« Iraq: The Train Wreck This Way Comes
FILM REVIEW: “Bobby”: Dropping Acid While Writing Might Have Improved »
Plan B for Moderates…If the Democrats Tank
Politicians and spectators are on the edge of our seats to see how the Democrats manage their new and surprising influence. Will they wisely steer as close to the center as possible or will they veer left and risk alienating the moderates who voted merely to give them a chance, not a mandate.
While it appears that the Democrats have wisely moved towards the center vacated by the GOP they can still blow it if they lose control of their wingers.
So is the GOP preparing to leap into the breach? Apparently not.
All I have read is that the GOP appears to be hunkering down on the far right. The GOP leaders have made statements that seem to focus their intention on scuttling any Dem legislation, but I have read nothing about how they will prepare to attract moderate/independents in ’08. With the decimation of the ranks of GOP moderates in the last election there doesn’t seem to be any serious high level intention to try to replace them. The Republican Main Street Partnership and It’s My Party Too are the two moderate GOP organizations but so far seem to be silent on the topic.
As a Centrist I am somewhat ambivalent about whether the cause is moved forward by moderate Democrats or moderate Republicans. But if the GOP is going to abdicate the center then I need to focus my attention and resources where they are likely to have the most impact.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
38 Responses to “Plan B for Moderates…If the Democrats Tank”
The reason that the Republicans cannot propose anything is that they have no credibility on the issues that moderates should be talking about like fiscal responsibility, eminent domain reform, private sector job creation, etc. The Republicans had their chance to act on these issues but they punted instead.
Now the Republicans are stuck in an “electorial box.” They are a minority party but any move they make will lose more support than it gains. That is a sure sign of a party that is fated for complete failure. The voter is also stuck because the start up problems for a third party are too huge to overcome.
As a moderate your worry should be what happens when the Republicans become irrelevant as a national political force. If there is not Republican party to moderate the Democrats, the Democratic Party will probably take a hard left turn (See DC or Mass. as classic examples).
The only hope for moderate Republicans is that the party manages to nominate McCain or Giuliani at the top of the ticket in 2008. Both candidates could win nationwide with support of Independents and crossover Democrats. Conservative Republicans either detest or distrust both of these men. The 2008 Presidential primary will determine whether or not the moderates can resurge in the GOP or if they are lost for good. Right now, no credible conservative stands ready to take over the GOP for 2008 (and I know that McCain is conservative; but the GOP base views him the way liberal Democrats view Lieberman).
I told Joe G that this is exactly what happens when thinking focuses only on Ds and Rs. Think 3rd Party, man. Fuck the system, or it’ll never change, and you’ll remain a bewildered part of the problem.
I do find it funny on how much people are already judging the Democratic Majority when they haven’t even formally taken power yet…
Let’s wait and see…
If you build it, they will come.
It might take another election cycle to get it into the heads of the major parties, but they will have to realise that the “Sleeping Giant” of the Center as awoken with a purpose. The Center isn’t about to go anywhere, and the Center will make itself felt. If either one chooses not to come back to the Center they will lose. If both choose not to, it will witness the rise of Independents and perhaps a third party. Technolgy is making it easier for independents and third parties to get their message out despite obstructions that have been erected before them.
Matt Pearl
In my post I was trying to make the point that the GOP is dropping the ball in responding the rise of Moderate voters.
I’m not judging the Dems yet.
Yet some folks do jump ahead to what they expect will happen.
p
cosmoetica,
I am not much of a fan of a 3rd party.
The point of the party system is that it is an organized community of donors and campaign workers.
A third party would have an overwhelming handicap compared to D and R candidates.
I prefer to ride the horse in the direction it is going by helping to steer the Dems and GOP towards the center. To harness existing resources to tip the parties in favor of moderates.
It is just a personal choice about what is the most efficient use of resources.
Reasonable people can disagree.
