Political Reality

This morning I discovered an organization, by way of NRO of all places, called Third Way. The goal of Third Way is to build a progressive agenda for America by proping up an "idea industry" much the same as the conservatives have via think tanks and foundations. You should explore their Web site a bit when you have time (and I'll warn you up front that the roster of Senate co-chairs is bound to piss you off), but I wanted to call your attention to this bit:

A look at how Americans identify themselves shows an historic opportunity: 45% of American citizens still define themselves as moderate, compared to 34% who define themselves as conservative and 21% as liberal. The numbers are clear – there undoubtedly is a “moderate majority” that would be receptive to our ideas, but only if progressives build the idea industry needed to modernize progressive policies and political strategies for the 21st Century.

It is also important to emphasize that moving toward moderation cannot mean abandoning progressive principles. To be sure, some so-called “moderates” actually are engaged in splitting the difference between liberal and conservative ideas. For example, they might support a conservative goal like cutting taxes for the rich after negotiating with the right to make the percentage of the cut smaller. But supporting a smaller—still ill-advised—tax cut does not make the policy better, it only makes the outcome less bad. This kind of difference splitting is not the way that progressives will win over the moderate plurality.

When I think of the vast majority of Americans who identify themselves as moderates, I don't think of the "cultural conservatives" who are uncomfortable with choice or gay marriage. I think of folks who are liberal on social issues and more conservative on economic issues. A cafeteria ideology, if you will.

Given our political reality, the loud and steady drum beat on "cultural issues" of late by some of Blogistan's self-appointed spokesmodels seems a grand miscalculation of the marketplace. As for the toned down rhetoric and ethical relativist position on abortion being advocated by Kos and others, Mario Cuomo has been pushing that meme since 1984. Is there any credible evidence ANYWHERE that shows the Dems would get one extra vote by adopting this strategy?

Comments

[Thad]

I'm not sure what "conservative on economic issues" even means anymore. When we say that, we usually mean stuff like balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, but conservatives haven't embraced those ideas in over twenty-five years. Near as I can tell, actual post-Reagan "economic conservatism" means tax breaks for the extremely wealthy, shameless corporate cronyism, and running up the deficit like Bill Bennett on a slot binge. And I'm pretty sure even the Third Way people are against that.

So does it in fact do us any good to talk about embracing "fiscal conservatism," when the only people who are actually serious about fiscal responsibility are liberals? Doesn't that make fiscal responsibility a liberal value?

[carla]

Given our political reality, the loud and steady drum beat on "cultural issues" of late by some of Blogistan's self-appointed spokesmodels seems a grand miscalculation of the marketplace. As for the toned down rhetoric and ethical relativist position on abortion being advocated by Kos and others, Mario Cuomo has been pushing that meme since 1984. Is there any credible evidence ANYWHERE that shows the Dems would get one extra vote by adopting this strategy?

You've touched on something here that I've been rolling around in my cranium for quite some time.

Republicans have completely taken over the federal government by moving to the hard right and masterfully articulating that set of hard right "values" and "morals". They've not been moderate about anything. And they've received record numbers of votes with this strategy.

Centrism offers nothing but mealy mouthed, wishy washy, back and forth spit swapping...and nothing in the way of a strong articulation of ideas and beliefs. People are attracted to a perception of strong leadership and direction. Hell..they let Hitler lead them off a cliff in Germany and they're letting Bush do it here.

We believe in choice when it comes to abortion. There's a set of strong beliefs behind that. We will win when we articulate those beliefs..not run away from them.

The same goes for the rest of our core beliefs: enviornment, poverty, education, defense, etc.

[Michael Hussey]

Third way was first used to describe Clinton's policies and the DLC. I always considered myself more third way than a Wellstone advocate.

[marie aey]

Since one of those cochairs is my state senator who I write and blog for......I wanted to add that the majority of people are moderates, both left and right. If the Republicans run a moderate we had better think about running one too. The 08 election is pretty much up for grabs. The radical right is dying out I don't think we'll see a nomination from the Repbulicans on the far right. The word on the street, and I see this with a grain of salt, is they, are focusing on McCain/Rice ticket. If we run a far left Dem......we won't have a chance.

I'm left of moderate just a but I understand that politics is not black and white......look what a fine job Bush's black and white politics has done for our country.

By the way Bayh is pro-choice. I consider myself to be pro-prevention.

best wishes marie

[Thad]

The word on the street, and I see this with a grain of salt, is they, are focusing on McCain/Rice ticket.

Marie, that had better be one industrial size motherfuckin' hunk of NaCl, because McCain is about as likely to garner the nomination in '08 as I am.

I'm also curious what evidence leads you to believe that the radical right is dying out, or that the GOP won't nominate a far-right candidate in 2008. Of course they won't run as a far-right candidate -- but which of the vanishingly few GOP "moderates" do you think has an honest shot in '08?

