Interesting that you should mention that environics data because I just read a book on it: "American Backlash: The Untold Story of Social Change in the United States". The basic thesis is that Republicans and Democrats actually share many of the same values and engage in higher civic participation. However, the majority of people, the ones who don't vote, are converging towards a more materialistic, social darwinistic individualist state and its these people who both parties really have should have a problem with.

That finding about Kaine is absolutely fascinating, and seems very important.

It might be that most voters need to put people in some kind of category they can recognize, e.g., Catholic, rather than try to put together a picture of who they are by assembling their positions on issues.

And once they saw Kaine as a Catholic, and were convinced that his positions came out of that, they at least related to him as someone who had values, and who was willing to stand up for what he believed in.

I think, for instance, that was one of the major appeals of Paul Hackett. People respond to conviction. And I think that explains some of the appeal of so-called Values Conservatives. There is a certain segment of the population somewhere in the middle that is swayed by conviction, even if they don't necessarily fully endorse what the person actually stands for.

That's both an opportunity and a problem. It's a problem because a strong element of liberalism is the ability to hold an open mind, and be willing to be convinced by intellectual arguments. That is admirable, and intelligent, but often makes one appear to be without strong core beliefs.

Principles count for something. Who knew?

Most people will give someone more credit if their positions are a reflection of consistent principles.

As one example, politicians who fly personal jets and have many homes don't carry a lot of weight when discussing things like wasting energy and resources, or bashing the rich.

On the other hand, some politicians have walked the walk on the idea of doing more with less. Off the top of my head, Jerry Brown comes to mind, as does Ralph Nader. Whatever you might say about either one's politics, you had to respect their consistency of behavior and ideas.

Look at any politician who has gotten a lot of respect from both sides of the aisle. One thing most of them have in common is a strong set of principles, and actions that remain consistent with them.

People respect people who have strong opinions and convictions. Even if they disagree with them.

At some point the Democratic Waffleites will have to understand they can't present opinions based on tracking polls and get any traction against good ol' boys.

tbrosz has a point -- projecting consistency spawns a following. bush also proved that highlighting an opponent's inconsistency serves just as well as demonstrating one's own (which bush certainly lacks in his own right).

The one question the Prospect article left me with was "why has it taken so long for democrats to utilize the kind of market research that republicans have been utilizing for years?"

The answer that struck me was that because business has spawned the most precise marketing tools it naturally follows that the party that reflexively embraces business interests would do a better job of employing said tools. The fact that this adaptation has empowered a party that plainly disregards the well-being of the bulk of Americans at the expense of the entrenched elite shows a structural weakness of American democracy. The Prospect article underscores this point well.

1. Invest in China. It's an investor's paradise!

If you have to take a survey to find out what you should believe, you have lost it before you even get started. I sometimes think if Adolph Hitler were running for President as a Republican, the Democrats would have to have focus groups to find out if they should oppose his "final solution".

In short, what this study points out is that America is becoming more LIBERTARIAN.

I didn't need a study to tell me this, Ive been saying it for years. People in general agree with democrats on civil liberties and republicans on economics.

In some ways, this whole line of analysis strikes me as simply missing the point of what truly wins elections.

For what does, in fact, win elections? The hot issue of the day. The hot issue in the last two elections, 2002 and 2004 was national security. That was a Republican issue, fairly or not, and they capitalized. In 2006, it's very likely that corruption will be the big issue. It will be a winning issue for Democrats, because the Republicans are the abusers.

Now the reason I say this is that the truly large numbers in public opinion are moved by these "topical" issues. Bush's numbers went up to 90% after 9/11. Delay's numbers went into the twenties even in his own district when he was indicted. On the other hand, the overall differences in numbers between positions/values/policies/whatever that Democrats hold, as opposed to Republicans, is probably very small single digits.

Why spend huge energy on the small differential, when there may be issues lying about that have perhaps an order of magnitude more significance in swaying the public? Honestly, I've never understood this.

What Democrats need most urgently in 2006 is a strategy whereby they can capitalize on the corruption of the Republicans. If they do that, they can mostly forget about the values shit.

Oh, and another big issue in 2006, of course, will be the failure in Iraq -- again a topical issue. Democrats need to understand how to exploit that as well.

I give it about 20 posts before someone calls you a sell-out.

to a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia. The trend was toward values in the individuality quadrant.

—Kevin Drum 1:41 AM Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (10)

Strange fucking individuals in your planet, yankee*.

Maybe you can meet Osama half way. Just zakat from the consumption and restrict the permissiveness to your 4 wives.

*Sorry to use the term but your culture provoked me!

If ever there was a time to re-capture the values mantle, the recent Republican scandals and the meltdown they have caused has got to be it.

Sadly, Quaker revival meetings don't translate into mass media charisma.

In short, what this study points out is that America is becoming more LIBERTARIAN.

I didn't need a study to tell me this, Ive been saying it for years. People in general agree with democrats on civil liberties and republicans on economics.

Posted by: Jonesy on January 19, 2006 at 3:00 AM | PERMALINK

As a liberal democrat, I used to worry about libertarianism cutting into the party's population until I learned that there are about 400,000 registered libertarians nationwide. That number has not appreciably changed over several election cycles. Why?

Libertarians are too narcissistic to actually ever go out and organize in any effective manner that would increase their numbers.

Mr. Drum, the only problem that democrats have ever had is paying attention to those who would like to see democrats fail. Democrats should have been confronting head on the republican taunts and jeers these last twenty plus years.

People respect people who have strong opinions and convictions. Even if they disagree with them.

Posted by: canucklehead on January 19, 2006 at 2:26 AM | PERMALINK

Barry Goldwater had strong opinions and convictions.

Mario Cuomo had strong opinions and convictions.

Opinions and convictions aren't going to get you the votes if the voter doesn't agree with them. It does matter what the convictions are about.

