Sat. Jun 18, 2005
Parting The Parties, Part Two
I expended a couple thousand words on the hard-left and hard-right trend in both parties, and the gap it leaves in the center. I moved it off the front page, because it was just my blatherings, and there are few who would agree. But day by day, I continue to see stark evidence that backs this feeling, from both sides.
In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.
They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official.
The session was a mock impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war.
At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations—that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an “insider trading scam” on 9/11—that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.
Washington Post: Democrats Play House To Rally Against the War
Wow. They held mock impeachment hearings (is that like when kids “play doctor”?), and it appears that Democratic talking points will soon include anti-Semitism like the lie that 4,000 Jews didn’t show up for work at the Trade Center on Sept. 11, or perhaps that no plane actually crashed into the Pentagon. It was all a conspiracy, with the dastardly Jews behind it.
Way to court the American Jewish vote, Democrats!
Meanwhile, on the right:
Leaders of conservative Christian organizations plan to jointly interview Republican contenders for the 2008 presidential nomination, perhaps even endorsing one of them — steps that could expand their already considerable political influence. “We’d like to try to stay together,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said at a breakfast with reporters Wednesday.
Perkins spoke favorably of one likely Republican presidential contender, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, and dismissively of another, Arizona Sen. John McCain. He criticized the bipartisan compromise that McCain and 13 other senators reached last month to avert a showdown on judicial filibusters. Perkins said those who joined the so-called Gang of 14 risked “political repercussions.”
The Family Research Council and Citizens for Community Values ran radio ads in Ohio attacking Sen. Mike DeWine for joining the accord. Perkins said backlash to DeWine’s involvement was a factor in the defeat of his son, Pat, in the Republican primary Tuesday to choose a candidate for an open House seat in Ohio.
USA Today: Christian right groups set sights on ‘08
Oh, those darn moderates, they’ll pay! In 2008, they’ll never pass the religious entrance exam. And like any good crusade, you’re never too busy attacking “the enemy” to keep you from excommunicating those wayward sects within your own movement. Purity is important when you’re trying to get as many votes as possible.
Meanwhile, looking to the left:
A centrist group of Democrats called Third Way recently issued a report explaining the Democrats’ 2004 election debacle. It concluded that voters with incomes between $30,000 and $75,000 a year, or almost half the electorate, delivered “healthy victories” for President Bush and Republicans in Congress. The report concludes: “Rather than being the party of the middle class, Democrats face a huge crisis with middle-income voters.”
Why is that? One reason is that the party of FDR and JFK no longer seems to have a moderate wing; they have become doughnut Democrats with no middle. This point is best exemplified by the utter collapse of Democrats in the South. In 1980 there were 20 mostly conservative Democrats in the Senate; now there are four, and even they are endangered.
Many conservatives have watched the left’s hostile takeover of the Democratic Party with great joy. We don’t share that enthusiasm. The country would benefit from two vibrant parties competing on innovative freedom-enhancing initiatives.
Wall Street Journal: The Doughnut Democrats: Whatever happened to the party’s middle?
But, “the Democratic street” claims it doesn’t need everyone, they just need another 5% or so. Why try to appeal to “fringe groups” like Jews and the middle class, when all you need is just a few more “progressives”?
Luckily, those doughnuts come in a Republican flavor as well:
As Republican strategists weigh the party’s prospects for 2006 and 2008, they are increasingly worried about a political confrontation with Roy S. Moore, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who became a hero to religious conservatives when he refused to follow a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state’s judicial building.
Moore, a Republican who enjoys widespread support in his home state, is poised to run against a vulnerable Republican governor. If he wins, some party strategists speculate, he could defy a federal court order again by erecting a religious monument outside the Alabama state Capitol building. With the 2008 presidential race looming, President Bush would then face a no-win decision: either call out the National Guard to enforce a court order against a religious display on state grounds or allow a fellow born-again Christian to defy the courts.
A little-noticed “Judas” in the Moore parable is William Pryor, the appeals court justice confirmed by the Senate last week and denounced by Democrats as a right-wing ideologue. As Alabama attorney general, Pryor enforced the court order requiring Moore to remove the monument from the judicial building because it was deemed an illegal religious display.
To Moore, Pryor is a symbol of what’s wrong with the courts and with the Republican leadership of President Bush. GOP leaders are “building a cistern that doesn’t hold water,” the guarded but intense Moore said in a recent interview. At a recent conference of conservatives in Washington, Moore decried Pryor as one of the judges “who say you cannot acknowledge God.”
Phillips compares Moore’s national popularity to that of Pat Robertson, the TV evangelist whose 1988 bid for president divided the GOP, and said Moore is well-positioned to consider his own run.
“There’s no question he would heighten the debate on the whole issue of religion and politics,” Scarborough said. “And nationally, there is a core following that would be faithful to him.”
