Democratic officials said they did not set out with the intention of finding moderates to run. Instead, as they searched for candidates with the greatest possibility of winning against Republicans, they said, they wound up with a number who reflected more moderate views....It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'd like to see the Democratic Party become centrist. If they win because they found moderates to run in key districts, I think they'll have a special obligation to please people like me. I'm going to hold them to the bargain.
Collectively, the group could tilt the balance of power within the party, which has been struggling to define itself in recent elections. The candidates cover the spectrum on political issues; some are fiscally conservative and moderate or liberal on social issues, some are the reverse. They could influence negotiations with Republicans on a variety of issues, including Social Security and stem cell research....
The centrist movement was embodied by former President Bill Clinton, who rose to prominence through the Democratic Leadership Council, which embraced a so-called third way of politics and eschewed what it saw as outdated liberalism.
Yet since Mr. Clinton left office, Democrats have seemed to drift back in the direction of their liberal identity, nominating two presidential contenders who were seen as less committed to the moderate cause.
UPDATE: The liberal bloggers' response to the linked article is pretty funny. TAPPED whines that the NYT isn't helping them enough. Matthew Yglesias is similiarly irked. The NYT was supposed to be on our side! How embarrassing. First, you try to blow the credibility of the newspaper that really does usually help you. Second, you show your disrespect for professional journalism. Third, you reveal how far to the left you are if the NYT isn't liberal enough for you. Absurd!
Posts
58 comments:
While I applaud any moderate Dem candidates, one must consider that it is the NYT's that is defining "moderate" here. Also, any moderate wins will put in place a Democratic leadership that is extremely liberal. Rangel, Conyers, Waxman, Hastings, Frank, Pelosi, etc. Folks who have made a point of NOT wanting to work with the GOP, on ANYTHING.
Drill, I'm not sure you can say the Democrats have refused to work with the Republicans without noting that it works the other way as well. How many bills have been developed with zero input from the Democrats just 'cause the Republicans didn't want to?
I say vote all the bums out. I'm slowly convincing myself that Tammy can be voted out of office without the world ending.
I'm still not convinced the Democrats will win either house, btw, and fully expect large-scale resignations if that doesn't happen. If Dean & Pelosi et al. cannot win given the corruption in DC, exploding deficits and entitlements, huge run-ups in the size of government and per capita spending, not to mention the incompetent leadership re: Iraq and the war on terror, well, what good are they?
MadisonMan said...
Drill, I'm not sure you can say the Democrats have refused to work with the Republicans without noting that it works the other way as well.
I'm headed out to meetings so I don't have a bunch of time to research this one for you, but I'll give you 3 citations off the top of my head:
1. Pelosi with a whip enforcing party line votes on everything
2. Pelosi wanting the number 2 Dem (Hoyer) replaced because he's too moderate and works with the GOP.
3. Pelosi planning on replacing a moderate-liberal woman (Harman) as chairman of the Intel committee with Hastings, a former Fedral judge who was impeached and convicted by a Democrat House previously for bribery and corruption.
I think W. is fairly moderate. Zell Miller, Lieberman: moderates.
Anyone who's more or less toward the center.
How to define the center? What are some of the criteria that distinguish the centrist from the flakes that go too far to the left or to the right?
Is John Edwards a centrist?
I'd like to see candidates that minimally consider -- the woman AND the baby; the employee and the employer; -- I think the flakes just consider one side. Maybe you have a better definition.
Out here on the far left coast, there are no centrist democrats, For example, in the 49th district, incumbent Darrell Issa-R is fending off Jeeni Criscenzo, who promises the immediate and simultaneous impeachment of Bush and Cheney for their Iraq War "lies".
I used to vote democratic too, but I'm not coming back any time soon.
The "moderate cause" is a contradiction in terms, but I love all this hand-wringing.
Just because we're picking up a huge number of House seats (including many in red states) it doesn't mean the Democratic party owes people like Ann a goddamn thing.
