PDA

View Full Version : General Politics How the Dem's lost the middle


HonestChieffan
08-27-2010, 07:27 AM
Pretty well describes how the power people on the left have reacted to those who question them or don't totally buy what the far left is selling. Either you are with them lock step or they lash out and see you as the enemy. Maybe this will be the final legacy of Obama and the far lefts attempt to move the country someplace it will not allow itself to be taken.

The inability of the far left to tolerate discussion and true consensus is something we see daily. Even in their own party, no tolerance exists for a differing view. Our way or the highway may be exactly what Obama gets when the voters make him the next one term and gone president.


How the Democrats lost the middle


Rich Lowry
The frustrations of minority status can drive a political party batty.
The temptation is to substitute bel ligerence for thought, insist on a self-destructive purity, lash out at the American public and question the wisdom and viability of the country's institutions. Indulging in these tendencies almost always makes a party's position worse rather than better.
The Obama Democrats may be the first party to engage in this self-defeating behavior -- borne of a frustrated desperation -- while holding the presidency and both houses of Congress by substantial margins.



Through an accident of timing (a national election coinciding with a financial crisis) and the exhaustion of the Bush-DeLay Republicans (who lost power almost by default), liberals took the commanding heights of the federal government while remaining a minority disposition in our national life. In short, they became a rump majority.
Through President Obama's alchemy, these temporarily enlarged congressional numbers were supposed to be transformed into a permanent realignment. It hasn't worked out, obviously.

In the last 20 months, Democrats have had the power to do almost everything they want, except command the allegiance of the public. That has made them and their allies feel embattled, isolated and perpetually aggrieved. They act like a forlorn minority at the same time they control every lever of elective power in Washington.

The ultimate source of the Democrats' discontent is quite simple: They've lost independents. In 1994, in taking Congress, Republicans won independents by 14 percentage points. In 2006, in taking it back, Democrats won independents by 18 points. In the latest Gallup survey, Republicans lead among independents by 11 points, a trend that puts at risk Nancy Pelosi's misbegotten speakership.

Both Republicans and Democrats have bounced around in the mid-30s to 40s in terms of their proportion of the public since 1984, while independents have hovered in the mid-20s. During its recent tailspin, the GOP's share declined from 40 percent in 2002 to 33 in 2008, with independents picking up from 22 to 28. Whoever gets those independents wins. And as Republican pollster David Winston points out, they reflect the basic center-right contour of American opinion.

Since 1992, according to Gallup, ideological opinion has been roughly constant: Self-described moderates have been 40 percent or a little lower; conservatives in the high 30s (although they've spiked to 42 lately); liberals in the high-teens to low-20s.
Both sides need the center, but especially liberals. It'd be rank foolishness to try to govern on the strength of only one-in-five people. But such has been the Obama-Pelosi project -- with unsurprising results.

The pollster.com average of Obama's approval rating among independents is a dismal 37.9 percent. This meltdown should have launched a thousand agonized liberal op-eds, conferences and strategy papers on how to win back the center. If, that is, liberalism had any realistic sense of its limits.

In the midst of a catastrophic loss of the middle, Obama's supporters exhort him to get more angry, insistent and ambitiously liberal. Having already pushed for a bridge too far, they want to go farther still. When they can't, they conclude it's a damning indictment of Obama's failure of nerve and the nation's ungovernablility.

There's little acknowledgment that the country is in a different place than they are. To the extent there is, so much worse for the country, which is condemned for its backwardness and intolerance. The majority is not just wrong on immigration enforcement and the Ground Zero mosque, it's contemptible. Who knew that the American public would get accused of bigotry more often after electing an African-American president than before?
As former Bush speechwriter Peter Wehner writes, liberals "are expressing deepening alienation from our nation and turning on the American people with a vengeance." They thought they had a mandate from heaven in 2008 and can't bear the thought that they deluded themselves. They've gone from triumphalism to a petulant and uncomprehending tantrum in less than two years. The rump majority looks more exhausted by the day.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/how_the_democrats_lost_the_middle_3u3hnE956CNz1BxRA05E0K#ixzz0xoQH2WWz

patteeu
08-27-2010, 08:35 AM
Conservatives who seek Ron Paul levels of purity should take heed because they are in the same boat electoral-power-wise as liberals. Insisting on purity will just drive the essential center back to the other side. Instead, devoted conservatives like myself and my Ron Paul cousins should do what we can to entice moderates to the conservative message while being willing, in the end, to vote for a compromise candidate in order to win (and become relevant). The better job of luring the moderates toward conservatism that we do, the less compromising at election time that will be necessary.

