A successful election strategy is about two things: getting your voters to the polls on election day, and demoralizing or diminishing the voter base of your opponent.
As a veteran of a congressional campaign where I served as the speechwriter and Issues Committee Chairman for a successful candidate, I had a rare opportunity to bring theory (my academic training) and real-world practice together, and learn what it truly took to elect an individual to national office. I’ve been reminded of so many of those lessons these past few days by watching John McCain select, and then introduce, Sarah Palin to the American electorate.
A successful election strategy is about two things: getting your voters to the polls on election day, and demoralizing or diminishing the voter base of your opponent. This seems to be a simple enough statement, but first we need some definitional details and common sense acknowledgements before we can draw any real insights for the 2008 election.
Energizing the base
You can’t energize your base unless you have a candidate who appeals to and embraces their core interests.
In the case of McCain-Palin, that candidate occupies the #2 spot. McCain’s “maverick” status has given enough people heartburn to question where he actually stands on immigration, tax reform, and a number of other conservative issues. McCain, by himself, can’t do the job, and normally this would spell doom for the ticket. But these aren’t “normal” times, and thus we see the significance of the Palin nomination.
McCain’s problem is his media-hyped reluctance to associate himself with core conservative issues. I say media-hyped, because unless you’re a party insider or know McCain personally, most of what we understand about him has been filtered through the liberal press or conservative talk radio. McCain is a conservative at heart, or a conservative on occasion, depending upon the issue and who’s doing the reporting.
For example, a case can be made that he initially opposed Bush’s tax plan just to take a swipe at the guy who beat him “unfairly” in the 2000 North Carolina primary. McCain has a long memory for those who’ve done him wrong, and he’s not above sticking it to them whenever he can. This makes him a political opportunist at worst, or a fair-weather conservative at best.
On the other hand, I can also maker a case that “maverick” John McCain really believed that the Bush tax plan had key deficiencies, and in good faith couldn’t support that particular piece of legislation. Had the plan been tweaked, McCain would have fallen in line behind the President as he has on other important issues. This makes him a principled conservative; a man willing to do the right thing, even when it initially gives him bad publicity.
So, what’s the truth here? Damned if I know, which is why I and countless others fumed over his primary success, and chaffed at the notion that he would become the 2008 Republican Party standard bearer. The best I, and I suspect many others, could do to comfort ourselves was acknowledge that either McCain or the Democrat nominee stood any realistic chance of getting elected. McCain vs. Hillary or McCain vs. Obama led to the same decision: I’d rather have a guy who’s a fair weather conservative overseeing national defense, nominating key judges, helping define tax policy, and making other critical decisions than a left-wing former Community Organizer or the self-possessed wife of a disgraced former president.
Any other vote would be meaningless in electoral terms. Symbolic gestures are great when the consequences are nil. As much as I think the last speeding ticket I got was unfair, I didn’t tear it up in front of the cop’s face in a grand symbolic gesture, then toss it onto the street. In addition to the fine I’d get for littering, at that point I’m sure he’d take a much closer look at whether my car was completely roadworthy, or whether I’d committed any other infractions in addition to exceeding the speed limit. In short, that symbolism has real world consequences, much like writing in the name this November of a failed Republican candidate, or pulling the lever for a guaranteed losing third party. Neither action will help you win any political power, and may possibly help elect your opponent as the Nadarites in Florida found out in 2000.
And so, I was prepared to vote against Obama and not for McCain. Yes, the end result is the same as casting a vote for McCain, but this observation fails to recognize the importance of the process leading up to that vote. Pulling the lever for Candidate X guarantees a vote for Candidate X, but it doesn’t guarantee that you will contribute to his campaign (thus helping him publicize his message to increase his overall vote), volunteer your services, defend him when he’s attacked by others around the office water cooler (and in so doing perhaps bolster the resolve of a sagging voter within earshot), or do any one of the myriad other things necessary to actually win an election.
McCain, himself, was not capable of energizing his base. Romney, Pawleny, Huckabee, etc. as his choice for Veep would have helped, but helped in the way an extra bucket or two bails water from a damaged boat to keep it afloat. Their addition on the ticket would have stabilized the damage, but not necessarily repaired it.
Then, along came Palin. Young, dynamic, ideologically conservative and an accomplished executive; in short, the epitome of the next generation Conservative politician. Oh, and she’s a woman too. (Note to file: gender for Conservatives is the icing on a delicious cake. For the Left, it is the cake.)
Then, along came the attacks on Palin by the sanctimonious Left. She was condemned for being a bad mother who had too many children (period), who had too many children including a special needs child who she didn’t abort, for never really having a special needs child at all (she was covering for her white trash daughter), for not enough Washington exposure (as if that’s a bad thing), for having bad hair, for having supported candidates and parties she never actually supported or joined, for having an affair with her husband’s business partner that he denied and she denied and there was no evidence anyway — but it made a good story; for her husband’s DUI (20 years ago; about the same time Obama was snorting coke by his own admission), and for a bunch of other equally vicious rumors and innuendo disguised as facts.
The assault on Palin’s intellect and character was relentless. And remember, all this took place within the first 24-48 hours under the guise of the mainstream media “just doing its job.” The only charge that wasn’t made was a quasi-believable one. Sometime in the early sixties Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher met for a romantic weekend and conceived a child who, four decades later, was selected by John McCain to be his presidential running mate.
When Palin failed to live up to that image during her acceptance speech at the Republican convention, all these attacks had the precisely opposite effect. Rather than diminish her, they elevated her in the minds of the base and the population at large. Whatever McCain is or isn’t, Palin represents the wave of the future. She’s had more political sh*t thrown at her in four days by the mainstream press and their kook allies than Obama has had to field in the last 36 months. Not only did she weather the crisis, she threw the excrement back in their collective faces.
