school systems to a life of ignorance and poverty.

    All to assure that the union voting block goes the right way.

    And you people have the gall to speak of crimes against humanity.
  • Not true, jwest. Try to calm down. Money taken from public schools and given to private schools clearly impacts public schools. I don't have any trouble sleeping at night. You wouldn't want your tax dollars to go to a jihadist madrasa. I don't want mine going to a Christian school or ANY OTHER except secular public school. Again. You want to improve public education, improve public schools. You don't like the public school, then YOU pay for the private one. Not my tax dollars to a for profit corporation. If they don't have a viable business model without sucking at the government teat, let them fail.
  • jwest
    GD,

    The only possible explanation for the democrats to block funding that doesn’t impact the public schools is that they care for the teacher’s union more than the children.

    How do you people sleep at night?

    When the truth is finally recognized, will you and the rest of your liberal friends spend the rest of your lives apologizing to each poor, illiterate city dweller that you denied an education to?
  • casualobserver
    And I think many of you are overestimating the influence of policy altruism over feeling a need for change as the primary driver for national elections. In my view that's why swing vote people are definitionally independent (of party).......they really don't care that much about platforms.

    I think a case can be made for every election I witnessed, from Kennedy on, swing votes were driven primarily by desire for change from the then present course moreso than some other philosophy being perceived as better in a vacuum.

    I think 2010 and 2012 will be the same and while I hate to take the TMV Democrats away from their project of retooling the Republican Party, it will play a small role compared to what Obama/Pelosi/Reid make better or don't make better........or more sympathetically, the lay of the dice at the time.

    Don't get me wrong, Dennis Sanders.......make the Republican platform more socially hospitable........but don't feel bad when the economy leaves you feeling like second fiddle.
  • DaGoat
    I'm kind of late to the dance here but I'll throw in my 2 cents...

    Does the GOP need its moderates - yes but right now they don't think they do, at least not to the extent that moderate views will be any more welcomed.

    On McCain - I think he was the best possible candidate for the GOP but I don't think anyone could have beat Obama. Obama was a great candidate, had huge media support and had the benefit of the GOP's collapse. I voted for McCain because I felt he was the true moderate choice, not because of any allegiance to the GOP. The accusations that McCain was somehow Bush III were just laughable.

    On coming back to the GOP - I became a Republican back in the 90's when they were supposedly the party of small government, personal responsibility, spending restraint, government reform and term limits. I then left when they clearly were not all those things. When CStanley asks what I am willing to give up to return to the party I have to laugh. Why would I want to return to the party at all? If I have to stay an independent and just vote for who I feel is the best individual that's fine with me.

    I do think there's a lot of people who feel as I do but a lot of them are happy with Obama right now. Until that changes the GOP or a third party have little chance of success. Obama is already overreaching though and that may leave an opening in the future.
  • jwest, BS on the "dems hate children" crap. It's a democracy, and I choose not to have my taxes pay for private school. You want to. Some of these should be constitutionally forbidden to take any taxpayer money (eg religious private schools). Others seek to abandon public schools, which is not the current law of the land. Want better education of all Americans? Improve public schools.
  • HemmD
    CS

    By fate or design, aren't most moderates also independents? Both parties exhibit absolute opinions that represent the far ends of the spectrum, so isn't a moderate by necessity required to pick a party based upon subtleties?

    As to McCain being a moderate, he may well be, but he faced a very strong head wind in terms of overcoming the previous 8 years. His true nature never had a real chance to show itself as he was tarred with the Bush brush early and often. I don't care where you fit along the political spectrum, anyone following Bush as the next candidate started from behind.

    I'm just saying that he may not be indicative of a moderate in other circumstances, so your questioning as to what the Republicans can do to entice moderates may not be valid in an election where many were looking for a Sea Change.
  • jwest
    I’m an agnostic (bordering on atheist), pro-abortion (not just pro-choice) and I couldn’t care less if gays marry each other or their pets.

    On the other side, I’m slightly right of center on fiscal and national security issues.