If only it were so easy. Like George Lakoff, the authors seem to have appealing ideas, but no one can say how easily they could be implemented or how effective they might be.

One thing that's struck me about American voters is how incoherent many of their positions are. Anecdotally, I've met many people who claim to be "socially liberal but economically conservative" or "libertarian", but, when pressed, admit to supporting a universal healthcare program. People like to hold onto the principles that sound nice and make them feel good, but when facing an actual question of policy may make a choice completely opposite of what their stated political orientation would dictate.

Nonetheless, in the 2000 presidential campaign, which was remarkably devoid of debate on any realistically implementable policy, many voters saw a choice between a moderate, tax-cutting "economic conservative" Bush and a "tax-and-spendocrat" Gore. Of course countless other factors played perhaps larger roles, but certainly on the margins many voters picked Bush because his economic message sounded better to them on principle, even though they might have agreed with Gore on the majority of substantive economic policy questions.

This is all just speculation on my part--I won't let real facts get in the way here--but I suspect that for many people this is true. The question remains: how do we tell many of these people they are self-deluded?

Oh well. Most voters on either side of the aisle are probably pretty poorly informed. Forgive the ramblings of a slightly drunk college student.

I didn't need a study to tell me this, Ive been saying it for years. People in general agree with democrats on civil liberties and republicans on economics.
Posted by: Jonesy

even when the conservative policies demonstrably don't work?

"a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia."

It's hard to imagine a more depressing evaluation of trends in American civil society than this.

It's ironic that mcaristotle feels this justifies using a prejoritive when his posts on this blog demonstrate that he exemplifies the very world-view he claims to dispise --self-centered, greedy, xenophobic, and hate-filled.

On the other hand, some politicians have walked the walk on the idea of doing more with less. Off the top of my head, Jerry Brown comes to mind, as does Ralph Nader. Whatever you might say about either one's politics, you had to respect their consistency of behavior and ideas.

If that was really tbrosz, then I will have to renew my long-lost faith in the power of online discussion to bring people to greater mutual understanding.

So it can't really have been tbrosz. Right?

claims to dispise --self-centered, greedy, xenophobic, and hate-filled.

Posted by: joe on January 19, 2006 at 5:05 AM | PERMALINK

Please I'm not American so I have nothing to do with your study. Yankee go home*!

* Sorry. Your very existance and war-mongering history provoked me. If you hadn't existed the world would be all peaceful and idyllic.

conservative policies demonstrably don't work?

Posted by: Nads on January 19, 2006 at 4:44 AM | PERMALINK

Where's your citation? Ever heard of Economics.

justifies using a prejoritive

Posted by: joe on January 19, 2006 at 5:05 AM | PERMALINK

Yankee is prejoritive?. I thought it referred to non-Southern Americans. Funny, red-neck gets thrown around here pretty badly and no one takes offence.

Well, I invoke the might American laws of Political Correctness and White Guilt, to get away with it.

Is Whitey okay? Or 'non-chocolate people'?
The African-American material I once read seems to have a lot of it.

I see liberalism as social expansion and conservatism as civil consolidation. Those institutions which expand knowledge/power, such as education, media, sciences, tend to be inherently liberal. Those which consolidate this energy, such as business and government, tend to be inherently conservative. The government social programs of the last century created a form of conservative liberalism, often referred to as PC. The reaction to this was a liberal conservatism, otherwise known as libertarianism, which sought to redistribute civil control back to the presumably more culturally conservative local level. Having been originally based on a simplistic rejection of government, now this movement has matured and coalesced, it is in trouble because it lacks any core civil philosophy, leaving its social conservatives and economic conservatives little more than a toxic coalition of greed and cultural rigor mortis. The enemy is not those of a conservative or liberal bent, but those too monological to understand that the coin still has two sides, even if they can only see one.

The reaction to this was a liberal conservatism, otherwise known as libertarianism......it is in trouble because it lacks any core civil philosophy,

Posted by: brodix on January 19, 2006 at 6:13 AM | PERMALINK

Low taxes.

it lacks any core civil philosophy

other than turning the president into an emperor, naked or not.

that's no taxes.

Another point;

Government budgeting is a mess and the problem with the line item veto is that it would place most of the power of the purse in the hands of the president, but a way around this would be to break the bills into their constituent items and have each legislator assign a percentage value to each one. Then re-assemble them in order of preference and have the president draw the line at what is to be funded. Not only would this break up the budgetary log jams which make over spending irresistible, but it would take away a lot of the power this process gives to the legislative leadership and parties and returns it to the level of the individual legislators. While the buck really would stop with the president. Specific proposals would have to appeal to the broad spectrum of legislators, not just a few power brokers. It would require the leadership to lead by inspiration, not just herd them around like so many cattle. Democracy is a bottom up process and the Republic is a top down entity. This would clarify that relationship. It is the congealing of power in the legislative branch which is the source of much current corruption.

Now it's off to work...

I remember after Reagan was elected the second time, some Republican operative was on a TV discussion show - his name was Ed Rollins, one of the balding chubby bearded GOP campaign guys - saying that the key to Reagan's popularity is that he believes things, speaks from his heart. That, and he doesn't hold the American people in contempt.
OK, who was the last Democratic politician who projected an air of passionate yet practical belief, and managed to convey it publicly without any condescension? It wasn't Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry. Hint: his nickname was Bubba.
Remember Mario? The guy who could go into a convention of police officers, hostile to his anti-death penalty views, explain his reasons for opposing the death penalty (Catholic respect for life) while still outlining a need for effective law enforcement, punishment for criminals, and support for the police, and leave with a standing ovation?
I'm with tbroz: "Values are important. Who knew?"
If you read Carville and Begala's political books, it's obvioius they understand this. What mystifies me is that this prinicple, a basic and (to me) obvious one, a principle fundemental to political success in the USA, seems to continually evade the comprehension of the Democrats, who style themselves as the intellectual, reality-based party. Makes you wonder.