The conservative base is energized because as the next vice President of the United States, Palin is uniquely positioned to succeed McCain in office. Should McCain lose in 2008, she’s already the frontrunner for 2012 (can you say Palin-Jindal?) Whatever McCain is or isn’t at his core, Palin “is.”
The Republican Party and its conservative base are pumped. The media, having shot its wad and lost “big time,” does not have enough days left between now and November 4 to recover their lost credibility sufficiently to mount another successful smear. Any demeaning information — even if it contains an element of truth — will be looked at with suspicion by the base and the general public. The only effective enemy Sarah Palin has now is herself. If she drools, or faints, or says something so egregiously stupid during the campaign or debates that it cannot be explained away, the positive image she presents today will be diminished.
Unfortunately for the press and Obama, from what I’ve seen in the last couple of days, that is not likely.
Demoralizing your opponents
And so we get to the second part of the electoral equation: suppressing the vote of your opponents.
To the Left, this means disqualifying candidates (as Obama did throughout his political career to run virtually unopposed), preventing your supporters from actually voting (as Gore tried to do with the 2000 military absentee ballots in Florida), and generally smearing your political enemies to demoralize their base (the last minute Bush DUI revelation in 2000; the Dan Rather phony draft dodging story in 2004; the Sarah Palin attacks in 2008). It doesn’t mean observing actual election law which prevents hanging, dimpled or semi-aborted chads from being counted, insisting that only US citizens and registered voters actually be allowed to vote, or questioning the motives of the hyper-partisan mainstream media as it seeks to destroy a candidate.
“Suppressing the vote,” as practiced by the Right, means pointing out legitimate things that will cause your opponent’s potential voters to lose enthusiasm for their candidate. Things like, how he votes to treat children who survive a botched abortion; the political philosophy of the advisors and supporters he surrounds himself with; the choices he makes to seek spiritual guidance from a pastor who thinks the US government invented AIDS and deliberately infected the black population; how he actually financed the purchase of his home; what he actually did/didn’t do (as opposed to pontificate about) when in office — and other legitimate issues.
Suppressing the vote can also involve picking the strategically correct candidate. Obama tried to do this with Biden, hoping to silence the critics who claimed that he (Obama) was too inexperienced to be president, and thus give independents and moderate Republicans a reason to vote for “hope and change.” Unfortunately for Obama, Biden is the ultimate Washington insider, and a bit of a loose cannon, who has done little to boost Obama’s standing in the polls. It only took a few moments after his nomination was announced for the Biden “Gaffe-o-meter” to start going off as the man who survived two brain aneurisms pledged his support to “Barack America.”
McCain has played this game too this by picking a woman, which touches the very heart and soul of the sex and race-based politics of the Democrat Party. The only other woman to ever earn her party’s nomination for vice president was called a racist by her fellow Democrats for pointing out the obvious: if Obama was a white Senator with two years national experience, he never would have secured his party’s nomination, let alone run for the presidency in the first place. Moreover, Hillary’s supporters didn’t simply support Hillary because of her positions on the issues (there’s not much difference between her and Obama on any major points); they were looking to have a woman ascend to the presidency because she was a woman.
Race and sex guide the Left’s worldview, and by nominating a woman to run as his partner, McCain has entered that debate. No one believes that die-hard feminists who awake every morning thinking “how do I preserve my right to kill my own baby” will vote for McCain because his VP sits instead of stands when she pees. Some of the PUMAs (“Party Unity My Ass”) will — but these are women who hate Obama for dissing their gal, and like our Ron Paul Republicans, will deny Obama their vote to punish him. A few of them may actually pull the Republican lever in November, but I believe that most PUMAs will fall into the same category as conflicted feminists in general. That is, while they may not be able to actually vote for an evil Republican, they can’t bring themselves to vote against a fellow seat-sitter. So, they’ll opt out and either stay home, or just bypass the presidential selection on the ballot and move on to the other races. Either way it’s a vote the Democrat nominee loses in his effort to outdo his Republican opponent.
Just how many Leftist and politically-correct ”moderate” women will absent themselves from the presidential race? I don’t know. But it’s an extra obstacle for Obama to overcome, and one that could very well make the difference in an increasingly close race.
To drive the point home clearly, the only place this calculation really matters is in the battleground states where the Red-Blue outcome is not already determined. It doesn’t make any difference whether the base is jazzed or the opposition is demoralized in Texas and New York. McCain will win Texas, and Obama will win New York — though perhaps by smaller margins, and certainly with less financial and other support if the opposing candidate is successful at discouraging these base voters. But in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and a few other select states, it matters — and matters greatly. Any effort that energizes the base and/or dispirits the opposition here is a winning electoral strategy.
On both counts, McCain has played the game brilliantly.
Palin – Jindal, I like the sound of that.
Excellent article. I agree, with McCain being who he is,… Palin is the cake.
Phillip:
Let me give you the view from the center, and the unique position on IC of being an undecided voter, between McCain and Obama.
I personally do not like Palin and disliked her speech. I find her divisive and nasty. And I find that this response of mine is more visceral than ideological.
I liked Thompson's speech. Although, I disagree with him on many issues, I consider him an honest issues conservative who is more concerned with what is right than fighting the culture wars. Kind of the difference between my admiration for WJB and my disgust for Rush Limbaugh.
Lieberman was also very impressive even if he made the delegates squirm, with his praise of Clinton for being bipartisan, which was both somewhat true, and great politics for McCain, in trying to win over the Clinton supporters. Giuliani always reminds me of my Italian barber, who, as a kid, used to wap me on the head for squirming too much and Romney reminds me of a used car salesman. I must have missed Huckabee's speech, but I do respect the man and that would have been a choice that would have rallied the evangelicals without turning off the middle and myself, specifically.
