FTFA: Democratic partisans are battling over a crucial issue: is the United States a "center-right" or "center-left" nation?

'center-center' is not an option?

The bickering among Democrats is nothing compared to the lord-of-the-flies cannibalism going on among Republicans right now.

TheOther: The bickering among Democrats is nothing compared to the lord-of-the-flies cannibalism going on among Republicans right now.

I prefer the term, "circular firing squad."

Ace Frehley's Ghost: I prefer the term, "circular firing squad."

"Circle Jerk" is more like it.

/And Sean Hannity is in the middle of it.
//Mouth open

TheOther: 'center-center' is not an option?

Sure it is.

Where does Iran fall on the spectrum? I'll wager we're just a touch to the left of them.

/Fueling the flame

TheOther: The bickering among Democrats is nothing compared to the lord-of-the-flies cannibalism going on among Republicans right now.

That's what happens when you're metaphorically shipwrecked on a desolate island, so not too surprising really.

As for the survey, I think they might get more nuanced results if they avoided the "liberal" word entirely as it's become almost an epithet these days.

the sooner both sides figure this out, the better...

america isn't center right or center left. america is center-center.

the largest block of voters are the self-identified moderates. winning them wins elections, period. but you don't win them by being conservative or liberal, because most of them don't give a shiat about any of that. you win them by being good at governing.

if they think you will actually be able to solve the problems they want to see solved, they will vote for you. they don't seem to care how you do it, only that you do it.

Screw them both. Its time to shove the liberal agenda down America's throat in the same way the conservative one was shoved down ours over the last 8 years. Then, we can talk about balance.

itazurakko: TheOther: The bickering among Democrats is nothing compared to the lord-of-the-flies cannibalism going on among Republicans right now.

That's what happens when you're metaphorically shipwrecked on a desolate island, so not too surprising really.

As for the survey, I think they might get more nuanced results if they avoided the "liberal" word entirely as it's become almost an epithet these days.

Almost? ALMOST? Sheesh, I live in Texas right now, and don't feel like I can identify my leanings, for fear of the "righteous anger" that so many Conservatives have towwards Liberals.

ZThe cause of which, mind, is Rush, Hannity, et al.

/ducks!

Are you telling me it is difficult to neatly categorize the beliefs of 300 million geographically, ethnically, religiously, and politically diverse people into two parties?

Huh.

^^ Meanwhile, try telling anyone in Massachusetts that you incline pro-life and see what happens. I don't want to say, "let's switch places" (haha) but I feel for you. Politics really brings out the asshole in so many people.

Well, if they're talking polling, I self-identify in polls as a conservative Republican, but I voted for Obama and figure that if I voted for the guy, I should let him implement the agenda that he said he was going to do. Things like nationalized healthcare that I'm kind of dubious about aren't things that I care enough about to get worked up.

ShimmyshimmySHAKE!

rynthetyn: Things like nationalized healthcare

Obama has not proposed nationalized healthcare. Please learn the meanings of words before using them. I am really sick of people throwing around terms like "socalized medicine" and "nationalized healthcare" without actually knowing what they mean and the massive difference between them and the minimal universal health insurance system that has actually been proposed.

I wish people would stop lying and claiming they're "centrists". Most people who claim they are "moderate" or "in the center" really just start with their own personal opinions, mark that as the center, and start accusing anything that differs from them of being "partisan".

There is no such thing as a centrist because there is no defined "center" of political thought. There is such a thing as a "moderate" version of an opinion, but unless one is completely apathetic, there's always something they're willing to argue for, thus claiming to be a moderate themselves is a lie.

Rebochan: There is no such thing as a centrist because there is no defined "center" of political thought. There is such a thing as a "moderate" version of an opinion, but unless one is completely apathetic, there's always something they're willing to argue for, thus claiming to be a moderate themselves is a lie.

actually, "apathetic" would describe a lot of people very well as to the means by which we accomplish things.

i'd say most americans want the government to pursue progressive goals, but most don't care which means is taken to accomplish them. if it works, they'll support it.

Advocates of the center-right thesis point to the way voters identify themselves, with the percentage saying that they are conservative - about 36-37% on average -- substantially larger than the 18-19% who say they are liberal.

I think this has a lot to do with how you define conservative and liberal. Very few people define conservative the way the republicans do.

GOP's defeats in 2006 and this year result not from a rejection of conservatism, but from the fact that "the Republican brand had gotten so bad and none of our politicians had the credibility to offer any 'change' message.

The GOP has been lying for years about conservative and liberal until the words mean nothing. Not only do they fail to shrink government or control spending, the two cornerstone of their supposed values, they swing so far to the extreme right that their message alienates all but the 23%.