The main problem with a third party is that if you study political science you can see how in most cases third parties have “thrown” the election — oftentimes to the party those who voted for the third party didn’t want it to go to. Our system is set up to make it very difficult for third parties. Ross Perot had an incredible window of opportunity, but self destructed amid demonization efforts and his withdrawal from the race. By the time he jumped back in, his moment was passed. No one can keep a straight face and repeat Ralph Nader’s assertions that the two parties are just, oh, so totally the same. Both Republicans who support Bush and Democrats who wanted Gore KNOW that there is and was a difference between the two parties. And some Nader voters regret their votes in that election. You could have cannibalistic primaries in 2008, culminating in voter disgust over both parties. And if someone truly unusual comes on the scene — particularly if the next two years produce nothing but Democratic and Republican posturing and little progress on issues — another “Ross Perot opportunity” could emerge. But it’s a big if…since in most cases third parties have failed. This isn’t a statement of wish; it’s historical and political science fact. Our system is set up a certain way so it’s very rough for third party candidates to get and maintain traction. Unity08 is an interesting concept but, here again, you have to get one (or two) very dynamic candidates for a third party to be more than a vacuum cleaner that sucks away votes from one party and helps another party win.
Joe,
The problem with the current two party system is one of competativeness. If, in a state or local area one party collapses, it means the other party dominates. There were almost 40 US House races where the sitting candidate did not have a serious opposition. Most of those were Democrats. IN cities like NYC, DC Chicago, Philly, etc, there is not serious competition. It is hard to believe that the Democrats can move to the middle when its most liberal members are being reelected without opposition.
Image what happens if and when the Republicans become a southern regional political party. The moderates in the Democratic Party will have very little say because they will not be needed for the Democrats to maintan control.
Also, I believe that most people here say the are moderate are actually much more liberal than middle America. Look at an issue like Affirmative Action and racial quotas. Over 60% of Americans are against them. Anyone who claims that they are in the middle politically would have to be against AA and racial quotes. Yet, I would guess that most “moderate” posters here suppport affirmative ation and quotas.
This is the most immoderate post about moderation that I have ever read.
You’re thinking about plan b when the Democrats haven’t been in power for a single minute? You’re talking about whether or not moderate Republicans may offer moderation in the future? Were you around for the last 12 years?
Once again, this so-called centrism seems to be nothing more than grasping at excuses to demean the Democrats and vote for Republicans.
I am a moderate centrist who would prefer to phase out affirmative action and move towards a more color-blind rule of law.
Gerrymandering is a major reason for the lack of competetiveness. Electoral districts are specifically shaped to keep incumbants safe, or to make one party invulnerable to defeat no matter how extreme their candidate. Making politicians subject to competetion is the key to maintaining moderate government. The end of this kind of redistricting should be a serious goal. I favor the Iowa model. (A good link on this from Centrists.org is HERE.)
Unless the Republicans move towards the center, I will continue to vote for Democrats. If you look at where the Democratic Party was in the 60′s and 70′s, you will see that they have moved towards the center. The older congressional democrats still come from the liberal wing, but the more newly elected Dems are mostly moderates—like Obama, Clinton, and Emmanuel.
I would consider voting for a candidate like Giuliani or Hagel, but not one like Gingrich or Brownback. The Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot by failing to read the changing mood of the electorate. 70% think we are headed in the wrong direction—I take that to mean towards the far right. The GOP stays there at their own peril, especially if we are still in Iraq in ’08.
Kim,
If the Republicans try to become Democratic-Lite, they are doomed faster than staying where they are. The Republicans could take the exact same position as the Democrats ans they would still lose because the Democratic Party benefits from the overwhelming support of blacks, hispanics, and jews. The Republicans can only overcome that voting block by GOTV and niche marketing. If the Republicans give up on issues that get out conservative voters, then they have nothing to offer anyone. The result being single party control of the US.
ditto.