Yes, it is important to rally the base, but this election will be decided in the middle, by the Reagan and centrist Clinton Democrats and undecided. The generic GOP ballot is behind 5-10% and there are basically not enough ideological Republicans to win this year. In my own home state of NC, Hagen has now opened up a 2% advantage over Dole, who is a mainstream incumbent Republican without strong negatives, vs. McCain still about 3% over Obama, a spread of about 5 % ( http://www.electionprojection.com )
The idea that conservatives would stay home in droves rather than vote for McCain, I don't think is correct. Just following on IC, since it became clear that McCain was the nominee, the trend is that most everybody is going to swallow their gum and vote for McCain. Republicans tend to be loyal and pragmatic and will not give the election away. They have not had to deal with a Nader equivalent since Buchanan, unless Ron Paul decides to enter the fray.
I believe Obama is about the poorest candidate the Dems could offer. As Thompson correctly stated, he is inexperienced and very liberal.
That Palin could repeat the charge about experience is nonsensical. Her experience in government rivals Obama's.
Obama's speeches tend to be more ethereal than specific which is starting to hurt him, but I have heard him interviewed, and he is quite knowledgable and intelligent, even if he is much more liberal than myself. Stupid people are not usually elected to be president of the Harvard Law Review. I don't know of Palin's smarts, and perhaps I am an Eastern elitist, but soccer mom goes no further in advancing attractability for national office, than I would want the fry cook at Biscuitville to be the CEO of General Motors.
In a way, there is a lot of similarity between Obama's and Palin's candidacies. Both have caught the publics imagination for their uniqueness and freshness. In Obama's case, the bloom is off the rose, and his silver tongue and affable personality won't counter his inexperience and far from the center politic. You could see that by the end of the Dem primaries, where HC was ahead in most polls and gaining, but time and Obama's early lead and organization were too hard to beat. I think the same might be true of Palin if the season is still long enough, she will have to answer some serious questions about supporting Alaska secession and will need to demonstrate something beyond being out of the political mold.
Lastly, my friend Phillip, as to the lefts disparagement of Palin, I do not spend as much time on the Left as you do and I don't doubt that there are sufficient enough nutcases on that end to fill the Titanic, but that goes for the right, too. I stick with the NY Times and NPR, nominally left enough by your thinking, nuh?, and I see no great swift boating of Mrs. Palin. Obama made it quite clear, early, that her family was off limits.
Phillip, as you are often wont to do, you run off a litany of historical Democratic sins and transgressions, and I could easily counter with an equal number of GOP sins, but it would be a futile argument. I do not believe that either side of the political spectrum has cornered the market on sin, but you feel, that your guys have the white hats and everybody from center left is misanthropic.
What is refreshing about John McCain is that he is above that mentality, and he represents the admirable mindset that you can disagree with your political opponents while still respecting them as intelligent human beings. This is humility and generosity and may just carry the day for a country that is weary of partisanship.
Yonkel:
Interesting comments. Let me reply to a few of them:
“I personally do not like Palin and disliked her speech. I find her divisive and nasty. And I find that this response of mine is more visceral than ideological.”
** I think that’s probably a correct assessment of your reaction. As political barbs go, they were pretty timid. But, they were also spot on (thus the ‘pain’ Obama supporters feel). Because of the political correctness of American politics, it’s impossible to say bluntly what can be said just as plainly, and effectively, with humor. Palin had the right touch to make the non-ideologues think about real issues, because she presented them in a humorous but effective way.
“Lieberman was also very impressive even if he made the delegates squirm, with his praise of Clinton for being bipartisan …”
*** Again, I think you’re seeing the world through your ideology. The Republican delegates didn’t “squirm”. They were happy to play along for the cameras and applaud Clinton because it furthered the message that Obama isn’t the best choice the Dems could have made. Conventions do this all the time when the Republicans praise JFK’s tax policies and the Dems praise Lincoln. It was all political theater designed to appeal to the moderates, who like the idea of bipartisanship and harmony in a world that is actually governed by partisanship and self-centeredness.
“Giuliani always reminds me of my Italian barber, who, as a kid, used to wap me on the head for squirming too much”
*** Which is why he was an effective prosecutor and mayor.
“and Romney reminds me of a used car salesman.”
*** We are in complete agreement here.
“I must have missed Huckabee's speech, but I do respect the man and that would have been a choice that would have rallied the evangelicals without turning off the middle and myself, specifically.”
*** Yeah, but he would have killed the base. The Huck is too slick by a half in the way he went after Romney’s religion. He’s the Republican counterpart to Obama, but with better credentials. He can give a great speech — and he was actually a governor instead of a community organizer — but in the end there’s no there, there.
“Yes, it is important to rally the base, but this election will be decided in the middle, by the Reagan and centrist Clinton Democrats and undecided.”
*** The middle is irrelevant if the base doesn’t turn out. Energizing the base does not automatically mean turning off Reagan Democrats and so-called centrists. While the Republican base may hold some more “extreme” views than these folks (just as the Democrat/Left base does), I think you’ll find that most people in the center are closer to God and guns than being the bitter-clingers Obama suggested. When both parties speak to their base, the center moves to the more conservative side than the code-pink side.
“The generic GOP ballot is behind 5-10% and there are basically not enough ideological Republicans to win this year.”
*** This is why it’s always good to look at elections between actual people, and focus on the electoral college and battleground states, instead of the theoretical national vote. By the way, it makes a difference if the people being polled are active voters, registered voters, or just “adults”.
“Just following on IC, since it became clear that McCain was the nominee, the trend is that most everybody is going to swallow their gum and vote for McCain. Republicans tend to be loyal and pragmatic and will not give the election away. They have not had to deal with a Nader equivalent since Buchanan, unless Ron Paul decides to enter the fray.”