I haven't read this yet, though I certainly plan to, but I wanted to comment on the second bullet point of Kevin's, re: wealth.

This is a big grievance for me, this phenomenon that's been called "the problem of comfort": keep the people comfortable and you, as a ruler, can do as you please. Americans are just too comfortable to turn their attention and energy to serious reforms or economic projects.

I imagine that if Marie Antoinette had said, "Let them eat grilled chicken sandwiches and drive SUVs and live in climate controlled 4,000 square foot houses and be constantly entertained" . . . well, there probably wouldn've been no revolution.

This is all completely pointless and meaningless. All such discussion as this has been overtaken by events and left very far behind. A revolution has taken place; America is now a totalitarian country. And before anyone advances any ignorant objections, to the effect that these or those (irrelevant) details of some previous totalitarian regime cannot (yet) be found here, please note that totalitarianism is not institutions or a pseudo-philosophy. It is a habit of mind. Once you have the notion of first- and second-class citizens, everything else flows from that.

If these researchers had really wanted to get some insight into what is going on, they ought to have been asking only these questions: what groups ought to be above the law? what groups ought to be denied the protection of the law? and why? No meaningful insight into America today can be gained from any other perspective than this.

I learned that there are about 400,000 registered libertarians nationwide. That number has not appreciably changed over several election cycles. Why?
Ah, we see here the difference between the big-L Libertarians and the little-L libertarians. The Libertarian party itself isn't picking up many new members; most conservative types aren't going there because of the free-drugs-for-your-children stand, and most liberals aren't going there because of the social program cuts.

Joining the Libertarian party, however, is a different thing than developing more libertarian ideals. The latter can happen without the former.

once Kaine started talking about his religious background and explaining that his opposition to the death penalty grew out of his Catholic faith, ... charges that he was weak on crime fail to stick ... they understood that’s he’s not a liberal

So in this case at least, voters didn't care about the policy at all. They only cared whether the candidate appeared to be macho enough or a liberal wimp. It seems obvious to me that Americans prefer candidates who look and act macho like Reagan, Arnold, or Jesse Ventura more than they care what their policies are.

Sorry but all these arguments are ridiculous.. "the problems" with the democratic party are plain as day-- we have an incredibly corrupt Republican administration and congress but you don't hear a peep from the corporate media.

all you hear is "both party are corrupt"

all you hear is "anyone who questions Bush's iraq policies is a traitor"

all you hear is "the democrats have no ideas"

As long as media is control by corporations democrats will always be the minority party

Remember the book from a year ago, "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

I felt the author's view was more like, "What's the Matter with the Stupid Voters in Kansas Who Keep Voting for Republicans?"

There is something reflexive among today's Democrats, that they despise people who think differently. And until the larger Democratic party learns to respect voters, not sneer at them, the Dems will keep losing elections.

I am not sure if this is really different than Lakoff or Frank. Frank says people don't vote their economic interests. Nordhaus and Shellenberger don't disagree, they seek to explain why- values. Lakoff says progressives don't frame the argument properly. Nordhaus and Shellenberger seem to be arguing for a specific frame- values.

I'd also add that Howard Dean was here already. Go back to his Vermont announcement speech. He talked about community or the lack of community. The lack of the idea that we are all in this together. Ask any devotee of Howard Dean and you will find this was one of the major attractions to his candidacy. The real anti-war voter went for Dennis Kucinich.

I think, for instance, that was one of the major appeals of Paul Hackett. People respond to conviction. And I think that explains some of the appeal of so-called Values Conservatives. There is a certain segment of the population somewhere in the middle that is swayed by conviction, even if they don't necessarily fully endorse what the person actually stands for.

Democrats want to win elections?

Ditch the gun control issue. You'd pick up enough 'single issue' voters to easily win both the presidency and congress.

Ok, send me the check.

"I didn't need a study to tell me this, Ive been saying it for years. People in general agree with democrats on civil liberties and republicans on economics."
Posted by: Jonesy

"even when the conservative policies demonstrably don't work?"

Posted by: Nads

And even when it's crystal clear to anybody willing to see that the GOP is neither in favor of civil liberties nor in favor of economic conservatism?

Actually, perhaps I should rethink that - the GOP is very econmically conservative - 'take from the poor and give to the rich' has a long and distinguished history.

As long as media is control by corporations democrats will always be the minority party

Posted by: smartone

Unfortunately you lefties have presented few ideas and seem only to whine and complain about Republican policies. Without offering any real alternatives.

Only a fool believes that Democratic leadership is any less corrupt than Republicans. They don't come any worse than front runner Hillary. She like many had to return money from Abramoff.

Another idiot statement is that anyone critisizing Bush's Iraq policy is a traitor. Bush said it was fine to critique his policiies. The only bitch is the way you lefty fools do it. So change the tone so it does not come out as defeatist and troop bashing.

The only media conservatives have a lock on is talk radio. It seems lefties can't compete in that market because nobody listens to them. Not because they are shut out. As far as the rest of the media goes a large majority of them claim to be liberal and it shows.

You are just another typical whiney lefty that does not understand their ideas do not resonate with the majority of Americans. It is not a corporate conspiracy. The left got out hustled the last election cycle and you should get over it. Come up with some decent policies and ideas. Without the mantra of the otherside is evil and stupid. Then maybe you might attract some swing voters insted of pushing them to the right.

Keep up the other side are cheaters, liars, crooks, stupid(how you could do all the other stuff and be stupid is beyond me), thieves and evil mantra. It shows how paranoid, desperate and out of step you lefties have become. I love it!

When a polititian goes into a hostile crowd and talks about a position that he knows they don't like, there's not only a values subtext, but it also shows they have courage. This is incredibly important. Especially in these days of perpetual war on Oceania.

So many Democrats don't seem to get this. Which is why maybe they should hire Kevin.

“Once people understood the value system that the position grew out of, they understood that he’s not a liberal,”

The assumption here is that the word liberal is radioactive, and that there is no getting it back.