BYG hit the nail on the head, I live in a court drawn and very competitive district where an extreme candidate would not have a prayer. I have debated the third party idea back and forth, I don’t rule out a third party but like Joe I see how a third party can actually help the extremists. I am now thinking along the lines of a pragmatic movement, a movement that would support moderate left/right candidates with funds and, if allowed by sate law, votes in the nomination process. In areas where there are no opposition candidates there might be an opportunity to run an independent, if just to test the waters. What I would like to see moderates in the two political parties do [perhaps pushed this way by independent moderates] is to make a point of working together across the lines, the DLC and Mainstreet Republicans for example.
Superdestroyer- Good points, but can they risk losing many of the Independents and some moderate Republicans? Conservatives make up about a third of all voters, which is never enough unless you’re running in a very conservative state or district. If the Dems stay just a little left of center, they should be able to capitalize, and make the GOP irrelevant. Why can’t the GOP be a big tent party again?
The Dems, for all of their many faults, have been able to run candidates that fit their districts, and have succeeded by straying from their liberal orthodoxy. I think if the GOP is pragmatic, it will do the same if it loses big in ’08.
I tend to think of Centrism in terms of “process” issues that would promote more competition in elections, and more transparency and collaboration in the legislative process.
I am also a fan of non-partisan redistricting, and more open elections so that moderates have more of a chance.
BTW, in my state of Maryland, black voters are ready for a choice, as they feel the Democrats have taken them for granted. In the senate race the GOP ran a conservative black candidate against the dems liberal white candidate. The black candidate lost by a ten point margin, in a very blue state. He might have won if they had run a moderate. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, the GOP ran conservative black candidates who lost by more than 20 points. Why not learn from it and run moderates?
If you look at Heath Shuler’s win in North Carolina, you see that the Dems supported a conservative candidate that fit his district, not the traditional Northeast liberal ideology. If the GOP wants to win, it will support candidates that fit the district.
Paul, yes a “process’ reform movement is a great idea, and something moderate Dems and Republicans could support. If any issue crosses party lines and attract independent it would be it.
Kim, good point, the Dems ran candidates that ‘fit the district“, and won.
In deference to you Andrew, you’re falling into the common trap that some posts done by another blogger noted. Paul is not saying vote Republican or vote Democrat at this point. YOU are the one assuming he’s saying this. People who are centrists and moderates become sort of like the Peter Sellers character in the old movie “Being There” — where people write what they WANT to see on something. Paul is actually stating a fact: the independent, centrist, moderate vote has indeed been up for grabs due to the polarization of American politics that started actually a bit earlier than Karl Rove. It started more with Lee Atwater’s campaign tactics in his campaigns for the first President Bush. You can go back and google search it including Atwater’s attitude towards the end of his untimely death — his regrets. Rove was a protege of his. In this rush to polarize the electorate, the middle has gotten left out of the equation. But in this election it is not a cliche to say the middle felt it had enough. The middle can’t win elections just by itself, either…but in coalitions with other parts of the electorate. And it needs the tools to make its influence felt, such as PACs and hopefully forums for
open and honest discussion like hopefully this site is (I get lots of honest discussion from readers in emails but I’ve tried and my computer just won’t fit up there..)
Kim,
Maryland is actually a good example of the end of politics in the US. If a moderate would like some fiscal restraint in Maryland, there are absolutely no statewide candidates to vote for. A voter in Maryland who wants is taxes lower cannot do it through election and candidates. That individual can only do it my either cheating on their taxes or by leaving the state for someplace like Florida or Tennessee.
The question for those 35% conservative voters in the US is what are they suppose to do when the Democratic Party become the overwhelming dominate party in the US. Are they suppose to immigrate or are they suppose to cheat?
superdestroyer- the present governor, Bob Ehrlich ran on fiscal restraint, and won in 2002. He lost this past election, probably because of the Democratic wave, and also because he fought tooth and nail with the largely Democratic legislature. Despite his boasts about his fiscal conservatism, the new governor will inherit a 400 million dollar deficit.
My main point was that if the Republicans hope to win here, they will not be successful running candidates with an anti-gay, anti-embryonic stem cell and anti choice message. That is why Steele lost (also because even black voters thought that he would support Bush and the rest of the congressional GOP’s platform if elected, and Bush is highly unpopular here, where we know him too well.
