Seeing the
letters to the editor today, I realize I missed David Brooks's column
"The Middle Muscles In" (which I think you'll be able to get to during TimesSelect free access week):
On Tuesday, 47 percent of the voters were self-described moderates, according to exit polls, and they asserted their power by voting for the Democrats in landslide proportions....
Their disaffection with the G.O.P. was not philosophical. It was about competence and accountability....
So voters kicked out Republicans but did not swing to the left. For the most part they exchanged moderate Republicans for conservative Democrats. It was a great day for the centrist Joe Lieberman, who defeated the scion of the Daily Kos net roots, Ned Lamont. It was a great day for anti-abortion Democrats like Bob Casey and probably for pro-gun Democrats like Jim Webb. It was a great day for conservative Democrats like Heath Shuler in North Carolina and Brad Ellsworth in Indiana....
Realignments are achieved by parties that define big new approaches to problems (see F.D.R.’s Commonwealth Club speech), and neither party has done that yet. In the meantime, if I were a Democrat I’d be like Lee Hamilton, the former Indiana congressman and serial commission member. The country is hungering for leaders like him: open-minded, unassuming centrists who are interested in government more than politics. If the Democrats are smart, this could be the beginning of a new Hamiltonian age.
I said it back here:If [the Democrats] 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.
Go ahead, lefty bloggers. Throw a fit. Curse me out again. You know it makes you mad because it's true.
Posts
44 comments:
Ann, the whole picture tells a different story -- Republican moderates like Nancy Johnson, Rob Simmons and Mike Fitzpatrick got thumped by anti-war progressives in their races. Voters in the Northeast simply rejected the idea that there was such a thing as a "moderate Republican".
Sherrod Brown obliterated moderate Mike DeWine in Ohio. Sen-elect Jon Tester, in Montana, wants the PATRIOT Act repealed -- not fixed, but repealed.
Unfortunately, David Brooks as per usual is given to broad generalizations and his evidence is faulty.
(1) "47 percent of the voters were self-described moderates." The key words are self-described. Lot of people describe their positions as moderate but are not when you compare them to the average American voter. At top law schools, moderate means you don't think everything Bush does is evil just most things. Better data would have shown have broken down these voters by their stated positions to see if the way they self-described themselves matches with reality.
(2) Populism won, not moderation. When Republican politicians are pro-life, they are called social
conservatives and unfairly they are usually labeled extremists in blue-states. Being pro-life and favoring the overturn of Roe v. Wade is a respectable position but a minority one (although sizable), so classifying a candidate who is pro-life as moderate is not entirely accurate.
Furthermore, most of the candidates like Heath Schuler did not run as third-way Democrats but as populists. They ceded ground on social issues as they completely blurred the difference between their and their opponent's positions on abortion and guns and instead campaigned on pocket-book issues like health care, minimum wage, and in Schuler's case protectionism.
(3) There is a a discernable difference between populism and moderation even though the two are often confused although I would expect a little better from an op-ed columnist at a major newspaper.
This is the reason why liberal bloggers are enthusiastic about politicians like Brian Schweitzer, Jon Tester, and Jim Webb and unenthusiastic about politicians like Rahm Emanuel,
Hilary Clinton, and Joe Lieberman. The latter are at least in theory moderates the former who are more conservative on social issues are populists. They are not one in the same.
(4) Brooks can spin it anyway he likes but in actuality voters rejected his positions as they chose populism. Brooks is a social liberal, free trader, and foreign policy hawk and the swing voters in this election (the Reagan Democrats) rejected all of his entire platform.
I am so amused about lefties and their potty mouths! And the lagnuage is generally sexual. Really funny when sexual crudity masquerades as cogent commentary.
Trey
I think Pelosi and Emmanuel are very strong leaders! They ran candidates who could challenge and win on the Reps' own ideological turf, and they kept the LLL rhetoric to themselves, at least until Nov. 8.
But in a party that denies that we are at war, in a country that no longer experiences Great Depressions, what is left as governance, except to divvy up the booty taken from one group to their own groups of pet interests. They will balkanize and amnestize and will look really small.
Meanwhile, I'll dream of Scoop Jackson and enjoy for a while his heir, Democrat James Webb, until he is forced to become a Nancy boy.