So if the brand name "liberal" is dead,
why does this web site and other sites continue to use it self-referentially?

Good question.

"As a liberal democrat, I used to worry about libertarianism cutting into the party's population until I learned that there are about 400,000 registered libertarians nationwide. That number has not appreciably changed over several election cycles. Why? Libertarians are too narcissistic to actually ever go out and organize in any effective manner that would increase their numbers."

You do realize that there is such a thing as libertarians who are also registered Democrats, right?

If that was really tbrosz, then I will have to renew my long-lost faith in the power of online discussion to bring people to greater mutual understanding.

Well, that poster used tbrosz' email address, which the fakes generally don't, so I presume it's him.

Then again, tbrosz' positions also arise out of a core value -- reflexive defense of Bush's brand of Republicanism -- so having consistent positions based on values -- which, let's face it, diehard Communists do as well -- isn't always admriable.

So if the brand name "liberal" is dead,
why does this web site and other sites continue to use it self-referentially?

Posted by: koreyel on January 19, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

'Cos someone who call himself a liberal isn't serious about change. He just wants to vent so he looks 'activist'.

---------------

'take from the poor and give to the rich' has a long and distinguished history.

Posted by: Barry on January 19, 2006 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

'Claim power blaming the rich then help yourself' is way more classic. Low taxes is the intersection of pro-entrepreneurship and limited government supporters....

Plus bombing militants who want to establish opressive theocrat command economies.

Kevin Gregory wrote, "There is something reflexive among today's Democrats, that they despise people who think differently. And until the larger Democratic party learns to respect voters, not sneer at them, the Dems will keep losing elections."

But it's the Republicans who sneer at voters. I live in Palm Beach County, and there are plenty of Republicans who sneer at me as a moron who doesn't know how to cast a ballot, and how my vote shouldn't be counted.

Republicans constantly call Nancy Pelosi a "San Francisco Democrat." They call Ted Kennedy at "Massachusetts Democrat." They call the state "Taxachusetts." They talk all the time about how the South is the "real America," and the northeast is -- well, I guess they think the northeast is un-American.

Democrats "despise people who think differently?" What an interesting thing to say! On the one hand, Democrats are accused of being politically correct and being indecisive. Now Kevin Gregory says Democrats despise people who think differently.

No, Kevin G., it's the Republicans who despise people who think (and act) differently. It's the Republicans who call critics of the war traitors, who want to deny homosexuals and immigrants the equal protection of the laws, who say atheists and agnostics have no values and shouldn't be allowed to participate in civic life.

There's only one small problem with the "consistency" theory.

Bush is almost 100% consistent in his policies and statements. And at a 40% approval rating.

If Americans respect consistency, why is Bush unpopular? It's actually a pretty zen question.

molly bloom:

Dead-on about Howard Dean. His candidacy caught so much unexpected fire precisely because he was viewed as a man who wouldn't back down on his convictions. I will say, though, that his opposition to the Iraq war had a lot to do with it -- and very little to do with Kucinich-style pacificism. The guy was perceived as having a set.

Fat White Guy: Expert demographic analysis has determined that every opinion you express is a function of you being a fat white guy :)

Bob

Nordhaus and Shellenberger are clueless. They need to read The Republican Nemesis. Some excerpts:

"The Issues might actually be important to many Swing Voters early on in a political campaign, but when both sides start to pick apart each other’s facts & interpretations, the typical Swing Voter quickly becomes confused. As the debate over The Issues drags on, Swing Voters realize that they don’t understand the details well enough to make an informed decision, so they end up relying on their impressions of the candidates. Republican strategists see this clearly. That is why they continuously try to create doubts in the minds of the Swing Voters about the character of the Democratic candidate. They know that it doesn’t really matter if they can’t find any real flaws in their Democratic opponents. Accusations, insinuations, & innuendo will work just fine. They hope to encourage voters to question the motivation and dependability of The Democrats. They try to create the perception that Democrats are “defective” in a disturbing way. By accusing, the Republicans suggest to Swing Voters that they are not [defective like the Democrats]..."

"...Republican strategists know they would rarely win if election results were always determined by a logical discussion of The Issues and nothing more (they know that most voters would benefit more from Democratic economic policies than from Republican policies). They know they must win the Image Campaign to have any chance of winning. That is why they are committed, now and forever, to negative campaigning..."

"...The most important reason why negative campaigning has worked so well for the Republicans is because their negative attacks on the Democrats create a positive impression of Republican candidates, who appear---in contrast---to be individuals who do not possess the defects that they have accused others of having. They define themselves [positively] by defining their Democratic opponents [negatively]. On a visceral level, what the Republicans actually “stand for” in the minds of Swing Voters on election day is that they are not Democrats---those defective people who seem to have been born to ruin everything."

"Values" only matter because they help to define Democrats in a negative light.

Perhaps I'm out of step, but I for one don't believe that Democrats need to seek the counselling of someone like Pat Robertson as Bush did before his invasion of Iraq to reinforce how much his actions had the blessing of God..This is the same Reverend who said 9/11 was caused by America's acceptance of gay's, and that Katrina's victims were the consequence of God' wrath on New Orlean's decadence..not to mention Ariel Sharon's illness. Eventually,the majority of Americans will awaken to see how the world works the way it does, (reality-based) than through the prism of self annoited interpreters of GOD such as Robertson and Bush. I don't think Democrats need to imitate the latter to gain acceptance from adults at the voter's box, surely.

I think you all miss the main point of the article. What they're saying, is that for Democrats to have success, It's NOT that they have to "get values". That's not the problem at all. After-all, open-mindedness IS a value..a good one at that.

What they're saying is that America is increasingly a self-absorbed, immoral country, and if the Democrats are going to have any success, they need to play to that demographic, the Democrats are going to have to lose these funny ideas about "helping the less fortunate", because as we all know, that just means THOSE people.