*** Yeah, I’ll buy most of this. But like my article said, it’s not just the actual vote that matters. It’s all the attendant benefits that come from a truly energized base that makes the difference. I still voted for Dole in 96 even though I wanted to vomit at the choice. But I — and most others — didn’t work to help get him elected. Clinton was weak in 1996 and would have lost if we’d nominated a candidate who actually energized the Republican base, instead of Dole because it was “his turn”.
“I believe Obama is about the poorest candidate the Dems could offer. As Thompson correctly stated, he is inexperienced and very liberal.”
*** Which again is why these “generic ballots” don’t matter much, except to give a broad image of things that can be easily tweaked by a savvy candidate.
“That Palin could repeat the charge about experience is nonsensical. Her experience in government rivals Obama's.”
*** This is where you are dead wrong. If all she was was the mayor of a hick town, maybe that’s equivalent to a community organizer. But I’ll put up the executive responsibility and authority of a governor against the polemics of a US senator who never managed anything other than his staff any day.
“Stupid people are not usually elected to be president of the Harvard Law Review. I don't know of Palin's smarts, and perhaps I am an Eastern elitist, but soccer mom goes no further in advancing attractability for national office, than I would want the fry cook at Biscuitville to be the CEO of General Motors.”
*** This gets into the discussion I had in http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/09/02/the-need-for-hosts-why-liberals-can-never-lose-control-of-the-universities/ about the need to allow only the “educated and intelligent” to govern us. A brief excerpt from a much longer post:
“Exactly who certifies someone as “intelligent and educated”? I have a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, and an IQ to match. By your own logic, I am brighter and more educated than 99.9% of the population (perhaps even you). Unless you have a Ph.D from an equally prestigious institution and a matching IQ, by your own logic you should accept what I say without dissent because, as one of the intelligent and educated people who you think should be running things, I’m now telling you what to do for your (and society’s) own good. Fortunately, I am intelligent and educated enough to know that this is a crock. Some of the brightest people I know never went to college, and some of the stupidest have Ph.D.s You are mouthing platitudes by speaking abstractly about “intelligent and educated” people. … There isn’t anything close to unanimous agreement on socio-political issues among the intelligent and educated — unless you limit your viewing to MSNBC.”
To put this in practical terms, the haberdasher Harry Truman was a better president than the nuclear engineer Jimmy Carter. Stupid people do get elected president, just as smart ones do, and average ones do. Smart ones do stupid things at times, and stupid ones do smart things at times. The nomination of a candidate by his party is not based on IQ tests or academic achievement. It based on understanding their primary process well enough to defeat their opponents. This has to do with street smarts, not book smarts. Obama’s educational achievements are meaningless in this evaluation, except as background noise.
“In Obama's case, the bloom is off the rose, and his silver tongue and affable personality won't counter his inexperience and far from the center politic. You could see that by the end of the Dem primaries, where HC was ahead in most polls and gaining, but time and Obama's early lead and organization were too hard to beat. I think the same might be true of Palin if the season is still long enough, she will have to answer some serious questions about supporting Alaska secession and will need to demonstrate something beyond being out of the political mold.”
*** But the season will be over in less than 60 days, and therein lies the difference. I agree with your assessment of Obama. But thanks to the media’s attempted slander, Palin is bulletproof through November 4.
“Lastly, my friend Phillip, as to the lefts disparagement of Palin, I do not spend as much time on the Left as you do and I don't doubt that there are sufficient enough nutcases on that end to fill the Titanic, but that goes for the right, too. I stick with the NY Times and NPR, nominally left enough by your thinking, nuh?, and I see no great swift boating of Mrs. Palin. Obama made it quite clear, early, that her family was off limits.”
*** Swiftboating is in the eye of the beholder! I’m not as generous in my assessment of the NY Times’ objectivity as you are, but my comments about the media in general still stand unchallenged, even though you’ve personally limited your exposure to the nutcases. NBC, CBS, MSNBC, US magazine to name four have been just as egregious as the Daily Kos, so it isn’t only the kook fringe of the far Left doing this.
“Phillip, as you are often wont to do, you run off a litany of historical Democratic sins and transgressions, and I could easily counter with an equal number of GOP sins, but it would be a futile argument. I do not believe that either side of the political spectrum has cornered the market on sin, but you feel, that your guys have the white hats and everybody from center left is misanthropic.”
*** You know by reading my material that I attack the nuts on the far Right with equal vigor, so I reject this assessment of my work as automatically favoring the Right. I’m just a small voice countering some of the really vile stuff coming from the Left, where there is no effort to control or denounce their kooks.
Good discussion, Phil.
Top notch once again, Phil.
One thing to add: I abhor the assertion that because one side is doing such-and-such, it's not so bad that the other side is also: "… I could easily counter with an equal number of GOP sins…" Can someone tell me how this justifies bad behavior?
Yes, there are kooks on each side, evil people all around. But when the Left does something nasty, illegal, or underhanded, the dinosaur media are largely silent. I looked in vain for the "D" identifier in front of felon Mayor Kilpatrick of Detroit, for example. SOMEONE has to chronicle the excesses of the Left! I for one am glad that you are one of the few to point this stuff out.
A recent Newsweek article linked from my MSN home page "fact checked" Palin's convention speech. As I expected, when I ran a search of Newsweek's archives, there was no corresponding article which fact checked Biden's speech. In fact, there was no other articles at all that used the term "fact check." Hmm.
One of the main problems of the "centrists" is that they seem to simply follow the tide. When they express a conviction, it usually leans left. They seem to have this smug "Above the fray" attitude that is entirely unjustified by the situation.
They resent being identified with any particular ideology, and as such do not seem to have one themselves. Yet they are quick to pounce when someone takes a stand on something. "No one should be so sure. Who are you to judge."