Webb’s Classy Statement
I somewhat agree with Partisan Moderate here. To some extent, it was populism, not moderation that won. But the problem that the Democrats have there is that nationally, they aren't a populist party any more, but rather probably more elitist than the Republicans. Arguably, this is part of why Clinton won, but Gore and Kerry did not (as both of them are really elitists who tried to pretend like they were populists).
So, the image that the country is going to have of the Democrats over the next two years is a woman whose husband is worth at least $50 millon, and has had too much Botox.
Bruce, excellent post. Just in sort of plea for help from someone less technologically challenged, I am a new blogger, and I was curious how one links to a news story but shows only a small blurb such as "The Middle Muscles In" as opposed to having the whole web address appear on the blog? In other words just a short link.
Sorry, any help would be greatly appreciated.
Rudy Guiliani would be a shoo-in for President in 2008 -- if he ran as a Democrat. He could actually get the Democratic party's nomination, and he would excite a bunch of Dem voters who are already dreading having to listen to the insincere burblings of focus group tested candidates like Hillary and John Edwards.
But as a Republican? Guiliani's got about the same chance as Jim Leach.
My fear for the Republican party is they will react the same way to defeat that California Republicans have done; by burning all their moderates at the stake, especially social moderates, and steering to the hard right, out of a fantasy perception that it was the lack of hard-rightness that cost them the election.
This constant repetition of Nancy Pelosi and botox is lame, boring, and frankly, no one's business. It is about as funny or informative as one of dave's screeds.
Just my opinion,of course.
Guiliani's got about the same chance as Jim Leach.
I'd laugh, but it is true. Frankly, I wish they'd get it all out of their system and nominate someone like Santorum. I would look forward to the ensuing electoral disaster with no one to blame but themselves.
Yes, but why didn't you say all this when it mattered...????
---At Tryst, when you had a world-wide audience, rapt, eagerly awaiting a statement.
Timing is everything.
I know I know....there was too much piped-in noise and you couldn't think.
You needed time to let things marinate and formulate.
If you are trying out for a TV gig, you've gotta be able to think on your feet.
Next time, rehearse, draft out pre-prepared soundbites and snippets for ANY possible outcome, right there, on-the-spot.
That's how it's done.
Peace, Maxine
Peace, Maxine
I think Johnstodderinexile is incorrect.
(1) There is absolutely no way Rudy Giuliani could get the Democratic nomination. Second to McCain, he is the most hawkish Republican competing to be President. If you think Democrats didn't like Lieberman's stance on Iraq, you can be sure Giuliani would be less welcome. Furthermore, most of New York's African-American community never really cared for Giuliani, even at his zenith of popularity. Sharpton would really go out of his way to ruin Giuliani.
(2) Is that California Republican party you speak of, the party of Arnold and David Dreier? I fail to see how the Republican party in California has moved to the hard right. It appears more likely that moderate Republicans are having trouble winning in the swing districts which leades to a disproportionate number of Conservatives in the State Senate and Assembly.
Trey wrote: I am so amused about lefties and their potty mouths! And the lagnuage is generally sexual. Really funny when sexual crudity masquerades as cogent commentary.
I'm so glad to hear someone else notices this too! The people on the left use so many vulgar cuss words in their writing - and they seem to think that using gratuitous sexual references somehow gives their writing extra zing or something. I am so tired of that kind of crude, vulgar stuff. It's like they have to prove they are gentlemen or ladies.
This doesn't go for every left-wing post, of course - but go over to Kos and read some comments and at least one out of three uses vulgarity.
I like Brooks but what is he smoking? Hamilton strikes me as a colorless, idealess, generally spineless, blend into the background phantom who has no real ideas hence he goes with the flow and never dares to ruffle any feathers or make any waves. Hence II, all the committee apointments he reaps.
If Brooks wants that, count me out cause those kind of people don't get things fixed- they hang around for 30-40 years, get their big pensions and leave little evidence they were ever there. You know like Specter, Kerry and Hugh Something (Specter's predeccessor in the Senate).
[Ann- are these word verifications getting longer or is it my imagination??]
I don't see how that's much of an insight. Everybody needs the middle to win national elections.