They need to play to the tbrosz crowd, in other words. The people who pretend they have "values"...but their values are strictly in the dark side of things.

The venom from both sides of the political divide is jsut dripping here lately. Certainly there is nothing wrong with doing some research into things. What IS wrong, hwoever, is to try and mold the debate by tearing down the values of others. The fascinating sociological thing to watch is that neither side recognizes that it is involved in a spiral of violence, at least politically, and that with each turn of that spiral, it becomes harder to rid oneself of it. Liberals and conservatives are oppopsite sides of the same coin: hatred and non acceptance of those that think differently.

If Americans respect consistency, why is Bush unpopular?

Because they don't respect incompetency. The obverse of your question is, if Bush is unpopular, why aren't the Democrats popular? In short, it's because they don't offer a viable alternative -- and that's because they aren't seen as having any core values from which a voter can derive an understanding of the party. (Or, more precisely, because *they don't*.)

alderaan:

Actually, the theory still holds with Bush. It's how he can have such a vastly inconsistent set of policies (free-spending conservative, democracy-imposer who doesn't do nation-building) and yet still have an extremely hard core of supporters who not only don't benefit from his policies -- but who suffer from them.

The percpetion of Bush as a man of rock-solid conviction is the only glue holding the guy and his administration together. It is the single perception that the permanent PR campaign must continually burnish at the expense of all reality.

Bush, in fact, had to be persuaded into finally admitting mistakes in Iraq during his pushback against Murtha when he was tanking in the polls. Those admissions helped him greatly -- because people also appreciate humility and can forgive mistakes honestly admitted.

But admitting mistakes goes directly against Bush's temperment. Those admissions did, though, ultimately spell the difference between approval ratings in the 30s and approval ratings in the 40s.

If Bush could more consistently incorporate signs of humility and even concrete second-guessing in his policies, he'd be a lot more politically formidable.

Bush doesn't seem to be evolved enough to realize that rock-solid convictions can coexist with humility in building policies around them.

Bob

Excuse me the linked article for my previous comment is Pat Robertson but probably no one takes him seriously any more,with the possible exception of Bush, but then again I may be self deluded victim of liberal arrogance which Kevin has alluded to.

percpetion = perception

Stephan Judkins:>"Forgive the ramblings of a slightly drunk college student."

Wouldn't it be nice if all posters let us know how drunk they were?

Karamakin, right on. America is corrupt, Americans are corrupt. It's easy to see broad acceptence of the obvious fact that our military is in Iraq to procur cheap oil. We take what we want from the banana republics at the prices *WE* prefer. All Americans know this, but most deny it. It's almost refreshing to hear the wing-nuts say it outloud.

We know the Republicans are stealing elections, most people don't care: it *always* been that way,
everyone does it, so what....

Corrupt.

I could go on and on..

We're getting the democracy we deserve. And the Democrats will have to serve the people, corrupt though they may be.

When these writers figure out how come Bernie Sanders, Paul Wellstone, Barbara Boxer and Brian Schwietzer got elected, call me. It seems to me a strong dose of economic populism works. Plus, the value voters tend to support most is this: Does the politician speak in an open and honest manner and stick to his/her guns?

Otherwise, their DLC oriented nostrums are not persuasive. In fact, they only justifiy continued weak rhetoric and mushiness.

"... Although progressive policies are (mostly) fine, they need to be explained not as policies per se but as natural outgrowths of core values that resonate with working and middle class voters."

That's right on target. I'm writing a progressive from the red center of a red state who respects neighbors and friends of the very opposite persuasion. They are all, at heart, progressives in that peculiar American way, even though among their peers they are embracers of Limbaugh et al. They do not like the message they get from liberals that they are less enlightened and less socially engaged and concerned and progressive than thou.

The Kaine case seems a bit problematic for the liberal side: “Once people understood the values system that the position grew out of, they understood that’s he’s not a liberal,” says Brodnitz. “We couldn’t even convince them he was a liberal once we’d done that.”

So is the purpose using these tools to convince people that liberals are not liberals? Is it just a way to skirt around the problem that some voters have with the label "liberal"?

I have long felt that Dems have been much too reticent to stand up for what they believe in. They are weak-kneed and voters want clarity and strenghth. If Dems really believe what they say they believe -- and you don't get that from taking positions based on polls -- and Dems were more articulate about their beliefs, more people would respect them and vote for them.

Bob (rmck1)

Thanks, pacificist is the word I was looking for. The anti-war pacificist voters went Kucinich. The Dean anti-war voters were more anti the Iraq invasion than anti-war. We didn't trust Bush (lack of honesty and lack of competance) and we were right (not to rub it in).

Joey Giraud:

I was going to chime in and tease Stephan Judkins too, but then realized the guy posted at like 3:30 in the morning. Forgive the guy his late-nite collegiate boozing. Had it been at like 9AM ...

The best analysis of this syndrome in pure poli-sci (not sociological) terms is still offered by JK Galbraith in his slim volume The Culture of Contentment.

Spread fairly evenly in both parties, we have a Contented Minority, a Discontented (but enfranchised) Minority -- and half the rest of the people don't vote.

In order to win elections, politicians have to win a percentage of both camps. They have to push for change *only to the extent* that they don't alienate the Contented. They have to push the status quo *only to the extent* that they don't lose the Discontented.

Net result: TweedleDeeDumbed-down politics.

Bob

“Once people understood the values system that the position grew out of, they understood that’s he’s not a liberal,” says Brodnitz. “We couldn’t even convince them he was a liberal once we’d done that.”

What a crock.

He's not a liberal as conservatives have dishonestly defined liberals.

The problem is that liberals have let conservatives falsely define what liberal values are, not that the public doesn't like liberal values.

At the same time, conservatives are lying about their own values, promoting values in word that don't follow from their deeds.

Liberals need better marketing, not different values.

After all, if liberals adopt conservative values, then they are conservatives, not liberals.