    Could I vote for a democrat? I don’t think so. I can’t understand how anyone could perpetuate a party that would intentionally harm the most vulnerable children in the country.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
  • I think the GOP *does* need some time in the wilderness. I hear 40 years would be a scripturally correct period.
  • I don't think I'm exaggerating, CS, and not intending to flame either. If voters were turning away from a myriad of Bush policies, McCain needed to articulate how voting for him was a more moderate position. Perhaps you think his message conveyed that. I think the voters disagreed. The major issue was the crumbling economy, on which McCain promised to make tax cuts at the top permanent and offered little more. Iraq, social issues, illegal spying, name the area and McCain was seen as offering nothing new. Again, I think you saw in McCain as a more moderate *person* but the positions he offered, and the increasingly negative tone of his campaign, turned off voters.

    A more moderate candidate has to offer more moderate positions. McCain didn't, not just in *my* opinion, but in the opinion of most voters. Palin sealed the deal, by compounding a figure who *seemed* more moderate (at least to you) but wasn't offering more moderate policies, with a hard right lightweight who was a big turn off to moderates in the GOP and especially to independents.
  • CStanley
    I think that's an exaggerated meme too, GD, but I was specifically directing my comments toward the type of objections that I think are best exemplified by PM's statements about her own reasons for not voting McCain.
  • CS, I think portraying McCain as a moderate misses the point. He signed on to Bush policies, not just during the Bush years, but during the election. He signaled the nation --a nation hungry for change-- that he would continue the Bush military policy, economic (tax cut) policy and Bush social policies. I don't see how voting for McCain would send any message to the GOP, except the message that continuing the Bush policies is just fine.
  • CStanley
    PM- another thought just occurred to me. Perhaps it's worth considering, too, that the people who occupy the extremes of ideology are like that because they fear wishy washiness. Whenever you can make your case to them of how your positions are based on some principle (and not compromise for it's own sake), I think you stand a MUCH better chance of swaying them or at least convincing some of them to reconsider their own positions.
  • CStanley
    I can't really tell you how to do it (though I think making your voice present in discussions like this one, and the ones you have at your blog, is a good starting point.)

    I alluded to the letter that Pete drafted a while back. I have no idea if a movement like that would work or not, but it seems like a principled manner in which to approach this (and I think it was terrible to start it and then withdraw before it got off the ground, sorry, Pete, but I think you know that's how I felt about it.)

    If every time you do try to engage, you're so quick to give up, then you are the ones who are guaranteeing the poor outcome- that's all I'm saying.

    I get what you are saying about your local community, but according to the model that I'm setting forth, yes, if you are serious about trying to effect change you'd have to sit through meetings of local GOP and be a representative of the moderate pragmatic small government conservative position. If they're putting up candidates who don't represent that, speak up, firmly but in a reasonable manner, about what your specific objections are.

    It's not easy, and at first you'd get shouted down, most likely. But keep at it, keep your cool, and start finding similar minded people to accompany you and eventually they'd have to stop ignoring you or acting in discord with the principles of conservatism that you're articulating.
  • CO, there's a rigidity to the libertarians that makes for great theory but often translates poorly into the real world. And by baggage, I'm thinking specifically of how the libertarians been used by various extreme groups (think racists) as a banner behind which they can rally.
  • Come back to what table? Debate with whom? We're discussing these issues now, are we not?

    CStanley, the vast majority of the people I've encountered over the years on my personal blog have agreed with a general ideology of "fiscally conservative, socially liberal". (That's much too broad a characterization, but it's not a bad jump-off point.) When I write on the subject (and I haven't in a very very long time), I get extreme agreement, from people I've interacted with before, and people I haven't.

    But not a one of us, so far as I know, has a place even in the room (much less at the table). The political machines are not just vast (and stupidly powerful), they're very far removed from the lives of ordinary Americans, and for all the vaunted 'power' of the blogosphere, it's really only a handful that have a voice.

    Are you suggesting that I (for instance) should get involved with the local Republican party? Not likely. I live in an extremely conservative corner of Texas, and I'd probably never even find a starting point for dialogue. Should I send $ to moderate candidates? I do. But the party is bound and determined to get rid of them, which means my $ is going into a black hole.

    Should I run for office? (HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!) March in front of a courthouse with a sign?

    Seriously -- the fact that moderates are still engaged at all is a constant source of wonder to me.
  • casualobserver
    I also think that the closest existing ideology to them is the libertarian (small L). Unfortunately, that group is carrying around its own rather unpalatable baggage.

