Balkinization  

Monday, December 31, 2007

Fake Centrism/Bipartisanship

Mark Graber

One would think from the recent excitement over the possibility of a bipartisan political movement that Hillary Clinton was running on a platform calling for confiscation of corporate property, reestablishment of the moderately progressive tax structure of the 1970s, the return of all American troops from abroad, the abolition of capital punishment, and (heaven forbid), gay marriage. With the exception of a stray remark by John Edwards, Democrats polling more than 10% continue to run to the right of Richard Nixon. Indeed, judging by their legislative activity this year, the Democrats as a whole have almost no ambition to push any program that is substantially to the left of center. The real issue ought to be why some journalists are so excited about the possibility of a third party that might take a middle position between the party clearly to right of the electorate and the party that on its best day sometimes lurches very slightly to the left.

The best answer that I can think of stems from the correct description of the actual political alternatives before the United States this year. John Danforth and other Republicans prefer a polity as conservative as politically possible (or more fairly, a polity only slightly less conservative than at present). They express no concern with polarization (and no concern with the constitutional practices that sometimes foster polarization) when polarization enables conservatives to govern without significant opposition or prevents moderates from governing. The Republican problem with polarization is that the Republican party has moved so far to the right that the likelihood is high that Democrats after the 2008 election will control all three elected branches [as commentary below indicates, I should have said "institutions"--MAG] of the national government and that such control may prove durable. Similarly, Sam Nunn and David Boren were not exactly up in arms in 2004, when faced with the prospect of governance by a truly polarizing Republican coalition. Their problem with polarization is again entirely with the Republican party. The Republican party has gotten so extreme, turning off so many moderate conservative voters that political power might be placed in the hands of the sixty percent of the population who have more liberal views on terrorism and on political economy than the leading business-loving, torture-tolerant conservative Democrats. Judging by polling on the issues, we have a centrist party at present. They are called the Democrats. Abortion aside, the leading candidates for the presidency are not proposing any policy strongly opposed by clear popular majorities. The bipartisan movement is about how power may be maintained to the right of the center, but perhaps not as far to the right of center as is presently the case.

One of the central problems with the American polity concerns why conservative Democrats abandon the party so quickly, while more moderate Republicans make little effort to stem the rightward tide of their party until the Republican ship is clearly sinking. If I thought the problem was rooted in some constitutional provision or set of practices, I would join Sandy in a minute. My suspicion (and merely a suspicion) is that the problems lie elsewhere in the political culture, that a constitutional reform movement spearheaded by persons who find Hillary Clinton’s policies intolerably liberal is likely to produce a constitution so structured that in practice Joe Lieberman will be the most liberal alternative to the next scion of the Bush family.

Comments:

The Republican problem with polarization is that the Republican party has moved so far to the right that the likelihood is high that Democrats after the 2008 election will control all three elected branches of the national government and that such control may prove durable.

Wait -- the federal judiciary is "elected" now? Must be that new, "improved" Bushco Constitution you're reading.
 

That threw me for a loop, too. I assume he's mistakenly referring to the House and Senate as separate "branches" of government, when all they are is the two houses of a single bicameral branch.
 

I agree with Mark that the Oklahoma gathering is in fact right-of-center in its membership, save for Gary Hart. There is no reason at all for political liberals to embrace a movement spearheaded by any group that includes John Danforth. But this is somewhat beside the point with regard to my critique of their inability (or unwillingness) to connect the dots and to realize that their critique of contemporary American politics must, at some point, move on to the Constitution that constitutes the increasingly toxic nutrients within which our polity operates.

As for Garth's point, my own proposal to pick delegates to a new constitutional convention by a lottery system means that it will not be subject to control by the (long since terminated) Bush Administration or by any other demonized group (and members of this list have quite different demons in mind).
 

Here are some thoughts from Krugman:
http://www.slate.com/id/2180178/

"I like to remind people who long for bipartisanship that FDR's drive to create Social Security was as divisive as Bush's attempt to dismantle it. And we got Social Security because FDR wasn't afraid of division. In his great Madison Square Garden speech, he declared of the forces of "organized money": "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.""
 