What their argument boils down to is that Democrats need to adopt more conservative values.

That is unnecessary. Just switch parties if you want to adopt conservative values - that is, if you really think that the GOP actually believes in and employs such values.

If you do so believe, then you are delusional, but certainly entitled to that delusion which will be better served in the party that promotes that delusion.

molly bloom:

I was a Howard Dean activist in the primaries. I feel your pain, believe me ...

Bob

So if the brand name "liberal" is dead, why does this web site and other sites continue to use it self-referentially?

AFAICT, this sight uses it self-referentially so that Kevin's criticisms of "lefties" and "liberals" get the additional credibility of statements against interest, though, after a while, that breaks down as it becomes clear that they aren't, really.

deny homosexuals and immigrants the equal protection of the laws, who say atheists and agnostics have no values and shouldn't be allowed to participate in civic life.

Posted by: Holdie Lewie on January 19, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

That's a big generalization.

1) I'd say homosexuals can marry any person of the opposite sex they want - equality!

2)Actually Democrats want to restrict H1B's. They are only soft on the undocumented/illegal immigration.

3)For a sect restricted from public life. The lawsuits taking down ten commandments and removing prayer in schools seem pretty public to me.

Liberalism needs to go away and form a new economic consensus ..........

There's only one small problem with the "consistency" theory.

Bush is almost 100% consistent in his policies and statements. And at a 40% approval rating.

If Americans respect consistency, why is Bush unpopular? It's actually a pretty zen question.

Posted by: Alderaan

I don't see the contradiction. Because while Bush's policies are consistent with each other, and his statements are mostly consistent with each other, his policies are wildly divergent from his statements.

This wasn't obvious at first - for a while, the bunker mentality after 9/11 made it look like anything he did was an amazing accomplishment, with all the terrurists out to get him and all. And when you've got almost no record, like he did before 9/11, it's very easy to avoid contradicting yourself. Add in some skilled advisors and some incompetent opponents, and...

But he's been in office for five years now, and evidence is adding up. He wouldn't comment on the ongoing investigation of the Plame leak, but he would on the ongoing investigation of DeLay. Social Security was the most important issue of our time, or so he said right up until he failed to change public opinion on it, and since then he hasn't done a thing about it - no half-measures, no necessary sacrifices, nothing. He lashes out at every critic of the war just days after the Defense Department leaks (read: sends up trial balloons) plans for troop cutbacks - which looks pretty damn similar to what those critics are asking for in the first place. And of course, he was loyal to Harriet Miers, until he wasn't.

I'm not saying anything about consistency in general, or the article mentioned in the original post. At first glance, I think I agree most with frank's comment that issues of the year carry the most weight in elections, and tbrosz's comment about principles versus hypocrisy. ("Values" doesn't seem like a good word for it, at least not when its most common use these days is to support constitutional amendments that restrict individual rights.) But as far as this question about Bush goes, his declining popularity doesn't say anything about consistency, because he's not consistent.

2)Actually Democrats want to restrict H1B's. They are only soft on the undocumented/illegal immigration.

Er, no. Some Democrats want to restrict H1B's. Some of us don't. No Democrats that I know of are soft on undocumented/illegal immigration; though many Democrats think that the best way to reduce illegal immigration isn't just harsher enforcement, but dealing with the incentives to illegally immigrate including the unnecessary barriers to legal immigration of qualified applicants.

OFF TOPIC:

I noticed on TV last night how much Scott McClellan looks like Joe McCarthy. Has this always been true or is he being shaped by the necessity to lie for Bush?

cmdicely:

I don't agree with you about Kevin. I think the guy's totally sincere, and his middle-of-the-road positions come from honest reflection, not any desire to appear more "credible" because of some sort of imaginary "even-handedness."

I don't always agree with Kevin, either, of course. But I think this idea of Kevin as the left's answer to "fair and balanced reporting" is something of an unfair caracature, brought on by knee-jerk disagreement that some people (not necessarily yourself) find hard to assimilate.

Bob

"I'd say homosexuals can marry any person of the opposite sex they want - equality!"

Back in the days before Loving v. Virginia, we had a similar idea to that with respect to race. You can marry whoever you want, so long as they are the same color as you are!

Did anybody read the headlines today!!!! OBL poised to strike again. And here is an entire comments section, one of the best in the blogsphere, mostly dems, MISSING THE POINT. Repugs have one card, SECURITY and the FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISTS. With this card they have won election after election and will again in 06 if the Dems don't wake up to the reality of the post 911 world. We ain't going back, folks. First and foremost, the dems have to be the party of security and fighting terrorists. How, by doing it better then the Repug, with more competence.

I'm getting so close to starting a new democratic party, one whose main emphaisis is security and stopping Terrorism.

Ace:

It is the nature of Bush's minions to take on a potatolike aspect.

:)

Bob

Too dense indeed. Perhaps some people need to worry about these things, just as some need to do research on viscous flow in infinte-dimensional non-convex differentiable Reimannian manifolds.

Reminds me of a statement by an eminent Dutch aerospace engineer whose contributions were significant but only theoretical in nature: 'if all engineers work like me, no bridges would be built, no planes would fly, and people would still live in caves'.

OFF TOPIC:

I notice that Scott McClellan looks a lot like Joe McCarthy. Is this a recent phenomenon, or has he always?

The fake fake Al:

WTF ???

I've read the NYT, the WaPo and Slate up until about half an hour ago when I started posting.

Didn't see anything about everybody's favorite tribal-region spelunker being "about to strike again."

Where do you get your info?

Bob

McAnustotle: I'd say homosexuals can marry any person of the opposite sex they want - equality!

I'd say heterosexuals can marry any person of the same sex they want - equality!

McAsshole.

McAnus needs to stop McKissing McBush.

Doctor Jay,

When you write of a politician going into a hostile crowd and speaking his or her convictions, it sure the hell isn't Bush. When has he gone into a hostile crowd?