PizzaJedi81: Almost? ALMOST? Sheesh, I live in Texas right now, and don't feel like I can identify my leanings, for fear of the "righteous anger" that so many Conservatives have towwards Liberals.

The cause of which, mind, is Rush, Hannity, et al.

True, I was too wimpy.

I listen to right wing talk radio from time to time, and it's scary. Usually it ends up being Billy Cunningham on Sunday night, it's sort of hilarious but then you realize he's not actually parody...

Seriously though it's almost the reverse of the "one true Scotsman" thing, if someone does whatever odious (to him) thing, they're a "liberal," never mind if the characteristsics clash from week to week, never mind trying to start from some definition and moving from there. Similarly "conservative" turns into "nice religious person" but honestly he doesn't talk about conservative thought so much as just blasting away at his enemies.

Me, I'm on the left. Hard not to be, in the US :)

Thrag: rynthetyn: Things like nationalized healthcare

Obama has not proposed nationalized healthcare. Please learn the meanings of words before using them. I am really sick of people throwing around terms like "socalized medicine" and "nationalized healthcare" without actually knowing what they mean and the massive difference between them and the minimal universal health insurance system that has actually been proposed.

But, that's what Rush said!

He also said he's right 98.8% of the time.

Is the dying Republican Party still trying to convince people it's the Democrats who are falling apart?

Concern trolls are concerned.

jcooli09: The GOP has been lying for years about conservative and liberal until the words mean nothing. Not only do they fail to shrink government or control spending, the two cornerstone of their supposed values, they swing so far to the extreme right that their message alienates all but the 23%.

Or their sympathetic media, anyway. But absolutely, all the nuance is lost, both on the side they love to demonize "aaaa! liberals!!!" and on the "conservative" side too, far too many people use it as shorthand for "good true American people."

The various groups are completely papered over, the conflicts over religion, libertarian or not, etc.

Moving "to the right" (however the host interprets that) is defined as "conservative" even when it means what would be quite radical CHANGES - case in point, years ago Tony Snow was guest hosting for Rush Limbaugh, and in some segment on "activist judges" actually proposed that decisions of the Supreme Court should be able to be overridden by... THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

That would certainly be quite the radical change, now wouldn't it? I suspect if he were still living in this age of Nancy Pelosi he might reconsider...

Rebochan: I wish people would stop lying and claiming they're "centrists". Most people who claim they are "moderate" or "in the center" really just start with their own personal opinions, mark that as the center, and start accusing anything that differs from them of being "partisan".

There is no such thing as a centrist because there is no defined "center" of political thought. There is such a thing as a "moderate" version of an opinion, but unless one is completely apathetic, there's always something they're willing to argue for, thus claiming to be a moderate themselves is a lie.

There's a lot of truth here but I'll add that "moderate" is often just a euphemism for "[ideo]logically incoherent". Instead of rigorously examining their premises and the supporting evidence, most Americans look at the two most prominent poles of political thought and sort themselves somewhere in the middle, regardless of how defensible that position is.

This is why the GOP has been so successful for the last three decades in shifting the political ground in the US - Republicans know that most people haven't the will or the ability to finely deconstruct their political views, thus they are easily influenced. By embracing their extremists, the GOP has stretched the rhetorical and abstract playing fields far to the right, whereas the Democratic party has shunned its left flank. There was no left counterbalance to the reactionary conservatism that was promulgated by the Republican party; "moderate" has been pushed disturbingly toward an American fascism.

ghare: Is the dying Republican Party still trying to convince people it's the Democrats who are falling apart?

Concern trolls are concerned.

But it worked so well in the primaries! I mean, just look at how everything splintered for the Democrats after the Obama and Hillary factions failed to come together, leading to the Republican landslide victory. The Republicans proved once and for all that they are on the pulse of American thought and sealed Democratic irrelevance for a generation.

Oh, wait...

TofuTheAlmighty: There's a lot of truth here but I'll add that "moderate" is often just a euphemism for "[ideo]logically incoherent".

I'd agree with that, as well. "Fence-sitter" does seem to be an apt synonym in many cases.

I'm so tired of listening to talking heads trying to determine what sort of "nation" we are - we're a friggin' melange of diverse cultures, races, opinions, and directions. Why is that so hard to understand? Is it really necessary to affix a label so as to reassure a narrow-minded slice o' Americans?

Rebochan: There is no such thing as a centrist because there is no defined "center" of political thought. There is such a thing as a "moderate" version of an opinion, but unless one is completely apathetic, there's always something they're willing to argue for, thus claiming to be a moderate themselves is a lie.

