- comment
Cory Chandler - body
- "We're pretty certain at this point that Kilgore did indeed depress conservative turnout." Based on what empirical evidence? The fact that he lost? Which he couldn't have done if conservatives hadn't been depressed?
It may be easy for conservatives to persuade themselves that the sun rises and sets with their whim--that every Republican who wins wins because of conservatives, and every Republican who loses loses because conservatives stayed home. It may be easy for conservatives to persuade themselves that there is no center--that there are only conservatives and liberals. But how ever easy it may be for conservatives to persuade themselves of these points, they're wrong.
45% of the voters in the last presidential election self-identified as moderates. Moderates will generally vote for the candidate who seems less extreme, from either party. (In the president's case in 2004, he had significant support from moderates on national/homeland security, who voted for him on those issues despite their reservations on others.) In the Kilgore-Kaine race, Kaine successfully portrayed himself as more centrist than Kilgore--so Kaine won; in the Bolling-Byrne race, Bolling successfully portrayed Byrne as more liberal than Bolling himself was conservatve--so Bolling was the seemed the more centrist choice, and Bolling won. Only 34% of voters in the presidential election self-identified as conservative, which outnumber self-identified liberals (21%) but still falls short of the percentage of self-identified moderates. (And since most conservatives appear to consider "conservative" a label to be proud of and "moderate" a label to be spurned, it seems unlikely a lot of ideological conservatives self-identify as moderates.)
The irony in your use of the NLS post as a lever to further raise the pedestal on which conservatives are idolized is that perhaps two of the most conservative Senators are the ones at risk: Cuccinelli and O'Brien.
The president's approval rating is low because of deteriorating support for the commitment in Iraq; the appearance of corruption in the national Republican Party, including the White House and issues relating to Plame and pre-war intelligence; Katrina response; ballooning deficits; and general Bush fatigue. It may be easy to lump all these together and say, "The president's approval is low because he betrayed conservatives, who deserted him after the Miers nomination." If that were the case, oughtn't we to have seen a dramatic increase in his public approval with the Alito nomination? But 53% of Americans still disapprove of his performance.
Conservatives can ignore the center all it wants, and delude themselves into believe either that the center doesn't exist or that it plays an insignificant role in the outcome of elections. But conservatives will lose in general elections every time they do so. For the party to lose seats in 2007, all that Republicans need do is nominate candidates more conservative than Democratic candidates are liberal. The candidate farthest from the center will lose.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Define "moderate" or "centrism", please. Moderation of what? Centrism between what?
The word doesn't mean anything. People identify themselves as moderates or centrists because it has the connotations of thoughtfulness and consideration, when in the end it only represents... what precisely?
I submit that moderates stand for nothing. It's safe. It proposes nothing, it submits no new ideas, it resolves nothing.
Moderation might be pragmatic, and in a marketplace of ideas they might have their role. But in the end, moderation for it's own sake is worthless.
...just to stir the pot a bit! ;)
- comment Cory Chandler
- body
- "Moderate" and "centrist," Mr. Kenney, describes that vast gulf of the electorate lying between "conservative" and "liberal." I'm not going to presume to settle internal policy debates among moderates for you here, but you're welcome to read the postings at Centerfield, where I occasionally contribute, and the arguments and rebuttals on the threads there. I don't agree with everything there, but it is the largest and most comprehensive site for bipartisan moderates I'm aware of.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Now that's not exactly what I would call definitive, yes?
Until someone can define precisely what a "moderate" is, then how can anyone possibly claim that they are a political force or a potential third way?
Moderates come in as many flavors as you find in a Baskin Robbins.
Yet unlike liberals or conservatives (who will never identify themselves as moderate), moderates will readily identify themselves with ideas that are very much liberal or conservative, and in the end are only modifications of political philosophies that - in the end - aren't all that dissimilar.
"Moderate" and "centrist" are so polysemic that the words are ultimately meaningless, and are probably so generic that they are ultimately worthless when you get into the nitty-gritty of specific issues (i.e. what is the defensible moderate position on abortion? Taxes? Death penalty? Immigration? Free enterprise? Free speech?).
I'd be interested to read what a logical summary of what the centrist or moderate beleives are guiding principles, so long as it's not a polished version of the lowest common denominator.
- comment Cory Chandler
- body
- I've never described moderates as a "third way." But moderates are a political force; if they weren't conservatives wouldn't be so concerned about them. I know you're not so absolutist as to believe that there are only two flavors of voters in Virginia, conservative and liberal. And if you are, then I don't think you'll be a successful candidate any time soon.