I think Sandy's observation that the Oklahoma groups's "critique of contemporary American politics must, at some point, move on to the Constitution that constitutes the increasingly toxic nutrients within which our polity operates" depends on just what their real complaint is with contemporary American politics. If their complaint actually is that there are structural impediments to any coherent legislative program, whether that program be of the right, middle or center, than they have to move to Sandy's position and start jettisoning major chunks of the constitution. If, however, their complaint is that we may actually be governed by a center (dare I say center-left coalition) coalition after 2008, despite all the unique barriers the constitution imposes against progressive politics, then the proper strategy is minimize the damage in this time period and maintain the constitution. If think the latter is the complaint (we did not have a whole lot of complaints in 2002 about the constitution obstructing a coherent conservative program).

As I hope to suggest in a longer post, perhaps on Sandy's blog, I am coming to the conclusion that constitutional reform may be a good idea, but only constitutional reform spearheaded by a successful progressive coalition. The first goal of any person with Sandy (and my) values ought to be to secure the election of a more progressive coalition under the present (admittedly biased) rules against such coalitions, and then figure out when in power how to fashion a fairer constitutional order.
 

The Polarity Lens may not reveal that conservatives and progressives, as the Right to Left spectrum likes to describe it, is both repugnant, and a return to authentic liberalism is the desire of most Americans, socially liberal, economically conservative, and prudent. Listening to Pelosi or Frank compared to Brownback or Huckabee only illustrates a polarity extremists desire, but not the great masses of liberals who find both repugnant.
 

the gay species said...

The Polarity Lens may not reveal that conservatives and progressives, as the Right to Left spectrum likes to describe it, is both repugnant, and a return to authentic liberalism is the desire of most Americans, socially liberal, economically conservative, and prudent. Listening to Pelosi or Frank compared to Brownback or Huckabee only illustrates a polarity extremists desire, but not the great masses of liberals who find both repugnant.

You seem to be describing classical liberals. Authentic classical liberalism of the American variety is based on free markets, free minds and a muscular foreign policy. Unfortunately, I do not kid myself that those of us who believe in this ideology are a majority. While Reagan cobbled together a solid majority which share parts of this philosophy, only maybe 20% of the electorate share them all. (See Pew's Enterprisers and Upbeats). I do not see anyone running who shares all of these values.
 

Mark:

A narrow GOP majority shifting to a narrow Dem majority in 2006 has nothing at all to do with the GOP shifting too far to the right. Quite to the contrary, the GOP got corrupt after a decade in power and spent like drunken Dems. A couple dozen hand picked Dems ran in GOP districts as center right candidates who would clean up the corruption, while Pelosi and Reid literally hid from the press in the two weeks leading up to the 2006 election. Classic 6th year election, not a realignment.

Although the brand name has changed and the leadership is now solidly left, the membership is still majority center right. The seventy or so conservative Dems have a much easier time crossing the aisle to vote right than the small handful of surviving moderate GOP has voting left because the electorate is still center right and those members have to run for re-election.
 

Baghdad, party affiliation polls show that Americans are moving from the Republican to the Democrat party. That would indicate that you're full of crap. The Republican party has become the party of rightwingnut lunatics.
 

I agree entirely with Prof. Graber's comments here.
 

The principals in this bipartisan, third party movement may be dreaming of once again being part of the power elite as their wicks have thrown off little light in recent years as they have waxed and waned. They might be compared to the over the hill gang features of the entertainment industry. Were Boren and/or Nunn even close to being liberal? Isn't the middle of the road where the horses drop their business? Ah, we all yearn for the good old days, except when we think about the good old days they might not have been so good, at least for many of us.
 

Will Rogers said it well many years ago: "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." Maybe it is time to get organized.
 

It appears that it only took one year of Dem control of Congress to reverse all of the Dems' 2006 gains in party identification. The differential between GOP and Dem party identification now is actually slightly better than it was leading up to the 2004 election.

This suggests that 2006 was in fact a classic 6th year election with opposition gains based on voter fatigue with the majority party.

The question is whether 2008 will be the classic post administration rebound election for the majority party.
 

It appears that it only took one year of Dem control of Congress to reverse all of the Dems' 2006 gains in party identification. The differential between GOP and Dem party identification now is actually slightly better than it was leading up to the 2004 election.

This is only one datum in a year of bad news for the Republicans. Unexplained is the reason for pretty much an unprecedented 2 point jump. It sticks out like a sore thumb. And this is only one polling organisation. Let's see what next month's data shows....

Cheers,
 

It's a very dangerous state. You are inclined to recklessness and kind of tune out the rest of your life and everything that's been important to you. It's actually not all that pleasurable. I don't know who the hell wants to get in a situation where you can't bear an hour without somebody's company.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home