    What's that baggage? Personal freedom on matters of both social and economic policy?!
  • CStanley
    Why not send the message about which general ideological approach you favor, in spite of your belief that some people on whichever side you choose take it to extremes or even distort the basic principles?

    If your main principle is that government power is a dangerous thing that we need to remain skeptical of, then I don't see how anything else can trump that. And if you feel that some people in the GOP are acting in ways that contradict that principle, then why not put yourself in the position of debating that with them and potentially making headway- instead of teling them to go to hell, which naturally provokes them to say the same to you?

    That's what disturbs me the most- that there's no internal debate within the GOP about these principles. And I don't see how that debate can happen if one side walks away. Come back to the table!

    And yeah, I guess (if I understand you correctly) I do have this frustration with moderates that they too often enjoy their ability to walk away- and the power they have to shift the general direction of politics by going to one side of the ship or the other and sway it. At some point I do feel that you have to choose a set of general principles, or at least realize that when you create one lurch to the left because you felt we were lilting too far right, then you're the ones who are going to have to find the new balance point.

    If we say, "this group needs to be backed down", then we are ipso facto more aligned with some other group.
    See, I think the credible way to tell a group to back down is to be part of the larger group that contains that subgroup- because any time you try to send that message by siding with the opposing party, you are in fact giving more power to the extremists on that side. It doesn't matter if that's your intent or not, your action had that effect and you need to own that, and now work to reign them in. Which to me makes little sense, because it makes you into a ping pong ball- but if that's the way you choose to go about it, then at least keep the balance going.
  • And you, in turn, are confirming my feeling that there's absolutely nowhere we moderates can go, and nothing we can do, that will not somehow confirm one side or the other's frustration with us.

    We cannot send any messages at all, because they are interpreted within a partisan frame. If we say, "this group needs to be backed down", then we are ipso facto more aligned with some other group.

    I disagree strongly with your conclusions, CStanley, but I don't see any way to present my position in a way that won't fit a predetermined mold.
  • CStanley
    And on the topic of finding an ideological home, I think the point is that you have to make your own home. If large numbers of pragmatic, moderate right of center people would indicate willingness to support ANY party, then they could work on reforming the party from within. I admired a certain blogger at this site for starting an effort to do just that, but have given him endless grief for abandoning that effort before it even got off the ground.
  • CStanley
    PM- You start off rejecting my premise that your decision was calculated on which extreme you felt more strongly opposed to, but then how does your final statement not validate that that's exactly what you were doing?

    And that's fine, if that's the way you see it- but it was exactly the point I started off making. As long as the situation exists that people like yourself largely feel that way, there's nothing the GOP can do to change it IMO. Those people on the far right don't just go away, just as the fringe elements on the left will always be there. But when moderates refuse to be in the same tent with those people, you are actually the ones who are giving more voice to the extremists to control the direction of the party.
  • I should add, I think, that I really don't feel that either party offers a place for people like me -- which is why I'd really like to see the moderates in BOTH parties break off into a third party. If it turns out that the GOP successfully purges itself of its moderates, then I'm hopeful they'll form up somehow.

    I also think that the closest existing ideology to them is the libertarian (small L). Unfortunately, that group is carrying around its own rather unpalatable baggage.

    **sigh**
  • CStanley
    And BTW, Polimom, I can't help but note that I feel your characterizations of both Palin and the Schiavo event seem like MSNBC and left blogosphere driven caricaturizations.

    I understand all of the objections to Palin and I share some of them. But since her policies in office have not been anything like what you describe as 'reflect(ing) the most intolerant views in our society', I call BS on that.

    And on Schiavo- the people who protested against ending her life support were very much concerned with the way the STATE government was intervening in a family matter. I don't think the federal government should have gotten involved and certainly shouldn't have demagogued, but there was a perfectly valid conservative position in support of allowing her parents to continue providing for her life supporting medical care over the protestations of her husband who claimed to know her wishes (even without documentation via a living will.)
  • "McCain's candidacy was unacceptable to you because he wouldn't disavow the parts of the right that you dislike- which shows, as I said, that people like yourself find the extreme right more distasteful than you find the far left."


