What Happened to the Left?
GW Bush has recently embarked upon a save social security tour. This has led to a fair number of political debates with some friends about this new "conservatism." Frankly, this new conservatism, or "compassionate conservatism" as George W. Bush likes to put it is simply conservatism moving to the center. With the Bush Tax Cut a notable exception, many of Bush's economic policies appear to be the furthering of the Clinton presidency. In other words--the right is moving to the center. What this has done is push the Democratic party further and further to the extreme left. What is interesting is that when Clinton moved to the center, the Republicans also moved to the center. What this did was focus future elections on social issues and, to a large extent, personalities of those running. The republicans retook control of the house and senate not be moving to the right--but rather also moving to the center, leaving no real left-right choice for voters, rather a cult of personalities or stances on social issues swaying the electorate.
The Democratic party has reacted to the Bush moving to the center with massive shift to the left--seemingly just to "oppose" the republicans rather than an attempt to appeal to the American electorate. The recent election of Howard Dean as the DNC Chair is another move to that direction. Dean made his national name as the extreme left of the Democrats (however, interestingly enough, his record as the Vermont governor has been incredibly centrist). This has broken the Democratic party, as most of America is simply not that far left, at least economically. The Republican party today is calling the shots--whenever they take a stance, the Democrats seem to take a fundamentally opposing stance--often without providing an alternative solution (as in the case of the reformation of Social Security.)
What the Howard Dean, the DNC, and the Democrats need to do is appeal to the common person. Do not paint left and right anymore--because the Democrats will now be painted as the extreme liberal left. Democratic ideals of improving education, improving the life of the blue-collar worker, looking out for the poor, etc. is not fundamentally opposed to "middle-America." Frankly, I think middle-America would be enthralled with those ideals. What has happened is that the Democrats have lost touch with states such as Kansas, Nebraska, Mississippi, etc. Appeal to the common person, and not get caught up in left-right wars. That is a war that the left cannot win at this moment--rather, caught up in a war of issues.
The main problem with the Democratic party's trouble with middle-America, however, is a social issue. The south and the Great Plains states--i.e. the Red belt--is overwhelmingly Christian, and as such have a Christian moralist world view. They are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and pro-guns. The Democrats need to open their doors to pro-life and pro-gun Democrats (like myself), and those who are pro-choice who run need to reframe the abortion debate. Currently the pro-choicers are painted as baby-killers in the Red Belt, and democrats need to paint themselves not as pro-abortion, but pro-choice. That is indeed an uphill battle, but not impossible. As recently as two governors ago, Texas had a Democratic governor, and the last two truly southern presidents have been democrat (Clinton and Carter). So, it's not undoable--the Democratic party simply needs to return to the south and not continue their move to the extreme left and leave people behind.
The Democratic party has reacted to the Bush moving to the center with massive shift to the left--seemingly just to "oppose" the republicans rather than an attempt to appeal to the American electorate. The recent election of Howard Dean as the DNC Chair is another move to that direction. Dean made his national name as the extreme left of the Democrats (however, interestingly enough, his record as the Vermont governor has been incredibly centrist). This has broken the Democratic party, as most of America is simply not that far left, at least economically. The Republican party today is calling the shots--whenever they take a stance, the Democrats seem to take a fundamentally opposing stance--often without providing an alternative solution (as in the case of the reformation of Social Security.)
What the Howard Dean, the DNC, and the Democrats need to do is appeal to the common person. Do not paint left and right anymore--because the Democrats will now be painted as the extreme liberal left. Democratic ideals of improving education, improving the life of the blue-collar worker, looking out for the poor, etc. is not fundamentally opposed to "middle-America." Frankly, I think middle-America would be enthralled with those ideals. What has happened is that the Democrats have lost touch with states such as Kansas, Nebraska, Mississippi, etc. Appeal to the common person, and not get caught up in left-right wars. That is a war that the left cannot win at this moment--rather, caught up in a war of issues.
The main problem with the Democratic party's trouble with middle-America, however, is a social issue. The south and the Great Plains states--i.e. the Red belt--is overwhelmingly Christian, and as such have a Christian moralist world view. They are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and pro-guns. The Democrats need to open their doors to pro-life and pro-gun Democrats (like myself), and those who are pro-choice who run need to reframe the abortion debate. Currently the pro-choicers are painted as baby-killers in the Red Belt, and democrats need to paint themselves not as pro-abortion, but pro-choice. That is indeed an uphill battle, but not impossible. As recently as two governors ago, Texas had a Democratic governor, and the last two truly southern presidents have been democrat (Clinton and Carter). So, it's not undoable--the Democratic party simply needs to return to the south and not continue their move to the extreme left and leave people behind.
posted by Kenn at 9:21 PM
1 Comments:
Not sure I agree with everything you've said here. 1) The key to getting elected is not neccessarily issues, but mobilization. When you have conservative groups voting more than 2 to one over liberals, you have to have twice as many people agreeing with you on your stance (if you're liberal) to get elected, and that's not likely. 2) While I don't think the "anybody but a republican" minset will go very far, I think there is something to be said for making it an us against them battle (i.e. moving more to the left). For one, this actually sets up the governement for change when someone liberal does get elected. Two, Allowing the repulicans to move to the center shifts the center to the left. Again increasing the level of prgressiveism in each election. However, I'm also not really sure that I agree with your fundamental thesis that the Repulicans are becoming more centrist. Finally, 3) I think Kerry tried to walk to walk the pro-choice line and it didn't seem to pay off. However, I agree that abortion is the issue that's most harming the Dems, what they really need to do is reframe that issue using biblical or constitutional appeals or just avoid discussing it at all costs.
Except for those glaring errors good blog Ken. For more of my witty comments check mine out at www.livejournal.com/users/yelsohc
Post a Comment
<< Home