The working definition of "moderate" on this board is absolutely hilarious, and telling of just how far right this board is. Zell Miller? Joe Lieberman? What do these men have in common?
How annoying! Blogger just ate my comment.
Let's try it again: DrillSgt, it's unreasonable to say that Democrats don't want to work with Republicans on ANYTHING when it's the Republican Leadership that is locking the doors to meetings that Democrats really should be in. I'm thinking of the Energy Bill that started as Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force, and then was made in a bill in private sessions to which no Democrats were allowed. Or the Medicare Bill, the drafting of which also excluded almost all Democrats. See for example, This article. So don't condemn the Democrats for doing the same thing the Republicans are doing, unless you're also condemning the GOP -- I'm not sure if I've read that in your commentary.
I should have added in my previous post that Democrat failure to regain either house, and the resignations that I should think would go along with that, would be a good thing in the long run for the Democratic Party.
Miller and Lieberman are traitors to their party, as in literally worked to defeat the Democratic candidate for president and Senate, respectively.
A reasonable definition of moderate means holding some heterodox opinions on progressive taxation, gun control, affirmative action etc. Not being Bush's pet Democrat on national security, where he's done even more irreparable damage than he has domestically.
Hey Zeb, do you really believe that Bush won in 2000 on "who and what" he was? A moderate who cared deeply about education and didn't believe in "nation building"? Compassionate conservatism?
I suppose "half-witted puppet of Corporate America" doesn't quite sing...
I wasn't being shy. I forgot you wanted my over/under, which is 20.
If you're a Bush fan, you're likely to see loyalty to him as being the highest expression of American patriotism, so I can understand your (and his) appreciation of Holy Joe and that crazy dude from Georgia.
But thankfully not everyone sees things that way.
Hey it's enough for control. Anything in excess of that is gravy.
I withdraw my characterization of the expected swing as "huge" if it makes you feel any better (as it clearly does).
If Democrats win, they'll have a special obligation to please people like Ann Althouse. We'll owe so much to the conservative blogosphere for all their help.
A classic!
Ann says: "I'd like to see the Democratic Party become centrist."
Amen. But to mean anything important, "centrist" here would have to include all of the policy issues that will determine how the US approaches the long-term struggle of confronting the Islamofascist threat. That includes preventing Iran from obtaining nukes, supporting the Israelis in the next Arab-Israeli war that's always just over the horizon (this time in Gaza, and sooner than one might think?), and all the rest. To me, the Ds are on the wrong track on all of these, and like the Europeans are looking for the cheap and easy way to avoid history's burdens. It would be wonderful if there were some adult leadership on the D side on these issues.
Unfortunately, the NYT article indicates that the "moderate" candidates running as Ds dissent from the usual lefty D party line mainly on social issues -- abortion, gay marriage and gun control topping the list. Those issues make my list only as institutional concerns -- what's objectionable is the idea of having the judiciary impose broad social policies under the guise of interpreting the elastic provisions of the constitution, thus effectively usurping a democratic, political solution. On the merits of all three, a "centrist" solution would be fine with me.
On the national security issues that matter, however, I didn't see any indication that these "moderates" differ at all from standard-issue Ds. That doesn't give me much comfort. In all events, there won't be any D "moderates" on the ballot in my Brooklyn district, nor will there be any suspense about the outcome.
If the Democrats win, I'd like to see them take Ms. Althouse out for a nice seafood dinner, and never call her again.
"The Dems would be better served to think of it as an opportunity to please people like Prof. Althouse."
Let's hope that they do. Our governmental institutions have worked as well as they have because historically we've had two big-tent parties, each of which tried to attract as large a coalition as possible. Because neither party was monolithic, deal-making and compromise were always possible. (Remember "bipartisanship?")
