CenterShot: The Myth Of The Middle

( – promoted by buhdydharma )

Lately there has been a growing and increasingly loudly voiced call from some of the more extreme centrists and from the DLC itself pushing the idea that to win elections – the upcoming 2008 presidential election comes to mind for some strange reason – and gain power Democrats will have to move sharply to the right, and that liberals and progressives are dooming America to successive rethuglican administrations.

Sunday morning, March 11, 2007 in “Where Is America’s True Center?” David Sirota wrote that:

The purported proof of such an assertion by Democratic Leadership Council mouthpieces Elaine Kamarck and Bill Galston was this finding:

“In 2004, only 21 percent of voters called themselves liberal, while 34 percent said they were conservative. The rest, 45 percent, characterized themselves as moderate.”

The Washington media joined with Kamarck and Galston in billing this as an extraordinary finding that proved once and for all that Democrats must become more “moderate” or “conservative” because so few voters labeled themselves “liberal.”

Sirota also went on in the same post to note that:

[C]onservative pundit James Joyner shows exactly what I’m talking about. Responding to a new Gallup poll showing more Americans label themselves conservative rather than liberal, Joyner admits:

“This is especially interesting considering that the public seems to continue to demand liberal policies, opposing even nominal market-based reform of Social Security, continuing to push for the socialization of health care, expecting instant bail-outs for poor financial decisions, and generally wanting more federal spending on a variety of social programs.”

Put another way, all that corporate front groups inside the Democratic Party really prove when they cite polls on “liberal” vs. “moderate” vs. “conservative” labeling is how well the right has vilified the term “liberal” and how nebulously appealing and Apple Pie-ish a term like “moderate” is – but they prove nothing about where the public actually is on issues. That the Washington media goes out of its way to ignore this by, for instance, continuing to label as “fringe” antiwar Democrats representing the antiwar position of most Americans is a testament to how powerful the Beltway status-quo-defending propaganda system really is.

So what do the numbers really show us about where the mainstream of America is on the political spectrum? Well, in late 2004 and early 2005 Pew Research conducted an in depth Political Typology study of American society: Beyond Red vs. Blue. It’s Principal Findings, among other things, were that:

Coming out of the 2004 election, the American political landscape decidedly favored the Republican Party. The GOP had extensive appeal among a disparate group of voters in the middle of the electorate, drew extraordinary loyalty from its own varied constituencies, and made some inroads among conservative Democrats. These advantages outweighed continued nationwide parity in party affiliation. Looking forward, however, there is no assurance that Republicans will be able to consolidate and build upon these advantages.

Republicans have neither gained nor lost in party identification in 2005. Moreover, divisions within the Republican coalition over economic and domestic issues may loom larger in the future, given the increasing salience of these matters. The Democratic party faces its own formidable challenges, despite the fact that the public sides with them on many key values and policy questions. Their constituencies are more diverse and, while united in opposition to President Bush, the Democrats are fractured by differences over social and personal values.

And as Profiles of the Typology Groups break down, Liberals [Liberal Democrats/Seculars/60’s Democrats] comprise the largest group at 17% of General Population and 19% of Registered Voters, followed by Conservative Democrats at 15% of Adult Population and 15% of registered Voters.

Enterprisers [Staunch Conservatives] made up only 9% of Adult Population and 10% Registered Voters, tied with Pro-Government Conservatives on both scores.

And since Pew Research did their study there have been a couple of curious occurrences. Just anomolous blips, obviously. Probably mean very little, if anything. Heh. One was the November 2006 mid-term election rout of the rethugs.  That was a good indication of a strong rightward shift, no? What the hell could people have been thinking? Didn’t they know? Hadn’t anyone told them that they were supposed to move to the right? Jesus, just how in the hell are you going to run a proper democracy unless people do what they’re told? Things would be so much easier if this were a dictatorship, right George?

George? Well, since the 2006 midterm elections George W. Bush’s job approval ratings have continued the same calamitous slide towards falling off the bottom edge of the page:

Historical Bush Approval Graph

So liberal progressives as a group are beating the rest of ’em, hands down.

Sirota concluded with the observation that:

Democrats major problem in recent years has been their willingness to listen to the tired – and inaccurate – rhetoric of people like Kamarck and Galston who have continued to push the party away from America’s true center.

65 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Edger on July 3, 2008 at 23:48
      Author

    And much, much smarter too, of course.

    But we knew that without a study.