Partisan moderate,
FWIW, gerrymandering of California's legislative districts generally rules out moderates from both the Reps and the Dems as the more conservative or liberal candidates are elected by regular primary voters, which tend to be further from the center than most voters. The parties actually prefer this, as it gives voice to their most active supporters and members, and avoids unpleasant ideological fuzziness (this is esp. true for the Dems, who are absolute death on pro-life candidates, whereas Reps run and win with pro-choice candidates).
California has trended liberal since the defense cuts in aerospace and subsequent state recession chased all kinds of defense workers and other Republican leaning voters out of state (as net emigration from California in the early to mid-90's exceeded net immigration and native births), leaving the state literally poorer and bluer, notwithstanding the dot com and high tech communications boom in the Bay Area.
partisan moderate: Arnold would never have won a primary in California if it were not for the recall. Dreier dropped a Senate bid over a decade ago for the same reason, and things have not improved since. Arnold is tolerated but not accepted by the party activists here.
All of the "true-blue" conservative Republicans on the statewide ballot went down to defeat and the activists are blaming Arnold for their candidates' shortcomings.
And just so you know- McCain wins the Republican nomination easy. And he wins the general election too. I see perhaps Condi or Romney as VP. The Dems will take someone like Vilsack/ Webb as VP to run with Feingold or Clinton.
I think McCain wins big in 2008 and that thankfully kills Hillary's prospects forever but it gives Webb the inside track to replace McCain by 2016.
Lastly, there is a chance the Dems could splinter with a 3rd party (pushed by the nutroots) if Pelosi and company don't push full-speed ahead for gay marriage, abortion on demand, and govt-paid healthcare for all.
For what its worth, I see a split between the religious right and the Wall Street/Cato Institute-type Republicans as much more likely than I see a split between the Kos Democrats and the mainstream democrats.
For what its worth, I see a split between the religious right and the Wall Street/Cato Institute-type Republicans as much more likely than I see a split between the Kos Democrats and the mainstream democrats.
Does it have to be either/or? Why shouldn't we expect both parties to tear themselves apart along these divides?
I have a suggestion for a name for moderate Democrats like me. "Blue Dog" is okay, but I'd rather be embrace the name the Kos-types call us.
We are the Fuckwits Faction. I'm proud to be a Fuckwit, enjoying Fuckwit fellowship with the likes of Joe Lieberman and Jim Webb.
Next time Atrios or Matthew Yglesias calls me a Fuckwit, I'm going to say, "Fuckin' A!"
I stand corrected on California, but I am correct on Giuliani: he couldn't win the Democratic Party nomination.
I think you're looking at this too narrowly. Yeah, some of the hyper-liberals in New York didn't like him, but outside the context of New York, Guiliani's positions were hard to distinguish from moderate Democrats'. He wouldn't have been so successful in NY if a huge number of Democrats hadn't crossed party lines to vote for him over Dinkins. Liberals I knew in NY told me their view of him was, "I should hate him, but he's made the city better."
He is socially liberal, but tough on law and order -- domestically and globally. If the Democrats of the '70s and '80s hadn't been so in thrall with the ACLU mentality about crime, my guess is Guiliani would have registered as a Democrat. He is much the same kind of politician as Ed Koch, who remained a Democrat despite his scorn for much of what they stood for. Gray Davis won two terms as California's governor on a very similar platform (his recall was more due to corruption and his inability to manage the budget than any ideological wind-shift).
Daley in Chicago is another Democrat whose views are close to Guiliani's. Ed Rendell. Lieberman, of course. Guiliani has more star power than these others, but he would be comfortable in their company.
I can't think of one thing that John Kerry didn't pretend to be that would contradict Rudy Guiliani's actual positions and performance.
Maybe that's what I am: A Guiliani Democrat.
Reposting just to correct some grammatical mistakes.
I stand corrected on California, but I am correct on Giuliani: he couldn't win the Democratic Party nomination.
A few Comments:
(1) Terry there is
"no Wall Street/Cato Institute-type Republicans". There are Libertarians and there are Rockefeller Republicans, most Wall Street Republicans fall into the latter category (although some are quite conservative socially), they are not one in the same. Remember Libertarian Barry Goldwater and his feud against the Wall Street Candidate Nelson Rockefeller. Furthermore, some of the most ardent Libertarians on domestic issues are also very socially conservative (i.e. Mike Pence, former Congressman Dick Armey, and Jeff Flake to name a few). I have posted on my blog a number of times about Libertarians.