[Thad]

Also, Roxanne:

I agree whole-fuckin'-heartedly with your final paragraph -- but, I just gotta say, the post as a whole does strike me as a wee bit incongruous given what comes before. Of course, I know you didn't intend the post as a de facto full-throated endorsement of Third Way strategies, but... given their, ahem, roster, I imagine that that the useless Cuomoesque "moderate" stand on abortion you rightly decry is very much a cornerstone of the Third Way way.

[Roxanne]

Actually, I think the Third Way folks are the incongruous ones. I did want to point out what their research says, that most people are, and will continue to be, moderates.

I see alot of folks in the Leftosphere suggest that the Dems needs to go more liberal in order to win in '08. At the same time, they need we need to adjust our rhetoric, if not our policies, on "cultural" issues. The fact that most folks are moderate suggests that neither will help the Dems.

[Thad]

Actually, I think the Third Way folks are the incongruous ones.

Ah, I see. I completely misread you, then. Sorry.

The fact that most folks are moderate suggests that neither will help the Dems.

I (mostly) agree. I actually don't think policy has anything to do with electability. The voters already like Democratic policies just fine. It's our dog-and-pony show they find unappealing.

Also, "moderate" is a moveable feast. The reason some people want some Dems to tack left (not necessarily our presidential candidate in '08) is that most moderates are the mushy middle. If the spectrum of allowable opinions in the mainstream media runs from the center to the far, far right (as it currently does), then your "moderates" will trend center-right. If you can get some people out there actually articulating leftist ideas, you can pull the "moderates" back left, at least a little bit.

A lot of these people don't have firm or principled opinions on matters of policy at all. They're just reflexively positioning themselves in the middle of the pack.

[res publica]

I looked at the "Third Way" website yesterday. More of the same tired, mealy-mouthed Clinton-Blair-DLC-New Democrat BS. They're a bunch of prongs, and not fresh or new or exciting at all. Here's my beef about soft-peddling "icky" topics like gay rights and abortion: those are specific policy applications of a broader and more fundamental commitment to individual liberty and an open society. That is the heart of the liberal tradition, and if the party abandons it, what are we voting for? Balanced budgets? I'm all in favor of fiscal responsibility, but I also know that a dictator can do that just as well as an elected legislature. Maybe better.

So to all the recycled Third Way folks who act like we’re indulging in self-defeating idealism when we talk about things like the right to equal protection before the law (gay marriage) or the right to privacy (abortion), I present to you my middle finger – proudly extended in your direction! Because those are “issues” that directly impact more than half of the population of this country. And they affect me.

I don’t truly believe that “most Americans” have thought these through and decided to be “conservatives”. I do think that we have yet to have a national conversation about questions of personal liberty using the language of personal liberty. The right has consistently and vigorously discussed these issues in terms of threat and danger and sin, while the “new Democrats” have soft peddled and mumbled nice, vague Jesus-talk. Sorry guys, no dice. It’s time for us to come out in favor of the right of Americans to be free and equal before our government…and to come out swingin’.

[dancinfool]

They lost me at Lieberman....

[hello]

just great. now NRO is pimping DLC propaganda. can there still be any doubt which side they're on?

from the NRO article:

Lower-to-middle-income who voters supported Republicans — the so called Pro-government conservatives in the Pew study — are optimistic and positive — and clearly don't have the blues. They responded favorably to the president's message of growth, hope, and opportunity.

huh? happy, shiny people? where? bush's numbers are falling like a rock.
oh wait, this poll came out in early may.

this NRO portrait is in stark contrast to the findings from dean's pollster (from 4 days ago):

Belcher, the pollster, said the emphasis that many voters placed on moral values in November is "not a call to move to the right." He said that a lot of what he called "faith voters" -- those for whom religion plays an equal or more important role in determining their vote than conventional issues such as education -- "are up for grabs." He said those voters can be reached by acknowledging their fears about raising their children.

Strategists for both presidential campaigns detected a late shift to Bush by lower-income voters who were concerned about terrorism and values. Matthew Dowd, former chief strategist for Bush-Cheney, said these voters "decided they were voting in the national interest rather than their self interest on both the economy and national security."

Belcher said his "faith voters" are among the most economically anxious voters in the entire electorate. "They are not out of reach for us," he said. "They're not the crazy, right-winger extremist voters. They're the moms and pops."

[hello]

from NRO

the so called Pro-government conservatives ...

so called indeed. these must be the voters who are absolutely thrilled about filling halliburton's pockets with ill gained loot. hello?! dial 911! taxpayers are being robbed in broad daylight!

even though bush's numbers are in the dumps, it's a hard not to be pessimistic about '06.
i fear it's going to be a repeat of '02. face it, the party is held hostage by the DLC.
and their m.o. is : no message, no fight.

maybe dean and his strengthened local machine will be the difference this time.

keeping my fingers crossed and saving up money to donate