I can't tell you what the universe of moderates think on a menu of items, just as you can't tell me what the universe of conservatives think on a menu of items. We are not monolithic--which may be our key difference from the partisans, if you really believe there's a monolithic conservative universe out there. I don't think, for example, you're going to be able to tie George F. Will and Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan and Gary Bauer all in a sack and have them come out after a period of time with a unified platform on many issues.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- But there are issues that unify the Bauers, Bushs, Robertsons, and Buchanans of the world, hence the reason why they describe themselves as conservative.
Most moderates describe themselves as such because they have one or two issues that make them so. For instance, a Republican might be anti-tax, pro-gun, but on the issue of life might be pro-abortion. That person might share 80% of the Republican platform, and wouldn't hesitate for a second to call themselves Republican, but because they deviate from one issue, they ID themselves as "moderate".
Even though they are mostly conservative...
Same on the left. Might share 80% of the issues, but disagree with the national Dems on Iraq or homosexual marriage. So they too are now "moderates". Mostly liberal, but...
I think you get my point. Most self-declared moderates are nothing of the sort. In fact, on the majority of their positions, they could probably be identified by one major ideology or another.
For those who are not liberal or conservative, I think you'd be hard pressed to ID a libertarian, libertine, populist, socialist, communist, nazi, anarchist, green, as "moderate", but they are certainly third-way ideologies.
Further, if we really sit down and think about it, there isn't a whole lot that separates liberals and conservatives on what the role of government is. 2004: Kerry and Bush really didn't disagree on many issues. Iraq? Both were in for the long haul. Education? Bush doubled education spending.
In the end, the differences weren't in what we wanted government to do, but how we want government to do it.
I don't see where a true moderate holding both ends of the political spectrum together really has a role. Variations on a theme might be a better description of a moderate, but a true principled position of moderation? I just don't see it.
- comment Cory Chandler
- body
- I think you're wrong when you say that a moderate is a person who, for example, embraces 80% of the issues in the Republican platform, but 20% of the issues in the Democratic platform. I think you'd be closer if you were to posit that a moderate will go along with 80% of what Republicans want to do on most of their issues. For example, a moderate isn't in favor of confiscating all guns, but doesn't oppose restricting ownership of those guns commonly referred to as assault weapons; moderates tend to agree that handgun registration is a good idea, rejecting the NRA's rhetoric that registration is the first step to confiscation. Moderates don't like abortion, but they don't see a valid role for the state in the issue when the woman involved is a competent adult with the financial resources to pay for one without relying on the state; on the other hand, there may be a role for the state when the woman involved is underage, or wants the state to pay for the abortion, unless there are countervailing factors like rape, incest, or the woman's health.
In short, moderates are in the center of the issue, not at one end of 80% of the issues 80% and at the opposite end of the other 20%.
Each issue has its own spectrum from left to right. At some point along the spectrum on each issue, moving from right to left, one ceases to be a conservative on that issue; at some point farther along the spectrum, one becomes a liberal on that issue. The aggregate of one's positions on all these issues may be somewhere in the middle in one of two ways: the way you suggest (conservative or liberal sometimes and the converse the other times; or, by being neither conservative nor liberal most of the time.
7 Comments:
It may be easy for conservatives to persuade themselves that the sun rises and sets with their whim--that every Republican who wins wins because of conservatives, and every Republican who loses loses because conservatives stayed home. It may be easy for conservatives to persuade themselves that there is no center--that there are only conservatives and liberals. But how ever easy it may be for conservatives to persuade themselves of these points, they're wrong.
45% of the voters in the last presidential election self-identified as moderates. Moderates will generally vote for the candidate who seems less extreme, from either party. (In the president's case in 2004, he had significant support from moderates on national/homeland security, who voted for him on those issues despite their reservations on others.) In the Kilgore-Kaine race, Kaine successfully portrayed himself as more centrist than Kilgore--so Kaine won; in the Bolling-Byrne race, Bolling successfully portrayed Byrne as more liberal than Bolling himself was conservatve--so Bolling was the seemed the more centrist choice, and Bolling won. Only 34% of voters in the presidential election self-identified as conservative, which outnumber self-identified liberals (21%) but still falls short of the percentage of self-identified moderates. (And since most conservatives appear to consider "conservative" a label to be proud of and "moderate" a label to be spurned, it seems unlikely a lot of ideological conservatives self-identify as moderates.)