I can at least understand leftists, since they are consistent. They are willing to take a stand (even though the stand they take is often emotional and not thought out). But centrists can be all over the map, sometimes for pragmatic reasons, but mostly for an assumed superiority over us lock-step, robotic partisans.
"But centrists can be all over the map, sometimes for pragmatic reasons, but mostly for an assumed superiority over us lock-step, robotic partisans."
Well, not all of them. As a (now former) Centrist, I found myself trying to derive some sort of path that made use of the best of both sides' ideas. But you know what I found? It's very rarely possible to actually do so.
When you come to that realization as a Centrist, your choices are but two: widen your encompassing of the ideas from both sides – and that's where the "all over the map" has it's roots – or take a stand, on one side or the other.
Which is essentially what I have done.
Interesting, L.A.M.. So you're saying that being a centrist doesn't actually facilitate a cogent ideology, because of the difficulty of taking ideas from each side makes you a pariah to both?
Or perhaps it means that there is no actual identification with a group of like-minded individuals, since the "center" is comprised of people who all picked and chose their issues from both sides, and they don't line up with other centrists?
I've noticed that each side of the political spectrum is comprised largely of like-minded people. There is to some degree some diversity, of course, but on a number of key issues everyone on that side pretty much agrees.
What I have discovered is that Leftists demand a more rigid ideological uniformity to be part of the group. That's why Joe Liebermann was jettisoned. That's why pro-life Democrats are suppressed. That's why feminism isn't about womens' rights, it's about liberalism.
But conservatives embrace ideological diversity, and don't regard things like skin color and gender as not an issue at all. They prefer reasoned, thoughtful debate and have a live-and-let-live attitude.
They like discussing ideas, and they try to have discourse with leftists. They are frequently unable to do so, however, because leftists are emotion-based, and there is no reasoning with emotional people. To a leftist, conservatives are not simply people with a differing opinion. Conservatives are not even wrong per se.
Leftists believe that conservatives are evil, they actively want to hurt people. They are greedy, hateful and oppressive. Government is god to most leftists, the answer to every problem, the fixer of every inequity. And conservatives want less of that god, they want to take its power away, they want to emasculate the diety of the Left.
So there is no courteous, respectful dialogue, because it's good vs. evil. Tolerance vs. bigotry. Peace vs. hate.
MM:
Over time, I found that Centrism has a great deal of "slop-room" to it; far too much. I have met people who self-claim Centrism as their "ideology," but who's belief-system was not similar to my own at all. It's far too wide-open to actually even call it an Ideology (hence the previous quotes). An ideology contains shared concepts staunchly held, and Centrist thought can't, save "encompass as much of the fringes as you can, and try to make it work." And it ultimately doesn't and can't.
Middle-of-the-road paths are very difficult to follow. They inevitably encompass far too many divergent concepts and can't focus on simple goals. Hence the "all over the map" aspect.
I suppose, yes, one does become a sort of Pariah. But that's specific Ideology speaking, since by definition, Centrist thinking will naturally include concepts that are rejected by one side or the other. Many times, both sides.
Just too vague to be a Political position.
People self-polarize; that's human nature. However, Centrists try to deliberately not do so. And look at where it leads: non-positions on crucial issues. Perhaps all issues.
Mountain Man:
"Leftists believe that conservatives are evil, they actively want to hurt people. They are greedy, hateful and oppressive. Government is god to most leftists, the answer to every problem, the fixer of every inequity. And conservatives want less of that god, they want to take its power away, they want to emasculate the diety of the Left.
So there is no courteous, respectful dialogue, because it's good vs. evil. Tolerance vs. bigotry. Peace vs. hate."
Firstly, you need to define Leftist. Do you mean Left of Lieberman or Left of a conservative Dem like Baucus, or straight up liberal like Clinton, or liberal liberal like Obama, or activist left like Kucinich, or malcontent Ralph Nader, or European socialist like Zapatero of Spain, or neo Communist Putin, or Kim Jong Il ( don't think you can get left of him).
All of these people cover a vast spectrum of viewpoint, and it would be no more accurate to think that there is any unified monolithic mindset than to assume that everybody from Scwarznegger, Bloomfield, and Olympia Snowe to Timothy McVeigh shared some common position.
I would put myself somewhere about Baucus and Lieberman and I have no problems with conservatives as you may have surmised. Phil and I have had some interesting discussions and I find it healthy to talk with some of my countrymen who have different opinions rather than just dialogue with people who think the same as me, and I have yet to find any of them either.
I find a lot of people on the Far Left tend to fit your stereotype, the Michael Moore's and such, but I think most mainstream Dems do not feel conservatives are evil and I seem to be less preoccupied by the antics of the far left than most of y'all because I have known many of them and know that they are no more likely going to capture power than Rush Limbaugh will be the next president.
There is courteous and respectful dialogue, and I presume that is what we are engaging in and aspire toward that. I believe McCain and Obama do to , and it is refreshing. Certainly it is better than the politic of their day that involved people accusing Martin Van Buren of wearing lady's corsets as per this humorous post
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/the-complete-history-of-dirty-politics-a-qa-on-anything-for-a-vote/
Now as to good and evil and tolerance vs. bigotry. WW II may have been good vs evil and Dems and GOP spilled blood equally, and tolerance and bigotry may have been Jim Crow and Selma Alabama, and Dems and GOP worked together to end that dark chapter in our history, but the difference between
the current general views of liberals and conservatives relative to the entire world opinion are not so great and in the words of John McCain:
"Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us. We are fellow Americans, and that's an association that means more to me than any other."
Phillip:
Some good points. I will cede you the ground on education being not equivalent to smart. I have an MD but my dad had a ninth grade education and knew more history and politic than me.
