This is a copy of my reply to R. Neal over at Michael's place. Mike linked my post here, and Randy responded that the Dems were not either moving to the left and it was all a Rovian plot. I responded as follows, but the KNS website filtered out the links to the quotes. So here it is again, links intact.
OK, first a correction. I am not predicting a Republican victory in 2008; all I am saying is that if the Reps win, based on a more centrist strategy, then that would indicate a moderate majority, and end the idea that we are deeply divided. A Dem win would indicate the opposite, that a moderate majority does not exist.
Now, on to Randy's argument.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Democratic Party is not shifting to the left? (By the way, follow the link, read the post, and you won't have to assume anything. I spell it out.) You are truly a lone voice crying out in the wilderness if that is what you are saying.
I cannot predict how a message of contrast and confrontation will affect the unaffiliated moderates in the electorate but I think the Democrats must at least try it. The strategy of blurring differences has not worked for us in this partisan era and we need to try something new.
Atrios explaining why the Democratic Party must move to the left, and why he believes moderates will move with it.
The politics side has to do with a a Democratic party in which all the leading Democrats are forever running against their own party. Triangulation can work for one man, but when every leading Democrat is constantly falling all over themselves (yes, this is exaggeration) to distance themselves from Those Damn Dirty Democrats, you have a party which is without foundation and where capitulation is confused with bipartisanship.
One really has to wonder about the people who keep advocating a "unity" presidential ticket. Aside from the generally absurd notions of what a supermajority supported political center really is, it's an obscenely authoritarian elitist notion.
In any case, this is all a way of saying that in this all-or-nothing crisis the country has been passing through, I think it's made sense to line up with those who say, No. I guess I'm one of those partisanized moderates Kevin Drum has spoken of (not sure that's precisely the phrase he used.)
MoveON.org's Eli Pariser, on why moderation is no longer a good idea:
Originally employed as a survival strategy by a Democratic president in the wake of 1994's Republican revolution, the policy of seizing the political middle ground no longer makes sense...
There are more, many more, but you get the point. The perception that the Democratic Party is moving to the left is not some deception born of Karl Rove; it is the successful result of an intentional effort by members of the Party dissatisfied with Clintonian triangulation.
It might even work.
I'm kind of curious though. Why would Randy, along with many other Democrats, resist admitting what is obviously happening within their party, even when it is something they desperately hoped for? I can remember how SKB used to rant on his old blog about how moderate Democrats were the bane of a truly progressive party, and his opinions would be amplified by many of his usual commenters. Heck, just ask some of our own RTB members who are moderately liberal what kind of reception they used to get from SKB. Some of them were cussed worse than I was.
So why the pretense that there's nothing going on here, move along, nothing to see? Could it be that some are still afraid that honest open liberalism is a recipe for defeat at the polls?
Posted by Rich at August 16, 2006 10:04 PM | TrackBackthe center has moved to the right. for example, richard nixon today would be considered far too liberal for the republican party. many democratic politicians have been cowed into submission over the past five years, either through lack of a spine or general weak mindedness. in other words--they're politicians. many moderate republicans have veered right along with the bushites as well. extreme views from the right have become normalized (pro torture, anti civil liberties, pro unitary executive, etc), while attempts at checks and balances get derided for undermining our national imperative blah blah blah.
out of curiosity, could you answer these questions?
how do you define "liberal"?
and
how do you define "conservative"?
forgot to put my name.
Posted by: howie on August 18, 2006 8:10 PMThe real problem with the democratic party is that it is being hijacked by the extreme left. Every is so focused on being anti-war and anti-bush that no real opinions on other issues are making it through to the public. Besides those two issues, I have no idea what any prominent Democrat stands for.
Yet, the Republicans don't have that problem. They don't have to spend the energy bashing Bush so they can SEEM like they are being more productive. In all reality, they aren't being any more productive. Both parties are just as bad it this.
Maybe I need to start my own. People's Party for Progress anyone? Where people in the same party are encouraged to disagree and stand for what they actually believe ;)
Posted by: Isaac on August 19, 2006 12:00 AMHowie, your question on defining liberal vs republican is worthy of a post of its own, and I'll get to it as soon as possible.
Now, there's a simple indicator to see whether the center has moved right, or whether the Democratic party has moved left. Just check with the dissaffected members of both parties. From what I see in blogs, as referenced in the quotes I included, many in th Democratic Party are trying to move it to the left. As corroboration, moderate liberals are feeling abandoned by their party, claiming that it has been captured by the fringe.
Contrast that with the Republican Party, where the loudest voices are those that claim that the party has abandoned conservative principles, and moved too far to the center.
Granted, this is indicative only, and not definitive, but the bulk of the evidence indicates that the Democratic Party is shifting to the left.
Now then, if, as you say, the center has moved to the right, then the Democrat strategy of moving to the left will virtually guarantee defeat come Nov 2008, as they will be alienating centrist voters.
Which was my point all along.
Posted by: rich on August 21, 2006 1:47 PM