The irony in your use of the NLS post as a lever to further raise the pedestal on which conservatives are idolized is that perhaps two of the most conservative Senators are the ones at risk: Cuccinelli and O'Brien.
The president's approval rating is low because of deteriorating support for the commitment in Iraq; the appearance of corruption in the national Republican Party, including the White House and issues relating to Plame and pre-war intelligence; Katrina response; ballooning deficits; and general Bush fatigue. It may be easy to lump all these together and say, "The president's approval is low because he betrayed conservatives, who deserted him after the Miers nomination." If that were the case, oughtn't we to have seen a dramatic increase in his public approval with the Alito nomination? But 53% of Americans still disapprove of his performance.
Conservatives can ignore the center all it wants, and delude themselves into believe either that the center doesn't exist or that it plays an insignificant role in the outcome of elections. But conservatives will lose in general elections every time they do so. For the party to lose seats in 2007, all that Republicans need do is nominate candidates more conservative than Democratic candidates are liberal. The candidate farthest from the center will lose.
The word doesn't mean anything. People identify themselves as moderates or centrists because it has the connotations of thoughtfulness and consideration, when in the end it only represents... what precisely?
I submit that moderates stand for nothing. It's safe. It proposes nothing, it submits no new ideas, it resolves nothing.
Moderation might be pragmatic, and in a marketplace of ideas they might have their role. But in the end, moderation for it's own sake is worthless.
...just to stir the pot a bit! ;)
Until someone can define precisely what a "moderate" is, then how can anyone possibly claim that they are a political force or a potential third way?
Moderates come in as many flavors as you find in a Baskin Robbins.
Yet unlike liberals or conservatives (who will never identify themselves as moderate), moderates will readily identify themselves with ideas that are very much liberal or conservative, and in the end are only modifications of political philosophies that - in the end - aren't all that dissimilar.
"Moderate" and "centrist" are so polysemic that the words are ultimately meaningless, and are probably so generic that they are ultimately worthless when you get into the nitty-gritty of specific issues (i.e. what is the defensible moderate position on abortion? Taxes? Death penalty? Immigration? Free enterprise? Free speech?).
I'd be interested to read what a logical summary of what the centrist or moderate beleives are guiding principles, so long as it's not a polished version of the lowest common denominator.
I can't tell you what the universe of moderates think on a menu of items, just as you can't tell me what the universe of conservatives think on a menu of items. We are not monolithic--which may be our key difference from the partisans, if you really believe there's a monolithic conservative universe out there. I don't think, for example, you're going to be able to tie George F. Will and Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan and Gary Bauer all in a sack and have them come out after a period of time with a unified platform on many issues.
Most moderates describe themselves as such because they have one or two issues that make them so. For instance, a Republican might be anti-tax, pro-gun, but on the issue of life might be pro-abortion. That person might share 80% of the Republican platform, and wouldn't hesitate for a second to call themselves Republican, but because they deviate from one issue, they ID themselves as "moderate".
Even though they are mostly conservative...
Same on the left. Might share 80% of the issues, but disagree with the national Dems on Iraq or homosexual marriage. So they too are now "moderates". Mostly liberal, but...
I think you get my point. Most self-declared moderates are nothing of the sort. In fact, on the majority of their positions, they could probably be identified by one major ideology or another.
For those who are not liberal or conservative, I think you'd be hard pressed to ID a libertarian, libertine, populist, socialist, communist, nazi, anarchist, green, as "moderate", but they are certainly third-way ideologies.
Further, if we really sit down and think about it, there isn't a whole lot that separates liberals and conservatives on what the role of government is. 2004: Kerry and Bush really didn't disagree on many issues. Iraq? Both were in for the long haul. Education? Bush doubled education spending.
In the end, the differences weren't in what we wanted government to do, but how we want government to do it.
I don't see where a true moderate holding both ends of the political spectrum together really has a role. Variations on a theme might be a better description of a moderate, but a true principled position of moderation? I just don't see it.
In short, moderates are in the center of the issue, not at one end of 80% of the issues 80% and at the opposite end of the other 20%.
Each issue has its own spectrum from left to right. At some point along the spectrum on each issue, moving from right to left, one ceases to be a conservative on that issue; at some point farther along the spectrum, one becomes a liberal on that issue. The aggregate of one's positions on all these issues may be somewhere in the middle in one of two ways: the way you suggest (conservative or liberal sometimes and the converse the other times; or, by being neither conservative nor liberal most of the time.
Post a Comment
Home