Boston Globe: Conservative’s popularity may be problem for GOP
That’s an absolute hoot. William Pryor, a judge Democrats tried to block because they said he was an “extremist,” might as well be a Democrat in the view of Moore. No matter how hard right you think you’ve gone, you can go further.
On the right or the left, you simply cannot get far enough away from the center:
All good Democrats and progressives should make a deal with Biden: he can continue stabbing his own party in the back with impunity for his own self-promotion, and say his party doesn’t speak for him. In exchange, Biden should agree to never, ever claim to speak for Democrats.
David Sirota : Let’s Make a Deal with Sen. Joe Biden
Because it’s clear, “All good Democrats and progressives” are not moderate centrists. That cannot be tolerated in the Democratic Party, you must toe the line, and they don’t need your moderate vote. Just a few more progressives will do the trick.
And from what used to be the right, but, apparently, is now the middle:
In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God’s side and you are not, that I know God’s will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God’s kingdom is certain to produce hostility.
By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God’s truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God’s work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today’s politics.
For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord’s table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love. Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.
John DanforthOnward, Moderate Christian Soldiers
So, in 2008, I expect it to be Dennis Kucinich versus Roy Moore. I’m only half kidding. It may be a “Kucinich-Lite” versus a “Moore-Lite.” But the lines on both sides are being clearly drawn. And they don’t meet in the middle, they are many miles apart.
People in the center are looking around at One Big Empty. But no worries, Dems and Repubs. There’s only about 30 million of us, the 26% of voters last November who declined to label themselves Republican or Democrat. Plus those within the parties who lean towards the center.
You don’t need us. You can win without us. Kick us out … faster, please.
Published 11:31AM, Sat, Jun 18 2005
Category: Politics
Previous: «« Senator Clown Face ««
Next: »» Amendment to Increase Flag Burning »»
Peanut Gallery
...Mark Schmitt wrote an interesting article on this subject from a centrist-Democrat perspective a little while ago. I think this paragraph hits much closer to the truth of the Democrats’ problem than the WSJ editorial:
It might be more accurate to say that Democrats are choosing a tactical position that causes their main message to be opposition itself, and centrist voters might be more comfortable with a party that at least appeared to cooperate. But that’s tactics, not policies. And it also leaves the problem that Democrats still have no policies and little message at all. But that’s a very different problem.
There’s also the problem that, with Republicans happily going around saying things like “bipartisanship is date rape” and doing everything they can to leverage slim majorities to shut out Democrats completely from power, one is naturally wary to cooperate with them, even when it’s possible. Making it difficult for Dems to achieve even the appearance of cooperation is, I’m pretty sure, part of the Republican game plan.
hmm, I must have messed up the link formatting. The URL of the Schmitt article is
http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2005/04/whos_ceded_the__1.html
Matt: “But I don’t think that WSJ editorial is actually in agreement with you”
No, that was a pretty selective quote. I was trying to be balanced. And fair. But not in a trademarked manner.
“I don’t know what the answer is here”
I don’t pretend to know the answer, if you mean, what will “fix” either/both parties. On that, I’m a bystander, and all I can do is observe and report. My thoughts are based purely on momentum and inertia, in that a large mass will likely continue moving in the direction it’s headed. It takes a great force to alter that, and it doesn’t happen suddenly. Usually, that kind of trajectory will only be stopped when it encounters a brick wall or a gutter.
Mark says “The idea that Democrats should claim the political center still has a little bit of a bad name. (I’m still smarting from being criticized on the DailyKos for being ‘center-left.’)” ... and that just makes my point more. He goes on to list the reason why any moderate/centrist (or even “center-left” ...oooh, that’s impure!) is viewed in a stereotypical manner (Bush collaborator), but the point is I see this at a host of “left” sites. Make a moderate/centrist point (not support Bush), play devil’s advocate (not support Bush), and get a hostile swarming.
I’m having a real hard time understanding the math of what seems to be some strategy of “addition by subtraction,” as the “impure” are cast aside.
As you note, on the left and right, the moderates/centrists are getting drilled by their party peers. The momentum (and intertia, in terms of those leading both charges) is distinctly away from the center. There is absolutely no reason to think it won’t continue, and at some point there will be a breaking point.
A parting, if you will.
I think Matt’s hit on a basic sticking point: Bush. He’s a polarizing and divisive figure. Instead of working to do away with the acrimony that the Republicans introduced with Clinton, he’s actually accelerated it to the point that people either hate his guts or think him the Second Coming.
When you combine the always-present ideological pissing match (where neither side can give on any issue, lest they suffer irrevocable defeat) with an extremely polarizing figure, you get the situation we have today.