As to the advantage of legislative over executive experience. Lincoln was a legislator as was Kennedy and Harry Truman. Truman, by the way, was a haberdasher at one time, but before becoming president, he attained a law degree and served as a judge and then two terms in the US Senate.
Clinton and Carter were both governors as was GWB and Reagan. Kennedy was never an executive. We each probably have different opinions on how good these presidents were, but I think the person is more relevant than which arm of government they emerged from. I think Palin's experience as Governor was good, but it was only two years. She does have a varied history, as does Obama.
I don't watch TV, so I don't know about CBS/NBC etc. I do check out Yahoo news which is primarily AP and read a local conservatively owned newspaper. My point about the Times was that I did not find any smears about Palin, and you do consider it the Left, moreso than I, so I don't think there is some concerted effort by some unified left to smear Palin. Do smears happen, yes, and neither party or ideological group is immune to them.
I just read both Palin's and Obama's Wikkepedia which were both quite enlightening and actually increases their stature in my eyes. They both have had varied interesting experiences and it appears neither logged a lot of time eating corn chips in front of the tele.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
Thank you for your time.
Damn: Hit the ball out of the park and it's still rolling. Way to go. You nailed this one so well Phillip I suspect you are using two nail guns. In your spare time could you please come to CA and put a new roof on my house? Great article! Thanks, Jim
Yonkel,
"Firstly, you need to define Leftist." That's true, of course. We are not talking about people who tilt slightly right or left of center, the ones I would call JFK liberals. Nor are we talking about average work-a-day, raise-their-kids-right, love God and country type Democrats.
To quote myself: "leftists are emotion-based, and there is no reasoning with emotional people. To a leftist, conservatives are not simply people with a differing opinion. Conservatives are not even wrong per se.
Leftists believe that conservatives are evil, they actively want to hurt people. They are greedy, hateful and oppressive."
Sorry for the extensive quote, but I say it again in order to ensure that I was as clear as I thought I was originally.
You mentioned some names (Baucus, Liebermann, Clinton, etc), and I think if you polled them on their stances on major issues (gun control, abortion, big oil, taxing the rich, environment, the role of government, for example), you would find uniformity of position.
Baucus, who happens to be my Senator, might talk gun rights while at home on the campaign trail, but you can be sure that at the Washington parties he parrots the leftist line. Clinton was a pragmatist who never departed from his leftist philosophies. Libermann was lock step except for the war on terror, and look where that got him.
No need to comment on foreign dictators and whatnot, they aren't relevant. The bottom line, however, is that there is a fairly sizable minority of people who are just as I describe. They are leftists/socialists/communists/government worshippers. They love government and love having the power to force people to do things. They don't debate, they shout down, they install speech codes, they call people names. They entertain no dissent, no diversity of opinion, no other point of view.
MM:
Initially you imply that you are not talking about e.g. JFK, who relative to the politics of his time was probably to the left of somebody like Baucus and Lieberman.
Then you pretty much define everybody Left of Lieberman as Leftists who are "emotion-based". This is a classic Ad Hominem argument. You can dismiss those that disagree with you by attacking their psychologies. You believe that no reasonable person could disagree with you without some underlying neurosis.
Since I am one of those people somewhere between McCain, Baucus, Lieberman, Obama, I would like to assure you, that I don't consider you evil. Nor, would most of my more liberal friends. Some might, but there are abundant intolerant people in both wings of the politic.
I could even enjoy sharing a brew or a V-8 with you. I have conservative and liberal friends and I don't judge people by their politics. Most of my medical patients are Bible Belt Southern and I love and respect them. I expect that the streets of heaven will not be filled by either all Democrats or Republicans.
I don't know how I can be assured that Baucus parrots the Leftist line at parties. I have never been to a party with Baucus. That is conjecture.
"They are leftists/socialists/communists/government worshippers. They love government and love having the power to force people to do things. They don't debate, they shout down, they install speech codes, they call people names. They entertain no dissent, no diversity of opinion, no other point of view."
Again, who is the they. If you want to talk about the loud obnoxious boorish Left, I would agree. To extrapolate that characterization to everybody left of Lieberman makes no sense.
Personally, I feel that boorishness for which the Left distinguished itself in the 60s has been rivalled by the right in recent years. I have heard Hannity on the radio repeatedly referring to liberals as maggots. Limbaugh is no less generous.
McCain is a breath of fresh air and I will repeat the quote of the standard bearer of the Republican party:
"Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us. We are fellow Americans, and that's an association that means more to me than any other."
yonkel: To your point that "you pretty much define everybody Left of Lieberman as Leftists who are 'emotion-based'. This is a classic Ad Hominem argument" — twice now you've disparaged Rush Limbaugh in the same way.
I have the opportunity to listen to Rush almost every day, and while he can be brutally on-target in his satire ("femanazis", for example, to describe radical feminists — not all feminists), he doesn't lower himself to the level of the Left wing nutjobs who've been working overtime to smear Sarah Palin with made-up charges. [I can't speak to Hannity, because I don't listen to him]. I’m wondering whether you’ve based your opinion on repeated first-hand experience (i.e. listing to him frequently), or are relying on third party characterizations of what he said to form your judgments?
My point is, I think a lot of this outrage is in the eye of the beholder. A lot, but not all. I have no great respect for the opinions of Tom Brokaw or Katie Couric, but I don’t put them in the same category as the feature writers for the Daily Kos and Huffington Post who just make stuff up. I do consider Brokaw and Couric to be Left of Center (not slightly, but decidedly), by virtue of how they actually report and frame events. The Obama Middle East/European tour is a perfect example of this.
Someone who is ideologically more attuned to the left won’t necessarily see Brokaw or Couric as “Left”. They’re “mainstream” in this view. It will take someone far, far, far Left (in my view) for them to be considered simply “Left” in their view.