The Stalin-like purge of Lieberman and the ascension of Dean and Pelosi were alarming signs that the Dems were evolving into an ideologically-driven party on the old European model. In the long term, what could be more unhealthy for the nation than a permanently angry, permanently extreme Democratic party that preferred doctrinal purity to winning a majority?
I had a letter to the editor published echoing the Drill Sarge's comment, that even if individual representatives may be personally conservative - and there are certainly a lot of blue dogs running this year - they will vote to "put in place a Democratic leadership that is extremely liberal." I stand by that point, but it does bear noting that there is a counterclaim that the Sarge and I have both played down (or in my case, deliberately glossed over). If the split is very close, as seems possible, the result may well be that Pelosi, Waxman, Rangel et al will get their gavels. But it will also mean that a group of blue dog Democrats wields complete power over the Democratic agenda: you will suddenly have a situation where no matter how liberal a bill the leadership may want, they have to pursuade people like Stephanie Herseth, Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth to go along with it. The point that I made in my letter to the editor was that while a "bipartisan majority on any given issue may suffice to pass a bill that is brought to a vote ... the majority party, per procura the Speaker, determines which bills get to be voted on (and when) ... [Thus] if [Brad] Ellsworth [et al] vote[] to install Speaker Pelosi, the issues on which Ellsworth dissents from the party line are very unlikely to ever be brought to a vote." Which is true, but there's a flipside to that: the leadership can prevent a bill they don't like from coming to a vote, but what they can't do (or at least, not entirely of their own power), is to pass a bill that they bring to the floor. That's not to say there won't be any arm-twisting and gamesmanship, of the kind we saw during the prescription drug benefit vote, but it does have important consequences for just how far the leadership can go.
So, if you think of the single area where a Democratic House can do the most damage, you probably think of immigration. In this Congress, it's been the House standing up against the Senate and the President over amnesty. And you'd think that the pro-amnesty Democrats taking over the House would naturally mean a disaster, but what you've really got to ask yourself is: John Conyers can report out an amnesty bill, and Pelosi can call a vote on it, but does that mean that it'll pass? If they have a razor-thin majority, there are enough democrats skeptical of amnesty that they'll have to do some serious arm-twisting. I know that out here in Indiana, for example, Brad Ellsworth has explicitly said that he's against amnesty.
The irony is that the election that the nutroots thought would break the DLC, when they pushed Lamont past Lieberman by a whisker, may very well be the election that puts the blue dogs firmly back in control of the House.
If the Democrats win, I'd like to see them take Ms. Althouse out for a nice seafood dinner
It's difficult to get a good seafood dinner in Madison, as we're quite some distance from the ocean. But maybe they'll fly her to the coast for a dinner.
Larry Kudlow has also noted this trend. He had a good interview with Nanci Pelosi last week. This is going to be an interesting election.
Simon said:
But it will also mean that a group of blue dog Democrats wields complete power over the Democratic agenda: you will suddenly have a situation where no matter how liberal a bill the leadership may want, they have to pursuade people like Stephanie Herseth, Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth to go along with it.
That, my friend, sounds very much like the "Big Tent" philosophy in action, a political strategy the current Republican leadership has completely abandond.
I'm voting the straight "Throw the Bums Out" ticket. I'll be voting against every incumbant running.
It's not just that the democrats are conservative, they will have won in conservative leaning districts.
For the new democratic fresmen in places like Indiana, or Texas 22, or Foley's seat, most will vote with the republicans most of the time. If they don't they will lose their seat in 2008. It is that simple. Nothing attracts quality candidates for your side than a weak incumbant on the other side.
If the Dems only win the majority by a few seats, there will be a good chance that Pelosi won't become Speaker. Nothing will be worse for the Democrat in Delay's seat or Dems in Indiana, etc... than a Speaker Pelosi.
MadisonMan,
I have heard this about "seafood" in Wisconsin. You may recall me asking about cheese curds yesterday (thanks for the tips on that, by the way); the friends we'll be visiting make it here every couple of months and spend the 3-day weekend hoovering our wonderful seafood, including some of the best sushi in the U.S.