HonestChieffan
08-27-2010, 08:43 AM
Conservatives who seek Ron Paul levels of purity should take heed because they are in the same boat electoral-power-wise as liberals. Insisting on purity will just drive the essential center back to the other side. Instead, devoted conservatives like myself and my Ron Paul cousins should do what we can to entice moderates to the conservative message while being willing, in the end, to vote for a compromise candidate in order to win (and become relevant). The better job of luring the moderates toward conservatism that we do, the less compromising at election time that will be necessary.

I would agree in principal but I think in real terms those of the far right are as lost to the process as those to the far left. We have seen both parties have their Ron Pauls. And probably to a degree they learned something from those efforts and took some value from the positions they have voiced. But the far ends of the spectrum will seldom accept compromise or a moderation of any stand (Left or right). Paulites wont move to the center right. And few moderates will buy into RP due to his rather outlandish positions that he takes. Mostly he is not going to impact the end result to any degree because his base is too small, very vocal and highly dedicated but small

BucEyedPea
08-27-2010, 10:16 AM
I would agree in principal but I think in real terms those of the far right are as lost to the process as those to the far left.

Meanwhile, most Americans are not happy with the direction of the country. This was under Bush and to a greater degree under Obama. So you are for all of that to remain the same. No one wants that. Times change, people are even more pissed off.

The other mischaracterization here, is on Ron Paul's views versus his strategy. He knows, and has said, he needs permission from Congress to enact what he would like. He also knows, and has said, change back can not be done other than gradually as we didn't get to where we were overnight. The dialectic does not work like that. So you and pat can lie, twist and spin the purity argument all you want. It's an EPIC FAIL.

The people do want change. Not Obama's and not the NeoCon Pax Americana. Paul is more in-line with more Americans than you and pat.
Besides, we were Tea Partiers when it wasn't cool and it is our camp that is helping to get you back in some power. Leading NC Souza even admits this while talking out of the other side of his mouth saying we won't be allowed to govern. Most of the Republican candidates are FRAUDS!

patteeu
08-27-2010, 12:11 PM
Meanwhile, most Americans are not happy with the direction of the country. This was under Bush and to a greater degree under Obama. So you are for all of that to remain the same. No one wants that. Times change, people are even more pissed off.

The other mischaracterization here, is on Ron Paul's views versus his strategy. He knows, and has said, he needs permission from Congress to enact what he would like. He also knows, and has said, change back can not be done other than gradually as we didn't get to where we were overnight. The dialectic does not work like that. So you and pat can lie, twist and spin the purity argument all you want. It's an EPIC FAIL.

The people do want change. Not Obama's and not the NeoCon Pax Americana. Paul is more in-line with more Americans than you and pat.
Besides, we were Tea Partiers when it wasn't cool and it is our camp that is helping to get you back in some power. Leading NC Souza even admits this while talking out of the other side of his mouth saying we won't be allowed to govern. Most of the Republican candidates are FRAUDS!

The point I was making, which apparently flew right over your head, is exemplified by your last sentence. If you and other Ron Paul purity people (his followers, not necessarily the man himself) reject mainstream conservative Republicans like, e.g. Tim Pawlenty, just because you can point to a few moderate positions that he's taken or because he doesn't call for all American troops to redeploy into bunker America, you're likely to end up with nothing except more democrat governance.

I'll take you at your word that you'd be patient for change if your dream candidate (Ron Paul or the equivalent) were to win and then made only incremental changes, but I'm confident that many of the starry-eyed Paul acolytes out there wouldn't wait too long before they decided he was a sell-out who made big promises but changed his tune once in office. Ron Paul himself made this decision about Ronald Reagan, which is why he left the Republican party and ran for POTUS as a Libertarian in 1988. He appears to have grown up a bit since then, but many of his new, young followers have not.