A moderate has no Republican candidate to vote for in Missouri. So what else do you do but vote Democratic?
As far as eliminating affirmative action and quotas, it is going to be a process. If you want to eliminate a system meant to provide a boost because of racial discrimination it should also be combined with an honest examination of where we stand in having ameliorated discrimination and taking other actions to fix what’s still broken in some other manner. For one, redlining by financial institutions and insurance companies would need to be addressed more effectively that has been done so far. It would be great to do it but not fast.
I agree completely that one of the best things that could happen to politics in this country is to somehow change redistricting systems. In addition I think we need more politicians. Now that your kneejerk reactions are out of the way can I suggest you ponder a lower house of representatives of only 435 members that is supposed to somehow accurately represent 300,000,000 people. How many people are in a congressional district currently? I think we actually need more people in the lower house as part of redistricting reform.
Thank you Jim. I’m an employer, and those who think we can be ‘color blind’ in 2006 are very mistaken. Any employer can find a legitimate reason to hire white if they want to (‘the black guy just didn’t seem to have the drive’). Researchers laced faux resumes with white (eg. Greg) or black (eg. Jamal) names:
Black infant mortality is twice that of whites, incarceration more frequent with longer jail terms for the same crimes, discriminated against in college admission, employment, health care. Folks, we have a long way to go. So, am I a flaming liberal? Is opposing affirmative action a litmus test for being “centrist?”
Oh and blacks who think the Dems have taken them for granted? Just remember who’s on the other side of the aisle.
Other random thoughts:
The big tent imploded.
Social conservatives discovered that the GOP was using them, considered them “nutty” and never acted on or even spoke about their issues except to manipulate them into coughing up another vote.
Fiscal conservatives are fed up with skyrocketing debt, deficit and big government that totally destroyed any cred they may ever have had that they were about smaller, less intrusive government. And they’re (we’re) fed up with the idiotic hot-button issues. America has way bigger issues to face than gay marriage and protecting frozen embryos (‘scuse me. blastocysts) so they can be discarded instead of possibly yielding major research breakthroughs. And the lunacy around Terry Schaivo? Who are these nutjobs?
Add to that list any libertarians who once railed about elite liberals pushing intrusive government policies. GOP is the party in your doctor’s office, the party in your bedroom, your lawyer’s office, snooping in your bank and medical records, even watching what you rent from NetFlix. Oh (big) brother!
It is SO over for the big tent.
So Greendreams, you think anything could happen that would inspire the GOP to move towards the center and attract moderates?
For me being against affirmative action is not a litmus test to qualify as a Centrist. But I do think that being open minded and objective about the empirical impact of the law might be.
To all those who oppose affirmative action, why are women and minorities ub=nder represented in Washington. To all those in the Midwest and NE. you would probably voted for Corker. W is a legacy who should be selling aluminum siding instead of running the country.
Oh and blacks who think the Dems have taken them for granted? Just remember who’s on the other side of the aisle.
GreenDreams- I agree with this 100%. Why is it every interest group acts as though their wants and needs are the only ones that matter? The Democrats since LBJ have been the ones creating opportunities for minorities, and fighting tooth and nail against discrimination in voting, hiring and housing policies. I think interest groups need to put the needs of their country before their own sometimes, and be a little more concerned with contributing something, instead of expecting entitlements.
Paul,
The only thing that will persuade the GOP to move towards the center is an even worst election catastrophe than this year was. Only if they drop below 40 seats in the Senate and lose the presidency and see it stay that way for at least two election cycles will it be possible for reality to work its way past the ideology.
It looks like I was right. Many posters here are basically saying that the 60+% of the population that do not support AA and racial quotas are wrong, are not representative of the middle, and that “real” moderate support AA, racial quotas, and racial busing (See the Seattle Supreme Court case).
The problem should not be in terms of what the Republicans can do to regain any type of political power. The problem should be stated in terms of what will politics and government be like in a country where the Democrats control the White House, the House, and have more than 60 Senators. If DC, Mass, NYC, and LA are any examples it will not be a very pleasant experience for the middle class.