So, you raise a valid point about overly-stereotyping one’s ideological opponents, but since there is no commonly agreed upon definition of Left/Right (vs. Far Left or Far Right), it’s possible for you to see someone like Limbaugh as an extremist, while I consider him to be representative of basic conservative values.
The only truly universal standard I see is whether what is being said is factually correct or not. I can be criticized for calling someone an “idiot” who said 9/11 was an inside job, rather than saying that person is “misguided”. But the veracity of the claim is patently false, and therefore the person holding that view is a nutjob extremist, period, end of debate, regardless of the harshness or softness of my language choice to describe their view.
If the 9/11 inside job view is satire, then the person could be criticized for making a poor or even disgusting joke. But since it wasn’t meant to be take as a literal fact, we can say with certainty that they are not the same kind of extremist (or maybe not an extremist at all) as in my previous example.
Again, the point is that we need to look at the views a person holds for which they are being praised or criticized, not necessarily the adjectives used to describe them (the Hannity “maggot” reference). If Hannity said all liberals are maggots he deserves criticism for both the view he holds and the way he expressed himself. But if he said that the far Left nutjobs who make things up about conservatives to destroy their reputations are maggots, then I have no quarrel with his conclusion, and maybe not even the way he expressed himself.
Context is everything.
Phillip:
"To your point that "you pretty much define everybody Left of Lieberman as Leftists who are 'emotion-based'. This is a classic Ad Hominem argument" — twice now you've disparaged Rush Limbaugh in the same way."
**** I will adopt your *** protocol, works well. My disagreement with my friend from Montana is not that he disparages certain people on the Left as I might have done re Rush, but that he generalizes the whole left of center in one fell swoop to an army of nincompoops at best.
I admire people like Fred Thompson, WJ Buckley, George Will. I don't characterize and psychoanalyze the entire universe of right of center in some simple phrase like "emotion based" because I think it is a carricature.
Right of center are human beings not a different species and there are different viewpoints and different personalities.
" I have the opportunity to listen to Rush almost every day, and while he can be brutally on-target in his satire ("femanazis", for example, to describe radical feminists — not all feminists), he doesn't lower himself to the level of the Left wing nutjobs who've been working overtime to smear Sarah Palin with made-up charges. [I can't speak to Hannity…."
*****I do listen to AM talk radio a fair amount if there isn't anything on NPR. You need to define which Left Wing Nutjobs. I don't doubt that some LWNJs who are worse than Rush, but I do think he uses numerous argumentative fallacies to smear an entire population of people, never considers a contrary viewpoint, and harbors malevolent intent towards everybody he disagrees with. Obviously, I am a bit more sensitive to Rush than you on this, nuh?. My guess is Michael Moore does not make you feel enthused, either, but I put the two on about the same level of lack of objectivity, fallacious argument and over generalization.
With Hannity and Limbaugh too, what they typically do is pick some objectionable straw dog, some overly politically correct liberal episode, build up a rant, and then generalize to all Democrats, liberals, etc.
"The only truly universal standard I see is whether what is being said is factually correct or not. I can be criticized for calling someone an “idiot” who said 9/11 was an inside job, rather than saying that person …."
****agree, or the holocaust deniers. But within the beliefs of 80% of Americans I think we can argue with respect and consideration.
"Context is everything."
Context is important. WJB did not typically call people maggots. That is the language of the interahamwe who dubbed the Tutsi "cockroaches" before the Rwandan genocide.
I have failed to see any major Palin smear in the US mainstream media. I don't do TV- NYT, AP, NPR, local conservative newspaper. Blogs can be natural havens for glass house stone throwers. I have seen some nasty LW blogs and nasty RW blogs and why go there.
BBC was pretty unfiar with Palin. Don't know that it reached smear, but hey made a big deal about the daughters pregnancy, and that is irrelevant and should be off limits.
I think that we both agree that this election should be about the issues and would like to hear a spirited debate on that rather than peoples families.
This will be my nightcap. I need to get in a few Sudokus before the wife snoozes off.
Say a prayer for the people in Haiti, Bahamas, Cuba. It looks like Ike might be heading for about Corpus Christi Texas by the weekend.
yonkel: Again, good conversation.
Regardingh Limbaugh, I don't think your characterization is accurate, but reasonable people can disagree about what is a malevolent fallacy, and what is "illustrating absurdity by being absurd" as Rush characterizes this.
As for the MSM and smears, I guess it depends on whether you consider MSNBC and US magazine to be mainstream for a couple of direct examples, and whether ABC and others "reporting" the rumors (something they refused to do with Edwards until Edwards admitted his affair, for example), is just a sleazy way of smearing Palin indirectly.
It would indeed be great if the election was about issues, not personalities and other distractions. Unfortunately, that's not how the system typically works. The people have no attention span for listening to dry, "boring" facts, so the only way a candidate gets any traction is to personalize the debate. It's always been this way, and I don't expect it to change anytime soon.
Phil
Yonkel,
I carefully defined for you who I am talking about. I gave examples. I listed characteristics. I told you who I was not talking about. Yet you are still not clear? Your response appears to be, "not all extreme leftists are extreme."
"Ad Hominem" means "to the man." Which specific person have I leveled a personal attack against by asserting that the extreme left is emotion-based?
The thing is, I gave you my definitions. They aren't inadequate or unclear, you just don't like them.
Mountain Man
Ad Hominem is
"The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself."
I think group is allowably substitutable for person.
What I was alluding to was your claim that leftists are "emotion based" and that
"…. They are greedy, hateful and oppressive…..
So there is no courteous, respectful dialogue, because it's good vs. evil. Tolerance vs. bigotry. Peace vs. hate."
If Ad Hominem doesn't fit that bill, fine, I withdraw it.