As for Nader's convictions, they went out the window in 2000. When miffed that the Democratic leadership spurned him, he became determined to bring them to their knees. He believed that once conditions became so bad under Bush, the masses would cry out for his return to save them. Well, he was right to an extent. Conditions have become very bad, but to hell with Nader.

Bob,
The newest tape just popped up on the news a few minutes ago, under the headline "Bin Laden warns of new attacks, offers truce."

MJ:

Is this a tape of OBL?

Sheesh ... the guy had been MIA for over a year. I guess it'd be news for the very reason that he's surfacing, not necessarily that the threat of imminent attacks is credible. Heh, probably a response to the Pakistani missile barrage.

"Nope, sorry, didn't kill me or my homie Zawihiri -- pbbbbt!"

Bob

The problem is that liberals have let conservatives falsely define what liberal values are
Problem is, if you let liberals decide what liberal values are, Democrats still end up outside the main stream.

From the ADA 2004 voting records (most recently compiled).

Of 'moderate' Senators (liberal quotient of 40-60), all are Republicans. * The Senate Democratic LQ for this report ranged from 65 (Nelson) to 100 (14 of them) and averaged 93. The Senate Republicans ranged from 5 (11 of them) to 65 (Snowe) and averaged 19. So the meeting point of Democrats and Republicans is at 65 (Nelson and Snowe), which is left of 'moderate'. Also, the average Dem is 7 points off 'perfect liberal' whereas the average Republican is 19 points off 'perfect conservative'.

So by liberal standards, the Senate Democrats are more extreme than the Senate Republicans.

I submit that the Democrat's problem is that they attempt to appear not so far outside the mainstream. This seemed to me to be Kerry's main problem; his voting record indicated what he believed in, but he was trying to run as somebody different. (Actually, in front of the left he was running as himself, in front of the mainstream he was running as someone else) And then we can back up to Lieberman, one of your more moderate Senators, running as a far leftie with Al.

Now whether this creates an image of lack of conviction, or whether this creates an image of inconsistency doesn't seem important to me. The same root cause underlies them both.

* Kerry actual score was 25 and Edwards actual score was 65 ('moderate'). The reason for this is the large number of votes they missed due to campaigning. Of the votes they attended, both scored a perfectly liberal 100. Zell Miller's actual score is 15; he was the last of a breed: the conservative Democrat. For all statistics I compiled, I used Kerry and Edwards at 100 since that is how they voted, and I threw Zell out as an outlier for 2 reasons: he's no longer there, and you guys never claimed him when he was.

Is OBL a Republican? He seems to ride out of the shadows to rescue them whenever the chips are down.

Bob,
It claims to be. Supposedly it sounds like him. But no definite info as of yet, and the exact age of the tape is not known.

Perhaps some people need to worry about these things, just as some need to do research on viscous flow in infinte-dimensional non-convex differentiable Reimannian manifolds.

I have to say, my reaction to this "analysis" is pretty similar. It strikes me at first blush as a way over-analysis of some very ambiguous underlying data. I mean, what significance, really are these various matrices, with their arrows pointing in this direction and that?

Honestly, it strikes me as just so much mathematically high class mumbo-jumbo. It sounds deep, until, on close inspection, one detects the odor of bullshit.

Back in the days before Loving v. Virginia, we had a similar idea to that with respect to race. You can marry whoever you want, so long as they are the same color as you are!

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 19, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Why did you need a court case to fix that? Why not pass a law or something.

On gay marriage - the adoption rights are an issue. Too much change too fast. The family structure is a powerful influence on good child raising and on poverty cycles. I can't believe radical experimentation is worth it.

Why not just do the civil union thing? Or just give them divorce/alimony/tax treatment/visitation rights/inheritance by a separate law.

I'm not even convinced that homosexuality should be legal. Certainly in the third world, homosexuality is heavily associated with sex tourism...which isn't a good influence on society.

McAristotle:

Go the fuck away, you subhuman tribalist.

Bob

Verrry interesting. Thanks for this post, Kevin.

An observation: my parents, in their mid- to late-60s, are classic "liberals."

But that political persuasion is driven by their deeply held religious convictions. From a Lutheran & Methodist upbringing to United Church of Christ to Quakers. (They met at Union Theological Seminary in NYC, and studied under Tillich, Niebhur..)

But the folks are also socially conservative in many ways.

Ma & Pa don't drink, don't smoke, don't curse, and don't believe in premarital sex. They are as much against abortion as they are fervently FOR a woman's right to choose. That reflects a belief in limited government and the essential liberties that define us as a nation. They have a strict sense of personal responsibility, demanding hard work and insisting on our obligation to those around us.

Those are very conservative values, held by an average, middle-class, politically liberal family.

But that's matched by a humanism that upholds the 'light' in each one of us, that upholds the good and redemptive aspects of human beings -- and does not oppress people for basic human flaws.

Just because Liberals are open to new ideas, and willing to actively construct a better world and a better society through policies that work...

... does NOT mean that they have EVER been at a disadvantage in terms of moral or religious values. Real Liberals have never rejected the need to work hard, pay your bills, and take personal responsibility for their actions.

Liberals have always held those core American values in common with conservatives.

"Liberals" have been vilified in the village square for the past 30 or 40 years, by Newt Gingrich for one, but is there much of anything that makes those charges valid?

THING IS -- Why on earth has it taken so long for candidates like Tim Kaine to express that common ground? Liberal political positions very often stem from moral, and often quite conservative, religious convictions.

Why that should be so stinking hard to convey in the public arean, by nominally intelligent Establishment Liberals, is beyond me -- and my Ma and Pa.

I used to say I want the democrats out of my purse, and republicans out of my bedroom.

But Bush thinks he's Roosevelt, and the Golden Globes just rewarded Brokeback Mountain, Transamerica and Capote --

I am a Perotista of sorts -- I hate all parties.

