This is a good explanation of the 1/4 of Americans that always seem to be total "morans".
Suppose the Democrats actually started keeping their promises and decides to "actually govern." People like Odin and Deb C who would normally say that the Dems were "too conservative" might change their minds in such a poll and say "about right" but that would cause more people on the right leaning end to say that they were "too liberal."
No, I don't think so. That treats the whole thing as a continuum, and it's really not. One can usefully divide the voters into two groups: ideological movement "conservatives" and everyone else.
There is a political spectrum, but it includes only "everyone else," not the movement "conservatives." The spectrum runs from the most progressive, who see a need for sweeping change, to the most conservative, who are very cautious and only want to tinker around the margins until the need is really proven. I'm near one end of the scale. James50 is near the other end. He's conservative (dictionary definition), but not a movement "conservative."
There's another group of citizens that are off the spectrum on the left, but it's microscopic and can be disgregarded. The movement "conservatives" are the anomaly, a fairly sizable group (roughly 25% of the population) who inhabit a completely different political space from everyone else.
Two things unite "everyone else." One is a belief in traditional American political values, which are those of liberal democracy and its accompanying ideas: that the government is here to serve the people, that equality is a virtue and extremes of inequality are vices, and that government and religion need to be kept separate in order to protect the integrity of both. James50 and I agree on all of these, even though we are near the opposite ends of the spectrum. The "conservative" movement, however, disagrees with all of them, even though they may pay lip service to the first.
The other common factor is a desire for government that works. However progressive or conservative a person outside the "conservative" movement may be, he or she wants the government to be effective at solving problems. A government that can't get anything done because its elected officials are too busy playing political games to pull it together disgusts all of us.
Now, suppose the Democrats had passed, not the health-care bill they did, but one with a public option and effective controls on the costs of health care. (That is to say, suppose they had passed the bill they should have passed.) This would have been a move to the left. It would also have been a move demonstrating effectiveness and competence. What would have happened in terms of political outcome?
Well, the "conservative" movement would probably be even angrier with them than they are now, but each of them can only vote once, so who cares? It's not like any of them are ever going to vote Democratic anyway. Genuine on-the-spectrum conservatives might in a few cases have seen this as overreach, but far more conservatives and moderates would have seen this as evidence the Democrats know their backside from a hole in the ground, which unfortunately is not all that evident as things are. My feeling is that the Democrats would gain more votes for strong leadership than they would lose for being too progressive. And of course, progressives would have liked that a lot better than the current reality and be more likely to vote.
On the other hand, what would have happened if they had failed to pass any health-care reform at all? We have a historical example in 1994.
The Democrats had everything to gain and nothing to lose by being strongly progressive following their mandate of 2008. But because of Senate rules and the conservatism (and/or corruption) of a few Democratic Senators, plus the fact that the Republicans have almost all become enthralled by the "conservative" movement and left the spectrum, they failed to do so. What they have accomplished looks like a lot compared to other administrations and Congresses in recent history, but considering that they actually held a supermajority in the Senate, plus a large majority in the House, plus the White House, and considering that we are in Crisis, it's pathetic.
By compromising on everything, they have failed to take the necessary dramatic action that might have pulled us out of recession and solved the underlying problems. They have passed a health-care bill that makes a start, but will not solve the problems with our health-care system. They have passed a Wall Street reform bill that fails to address the worst abuses of our financial system. What they have done is ineffective -- and that is the cardinal sin for those on the spectrum.Long term, the Republicans are actually the ones in worse shape. The "conservative" movement has no future. It's on the decline and will fade and die over the next few decades, as Millennials continue to move into the voting ranks. If the saeculum continues as expected, the Homelanders will come of age more conservative than the Millies -- but that's conservative, not "conservative." Not part of the "conservative" movement, but real on-the-spectrum conservatives. So the GOP has hitched its wagon to a dying horse.
That however won't help the Democrats this year. Or not much. They still screwed the pooch, and the voters are still going to punish them for it. But they didn't screw the pooch as badly as they did in 1993-4, and so they won't be punished as much.
I'm the "Odin" referred to at the quoted post at the begining.
Terminology note: "Homelander" or "Homie" is the label posters on that site use for the kids born after 9/11.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