I've always preferred the term moderate myself. I thinks it's important to remember the definition changes from country to country and over time. My guess is a good many Europeans would think of me as a conservative while many American conservatives would think I'm a liberal. Of course those would be the social conservatives. The more traditional, fiscal conservative types would probably call me . . . a centrist.

Moderates choose sides on individual issues but they are not ideologically rigid. It involves nuance and compromise.

/rambling post

There is no "right" or "left". Everyone who has ever existed has the same core values (except for the rare crazy). Behavior is emergent from genetic programming in a socioeconomic context.

ghare: Is the dying Republican Party still trying to convince people it's the Democrats who are falling apart?

Concern trolls are concerned.

Yes. The Huffington Post is such a neo-con rag. I put them right up there with the NRO.

JoJoTheIdiotMonkeyBoy: Ace Frehley's Ghost: I prefer the term, "circular firing squad."

"Circle Jerk" is more like it.

/And Sean Hannity is in the middle of it.
//Mouth open

Well, to be fair, he is a cracker.

/try the veal

Concerned Huffington Post is concerned.

RanDomino: There is no "right" or "left". Everyone who has ever existed has the same core values (except for the rare crazy). Behavior is emergent from genetic programming in a socioeconomic context.

While I understand your point, core-values aside, there is definitely a left-right based socioeconomic spectrum. Take for example; a monarchy vs. an purely-egalitarian democracy.

Now, within this spectrum, there may be even more variances, based on levels of freedom and economic benevolence. (Fascism vs. a Laissez-faire economy.)

But, yeah, America takes this idea way to far. By amplifying small variances on a VERY narrow political spectrum, one could build the illusion of choice. Democrats are really not that much different than Republicans, however partisanship is rabid, regardless.
006andahalf: Where does Iran fall on the spectrum? I'll wager we're just a touch to the left of them.

/Fueling the flame

Economically Iran is fairly leftist. While, socially, Iran is pretty damn conservative (fundamentalist).

I feel American Conservatives are jealous of Iran, as Iran tends to be more conservative than most American Conservatives can get away with.

With the recent government intervention in the banking/real estate market. America is really starting to appear as a Democratic Fascist Republic. The "people" have no choice in regards to the bail-out, and the risks are always socialized while the profits are privatized. Benevolent fascism.

But I heard he was the most liberal senator or some stupid shiat. I guess Obama being a moderate is a surprise to people who haven't caught on that the GOP feeds their supporters one shovel full of horse shiat after the next just to get a big smile and a nod in return.

The guy at the end of the thread:

With the recent government intervention in the banking/real estate market. America is really starting to appear as a Democratic Fascist Republic. The "people" have no choice in regards to the bail-out, and the risks are always socialized while the profits are privatized. Benevolent fascism.

While your analysis makes a lot of sense, it's important to remeber that there is no such thing as Benevolent Fascism.

It's an oxymoron, like "Compassionate Rape", or "Socially-Responsible Drunk-Driving".

I think Eisenhower said it best when warning about the military-industrial complex:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

Fascism (defined as the merger of corporate and state interests) cannot be benevolent, as it starts out by stealing food out of the mouths of hungry children, so a few more bombers can be built... and only gets worse from there.

itazurakko: As for the survey, I think they might get more nuanced results if they avoided the "liberal" word entirely as it's become almost an epithet these days.

Liberal, as it applies to modern American politics, was used by the leftist radical activists and farmers of the early 20th century to mock the center-left. People like Woody Guthrie used it describe left-leaning establishmentarists who didn't have the courage of their convictions. They were weak-willed. They wanted to change things within the system instead of creating a new system. This was also a time when communism was very much a force in local communities.

Nixon turned that rhetoric on its head against JFK. He used liberal just as derisively as it was previously used, but this was the ideologically right criticizing everything to the left of itself. It still meant spineless and effete and wishy-washy but now it also encompassed the leftist radicals, and, after 20 years of the Cold War, the leftist radicals weren't a powerful enough force to really resist the characterization. All the rest of the left found itself in the New Left who's music was more concerned with leopard skin pill-box hats rather than fenced land.

Which happened all over again in 2000. After the leftist radicals wasted away 8 years in the PC movement and didn't realize (until it was too late) that Clinton's Third Way meant they really weren't represented in the White House, the political environment was very similar to 30 years previously. And with Bush's campaign team comprised of a bunch of former Nixonites, it wasn't really surprising that liberal became so prominent again in our political discourse.

Here's the thing--compared to the rest of the world, the US is center-right.

