PhotoDude.com

Thu. Apr 28, 2005

Please Ignore The Moderates

There’s been an interesting thread of thought recently that I find both exhilarating and infuriating. Emotions that, as a moderate centrist independent, I’m not supposed to be capable of, apparently. Still, somewhat redeeming for me. An article entitled “Conservative Democrats Vanishing in South” has a couple of quotes within it that start the ball rolling:

“It’s almost impossible to have a leadership position in the House Democratic Party if one behaves as a conservative,” [Merle Black, an Emory University political scientist] said.

“Sometimes I don’t think my leadership gets it,” said Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Ala. “If they’re to really stand the chance to take the House back, they’ve got to leave those members plenty of room to vote where their district is coming from rather than where the national party is coming from.”

Politicians are tacking hard right or hard left to stay in tune with their national party line, appeal to that party’s perceived “core constituency,” and be “A Player” in the partisan wars. So much so that the will of their constituents takes second place to party priorities. Those who don’t, get oxymoronic labels often intended as a form of slur; a “conservative Democrat” or a “liberal Republican.”

It could be worse, though. They could be called … a moderate. And we’re a bland boring bunch.

The accepted view in politics is that moderates don’t get angry, don’t scream and don’t demonstrate. Politics these days is said to be dominated by ideological enthusiasts. Moderates are thought of as people who sit on the sidelines and decide which batch of true believers they can most easily live with.

Bush’s decision to read the 2004 election as a broad mandate for whatever policies he chose to put forward now looks like a major mistake. In fact, Bush won narrowly in 2004, and he won almost entirely because just enough middle-of-the-road voters decided they trusted him more than they did John Kerry to deal with terrorism.

E.J. Dionne: “Revolt of the Middle”

Oh, my. E.J. Dionne, a liberal, suggesting that the party faithful aren’t enough to win by themselves. For the most part, partisan pundits and politicians still don’t get the basic math. Last November, 26% of voters were unwilling to label themselves “Republican” (37%) or “Democrat” (37%). They chose the label “Independent.”

26% may not be enough to win an election … but neither is 37%.

However, how hard is it to find a right winger to pooh-pooh on this theory? Not hard at all:

There are a few problems with this theory. One is the author himself, a liberal Democrat known more for wishful thinking than for being in-tune with moderate America. The second is the lack of evidence that Bush has moved to the right since the election.

If one looks, by contrast, at the president’s approval rating, one finds that it’s at 48 percent (on average), which is about where it has been for the past year. To the extent it was any higher on election day (and I don’t think there’s any statistically significant evidence that it was), the difference likely has more to do with gas prices than any policy-driven revolt.

That’s a good one. If Bush’s “approval rating” wasn’t any higher than 48% on Election Day, well, he’d be John Kerry, who got 48% of the vote. And how you can say that any drop since then “likely has more to do with gas prices than any policy-driven revolt” with a straight face is beyond me. Although it’s true his little hand-in-hand prance through the bluebonnets with King Oil probably didn’t help his approval ratings a bit, I don’t hear anyone putting all the blame for high gas prices on George’s desk.

But the truth is that this largely hasn’t been about Bush, at least for me. This year has featured gross legislative excess, and though it hasn’t been reigned in by the executive, its source isn’t in the executive either. Yet.

There’s a lot of people jockeying for position for the 2008 election, and not a one of them is at the White House. So for two or three years, we’ll get to watch them primp, preen, and flex before their party faithful by latching onto every partisan scrap they can. Half to the left, half to the right, none to the middle.

I’ve said “I’m to the point I hope they keep it up. Pass every obnoxious partisan bill they can, flag-burning amendment, kill filibusters, the whole ‘Red Meat’ package, anything to avoid passing a actual budget.” And while answering Zack’s five questions, I wrote:

Pragmatist versus idealist? Well, the pragmatist in me knows that each party in its own gloriously unique way is shifting towards the True Believers and shedding centrists like bad ticks. And that’s there’s not a damn thing I can do to change that.

But the idealist in me sees the “37-26-37” split in 2004 (declared Republicans vs. Independents vs. Democrats), and thinks those shed centrists can start adding up real soon into a viable third party. A Centrist Party.

Naaaah, never happen (yes, it could).

Could it? It would seem some people “of stature” are at least honest enough to consider the strong possibility (emphasis mine):

MoveOn, and groups like it on the left and right, chisel at the power of the major political parties by providing an alternative source of campaign funds and volunteers. But otherwise, the two parties that have defined American political life since the 1850s have been largely immune from the centrifugal current of the Internet era.

Joe Trippi, a principal architect of Howard Dean’s breakthrough Internet strategy in the 2004 Democratic presidential campaign, is one of many analysts who believe that may soon change. The Internet, he says, could ignite a serious third-party presidential bid in 2008.