And i have few choices. There are no anti war candidates in either party. Nobody on the left will challenge the homoerotic agenda. Nobody on the right will challenge the brown shirts.

IF both parties would shed their fringes and go for the HUGE middle -- we might restore the constitution - make peace with Muslims - and save our children from homosexual saturation in media.

That's what matters to me.

You give me any data and the conclusions that you want to reach based on that data, and I will give you methods to construct features from the data that, when input into any clustering, regression, classification or association algorithms, yield the results that you want with over 95% accuracy.

I don't agree with you about Kevin. I think the guy's totally sincere, and his middle-of-the-road positions come from honest reflection, not any desire to appear more "credible" because of some sort of imaginary "even-handedness."

I wasn't (here, at any rate) questioning the sincerity of Kevin's centrism, but the sincerity of his identification with the left.

Sorry about the double post.

Potato-like I get, Bob, but nefarious potato?

Why did you need a court case to fix that? Why not pass a law or something.

A law already had been passed -- the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. A court case was required because a states were acting contrary to the law.

Judicial action is a means for for giving effect to the law.

On gay marriage - the adoption rights are an issue. Too much change too fast. The family structure is a powerful influence on good child raising and on poverty cycles. I can't believe radical experimentation is worth it.

Er, children waiting for adoption often have no permanent family at all, and its pretty well demonstrated that that's not a good thing, so that argument is, at best, spurious.

I'm not even convinced that homosexuality should be legal. Certainly in the third world, homosexuality is heavily associated with sex tourism...which isn't a good influence on society.

This sentence would be equally accurate if you replaced "homosexuality" with "heterosexuality"; and probably more accurate if you just used "sexuality" and most accurate if you used "poverty", instead.

arsenia:

I'm a straight guy, but I've gotta tell you ... you appear insanely homophobic.

Just what is it about homosexuality or a so-called "homosexual agenda" frightens you so?

Homosexuals are just what this old overpopulated planet needs, people-wise, if you think about it.

And if you don't want the GOP "in your bedroom" -- why would it be okay for *any* political party to be in the bedrooms of homosexuals?

This position -- mixed in with a host of others of yours I most wholeheartedly support as a liberal -- I find both philosophically inconsitent and more than a little troubling, from a universal human rights perspective.

Bob

"I have to say, my reaction to this "analysis" is pretty similar. It strikes me at first blush as a way over-analysis of some very ambiguous underlying data. I mean, what significance, really are these various matrices, with their arrows pointing in this direction and that?

Honestly, it strikes me as just so much mathematically high class mumbo-jumbo. It sounds deep, until, on close inspection, one detects the odor of bullshit."

Posted by: frankly0 on January 19, 2006 at 11:27

Translation--I don't agree with this, so it's bullshit. That is the "Progressive" stance in a nutshell. "We want to believe what we want to believe, and screw any evidence to the contrary."

One of the most informative comments in Kevin's post has been ignored by all--"Liberals need to abandon the fantasy that "opinion polls show that voters agree with us!" Only the shallowest analysis of opinion polls supports this notion, and when you dig even an inch below the surface it turns out that in many cases "our issues" have a lot less salience than we think." I would suggest that franklyo and others read that comment carefully, and consider its fundamental meaning. Of course, I know better than to expect the "reality-based" community to waste time considering this particular reality.

And i have few choices. There are no anti war candidates in either party. Nobody on the left will challenge the homoerotic agenda. Nobody on the right will challenge the brown shirts.

You want an anti-war, pro-bigotry, anti-Nazi party?

Yeah, I can see why that's hard to find.

McA, read Loving v. Virginia. The Lovings were residents of the state of Virginia, which at the time (1960s) had anti-miscegenation laws on the books, as did many other states- mostly the ones now known as the "red" states. They were going to be sent to prison by the laws on the books. Sadly, there are many parts of the country where appealing to racist sentiments not only won't hurt you in politics, it's practically a prerequisite for gaining office.

Incidentally, they also had nice theological reasons for opposing mixed-race marriages.

You know the kind of analyses I respect?

The sort of approaches one sees in the book Ruy Teixeira co-wrote, describing demographic changes that augur very well for Democrats as time progresses. I simply believe in the palpable reality of the sorts of trends it describes, even if it isn't 100% correct, unlike the woolly matrices and far too abstract interpretation offered up by this other approach.

My own view is that Democrats should figure out how to exploit the hot issues of the day to win elections, while letting the underlying demographics turn in their favor, point by point. And then, they should continue to focus mainly on the hot button issues.

The demographic changes will start to load the dice more in their favor, but they still have to position themselves for the best possible outcome from each roll of the dice.

And all this info came from tracking polls so therefore the info means nothing,Right?

There's a lot to agree and disagree with here

And that's the deep commentary we come here for.

You know, posting extensive excerpts without substantial response isn't all that different than just posting something like:

Hm. Interesting.

..I don't agree with this, so it's bullshit..

Conversely, since it confirms my prejudices, the study is of seminal importance, and you must study it thoroughly.

inconsitent = inconsistent

cmdicely:

I don't question Kevin's identification with the left, either. I think this post was designed to be provocative and it was pretty clear that he wasn't endorsing the conclusions, just giving us something to chew over.

Kevin isn't a hardcore leftie, but I have no trouble seeing him as a man on the center left.

Then again, I wasn't on PA during the lead-up to the Iraq war, when Keven was putatively apologizing for it.

That would have doubtless both disgusted me and colored my views of Kevin in a way he'd have a hard time of recuperating from ...

Bob

I love, love, love this stuff. Won't have time to read the story until later, but I can't wait to delve into it.

Kevin Gregory: There is something reflexive among today's Democrats, that they despise people who think differently. And until the larger Democratic party learns to respect voters, not sneer at them, the Dems will keep losing elections.

What garbage. The more elite, or at least the more privileged, in both political parties sneer at the average voter. Dems are just more upfront about it, while Republican operatives cynically m