It would be no compliment at all to take someone out for seafood in WI.
What would they do? It's irrelveant. These "moderates" won't have any power. Because leadership is seniority-based, and seniority (in both parties) tends towards the wings, there's very little chance any moderate Dems elected this year will have any impact at all on the national debate. Indeed, I would expect at least half of any Democrate Moderates elected in 06 to be defeated in 08. They're just passing through.
The real vote isn't for your local Rep or Senator, it's for the leadership. I won't be voting for Dave Reichart or Darcy Burner next tuesday, I'll be voting for Denny Hastert or Nancy Pelosi. If Reichart is re-elected (and the Republicans keep control of the House), he'll be a second-termer with little influence. If Burner wins (and the Dems take the house), she'll be a Freshman with zero influence.
Plus, remember Bill Clinton. He ran as a moderate Democrate (DLC and all that) in '92. He spent all of about 30 seconds after taking office being a Moderate, then threw his lot in with the Left Wing. The result was '94 and a Congress that forced him back to the center.
Its truly breathtaking…. Pennsylvania needs to put up a pro-lifer to beat Santorum, (and the feminists muzzle themselves) Ford is running around Tennessee saying Jesus every third word, Hillary now wears a cross…
Love it…
This really isn't what it seems to be. Even if the Dems take the House, with the help of "moderate/conservative" Dems, they'll very likely do so with slimmest of margins. And then, when it comes time to pay the piper (the teachers, the public employee and private unions, trial lawyers, "consumer advocates," environmentalists and other whack-jobs littering my doorstep with Dem propaganda), Pelosi will be brought to heel and forced to deliver votes. If the "moderate/conservative" Dems take a walk, they'll face the howling rage of the rabid-foaming at the mouth nutroot brigades of Commandante Kos and a certain primary challenge; if they (most likely) surrender to the party hacks, they'll face a Republican buzz-saw in '08.
Either way, as a Rep I'm not concerned with the long run. We'll win, esp. as Dems keep killing their future voters in utero.
Simon said...
So, if you think of the single area where a Democratic House can do the most damage, you probably think of immigration.
Though I agree with your overall thought, you picked the wrong a example. It ought to be Iraq. You're right that the Speaker controls the agenda. Remember 1974-75. An anti-war Dem House voted failed to fund support to the South Vietnamese. You don't need a strong majority to NOT pass a war supplemental.
I guess that's my acid test. Like Steyn's column the other day. I Dem will get my vote when they can articulate how they'd win th war in Iraq.
all that Dem talk about regretting their votes to authorize the war are BS. At this point, we have 2 choices. Win the War or Lose the War.
PS: MM, I agree the House GOP Leadership treated the Dems very badly in conferences, and in agenda setting.
Sarge,
I picked the immigration example based on the predicate that the GOP will retain the Senate. If that is the case, then the only areas where a Democratic House could make substantial inroads are areas where their policy agenda happens to align with that of the President and Senate Republicans. And the only possible example that springs to mind is immigration.
With that having been said, conceivably House Democrats could defund the war sub silentio by simply refusing to bring any bill to the floor that made appropriations for the military, or at least, deadlocking the appropriations process to the same effect. But since that would be an explicit act of failing to support the troops, I find it hard to believe that the Dem leadership would be so utterly cretinous as to hand the GOP propaganda machine such an open goal for the '08 elections.
It's funny, isn't it: the Democrats keep trying to paint Iraq as being another Vietnam. If they take control of the House and defund the war, they will convert that into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It should also be mentioned that while I agree with you that "DeLay rules" have meant shoddy treatment for the minority, this is nothing new. The same Democrats who now bleat about their treatment as a minority are to a great extent reaping what they themselves sowed while in the majority. I would prefer a move to reduce the number of closed rules, and perhaps some formalization of not only minimum vote periods but maximum vote periods, but while conceding that the House has been run unfairly to the minority in the last few years, we shouldn't con ourselves into thinking this was a GOP innovation.