“This is a very disruptive technology,” says Trippi. “And it is going to be very destabilizing to the political establishment of both parties.”

Trippi believes an independent presidential candidate who struck a chord could organize support through the Internet just as inexpensively. “Somebody could come along and raise $200 million and have 600,000 people on the streets working for them without any party structure in the blink of an eye,” he says.

It might not be quite that simple. But the two parties are pursuing strategies that create an opening in the center of the electorate, even as the Internet makes it easier for a new competitor to fill it [...] By ceding the center, it might leave both parties vulnerable to a new force.

“We are now moving toward a very dangerous place for both parties,” he says. “It is becoming much more possible for an independent or third party to emerge because they are leaving so much space in the middle.”

Ronald Brownstein: “Internet, Polarized Politics Create an Opening for a Third Party”

Gee, ya think? However, how hard is it to find a left winger to pooh-pooh on this theory? Not hard at all:

That’s sort of like suggesting that talk radio might become a force for moderation and sensible solutions to our nation’s problems. But I don’t see it: regardless of their actual policy positions, Howard Dean and MoveOn succeeded on the internet by pushing strident political rhetoric, not calm moderation.

Now, I could see the internet providing some traction for a revived libertarian party — although it hasn’t happened yet. Or maybe a Christian right party — except that they already have one. Or maybe a hardline green party.

But $200 million from the internet for a centrist party? From the internet? Quick: can you name any centrist blogs, for example, that get more than 10,000 hits a day? I mean genuinely centrist — moderate but clearly liberal or conservative sites like this one don’t count. I can’t think of a single one, which makes me wonder: if centrism has a future on the internet, where is it going to come from?

And one more thing: is Brownstein’s idea of an independent really John McCain? Take a look at Keith Poole’s rank ordering of senators in the 108th Congress and McCain is ranked the 4th most conservative senator out of 100. That’s independent?

Centrist? Moderate? Independent? Perhaps what you really mean is “Not One Of Us, and Not One Of Them.” I’m sure it’s most confusing when some of us choose to be so unruly and not fit into the only two cubbyholes people think they fully understand. But clearly, if you’re not “pushing strident political rhetoric,” you’re not a player in the game. Therefore, you can’t even really be classified as a threat.

Boy, it’s really bad when people don’t even see you as a factor worth worrying about. Don’t toss me in that Briar Patch, please!

As for Kevin’s question, “can you name any centrist blogs, for example, that get more than 10,000 hits a day,” we’ve been here before, almost exactly a year ago.

Come now, didn’t you read the article? “People naturally reduce cognitive dissonance by seeking out information that reinforces their existing views.” In other words, how would you know there aren’t “many moderate blogs out there?” The Blog Echo Chamber merely reinforces it. You read those who are “like minded,” and the main reading you do of “The Other Side” is the extremist views your compatriots point at in shock or laughter.

The two sides bounce right off each other so hard (and gleefully, it seems), they never even see The Middle they pass over. They certainly rarely link to it. The left links the left, the right links the right, that’s where all the traffic is, and therefore, there are no moderate blogs. No Centrists. Nobody On The Fence. Sorry ... I ... simply ... don’t ... see ... it.

And, of course, it was the dominance of dozens of left wing blogs getting 10,000+ hits per day during 2002 and 2003 that built the foundation for the Internet success of Howard Dean in 2004. Right? Or … was it the other way around? At any rate, we all know that blog traffic is the coin of the realm when it comes to successful political movements. That’s clearly an unassailable point.

I think that maybe righty Paul and lefty Kevin are both better known for their partisan opinions “than for being in-tune with moderate America.” And they are clearly capable of denigrating the concept from their respective spots on the spectrum. Gee, lefties and righties don’t think a third party can lift off … because, well, that would be admitting disgruntlement within the ranks, as those numbers have to come from somewhere.

You know, with less than $100 million and a big-eared nutbag … and no blog … you can get about 15% of the vote against established Big Party Nominees. That happened in 1992.

But there’s just no way something similar … or even better ... could happen in 2008. The Internet has become a proven disruptive threat to a host of “industries” that used to hold a complete lock on their market … but that impact can never be carried over to our “Two Parties Only, Please” political structure.

So, please, ignore all such talk, go back to your party meetings, and reassure each other there’s absolutely nothing to worry about. Proceed with choosing the nominee who will best appeal to your most fervent core constituency. The moderates barely can muster enough emotion to get out of bed each morning, they have no real weapons high-traffic blogs, and thus pose no threat at all.

You don’t need them. You can win without them. Please treat them accordingly. Make it clear they are not pure enough to enter your tent, and continue full speed down the paths you’ve chosen.

Please.