(2) Aj Lynch, Feingold has no chance of being VP. He is not palatable to many in the Democratic party nor to the electorate. McCain may win the primary but he is hardly a shoo-in for that or the general election. He barely leads Hillary Clinton in polls.
For my money, although I am not particularly fond of him, I think Edwards may have the best shot and I wouldn't be surprised if Vilsack entered the race just to trip Edwards, who is currently leading, in Iowa. Vilsack would be a potential VP candidate for Hillary.
Webb would be lucky to win re-election never mind seek the presidency or vice presidency. He won this race because Allen had a problematic background which was heavily exacerbated by his macacca comment. If you look at Rasmussen polls, many people who voted for Webb did so not because they liked him but as a vote against Allen, while most who voted for Allen genuinely liked him.
On a side note, don't be surprised if Allen runs for VA governor in 08 or Kean does in NJ in 09.
I happen to really like Giuliani and would vote for him but the comparison to Koch is not apt. Koch is in favor of universal healthcare and more socially liberal than Giuliani ever was or pretended to be although they have similar governing styles and constituencies. BTW, Koch is one of the Giuliani haters for personal reasons as opposed to politics. Sharpton on the other hand has always considered Giuliani a racist for his defense of cops and his opposition to affirmative action.
Giuliani differs from Kerry on issues like: affirmative action, foreign policy (as I mentioned earlier), the death penalty, and taxes.
Furthermore, even if Giuliani was alright on the issues, he has tons of personal backage along with the typical shady deals that go with being mayor of New York. He was originally married to a cousin, second divorce was so messy that his wife at the time wouldn't say if she voted for him, he appointed the liberal party head's son to a deputy mayor position, Giuliani's father was rumored to be connected to the mob, and the whole Kerik situation who was a great cop but he was originally Giuliani's driver amongst other things.
Maybe the electorate would look past all these things because of his excellent job as mayor but I doubt it and I further doubt it for a Democratic primary.
the dems won the senate popular vote nationally 55 to 44 percent.
and heath shuler is not a conservative.
to the extent that bush's 3% win in 2004 constituted a "mandate" to do whatever the heck he wanted, i dont expect that the democrats owe the right anything.
tpm: If all the things you say about Guiliani are true, then he's got no hope of winning either party's nomination. But I still argue that he's closer to what the Democratic party is evolving into than what the Republican party has been since 2000.
Partisan Moderate - You're right in saying that the Wall Street Republicans and the libertarian Republicans are not one and the same. My point (which in hindsight I could have stated more clearly) is that both are traditional die-hard Republican voting blocks. The religious right hasn't been part of the Republican base for all that long, perhaps 25 years at most, though they've really only dictated Republican Party policy since the early 90's. Because they are so all-or-nothing in policy beliefs, I can see them supporting a third party far-right candidate more easily than I can see the Kos/LaMont Democrats supporting a third-party candidate.
partisan,
For a link with a title:
http://www.cit.cornell.edu/atc/tech/tags.shtml
Unlike Brooks and some of the commenters here, I wouldn't characterize the '06 elections as the triumph of moderates or populists. The overriding issue was the Iraq war. The voting public wants a policy that will both win that war, in whatever way "victory" is defined here, and also point the way forward in the larger war against Islamo-terrorism. Until September or so, Bush's policy was "stay the course." When he abandoned that slogan, and added the unconvincing claim that he had never embraced it, he just created a lot of confusion to no good purpose. By September, "stay the course" had became synonymous with "keep doing what we've been doing," and that is a policy that a large majority of voters concluded, understandably, was not going to achieve the desired victory.
There was no mandate for any alternative policy because the Dems declined to offer one. Just as Bush abandoned "stay the course," the Dems objected loudly whenever a Repub claimed that the Dem policy was "cut and run." Quite apart from the immediate issues of how to handle the Iraq war, the Dems declined to tip their hand as to their intentions with respect to Iran, N Korea, Afghanistan, Hamas/Fatah, among other issues on the international front; as well as the domestic counterparts represented by the Patriot Act, the NSA intercept program, etc. Now that they control Congress, they will no longer have the option of hiding their proposals.
Those who focus on labels like "moderates" and "populists," or even "conservative," need to recognize that those terms are meaningless in the national security area. As long as national security issues are paramount -- and I think they will remain paramount for quite a few election cycles -- what is needed is a strategy that will lead to a safer and more peaceful world, free of the threat of terrorism, combined with tactics that will get us there. What we need are national leaders who see the problem, understand the difficulties and can come up with a policy to win. Bush lost the support of the country because most voters don't think his "stay the course" policy is a winner. The immediate challenge for the Dems is to show that they really see the problem here, and understand that it's not a "law enforcement" issue. By definition, "cut and run" either in its purest form or repackaged as "redeployment" won't do. Americans can recognize retreat and defeat when they see it. Assuming they get past that hurdle, the Dems will have to offer a better policy that will achieve that goal.
I am not sanguine that the Dems will rise to the challenge. But, like Ann, I wish them every success. If they fail to engage these national security issues seriously, I suspect that their newly won Congressional will just as quickly be lost. And, in passing judgment, voters won't be interested very much in whether those Dems call themselves "liberal," "moderate" or "conservative"
You're absolutely right, Ann. Represented as you are by cut and running populists like Jim Webb.
Of course, it's not me who considers him a cut and runner, that would be you, judging by your reaction to his positions when held by other moderates like Howard Dean.
PatCA much appreciated.
ahh its silly season in ann land.
the left owes you nothing. in this righty-legal-land you should know that it takes two to make an agreement. one side simply can't assume and therefore can't state an obligation that is not agreed to...david brooks the rightyloony notwithstanding.
and ann...weasel that you are...the democrats will take care of you just because they are inclusive. after 6 years of the moron in chief, you should welcome that.
Terry wrote about the religious right saying "Because they are so all-or-nothing in policy beliefs, I can see them supporting a third party far-right candidate more easily than I can see the Kos/LaMont Democrats supporting a third-party candidate."
I agree on all counts. We are prone to stick very close to our issues and not be very pragmatic. I think it is that religious part!
Trey
I love this topic heading. Because I am a registered Democrat. And I would looove to fulfill my special obligation. Ole!
david brooks the rightyloony
Shields and Rightyloony is my favorite segment on the NewsHour.
but it gives Webb the inside track to replace McCain by 2016.
You better let Webb take a few turns in the Senate before you put him in line for President. Besides, I have a feeling that Webb is going to be thin skinned.
Wait until you see the faces of the House Committees. Talk about old and cold.
E&C will be chaired by John Dingell, age 80, who has been in Congress for 50 YEARS! (he succeeded his father who was in for 20 years before that).
Judiciary will be chaired by John Conyers, age 78 who has been in COngress for 41 years.
Ways and Means will be chaired by Charlie Rangel, age 77, who has been in Congress for 35 years.
It's hard to imagine these crusty guys taking orders from spritely Nancy Pelosi (age 66). Maybe they will listen to John Murtha (age 74) or Steny Hoyer (age 67)
Contrast this to Gingrich and Armey and Delay who were in their late 40s/early 50s when they came to power in 1995.
In fact the entire House Leadership and Committee Chairs will be collecting Social Security. How can we expect them to address entitlement reform?
Maybe its just me, but I have a hard time imagining this group appealing to young people.
It will be quite a difference if the Republicans pick Mike Pence and John Shadegg as minority leaders. They are both in their mid 40s. Even Boehner and Blunt are fairly young (mid 50s).
Things I love about this thread:
1. Republicans telling democrats a. what they think and b. what to do.
You lost. Get in the picture 'k. You lost. Our turn. And if you are nice we might let you enter into the debate but we don't owe you that, you have shut us out for 6 years so a gesture of cooperation is a courtesy and certainly not an obligation to your rudeness.
2. Pelosi or Hastert...hmmm let me think. Pelosi, spokesperson and lightning rod for the party during times when the ruling party wouldn't even let the minority party bring legislation to the floor...or Hastert.."hey dennis, you have a loony from Florida trying to bed the male pages"..."oh ok...after the election then...thanks denny".
3. and then you trot out Rudy G. as the great white hope for 2008.
Just want you to know that when Rudy dropped out of the race against Hillary in 2000 he was what, 15+ points behind her...remember that? and in case you forget that, I have a million posters in my garage that have a copy of the restraining order keeping Rudy from bringing his mistress back to Gracy Mansion while his wife and kid were there.
Mr. Morals my ass.
Stop whinning you republican sissyboys. you got beat like a rented mule and perhaps, just perhaps it was a centrist fakeout by the democrats but a repudiation of the arrogance and greed, the corruption and the sleaze that has marked your administration and leadership for the past 6 years and not only were the voters sick of it but you can count yourselves luck that the entire senate wasn't up for re-election or you would be looking at 60-40 til the cows come home.
go suck an egg.
Oh that last comment by hdhouse is exactly the dem's danger.
Mr. HDHouse (or mrs, or ms, or it), let me tell you something. I'm the reason the dem's won this election. How is that? I'm a Republican, member of the GOP, member of Blogs for Bush, member of GOP Bloggers, as well as my appropriate 'Ethnic Republican Committee'.
And I voted democratic in the election.
I'm that percentage that swung the election.
Now if the dem's govern moderately, reign in Bush, and slam the lid on the cookie jar, I'll be thrilled and visit you again in '08. If they push extreme positions and just redirect the money faucet to their pet projects (vs. the repub's pet projects), then my vote was wasted and you won't see me again.
Now I'm not telling you Dem's to be bipartisan, but if you want my support in the future, I am telling you to be moderate.
Sloanasaurus: "Wait until you see the faces of the House Committees. Talk about old and cold."
Actually, it wasn't so much the age of the people on Sloan's list that sent a chill through me, but the length of their tenure in Congress. 35 years? 41 years? 50 years?
I was always sort of a fence-sitter on term limits for Congress, but now I've come down strongly in favor of them. There's simply no reason for anyone to feed from the government trough for their entire adult life, because the power, the perks and the isolation from "regular" people tends to create an entrenched class of elitists who, in most cases, probably think they're better than the rest of us and pass legislation accordingly.
(I blog a lot about education topics, and I find the same problem with many school administrators; just as education would improve if an "administrators must teach" requirement were in place, government would improve if a "legislators must be regular citizens on occasion" provision were to be implemented.
My thoughts? After two terms in the Senate or four in the house, you have to sit out a term (maybe two). No "alumni" perks like the congressional health-care-for-life or any of that. If these people actually had to live for a few years as private citizens under the laws they created, I think we'd see an entirely different result upon their return to Congress.
wv: ukyleaba--either a cousin of the ukulele or the newest Arabic coffee at Starbucks.
Kev: RE: Term limits. The biggest problem with term limits as adopted in most states is that, by the time those elected have figured out how things work, they are out of office for good. The political and bureaucratic staff end up running the legislature, and they are never up for election.
Ronin--I never said that the bureaucrats got to stay when the reprsentatives left office, now, did I? ;-) Under my plan, the bureaucrats would be the first to go (I'm no fan of bureaucracies either, as you might imagine). The idea that anyone (save for maybe the employees of pseudo-governmental agencies like, say, the post office) would get to spend their entire career with the government is something that needs to change.
And re the "figuring out how things work" idea: My point is that a lot of things don't work right now.
"Rudy Guliani, by a country mile."
i am drooling with delight. ohmygod. please. if you exist let the numbnuts on the right get their way...please god. please.
You're not reading very carefully, Justin. Go back to the post where I said I was depressed. It gives a very specific reason. As to how much support I gave the Democrats, I voted for a Democrat for my Senator and for my Governor. And on this blog, I repeatedly showed favor for Webb over Allen. But quite apart from that, this post is not saying the Dems owe something specifically to me, but to people like me, that is the moderates. And the reason for this position is stated with crystal clarity at the end of this post. In short: your comment is quite inapt.
ann
maybe the issue is that elected officials should owe nothing to anyone. they should owe their entire constinuency everything but no one, no group, no party anything.
we have suffered through unbearable arrogance and "owing" these past 6 years and finally people said "i've had enough of this". there will be a period of readjustment while certain democrats play payback but generally, the incredible nastiness of the bush administration may be tempered - all to our benefit (collective)
Post a Comment