Remember 1974-75. An anti-war Dem House voted failed to fund support to the South Vietnamese. You don't need a strong majority to NOT pass a war supplemental
Cutting funding to a third-world nation the country's sick of supporting is one thing. Cutting funding to US troops on the field of battle is quite another -- that would be political suicide for the Democrats. They need a friendly President to pull the troops out first, or a veto-proof, filibuster-proof majority to pass a resolution declaring an end to the conflict.
Personally, I'm increasingly of the opinion that a short period of Democratic control from 2006-2008 would be the best thing for the country, if only because it would force the Republicans to get serious again. Sure, there will be the usual nonsense of investigative committees and impeachment hearings and all the rest of it, but so what.
If the Dems are smart, they will only threaten de-funding, putting the onus on Bush for a policy change they can live with. But they will get blamed anyway, for something to the effect that they don't support the troops. "Support Our Troops" means "Support Our Policy"
The PNAC neocons get duped by an Iranian spy promising ponies and harmonious relations with Iraq/Israel -- promising an easy war -- trusting a guy that once fled Jordan for bank fraud in the trunk of a car! -- and paying him 27 million dollars of taxpayer money.
Damn Democrats!
MM, I agree the House GOP Leadership treated the Dems very badly in conferences, and in agenda setting.
Has everyone forgotten what Congress was like when the Democrats ran it for 40 years straight? The Dems did the same things to the republicans that the Dems are complaining about now.
Garage -
You know the funny thing about bluffing? You can't do it when your cards are face up on the table. If the Democrats threaten to defund, and Bush refuses, then the Democrats look weak, ineffectual, and are back to the very same unpalatable choices that existed before they made the threat.
Down with the dhimmicratic wing of the democratic party!
You know the funny thing about bluffing? You can't do it when your cards are face up on the table.
Maybe, but at least they could control the narrative up to '08 by saying "prove your policy is in American interests" or the such. As long as Bush has to defend this policy, he is the one who looks weak -- for good reason.
Anytime I find myself leaning towards voting for a Democrat for a national level office, they keep taking 70's style hard left turns late in the campaign and lose my vote.
Ms. Althouse and I can appreciate and be entertained by idealistic youth conducting protests on our college campuses, however, one does not elect teenagers to run the country.
If the D's win House and/or Senate, I hope it's a razor thin majority and that they are forced to the Center by the blue dawgs and centrist GOP votes they need for passage. I think it will be very difficult for them to rouse enough votes to override a presidential veto.
But I recall with fondness "gridlock" and the divided government of the 90's. It was a good thing.
Still, it will be amusing to watch the Nazi whipcracker NAMBLA-lovin' Pelosi try to force discipline like a dominatrix on the Jesus-loving blue dogs who don't toe her party line. This should be very entertaining. Where do I buy my popcorn?
Re: throw the bums out.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. If my bum has ascended the ranks and has great committees and brings home the bacon, fries it up in a pan, and never never never lets me forget he's my man, then I'll choose the bum I know over a strange bum. I guess I'm a whore for power and pork.
Was checking out the ballot on the Commonwealth's elections website, and of course it has an option for straight ticket party voting at the very top.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the top option were:
____ Keep the Bums We Got Now
____ Throw the Bums Out
hee hee
To those who question my interpretation of Yglesias as "irked" at the NYT for running an article like that... he writes:
"This is really just too much. As you'll recall, after the 2004 election we were greeted to an endless series of articles about..."
So there was a set of articles in 04 about how the Dem candidates were to far to the left...
"But along comes The New York Times with the dire warning..."
And now the NYT comes along and says that since the Dems this time came up with centrist candidates that they may have to move to the center. He's clearly irked about the Times drawing this conclusion and undercutting the meaning that a Democratic victory will have for the left. It's "really just too much" -- that's a strong expression of irritation at the Times.