And last, having the Republicans move to the middle and become Democratic-Lite is a sure fire road to total defeat. Most of the core Democratic suppoters will still never vote for them. yet, the right would either stay at home or vote for minor parties. If the Republicans become Democrati-lite they will be become as irrelevent as the Republican party in Mass.
superdestroyer,
Are you trying to claim that there was never any valid reason for affirmative action or any other actions to redress blatant racial discrimination? I’m just trying to get an idea of where you’re getting your ideas of what the majority of posters here are saying. Are you trying to say that there is no longer any racial discrimination here? Or just that no one should try to do anything about it?
Don’t you get it, Jim? Being a moderate is admitting that there is a problem and then not doing anything about it.
I guess that’s better than being right wing, in which case they simply fail to see any problem with race issues.
It’s hard to find any facts about affirmative action. Specifically, I’d like to have some idea of how many people are directly impacted by it.
I would guess, however, that there is bipartisan support for exaggerating its effects. Proponants would have us believe that it helps everybody and opponants would have us believe that it harms everybody.
I’d like to know how many black people have been given jobs or college admissions because of affirmative action. Or maybe how many white people have lost out on jobs or college admissions because of it. I mean, the numbers would have to be the same in both cases–wouldn’t they?
Paul writes:
“All I have read is that the GOP appears to be hunkering down on the far right.�
Me too. I had a chance to watch a press conference on C-SPAN conducted by conservativesbetrayed.com in which a number of individuals representing various “movement conservative� organizations all claimed that Republicans lost their respective races because they had abandoned conservative principles and ideology. Do a search on c-span.org for:
“Conservativesbetrayed.com Post Election Briefing�
Republican strategist Vic Gresham was writing similar things back in 1999:
“As we know, conservatives participate because of ideology…our base, the fiscal and social conservatives, votes only when the Republican Party and our candidates believe in and openly promote a conservative legislative agenda that addresses the issues of its concerns.â€? (see “Why didn’t conservatives turnout? – bad performance of Republican candidates in the November 1998 elections.â€? Campaigns and Elections, Feb. 1999)
But the various bases of the Republican party are more ideologically diverse than a simple division between fiscal and social conservatives. What we are witnessing is elements of a diverse base at cross-purposes. The isolationist “America First� element is upset at “neo-conservative� interventionism, the social conservative element is upset that more is not being done to curb abortions and restrict the rights of gays/lesbians/bisexuals, etc., the nativist/xenophobic element is upset about lax border controls, the fiscal conservative element is upset about government spending, and the libertarian element is upset about the expansion of government power.
None of these folks are happy about the direction their party is taking under the leadership of President George W. Bush. They may not even like each other (after all, how much common ground is there between an isolationist and a neo-conservative?) but they need each other in order to win. No single element has enough votes. For example, while social conservatives may dominate the party in the South this is not the case in the West.
What will be interesting is watching how these various bases of the party congeal. What sort of coalitions will emerge? Will the dominant coalition be composed of the nativists and the social conservatives? Libertarians and fiscal conservatives? Some other combination?
Regarding redistricting and jerry mandering, we can look forward to another round of that after the next census in 2010.
All this commentary has added to my list of topics for future posts:
Affirmative action – where is it still needed?
Ideology vs Philosophy – A precise doctrine vs a general direction
How can the parties reconcile their seemingly conflicting factions.
What policies emerge vs how policies emerge.
One thing to remember, Shwarzenegger won by a 17 point margin in a overwhelmingly Democratic election and in a Democratic state. He did it by saying he made mistakes, was now a servant of the people, and was going to do the public business. I would think someone in the Republican party sat up and has taken notice of this.
I agree, Grognard. I have heard some of them admit they have made mistakes, but only by betraying their conservative roots on fiscal responsibility. I think the mistakes go much deeper than that-mainly failing to provide any oversight in the foreign policy arena to a recklessly aggressive administration. 63% of the voters in the last election said they were voting not for Democrats, but against Bush.