It’s interesting to see how within a month a major assumption of American politics has changed. It has been turned not on its heels, but on its center…
Just four weeks ago it was still assumed that Karl Rove’s “mobilization election” strategies were the way to go. In the 21st century, it was suggested, independent voters were oh, so 20th century and the REAL way to victory and long-term political party power consolidation was via policies and elections that pushed “hot buttons” so party partisan would rush to the polls to vote. Why would they rush? Because to get to them to the polls those pressing the hot buttons would have to demonize the opposition. That’s yet another code word for saying you make your voters hate and fear your foes, not disagree with them intensely over policy.
A lot of that conventional wisdom is now out the window after the election results which show that independents, centrists and moderates played a key role.
Even so, there are still some who feel that those who weren’t immediately aligned to one political party or too a liberal/conservative intellectual branding are dumb, wishy washy, don’t really “get” the issues, don’t really care about issues, political eunuchs, and not passionate. WRONG on all accounts if you read centrist writings, analyze the election results and look at American history.
Here are several important links to consider.
If you’re a moderate, it’ll reaffirm and explain better than it has been explained before what you know. If your someone who thinks moderates don’t have beliefs, it’ll give you an accurate picture (and then there are those who don’t want to believe moderates have any beliefs because demonization is so enjoyable). Read Tutaki who notes that moderates deal in pragmatism. This is only a small taste:
A charge frequently leveled against moderates is that we are “mushy”, lacking in principles, roadkill on the centerline of the ideological highway. Nothing could be further from the truth. In this series of posts, I will argue that moderate politics is not only principled, but uniquely so, especially when compared to extremism of the left and right.
I first wish to focus on pragmatism, as this gets to the heart of the anti-moderate critique. Those hostile to moderates argue that pragmatism is the antithesis of principle, a wishy-washy acquiescence to the status quo that declines to find ways to move forward. The truth, however, is that pragmatism has a long history as a moral philosophy grounded in a basic humanism that it holds as morally greater than adherence to a transcendent ideal.
We did a short pointer post on this earlier, but it didn’t highlight this sufficiently. Read his entire post.
And Tutaki last year wrote the BEST POST or even BEST PIECE ever on moderation. People on all sides need to read it because this December 2005 post is on the dime and has stood the test of time:
The first thing to understand about being a moderate is that almost no one will ever believe that you actually are a moderate. Bizarre as it may sound, people will believe that their right to label you trumps any right of yours to describe your own beliefs. They may create “tests” that you have to meet before they will consent to consider you a moderate — generally, these tests will involve you agreeing with them in both style and substance.
That leads to the second curious experience about being a moderate — most political junkies will not only label you, but will almost automatically assume that the appropriate label is “enemy”. As a moderate, you will be assumed to be on the other side. The offense of disagreeing with extremist partisans of either wing about anything is nearly always sufficient to render you a presumed member of the vast right- or left-wing conspiracy. The modern American voter is not conditioned to look for common ground, but rather to identify areas of disagreement and to instantly make devastating conclusions based on those areas.
And that leads to the third strange part about being a moderate — you will find yourself having far more in common with the politically disengaged than with your fellow political junkies. Because modern American political rhetoric has become so degraded and poisonous, most of the vast number of potential voters who are moderates have found themselves turned off by the stridency and unreasonableness of the extremists who deploy their shrill, loud voices to dominate the political stage. In time, these people wander away from politics and civil society to focus on more immediate and seemingly more productive areas such as family, career, and leisure pursuits. But their political views, while naescent, will remain moderate and they will share your confusion at the inability of the extremists to see common sense even when it is kicking them in the face.
Meanwhile, there has been an interesting process we’re continuing to see unfold due to the election results:
- Analysts such as political scientist Larry Sabato, other academic political scientists, media columnists and political reporters point to the vital role of the center and moderates in helping the Democrats regaining control of Congress.
- Some Republicans such as Karl Rove pooh-pooh this election as little more than the Republicans just being temporarily off their game and argue the mobilization strategy is still valid Recent reports say Rove is urging Bush to rework to regain lost support of the base. Bottom line: the importance of independent voters, centrists and moderates are being discounted.
- Some on the Democratic left also pooh-pooh the election as being partially due to the Democrats regaining centrist, independent and moderate support. They continue to belittle independents, centrists and moderates as mushy, intellectually vapid, dispassionate on issues and not as politically aware of involved as partisans.
Both of these perceptions are essentially denial.
If you want to read some FACTS about who independent voters are and how important they are to a party’s victory then READ THIS POST about the 2006 elections.
Note when you read this post that the Republicans are now waiting for the Democrats to alienate independent voters. And if you listen to some liberal talk shows and read some liberal weblogs it seems as if some folks are tirelessly working to do just that. We’re sure the Republicans wish them well…
NOTE: There is a book that is CRITICAL to understanding how vital the center is in American politics: Independent Nation. It details in a highly readable, almost newspaper column style the role of the center, those who triumphed due to it, those who failed due to it, and profiles specific leaders throughout history…right up until our present time. We give it 50 stars out of 10 and will review it at a later date.
You can click below and find out more about it, buy it at Amazon below, or hunt for it at your library. It’s written by John Avlon who worked for President Bill Clinton, was working for New York Major Rudy Giuliani on Sept. 11, 2001, later became a New York Sun columnist, and has now returned to work for Giuliani:
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.