Normally, I’d say, “Get rid of the man, get rid of the problem,” but I think that 16 years of Clinton-Bush has seriously altered the political landscape to the point that even when Bush leaves, the scorched earth that he left behind will remain to influence American politics for years to come.
“Bush. He’s a polarizing and divisive figure.”
Pshaw. He’s a uniter, not a divider.
“I think that 16 years of Clinton-Bush has seriously altered the political landscape to the point that even when Bush leaves, the scorched earth that he left behind will remain to influence American politics for years to come”
But, but, we’re not done with Clinton-Bush yet. We have a Clinton running in 2008, and I can’t imagine Jeb will hold out long. We have the potential to have a succession of Presidents from 1988-2024 of Bush (88), Clinton (92, 96), Bush (2000, 2004), Clinton (2008, 2012), Bush (2016, 2020).
And by 2024, maybe Chelsea will be ready.
Seriously, there’s not much doubt Bush is a driving force behind the extreme polarization we see, and yes, it will long have an impact. It’s driving both sides towards the edges of the spectrum, and [...class?] leaving a huge gap in the center.
I guess you could say that the drive toward the extremes will produce polarizing candidates from both sides, further fueling extremism, and so on and so forth.
The main problem is that it’s the two Parties who decide who we get to vote for. If the trend is towards extremism, than any candidate in a primary has to appeal to the energized sect of dullards in order to win the nomination. That would be fine, because you’d figure that he would wash out in the general election or further on in the primaries as the Party bosses start looking at who can appeal to normal people, but if the other Party is doing the same thing, then you wind-up with two kooks who appeal only to their respective extremes.
The contest then becomes a race not to appeal to the general public, but to both extremes, with each side hoping to win by a narrow margin. They know that no matter how extreme a candidate is, a Republican will always vote for a Republican and a Democrat will always vote for a Democrat, because people who belong to political Parties are stupid like that. They depend on moderates only as a statistical anamoly. I’d bet good money that moderates/centrists do not vote overwhelmingly in favor of one candidate over another, and the Parties know this and depend on it to win elections for them.
It then becomes an issue of getting the extremists and Party faithful to vote in large numbers, and then hoping that the votes coming from moderates/centrists are enough to put them over the top—they don’t need all of the moderates’ votes, they only need enough.
“We have a Clinton running in 2008, and I can’t imagine Jeb will hold out long.”
Man, that’s a scary ass thought. If this is the situation, I’m going to be hard-pressed to find the will to make it to the ballot box.
Jeb was very much on my list of people I dislike for his attempts to intrude into the lives of private citizens marital rights and responsiblities when Terry Schiavo was alive, and this past week has cemented him firmly as truly and completely around the bend. His actions show he cares nothing about the people involved, only about the image, the news story, and some dogmatic ‘high moral ground’ that apparently is higher because it involves standing on other folks you’ve trampled on the way up.
If the Republicans want to make me vote Democrat, they can run Jeb. If the Democrats respond by running Hillary, I’m gonna have to vote ‘stay in bed and hope it’s a bad dream’.
Yes, Paul, that is one theory, and maybe even historical fact. So far. But it presumes an unchanging environment, in which those continuing drives to the extremes by both sides merely elicit more ho-hum from moderates/centrists.
My theory is “Faster, please.” Bring on Political Armageddon. You already see some Republicans distancing themselves from the White House in preparation for 2006, and in 2008, both parties will have an open bar Texas Caged Death match for control of the parties. Then they’ll take the chainsaws to each other. I joke about Dennis Kucinich versus Judge Roy Moore, but I do believe it will be a “Lite” and slightly less cartoonish version of that.
I can’t stop it. So I welcome it.
I think a lot of people also forget it was only a little over a dozen years ago that about a fifth of this country voted for a third party candidate. And he was a big eared nut bag.
You could argue that it was only Perot’s fat wallet that made that possible. But you could also argue that Internet fund raising can match what Perot put into his campaign.
Especially by 2012, which is when I really think new forces will emerge. But first, there must be a massive political bloodshed. I mean, c’mon, does anyone really think that in 2008 it’s going to be Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden versus John McCain or Chuck Hagel? They’re moderates, they’ll get fragged by their peers before they make it to the front line. I think everyone sees a far more polarized kind of battle developing.
And I’ve come to welcome it. It is, frankly, the only dim light of hope I see in an otherwise darkening political universe. So allow me to cling to it.
Todd, I think your bad dream won’t come for a bit (though you may see worse). Jeb has made it pretty clear that 2008 isn’t his year. But I’d put money on him running in either 2012 or 2016.
Hillary … I don’t know. It’s a matter of when the big smears against her come. Before the party nomination, or after (though they seem to be starting already with the new book out on her). I somehow doubt she’ll be the nominee, but if she is, Boy Howdy, will the national campaign be ugly.