He does go on to simply argue against the inference in the article, and I'm not purporting to refer to that part of the post.
He's not as blatant about his annoyance a the NYT as TAPPED is.
The sentence that follows the one with his name in it is me speculating about what they are really thinking. That's what the italics mean. You can disagree with my inference, but I think it's right.
garage said, "Maybe, but at least they could control the narrative up to '08 by saying "prove your policy is in American interests" or the such. As long as Bush has to defend this policy, he is the one who looks weak -- for good reason."
You're forgetting that Bush won't run in '08. The Republican nominee can simply rally on a platform of "change" and run against Bush, too. I suspect that The Left(TM) will try to make it a referendum on Bush, but most voters will see it as a battle of two new personalities.
You're forgetting that Bush won't run in '08. The Republican nominee can simply rally on a platform of "change" and run against Bush, too. I suspect that The Left(TM) will try to make it a referendum on Bush, but most voters will see it as a battle of two new personalities.
One of the problems with Republican party discipline has been shoring up idiotic policies no matter what. It should be easy for Democrats to tar Republican candidates as tied to the Bush legacy. They'll have the tape to prove it in most cases.
There are a couple of possible, if not probable Republican losses here in CO - the state may be swinging from 5-2 Republican to 2-5 (or maybe 1-6) in two elections (the infamous Tom Tancredo is the only really safe Republican this year). This is a state that went for Bush in both elections.
One seat may be lost through the Republicans running someone far to the right in a fairly safe Republican district (5th, see below), and the other one or two in very evenly split districts.
My point is that all of these Democrats who either won in 2004, or might win this time, are running to the right. John Salazar, brother of our freshman Senator, has a track record significantly to the right of his brother's (who himself tries to portray the moderate).
My point is that if they vote for Pelosi, as they most likely will, and then Pelosi puts in Conyers, Hastings, etc., and the Dems do like they say they will (like Conyers running continuous hearings on the last six years of the Administration), these new Democrats, elected from swing or Republican districts are toast in 2008, unless they can show their independence.
Also, I would think that maybe a couple might be willing to switch sides for the right bribe - after all, a Democrat switching to Republican in a slightly Republican district is likely to find himself/herself in a lifetime seat. (We saw that here with Ben Nighthorse Campbell - he originally squeaked through as a Democrat, switched to Republican, and had a safe seat thereafter, since the Republicans, while many hated him, wouldn't replace him, and was centrist enough to get a lot of Democratic votes). Compare this to their chances of getting reelected in 2008 if still Democrats.
Let me reiterate this - while the Democrats have some chance of retaining the swing districts in 2008, they have little if any in keeping the heavily Republican ones, like DeLay's, or Hefley's here in CO. Hefley is retiring, and represents Colorado Springs, home of Focus on the Family, Fort Carson, Northern Comand, Space Command, etc. The city has two industries: religion and the military. The Democrats may take this seat in 2006, but there is no way they will retain it in a presidential year. None.
It should be easy for Democrats to tar Republican candidates as tied to the Bush legacy. They'll have the tape to prove it in most cases.
Highly unlikely.
The three most likely nominees are Romney, Giuliani, and McCain. The first two are Washington outsiders with no Bush ties. The last of the three -- who also the most likely candidate -- has enjoyed six years of media fawning building him a reputation as the honest, principled, moderate Republican who hates Bush. That's three-quarters wrong, but it is still WAY too late to try selling McCain as a Bush flunky.
I am one of those conservatives who is contributing money and is happily voting, but wouldn't be overly upset by a Democratic win, esp. in the House, in 8 days.
Democrats here like John Salazar (who slid into a swing seat in 2004 being vacated by a Republican) are able to get by by being fairly moderate. But that may all change with Pelosi, et al. (barely) in charge in the House. If, as many of us suspect, they make the most of their committee chairmanships to cause as much trouble as they can to the Administration, esp. in Conyer's case, investigating anything he can think of, there are going to be a lot of swing voters who voted for Bush ready and willing to throw the bastards out. And moderates like Salazar, and the potentially new Democrats here in CO, as well as across the nation, are likely to be thrown out, for having gone along with Pelosi, et al.
There is, of course, a saying that all politics is local. But the time when a Representative is most vulnerable is in his first, and maybe second, reelection. Partly, I suspect, that is because they haven't had enough time yet to cement themselves with a lot of constituants through constituant service (esp. in bringing home the pork). Also, they are invariably low in seniority then, and don't have the committee assignments to be as they will ultimately be at this.
So, it may be totally plausible for the Republicans to lose enough seats to lose the House this time, but gain twice that many in 2 years in reaction to the Pelosi follies.
Jerk:
and unjustifiably assume that Yglesias shares that view.
I bet it is pretty safe to say that Ann knows Matt better than you do...
Remember 1974-75. An anti-war Dem House voted failed to fund support to the South Vietnamese. You don't need a strong majority to NOT pass a war supplemental
Except that the Democrats held 291 seats in the house beginning in 1975 the most since the Depression election of 1936. They also held 61 seats in the Senate.
The democrats could do anything they wanted in 1975... and they did to the detriment of us all.
Since the term keeps getting used - what/who is a 'centrist'? What would this persons opinion be on abortion, affirmative action, gun control, voter ID, immigration reform, or the GWOT? Is a 'centrist' one who takes a poll before having an opinion or someone who doesn't really have an position?
And you know the republicans should be worried: accountability and responsibility can be terrible things.
Because holding Clinton accountable worked out so well for the Republican leadership of the late 1990s. What's Gingrich doing these days, again?
The real question will be not how well the dems sort out their internal conflicts but will be how badly weakened and divided the republican party will become.
Nothing unites a party quite as quickly as being the target of witch hunts. You'll need to take your pick -- you can hold the Republicans "accountable", or you can have the Republicans be weakened and divided. You can't have both. Personally, I doubt the Democratic leadership is smart enough to go for the second option.
Since the term keeps getting used - what/who is a 'centrist'? What would this persons opinion be on abortion, affirmative action, gun control, voter ID, immigration reform, or the GWOT?
Assuming that the "centrist" position on an issue is that held by the median voter, a "centrist" believes abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest, and medical necessity, but tightly restricted or banned otherwise; that affirmative action is bad; that gun control is generally a good idea; that legal immigration should be tightly restricted, the border fenced, and illegal immigrants removed; that Muslims terrorists pose a threat to America; and that voter ID is a good idea.
Re the definition of a "centrist," I tend to think that being a centrist or a moderate is more of a way than a thing. That is, there isn't a single set of policy views that marks someone as a moderate, but a pattern of behavior, a modus operandi: the hallmarks are that they're willing to compromise, they're willing to listen to the other side's case, they're open to reason and argument, and they are more interested in solutions that work than towing the party line. I hate the implication that being a moderate means holding completely incoherent political views unbound by any kind of underlying philosophy. Worse yet, I absolutely despise the idea that a moderate Republican is just a synonym for a pro life Republican.
If I wanted to think of a moderate, I would think of someone like Olympia Snowe, or John McCain, or Evan Bayh, or Stephanie Herseth, or Mark Warner. And, of course, our hostess.
I don't actually know Matt, other than that I talked to him for an hour that time for Bloggingheads. He seems like a fine young man. He wants the Democrats to do well. Nothing wrong with that. And the NYT does have a liberal slant. Everyone knows that.
A moderate is someone who does not let ideology get in the way of a good idea. The US Government could use a lot more moderates.
MadisonMan,
That statement - that "ideology" should not "get in the way of a good idea" always bothers me when it's invoked. It's like the suggestion that politicians should just adopt "common sense solutions." Both statements seem to presuppose something I think is patently false: that common sense and the perception of the value of an idea are neutral, objectively-determinable standards. George Lakoff raised this point in one of his books, and I continue ton think it's a strong point: ideology - narrowly or broadly defined - defines your conception of common sense, and your perception of whether a good idea is actually a good idea.
If you said that centrism was not allowing partisanship to get in the way of accepting a good idea, then I'd agree with you, but come on - get serious. Do you really think that when you invoke what seems to you to be a common sense solution, or just a plain 'aul good idea, that when I come in and disagree with you the other side knows that your idea is a good, common sense idea, but I'm just disagreeing with you anyway? Of course not. I disagree because I don't think that it IS a good idea, or because I don't think that it IS common sense. And that's because you and I have different ideologies. And that's okay, but the pretense that good ideas are value-neutral is absurd.
"A moderate is someone who does not let ideology get in the way of a good idea. The US Government could use a lot more moderates."
Agreed. The government has far too many big government, tax and spend ideological liberals and Socialists. We can start getting a lot more moderates by getting rid of the Socialists.
The Jerk said...
"The issue is whether Prof. Althouse's inference is supported by the text of Yglesias' post."
You don't get to be a textualist when (and only when) it suits you, you know.
Fenrisulven said...
"Sad part is its the Senate Repubs who derserve to be tossed out, not the House."
Even if that is true - and I take no position here in on that - the fact remains that while there is a non-zero chance of any judicial vacancies in the next two years, GOP control of the Senate is absolutely necessary. The stakes are simly too high.
Keep in mind also that we're rid of Frist after this election. Most of the problems in the Senate have far more to do with Bill Frist than they have to do with caucus.
Rove is smiling because the Dems are in a box. Win and make Kos's Children of the Corn happy by abandoning Iraqi democrats to the militant Islamic fascists and Dems are done in 08 and for a long time thereafter. Win and launch endless Conyer's-led investigations intending to conclude in impeachment and the swing voters will abandon them in 08. Win and govern responsibly and the Children of the Corn withhold their contributions for all except the Ned Lamonts of the world which, in a primary, will be critical. Win, and Nancy Pelosi becomes the face and the voice of the Democratic Party until Hillary! is nominated. Win, and the economy-stimulating tax cuts expire; the WoT goes backward; spending goes up; regulations go up; and so on and so on.
Positioning themselves as the anti-Bush won't be enough to win re-election; they can't run as old Democrats and win; they aren't smart enough to re-think their reflexive impulse to harness government and tax dollars to empower the judiciary, the teachers, the public and private unions, the trial lawyers, the environmentalists, the pacifists, the multiculturalists, the transnational progressives, the socialists and the sexual libertines.
But then again, Rove might be smiling because in the worst possible of anti-Republican perfect storms, the Dems might not win at all.
The Dems think that Australian Nukes and Evangelical Christians are our greatest threats...
Fen, Bush is trotting around today saying The Gays and "activist judges" are the big threat. Don't y'all have any shame?
"Pat, are you trying to say the NYTs does not have a left slant"
Simply go to the NYT's site this morning and scan the ledes of the political articles. All but one or two are shameless cheerleading for Dem candidates (e.g., "Ford takes lead!!"). Then go to the editorials. Then look at every other article in the paper.
As others have observed, the leftward slant appears even on the Arts page -- no, especially the Arts page. After all, it was the experience of being an NYT theater critic that taught Frank Rich how to become a political know-it-all.
"[McCain's] reputation as the honest, principled, moderate Republican who hates Bush. That's three-quarters wrong..."
OK, help me out here--what's the 1/4 that is right? He really does hate Bush???
Yep, that's the one.
McCain is very conservative, no more honest than any other politician, and perfectly willing to sacrifice principle for political convenience. But he *does* share a mututal dislike with Bush.
Post a Comment