But the Republicans are hard right and the Democrats are center-left (in some cases center-right).

General Zang:

I totally agree with your post. My reference to benevolence, which I wish I would have expanded on or at least sarcastically placed in quotations, was only intended to describe the concept of the people experiencing an above-decent standard of living, due to the "trickle" down of the wealth in the question. (which I do understand has been seized and spent against the will of the people, which in the end is not really "benevolent" at all.)

Thrag Quote 2008-11-29 12:50:32 PM
rynthetyn: Things like nationalized healthcare

Obama has not proposed nationalized healthcare. Please learn the meanings of words before using them. I am really sick of people throwing around terms like "socalized medicine" and "nationalized healthcare" without actually knowing what they mean


You mean like " privatizing Social Security ? "

Yeah, that bogus phrase turned my stomach too.

TheOther:
The bickering among Democrats is nothing compared to the lord-of-the-flies cannibalism going on among Republicans right now.

Its real entertaining. The Huckabee/Palin Jesus Squad versus the "Hey assholes, we're the actual Republicans"-Republicans. I'm enjoying Mike Huckabee. He seems to honestly think the things he says have value towards whatever subject he's inserting himself into. And they are usually so very dumb.

fosborb: Nixon turned that rhetoric on its head against JFK. He used liberal just as derisively as it was previously used, but this was the ideologically right criticizing everything to the left of itself.
Which happened all over again in 2000. After the leftist radicals wasted away 8 years in the PC movement and didn't realize (until it was too late) that Clinton's Third Way meant they really weren't represented in the White House, the political environment was very similar to 30 years previously. And with Bush's campaign team comprised of a bunch of former Nixonites, it wasn't really surprising that liberal became so prominent again in our political discourse.

The trouble with this is that Nixon was, for the most part, a liberal. Campaign rhetoric aside, he is arguably the most liberal president we've had since LBJ. Remember that the Republican Party during much of the Cold War had a fairly powerful liberal wing. Here you would find Taft, Rockefeller, Lindsey, Hatfield, and Nixon.

I don't think there were too many for Nixonites to be found in 2000 other than two very prominent examples. If you're referring to neoconservatives I'd say that grew out elements of both major parties.

andrewagill Quote 2008-11-29 02:48:58 PM
Here's the thing--compared to the rest of the world, the US is center-right.

But the Republicans are hard right and the Democrats are center-left (in some cases center-right).


Way to pat yourself on the back, but when you look at the Dem leadership, there isn't a lot of " centrist " there:

Nancy Pelosi
Harry Reid
Dick Durbin
Charlie Rangell
Steny Hoyer
Ted Kennedy

Obama? We'll soon see.

With that said, there is a big difference between Dem's on the coasts and Dem's in the South and the Midwest.

As for the Republicans, as someone totally blinded by partisan affiliation, I can see how you can paint with a broad brush....

but you're still wrong.

Thrag: rynthetyn: Things like nationalized healthcare

Obama has not proposed nationalized healthcare. Please learn the meanings of words before using them. I am really sick of people throwing around terms like "socalized medicine" and "nationalized healthcare" without actually knowing what they mean and the massive difference between them and the minimal universal health insurance system that has actually been proposed.

Dude, calm down. I've been posting on the politics tab long enough that people should know when I'm exaggerating for effect. I know full well that it's not literally national healthcare. I'm pretty sure that I've even argued that point with people who were calling Obama a socialist on Fark before.

I think you, however, are the sort of person who saw that I said I describe my self to pollsters as conservative and automatically assumed I was trolling the thread or something and went into insult the poster mode.

libbynomore2: Thrag Quote 2008-11-29 12:50:32 PM
rynthetyn: Things like nationalized healthcare

Obama has not proposed nationalized healthcare. Please learn the meanings of words before using them. I am really sick of people throwing around terms like "socalized medicine" and "nationalized healthcare" without actually knowing what they mean


You mean like " privatizing Social Security ? "

Yeah, that bogus phrase turned my stomach too.

Oh, I know. They should be honest and say the Republican attempt to destroy the third rail.

jcooli09: Thrag: rynthetyn: Things like nationalized healthcare

Obama has not proposed nationalized healthcare. Please learn the meanings of words before using them. I am really sick of people throwing around terms like "socalized medicine" and "nationalized healthcare" without actually knowing what they mean and the massive difference between them and the minimal universal health insurance system that has actually been proposed.

But, that's what Rush said!

He also said he's right 98.8% of the time.

I haven't listened to Rush since I was in highschool more than a decade ago. He's a bigot and an idiot.

Also, I was deliberately exaggerating to make the point that even if it was nationalized, it's the least of my worries.