  1. brilliant and handsome, and I don’t need to see you or know you to be aware of that!

    Seriously, thanks for this: I needed some good anti-Right Wing snarkiness.  That what you’ve written is true only makes it all the more delicious.

    • Edger on July 4, 2008 at 00:36
      Author

    why in the hell Obama is cozying up to the right, the evangelicals, and the telecoms, while alienating “fringe” antiwar democrats who can give him a bigger spread than ZERO and make it much harder for McCain and the Knuckledraggers to steal the presidency?

    Because I am not brilliant enough to figure this man out, and figure out why he is moving towards McCain/Bush style foreign policies, and embracing domestic surveillance in the name of Bush’s WOT, while turning his back on the people who can get him elected.

  2. In 2036 there are no Democrats.

    There are no Republicans

    The political spectrum contains 10 parties.

    The new capital is Omaha Nebraska and there is some debate about changing the flag from fifty states to five, representing the five regions the US has broken up into.

    There was a Constitutional Convention in 2020 but it was decided that the original should not be discarded.

    Complete tabloid “journalism” based upon wildly obscure internet ramblings of delusional, not into “reality” tin foil hatter, conspiracy theory, thorazine drip needing wackos but hey, then again I can see that happening.

    • Edger on July 4, 2008 at 01:03
      Author

    that landed in my inbox for a people powered push to move Obama in the right (“Left”) direction again….

    Kick him where it hurts… in the wallet:

    Let’s Escrow Our Money to Keep Obama Progressive



    Now we are asking you to use your money to ensure that Barack Obama lives up to his promise to deliver “change we can believe in. ”

    How? By creating a progressive “escrow” fund that you control.

    http://www.democrats.com/obama-escrow-fund

    Many progressives were shocked last week when Obama flip-flopped on wiretapping immunity for the phone companies with this simple explanation:

    “My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people.”

    So if a President unilaterally decides it is in the “security interests of the American people” to defy the Constitution, the Law, and Congress, (s)he can do whatever (s)he wants?

    George Bush believes that, as do Dick Cheney and John McCain – and every dictator in the world. How is that progressive? And how is that change we can believe in?

    Don’t get me wrong: we fully support Obama and will do everything we can to elect him President. But will also do everything we can to protect the Constitution and hold Obama to his promise of real progressive change.

  3. after 7 1/2 years of a so-called “conservative” administration that has the most interventionist foreign policy ever considered in this country, that has spent money to the point that our economy is on the brink of disaster, and has so far abandoned the idea of a “strict constructionist” view of the constitution as to make the document itself almost meaningless…

    if someone were to poll me on whether I’m a liberal or a conservative, I’d have to ask for a definition of the terms before I’d answer.

  4. This resolution, H.J. Res 362 [listed as H. Con. Res 362 online] is a virtual war resolution. It is the declaration of tremendous sanctions, and boycotts and embargoes on the Iranians. It is very, very severe. Let me just read what is involved if this bill passes and what we’re telling the President what he must do:


       This demands that the President impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran, and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials.

    This is unbelievable! This is closing down Iran. Where do we have this authority? Where do we get the moral authority? Where do we get the international legality for this? Where do we get the Constitutional authority for this? This is what we did for ten years before we went into Iraq. We starved children-50,000 individuals it was admitted probably died because of the sanctions on the Iraqis. They were incapable at the time of attacking us. And all the propaganda that was given for our need to go into Iraq was not true.

    But alas, it’s from Ron Paul … here’s the rest of the article.

  5. Too often our MSM media tries to achieve ‘balance’. Everything’s treated as a he-said/she-said type of issue.  There’s ‘truth’ on all sides in this view.

    Obama with his rhetoric sounds like a perfect specimen of this kind of thinking. He’s afraid to take a stand even when the moral position is clear.

    Either he’s being ‘calculating’ or he really believes what he’s saying.  In either case it’s not very flattering.

    I think he’s making a mistake even if he’s ‘calculating’ the odds.  People don’t like wishy-washy politicians; look what happened to Gore/Kerry etc. See Ariana Huffington’s view on this

  6. Sirota wrote, “Democrats’ major problem in recent years has been their willingness to listen to the tired – and inaccurate – rhetoric of people like Kamarck and Galston who have continued to push the party away from America’s true center.”  I wish Sirota would just call them liars, because that’s what they are.  These animals know what they’re pushing is complete and utter bullshit.  That makes them liars.

Comments have been disabled.