Your characterization remains a generalization, speculative, and unsupported other than by your personal prejudices.
It is like if I would say that all Conservatives are sexually repressed and stupid, without any evidence or basis, just because it fits my stereotype. Show me your data. Do you not have any friends or relatives who disagree with you politically, maybe even voted for Baucus. Are they all "greedy, hateful and oppressive".
You first did not include JFK liberals as Left, but then seemed to include Baucus and Lieberman, two centrist Democrats, so I don't mean to split hairs or hassle you, but I just am trying to figure out which group I am defending.
When we get to heaven, St. Peter, will not judge you by whether you supported the correct side, but on how you treated and respected your fellow man, particularly those that might have disagreed with you.
Phillip:
I don't do TV so missed out on MSNBC and don't know what US magazine is. What does MAD magazine think about it. I am kind of a Luddite with a computer.
You are probably correct on the inevitable personalization of elections. I would have liked to see something like a Biden-Thompson race.
I do give the edge to McCain on the election and Palin will probably prove a good choice politically, although I would like to hear her debate the issues rather than who said what about who or what her cultural personna is. The same could be said about Obama.
I heard McCrory debate Perdue for NC Govenor and thought the former was more intelligent and logical and could vote for the GOP for that in my home state.
Election projection http://www.electionprojection.com my old political blog and one of the better prediction sites just had the NC senatorial swing towards Hagen over Dole from weak GOP hold to weak Dem gain. Hagen is running as a conservative Democrat. NC has not particularly trended Dem lately, but like Virginia which strongly has, it has gotten a lot of Northern migration.
Yonkel:
The original manifestation of Ad-Hominem is from the ancient Roman, in which it was said about legal cases, "if you have no case, abuse the plaintiff."
Yonkel,
Keep flailing, you'll hit something, I guess.
There is a group of people out there who have the characteristics I describe, which is different than saying that there is a group of people (or an individual) who I am going to unfairly paint with these characteristics. See the difference?
I am rather familiar with Baucus. He is lock-step with the Leftists in Congress. I really don't care how you think you compare to him or others in or out of government, because this isn't about you (or YOUR personal prejudices).
St. Peter doesn't judge anyone. God is judge. Do you presume to know how He will judge me? You are certain the criteria is respect for my fellow man? And I have disrespected my fellow man?
You excuse your dishonorable treatment (ad hominem) of an individual, Rush Limbaugh, by contrasting him with my general characterization of a group of identifiable people. You passed judgment that your crime is somehow lesser than mine based on the arbitrary criteria of sheer numbers, I suppose.
What a curious value system you have.
Mountain Man:
Forgive me my flailings.
"There is a group of people out there who have the characteristics I describe ….."
****This was your contention that all Left of Center was emotional based. Show me your data to make such broad generalities.
" I am rather familiar with Baucus. He is lock step with the Leftists in Congress.."
****The National Journal Composite Conservative score for 2007 for Baucus is 42%. This compares with 4% for Obama, 22% for Biden, 57% for McCain and 91% for Kyl.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3663
" God is judge. Do you presume to know How He will judge me"
Absolutely not. You may be a very decent guy. I do not make any presumptions on your character based on your politics. You were the one that implicated all Left of center as
"…..greedy, hateful, and oppressive"
I do not think that level of generality is equivalent to my non personal complaints about one person, Limbaugh. I don't think conservatives are any less decent than anybody else and stated that plainly along with my respect for such people as Buckley and Fred Thompson who press their points with conviction but do not rely upon attacking the character of those that disagree with them.
My contention was not that "all left of center was emotion-based." Read my first post. You either cannot comprehend the words set before you, or you are intentionally twisting them to serve your interests. I used the word "often."
The thing about debate and dialogue is that is presumes that both parties are engaging in thoughtful, honest, and open exchange. You are not. Since you either refuse to understand or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I am saying, I leave you to your fantasies.
Try again sometime when you are actually willing to read peoples' posts and respond to them. Outta here.
Mountain Man:
I am glad to learn that you don't categorize everybody Left of Center in one fellswoop and on those terms I could drop the argument, except that you claim that I am misquoting you.
Post #6 – "Leftists believe that conservatives are evil. They actively want to hurt people. They are greedy, hateflul, and oppressive. "
Post #11 " Leftists are emotion-based and there is no reasoning with emotional people. To a leftist, conservatives are not simply people with a differing opinion."
" They don't debate. They shout down, they install speech codes, they call people names. They entertain no disent, no diversity of opinion, no other point of view".
I don't see any modifiers but broad brush generalities. I do think conservatives are simply "people with a differing opinion" many of which I am in agreement with. My whole point is that you don't offer the same level of consideration.
Now I do not consider myself a Leftist, but by your definition of everybody from Lieberman Left, I might well be, so it is hard not to take some of your generalities personally.
I am more than willing to read posts. Phillip posted an inciteful piece and we had a thoughtful discussion as we have had before on this blog.
I think Palin is an interesting phenomonon and wanted to offer a different perspective. I am beginning to think that she will carry the day for the GOP, but I think her appeal is largely personal, kind of like Obama's early appeal, and the larger trends in the body politic toward the left since 2004 will not end that quickly.
If McCain wins, given a Democratic Congress, and Scott at http://www.electionprojection.com is predicting a Blue Senate pickup of 6, and considering the nature of the man, he will have a more centrist Schwarzneggerian administration and it would be unusual that Palin would run a contrasting viewpoint.
If Obama wins, then we will have a very left leaning four years, and if the Dems screw things up, that might very well set the course for Palin in 2012. I do think McCain now has the edge. Election projection still has Obama by 26 EVs but it is all trending Red and there is some indication Michigan might flip. Obama seems stuck in quicksand, and events are showing that he is not up to the task. Now, if McCain wins, will Hillary retry in 2012.