    CStanley, I think you're making assumptions here. Since it's off-topic for this particular post, I said nothing at all about the far left (much less that I find them less distasteful).

    "To me it would make far more sense for a moderate voter to send a message to those 'howlers' by supporting the moderate candidate that got the nomination over their protests."


    Interesting how differently we see that -- and I wonder whether you're perhaps underestimating how seriously out of step (and unacceptable) I, and people like me, find the positions of those 'howlers'.

    Furthermore, in the course of the campaign, I saw signs that McCain was willing to move toward those positions for their votes. (again -- this discussion is specific to the GOP.) Given my already-described feelings about that, I was not sanguine about his ability to deny them access to the levers of power.

    It boils down to a question of which message voters like me were trying to send -- or maybe, which distasteful positions we felt needed rejection most strongly. In this time and place, it was the extreme right, and the most strident social conservatives, that were rejected.
  • CStanley
    CS, John McCain didn't lose because he was too moderate, he lost because there were far too many people who refused to reward the republicans for their 8 years of poor leadership.


    That's exactly my point, JSpencer- it does not matter a lick whether or not the GOP becomes more moderate right now because the sentiment among independent voters is that they feel the GOP needs time out in the wilderness. So why would the party continue altering it's core philosophies to suit moderates who won't agree to vote for them even if they get the changes they demand?

    And Polimom, you're proving my point as well. McCain's candidacy was unacceptable to you because he wouldn't disavow the parts of the right that you dislike- which shows, as I said, that people like yourself find the extreme right more distasteful than you find the far left.

    In fact, the extreme outrage and eardrum shattering howling from within his own party (because he was too moderate) went a long way toward convincing me that the GOP needed some time out of power.


    See, here, you and I look at the same set of facts and come to opposite conclusions. To me it would make far more sense for a moderate voter to send a message to those 'howlers' by supporting the moderate candidate that got the nomination over their protests. It's true as JS said that McCain's loss was't because it's too moderate- but by allowing that loss, the moderates have given the base reason to think that it was. And a McCain win would have been irrefutable proof that moderate GOP candidates can be successful where a base candidate cannot.

    If people who once considered themselves moderates who could fall within the tent of the GOP are all deciding to walk out rather than stand up and be counted, then why in the world would you think that the base of the party would take that as a message to become more moderate in order to attract you back?
  • JSpencer
    CS, John McCain didn't lose because he was too moderate, he lost because there were far too many people who refused to reward the republicans for their 8 years of poor leadership. It would hardly have mattered who was running on the R ticket at that time. If a lesson is going to be taken from the 08 election, then it needs to be the right lesson. As for democrats holding their own party accountable, I think they have historically been less inclined to rubber stamp, and are more apt to be contentious within their own party. I see more criticism and concern about Obama from the left than I ever did about Bush from the right, and we're barely a hundred days in! As I recall, the republicans (with rare exceptions) didn't start questioning their judgement about Bush until somewhere in his second term.
  • "OK, so after offering a presidential candidate who should have garnered support of moderates (above the loud protests of the hardcore base, and talk show radio hosts, and immigration hawk bloggers like Michelle Malkin), what more should the GOP do to pander to moderates?"

    For me, the biggest problem with McCain's candidacy -- by far -- was that he picked an extremely polarizing running-mate whose social conservatism seemed to reflect the most intolerant views in our society. Now in general, one could make the case that a VP is primarily ornamental, but combined with McCain's age, that became a real factor when weighing pros and cons (at least for me).

    And I don't see how one can overlook or downplay the internal contradictions embodied by today's GOP. Are the Republicans the party that thinks government should have a say in a family's decisions about a loved ones death (a la Schiavo)? Or are they the party that resents (and actively opposes) governmental interference in individual lives?

    And for all their "no more spending!!" noise today, they were spending like bazillionaires at a drunken orgy when they held the reins. How on earth can one possibly take seriously their sudden (re)conversion to fiscal conservatism and small government?

    Just at the moment, CStanley (and this affected the McCain candidacy as well) -- I don't know who the Republicans are. Nor do I think they knew in November. In fact, the extreme outrage and eardrum shattering howling from within his own party (because he was too moderate) went a long way toward convincing me that the GOP needed some time out of power.