Sabyen91: Oh, I know. They should be honest and say the Republican attempt to destroy the third rail.

The most amazing part of that disaster of an idea is that it's labeled as a "free-market" idea. Nothing screams "free-market" like the state forcing you at gunpoint to invest in the capital market.

DePaul: I don't think there were too many for Nixonites to be found in 2000 other than two very prominent examples. If you're referring to neoconservatives I'd say that grew out elements of both major parties.

I was referring to Barbour, Black, and Rove, but for the rest who cut their teeth under Rollins and Atwater in 1984 I think that same mentality existed.

fosborb: DePaul: I don't think there were too many for Nixonites to be found in 2000 other than two very prominent examples. If you're referring to neoconservatives I'd say that grew out elements of both major parties.

I was referring to Barbour, Black, and Rove, but for the rest who cut their teeth under Rollins and Atwater in 1984 I think that same mentality existed.

Not to mention that Nixonites pioneered the Southern Strategy that's been in use to this day (even though the Republicans officially apologized for it a few years back). They railed against wasteful government programs and called anyone left of them liberals in order to get the support of fiscal conservatives, but the government programs they chose to attack were carefully chosen as a way to rile up the racist vote--hence all of the criticism of welfare and welfare queens. So that white racists would think their money was getting taken to give to lazy black people.

/Turns out the Southern Strategy doesn't work so great when the Democrat is black
//It makes it harder to hide how racist it really is

rynthetyn fosborb:

I was referring to Barbour, Black, and Rove, but for the rest who cut their teeth under Rollins and Atwater in 1984 I think that same mentality existed.

Not to mention that Nixonites pioneered the Southern Strategy that's been in use to this day (even though the Republicans officially apologized for it a few years back). They railed against wasteful government programs and called anyone left of them liberals in order to get the support of fiscal conservatives, but the government programs they chose to attack were carefully chosen as a way to rile up the racist vote--hence all of the criticism of welfare and welfare queens. So that white racists would think their money was getting taken to give to lazy black people.

No question about it, there was such a strategy and it was at least partially effective. Its effects are sometimes overstated though. Nixon and Reagan didn't really need the south in order to win. It was a way to exploit cultural strife and tap into a rather slim portion of the electorate. Incredibly divisive and cynical and racist in addition to being rather unnecessary.

Still, none of this means that Nixon is the one who fostered the sort of climate in which liberalism could be brought into disrepute. Again, Nixon was, for the most part, a liberal. Conservatism grew out of his party slowly as a critique of the liberal agenda and grew in popularity as liberalism began to run out of steam.

The country didn't move to the right over the last 40 years just because the GOP played dirty and fooled everybody.

DePaul: Still, none of this means that Nixon is the one who fostered the sort of climate in which liberalism could be brought into disrepute.

I was talking about "liberal" as a partisan label, not as an ideology. I agree that Nixon's campaigning didn't change the U.S. views on the liberal ideology. And as a label, liberal has been derogatory for far, far longer than Nixon. But liberal, as a partisan label that encompasses Democrats as well as Greens, is something that changed with Nixon.

But even Nixon isn't the sole or even primary cause of liberal, as a label, to define the entirety of the Left. Nixon's just the clearest point at which you can say "this is where the shift happened." It was McCarthyism that weakened the far left to the point that there really wasn't a strong cultural force to combat the rhetoric when Nixon said everyone on the Left was a liberal. At that point, it was pretty much true anyway. Bob Dylan won. Tom Lehrer lost.

libbynomore2: Way to pat yourself on the back, but when you look at the Dem leadership, there isn't a lot of " centrist " there:

Nancy Pelosi
Harry Reid
Dick Durbin
Charlie Rangell
Steny Hoyer
Ted Kennedy

Obama? We'll soon see.

Are you seriously calling those people left wing?

Compared to people like Gordon Brown or Nicolas Sarkozy or Stephen Harper?

TheOther: FTFA: Democratic partisans are battling over a crucial issue: is the United States a "center-right" or "center-left" nation?

'center-center' is not an option?


This.

Don't the other two inevitably cancel each other out anyway?

burndtdan: the sooner both sides figure this out, the better...

america isn't center right or center left. america is center-center.

the largest block of voters are the self-identified moderates. winning them wins elections, period. but you don't win them by being conservative or liberal, because most of them don't give a shiat about any of that. you win them by being good at governing.

if they think you will actually be able to solve the problems they want to see solved, they will vote for you. they don't seem to care how you do it, only that you do it.

From a historical or global perspective we're center-right, or just plain old right. The conservatives have been moving the goalposts for the past 20 years.