Oh man, if Hillary runs, you’re going to see the Mother of All Smear Campaigns. I don’t know if you’ve seen a cage full of chimps go nuts and throw massive amounts of feces at people, but it ain’t a pretty sight.
I was listening to large segments of the basement hearings at work the other day. I missed some of it, I certainly missed the alien conspiracy theory that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks, (hard to believe anyone would have let that on the floor). But overall, I’d have to say that Dana Milbanks (who wrote the Wash. Post article) and I were listening to two different hearings.
(I was under the impression that the Republican leadership was responsible for giving the Dems the basement closet – maybe I’m wrong). Be that as it may, Rep. Conyers’ response to the article is reprinted here
if anyone’s interested.
But wacky Dems wearing tinfoil hats aside, does anyone think there ought to be some kind of discussion, if not hearings, over the fact that senior Administration officials up to and including President Bush apparently lied about the necessity to invade Iraq?
That they already had their minds made up and were looking for “facts” to justify what they already were planning to do?
Or is this just old news? Maybe only relevent to the families of our dead troops and the guys with horrible injuries over at Walter Reed?
There was plenty of time for our representatives in Congress to question those facts during the buildup in 2002, but apparently there was a severe case of Lackaspinalitus going around DC those many months. It’s regrettable, but historically, Lackaspinalitis is a fairly common affliction during some buildups to war. IMO, better late than never. Again, IMO, committing our nation to a war is fairly serious business.
In 1964, Lyndon Johnson made a grave speech that an American destroyer had been subject to an unprovoked attack (twice) by North Vietnamese gunboats. The press fawned all over him for the next year and when the Tonkin Gulf Resolution came up, I think only 1 or two Congressmen voted against it. At the time, as I remember, they were considered a couple of “wackos”. Later, Johnson said “our Navy coulda been shooting at whales for all I know”.
Tough break for our servicemen. Probably should’ve been some hearings back then too. You know, “High Crimes & Misdemeanors” or something like that? Or is my Reynolds Wrap hat giving me fuzzy reception?
does anyone think there ought to be some kind of discussion, if not hearings, over the fact that senior Administration officials up to and including President Bush apparently lied about the necessity to invade Iraq
He wasn’t the recipient of a BJ, so I don’t think it counts.
Matt said: “It seems to me that the Republicans can win without you. They’ve proven it over and over.”
Well, according to something I just read, you may be right. But that does not mean that the Democrats can win without winning over moderates:
*********************************
“The exit polls showed both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry won 85% of their base, but self-described ‘conservatives’ accounted for nearly a third of the electorate while liberals were only a fifth. Mr. Bush could afford to lose ‘moderates’ to Mr. Kerry by nine points—and still end up with 51% of the vote, more than any Democrat has got since 1964.
*********************************
If you accept the above numbers (one third and one fifth), that says 47% (or more) of voters are not liberal (20%) and not conservative (“nearly” 33%). That’s enough to beat either group. Someday, someone will figure out that’s a group worth courting.
But not anytime soon.
Recent Comments
- Ryan Ward (The Original Dither)
- Reid (The Not So Public Option)
- elburro (The Not So Public Option)
- Stephanie Hunter (The Not So Public Option)
- Reid (We Are Covered In Bipartisan Bull)
- Susan (We Are Covered In Bipartisan Bull)
ReidStott.com
Photography
by Reid Stott
A decade of web design experience. Two decades of photography experience. All available to you, and your project. View my portfolio online, then let's talk about your needs.ReidStott.com
It seems to me that the Republicans can win without you. They’ve proven it over and over. I’m hoping that Dems can get their act together sufficiently to break the cycle one of these days, but they do have real problems.
The conspiracist nonsense at the mock impeachment hearing was shameful, no doubt about it. I would like to know more about how that happened and the extent to which it was being legitimized.
But I don’t think that WSJ editorial is actually in agreement with you, considering that they start by chiding Democrats for complaining about torture, then outline their idea of a centrist Democrat, which seems to be somebody who agrees with President Bush about everything (on the grounds that different Democrats said things that sounded sort of like Bush at various times in the past). I guess the center is actually alive and well, if all it takes is to agree with Bush!
Also, apparently only wild-eyed leftist radicals believe in progressive taxation, which makes it pretty breathtaking that the country has been in their control for so long.
Seriously, Wall Street Journal editorials aside, the aftermath of the Iraq war has made it really hard to be a centrist Democrat. The centrist Democrats got rolled hard on that one, along with you and me, and we’re all paying the price. The hard left, which never bought into the Iraq invasion from the beginning, looks vindicated, and is not shy about saying so and calling down opprobrium on the centrist elements in the party who played along. And I have to say that my own personal shame in the matter makes it hard for me to argue against them.
It’s a lot like the way the more extreme hawks on the right behaved after Sept. 11, 2001. I don’t know what the answer is here.