    Blaming centrists (or moderates) for not embracing McCain seems to assume those voters would judge him in a vacuum -- an impossibility when it was obvious that MANY in his own party detested his politics.

    It wasn't McCain who was rejected. It was the Republicans.
  • CStanley
    To a large extent I think DQ is correct, and the fact is that most moderates don't fit the old profile of 'conservative Democrat', which included some (moderately) conservative social positions. Most people who consider themselves left leaning centrist independents are socially liberal and economically moderate (and even there there's been a shift toward accepting economic liberal/progressivism more and more.)

    From where I sit, neither party is interested in actually being moderate, but today's independent voters find the extreme positions of the left more acceptable than they find the extreme positions of the right. That pendulum is likely to swing back, but the question is how quickly?

    My problem with that is that those moderates are the only check we have left on the immense power now enjoyed by the Democratic party- and they'd better start paying attention to how that is playing out instead of ignoring almost every Democratic scandal (except the occasional sex scandal, because those have titillation value) and rationalizing certain policies which are lurching more and more leftward (and in ways that enable collusion between left wing politicians and industry/business, giving them the same powers that the right has held and abused.)
  • Don Quijote
    The problem for the Republicans is that the parties have become ideologically consistent over the last forty years, there are no conservative democrats nor liberal republicans left, and unfortunately for the republicans Cheap Labor Conservatives, Social Troglodytes and Chicken Hawks do not make a majority.
  • CStanley
    OK, so after offering a presidential candidate who should have garnered support of moderates (above the loud protests of the hardcore base, and talk show radio hosts, and immigration hawk bloggers like Michelle Malkin), what more should the GOP do to pander to moderates?

    We're being told now that people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have too much influence, yet when people like that were ignored and the candidate they didn't favor got the nomination, moderate voters did not flock to the GOP.

    Something obviously will have to change before the GOP will regain majority status, but in my view it's the opinion of the moderate voters that has to give. They're complaining that the GOP doesn't give them what they want, but when it attempted to do so they voted Dem anyway.

    What will need to change is that the moderates who don't want far left policies to gain more and more traction, they'll need to reconsider their own willingness to leave the Democratic party unchecked (and it would be nice if they'd start noticing the corruption that occurs on both sides, to hold the Democratic party accountable just as they've held the GOP accountable- which was appropriate but now appears selective.)

    I think there are some areas that the GOP needs to adjust, but for the most part the calls by moderates for more centrism from the GOP are just ridiculous, because there's nothing that the party could do that would appease you.
  • StockBoySF
    "Does The Republican Party Need Its Moderates?"

    Well I think it's for the Republicans to decide what sort of party they want. They make jokes about them being the party of the "haves and have-mores"... So the consider themselves exclusive..... And part of exclusivity is being part of a club, a group that believes in the same things. As the Republican extremist have been proving for the past few years.

    If the Republican Party wants to continue to be a party of exclusivity, without regard for differing opinions, and the Republican goal is to "convert" people over to their way of thinking, then the answer is "No. The Republican Party does not need its moderates."

    However if the Republican Party wants to continue to be a force in national politics and is willing to listen and accept views other than that of a rigid ideology, and be willing to fight for Americans' rights outside their traditional base, then the answer is "Yes. The Republican Party needs its moderates."

    I've said many times on here that I hope the Republicans regain their power and offer alternative views. I may consider myself to belong to the Democratic Party but the Dems don't always propose policies I like. And even if they did, it would be nice to see other ideas.

    At any rate, the question is for the GOP to decide how they want to go as a party. Their current ideas and strategies only appeal to an ever smaller group of people. Which is fine, if that's what they want and if they no longer want to be a force in national politics. But if that happens, then I hope another political party to counteract the Dems steps in pretty soon.

    I think the real issue is that the GOP has made the decision to be a party of exclusivity, but they want all the power of their glory days. They haven't come to grip with reality and the fact that if you as a political party only appeal to 15% of the population (I'm only using that as an example, not as a real number that the GOP appeals to), then you'll only get 15% of the votes (plus a few more for various other reasons). If the Republicans want a majority of votes, then they have to have policies that appeal to the majority of people. It's really not rocket science.
  • catransplant
    We ought to be offered a choice. I'm getting a little tired of trying to spot the wolf in sheep's clothing behind the mindless hack in both parties.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC