Political Animal
Blog
It’s become a truism in U.S. politics that the Democratic Party represents a broader ideological coalition than the Republican Party, in the context of a “sorting-out” of the party system in which both are vastly more cohesive than they were in the days when regional and ethnic loyalities mattered most, and it wasn’t that odd to find Lester Maddox in the Democratic Party and Jacob Javits in the GOP.
There’s also a continuing debate on the political consequences of the relative asymmetry of the two parties’ ideological cohesiveness. Some Democrats look enviously at the superior “discipline” of the GOP now that it has all but merged with the Conservative Movement. And less publicly, some Republicans probably envy Democrats their ability to tolerate some dissent in the ranks, providing the Donkey Party with greater geographical diversity and tactical flexibility.
So when I looked at a new study by Todd Eberly of St. Mary’s College published by Third Way, I didn’t see a lot that surprised me in terms of his analysis of the broader array of ideological perspectives in the Democratic Party. Yes, I would take issue with Eberly’s assumption that ideological self-identification alone is the best measure of the views of people in each party, given the abundant evidence that it is misleading. And yes, I noticed that a lot of Eberly’s argument about the tenuous attachment of “Democratic-leaning independents” to the party was based on data from 2000-2004, not exactly the most typical of periods.
But my main beef with Eberly’s take involves his conclusion:
The real question for Democrats is whether liberal party activists will cede control of the agenda and allow the party to move in the direction of its moderate, non-activist voters.
Do “liberal party activists” control the agenda of the Democratic Party? I don’t think so.
I must have missed the moment when the major Democratic candidates for president in 2008 (or for that matter, 2004) embraced the single-payer approach to universal health coverage that is undoubtedly popular among “liberal party activists.” I also failed to notice newly elected president Barack Obama supporting nationalization of the banks, or a multi-trillion dollar economic stimulus package, or reversal of Bush administration policies on surveillance, at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009. Obama sure did go to the mats on behalf of the “public option” on health insurance—in itself considered a major compromise by “liberal party activists”—when the deal when down on health reform, didn’t he? And hey, Democratic congressional leaders most definitely saluted when “liberal party activists” demanded crackdowns on or actual expulsion of Blue Dog Democrats who were voting against major party legislation, didn’t they?
I could go on and on, but you get the point. A Democratic Party that could not bring itself to levy sanctions on Sen. Joe Lieberman after he endorsed and campaigned for the GOP candidate for president—which enraged even some “centrists” like me—is hardly in the grip of “liberal party activists.”
There are tensions associated with the relative ideological diversity of the Democratic Party that are difficult for party leaders to manage. That comes with the territory of being a party that sure “looks more like America” than the opposition. But the idea that hanging onto self-identified moderate voters requires some sort of ritual flogging of “liberal party activists” makes little sense politically or morally. The party leadership is rigorously interested in appealing to moderates, sometimes even against its own principles and prejudices. Beyond that, Democrats of every persuasion will just have to learn to get along, which given the circumstances, they’ve done reasonably well.
Facebook
Twitter
demtom on February 23, 2012 12:25 PM:
What Third Way types have wanted for decades is for Democrats to trash teachers' unions and slash spending on Medicare and Social Security. Anytime the party fails to do that, they are ceding power to thier liberal activists.
Just ask Tom Friedman.
Joe on February 23, 2012 12:35 PM:
Basically, it all comes down to hippie punching.
If the Third Way posted a recipe for corn fritters, they would find a way to punch hippies in it.
1. Take corn.
2. Mix with batter.
3. Hope that some dirty, smelly hippie doesn't break into your house and crap on the carpet.
4. Fry fritters.
Al on February 23, 2012 12:40 PM:
"Liberal activists" haven't taken over the democrat party. Marxist Muslims have.
SYSPROG on February 23, 2012 12:44 PM:
'marxist muslims'??? WTF does THAT mean? Are you a troll or an old white guy whining about diversity? Or giving you an out, are you being sarcastic???
gaardvark on February 23, 2012 12:48 PM:
As one of those Democratic-leaning independents who left the Democratic party after 35 years of being registered as a Democratic voter, I can say I left the party because of thinking like this. Who in 1985, even in the middle of Saint Ronnie's hey day, thought, that in 2012, we would be re-litigating reproductive rights or the very continuing existence of Medicare and Social Security? The problem is that third way thinking seems to neglect is that, when many of us Democratic-leaning independents lean, we are leaning to the right, not the left.
Walker on February 23, 2012 12:54 PM:
SYSPROG, you must be new here. That is just Al. Arguing with him is like arguing with Timecube guy.
boatboy_srq on February 23, 2012 12:56 PM:
Godwin forgive me:
The problem seems to be that:
1) moderate, "centrist" Dems and 3rd Wayers want Franco.
2) Conservatist GOPers want Mussolini.
3) moderate "centrist" Dems look right (at the GOP) and see Hitler.
4) Conservatist GOPers look left (at the moderate Dems) and see Stalin.
JW on February 23, 2012 12:59 PM:
The real question for Democrats is whether liberal party activists will cede control of the agenda and allow the party to move in the direction of its moderate, non-activist voters.
JW on February 23, 2012 1:13 PM:
Wow, I inadvertently erased my own post, and copied-and-pasted the above. Doggone if I know how that happened.
My original post was in accord with the remark, however. I had written that moderate republicans clearly aren't satisfied that two consecutive democratic presidents have governed as one of them. Having been driven from their own party, they won't be satisfied until the democratic rank-and-file STFU, and begins worship at the shrine of Saint Gipper. They are great fools.
slappy magoo on February 23, 2012 1:15 PM:
The GOP is a party of absolutes and extremes. Obama is the most liberal/Marxist President who will not keep us safe from our enemies abroad ever. And before him, it was Clinton, and before Clinton, Carter.
But if you buy into that big lie, then it stands to reason that everyone that particular Democratic President surrounds himself with is also a bleeding-heart liberal who would be oh-so-happy to hand the keys to the country to Osama bin Laden were he not dead.
If a real, bona fide liberal ever became President, the stock price for Acme Fainting Couches would skyrocket. But they have to keep insisting that the moderate, pro-business, centrist Democrats who get elected secretly want to turn American into a Soviet Union styled nation where all the 1% will have their wealth taken from them to be dispersed amongst the single black mothers, and those formerly wealthy peoples' children will be forced to gay marry.
And people in the media, by intent or circumstance, keep peddling this bullshit. After all, it must be true if Republicans insist that it is so; what reason would THEY have to lie?
Its why you want to argue about how some of Obama's hawkish policies disturb you, but you can't because some asshole overhears your conversation and demands you answer why you'd vote for that son of a bitch who wants to take his Medicare AND his guns away.
It's why you want to rail about how cozy the Administration seems to still be with the very people in the banking industries who collapsed the economy, but first you've gotta send your aunt in South Carolina a jpeg of Obama's birth certificate for the eleventy-seventeenth time.
It's why you can't argue the facts because the right refuses to acknowledge what the facts are, while simultaneously arguing you're not taking their paranoid delusions seriously as facts.
It's why in 2008 the GOP candidates all said if Obama is elected Iran will have the bomb, and why in 2012 all the GOP candidate are saying if Obama is RE-ELECTED, Iran will have the bomb.
Their claims do not have to be proven, they just have to be MADE, loudly and forcefully and repeatedly, and thus, they become facts.
THAT is why the Democratic party is run by liberal activists who might bolt from the party is they have to cede power to the moderate centrist responsible pleasant-smelling voters who now outnumber them.
beyond left on February 23, 2012 1:21 PM:
Punch a hippie for Jesus. the dems have been doing this for years.
Emile Mola on February 23, 2012 1:39 PM:
Third Way is the "Fifth Column"
Andy Olsen on February 23, 2012 1:42 PM:
I am a progressive/liberal “Democratic-leaning independent,” formerly a foaming at the mouth Yellow Dog Democrat, awarded Grassroots Democratic of the Year by my County Party. I left the Democratic Party because they abandoned working people and the environment and are doormats to the right wing.
So, Third Way can bash us damned liberals just as the DLC did. But here are the big questions for the sanctimonious moderates:
* What do "Moderates" stand for, exactly, besides always being the swing vote?
* What is the Moderate value system or platform?
I know the answers to these questions. They don't stand for, or fight for, anything. They are the worst opportunists in politics, always seeking to call the shots by being the unreliable swing vote or to hold themselves up as superior for their lack of any actual values.
Mods like 3rd way look down their noses at people who have values and things they will fight for. Look closely at them and you will see vanity run amuck.
Maroc on February 23, 2012 2:08 PM:
It's a Village meme just now. Ruth Marcus has a column saying the same set of idiotic things in my local paper today, which presumably means it ran in DC a couple of days ago.
If I had to guess, my guess would be that the Village is collectively terrified by the increasing evidence that refusing to move any further to the right, and even moving back a little toward the core New Deal consensus, is a winning move for Democrats. And that a sufficient number of elected Democrats may realize that for it to make a difference, and create something of a bulwark against further drift to the right. So they're all out there warning about those scary hippies who don't want to dismantle Medicare or Social Security again.
It's probably not even conscious coordination yet. I bet they're perfectly sincere in their way, and they all really did think it at once, in the way people do when they all belong to the same social and professional bubble.
Mitch on February 23, 2012 2:11 PM:
In today's politics if you don't agree with whatever the GOP is spouting at the moment, then you are automatically a member of the Extreme Left.
Heck, even if you agree with something that they said little more than a decade ago (*cough* ACA *cough*) you are a Raging Commie Sharia-loving Hippie Traitor.
The media goes along with this, so do "allies" like Lieberman (with friends like these...) and so do the Blue Dogs 9 times out of 10.
Meanwhile the GOP just keeps going further and further right, pulling the "center" with it. And these days both Reagan and Nixon would be Raging Commie Sharia-loving Hippie Traitors in the eyes of a third of the nation, if judged by their actions.
northwind1 on February 23, 2012 2:16 PM:
It is validating to hear that, in fact, people attracted to the Democratic Party for principled reasons are not in any significant way influencing what the party does in power. I mean it was obvious but it is good to hear someone who might know actually say so. This begs the question if the policy of democratic administration with respect to issues like health care reform or getting along with Joe Lieberman or deciding to "look forward" instead of prosecuting the torturers in the Bush administration (which will all look brilliant by the way if Obama is re-elected); if these questions are not decided or even particularly influenced by "party activists" who does form policy? Mr. Kilgore doesn't go into it but it is clear that the Democratic Party like the Republican Party is run by big money.
Americans are frustrated because there is no way for the real ideological differences between them, never mind how they self identify, to actually get put to the question. Far too much energy is wasted on anger, paranoia and the endless pursuit of red herrings down dubious paths. If this is not by design it may as well be for it suits the purpose of the plutocrats to a tee. America was born in revolution, which itself is misunderstood and mythologized, but which has, nonetheless, continued to exert a profound influence on public discourse. What America really needs is not revolution but to come to a consensus on the broad moral questions and to have good government uncorrupted by the oppressive influence of concentrated wealth on the democratic process.
PTate in MN on February 23, 2012 7:48 PM:
"The real question for Democrats is whether liberal party activists will cede control of the agenda and allow the party to move in the direction of its moderate, non-activist voters."
"Liberal party activists" sounds so politely academic and neutral. But isn't this just Third Way code for "feminists and those uppity POC?"
The statement would read more precisely as follows: "The real question for Democrats is whether feminists and people of color will stop insisting that the Democratic party support their agenda (a woman's right to control her body, equal access to education, jobs, health care, representation in the political system, justice in the legal system and compassionate policies for the vulnerable) and allow the party to move in the direction of voters who feel uncomfortable with that agenda.
Patango on February 23, 2012 9:10 PM:
PTate in MN ,,,,That is also a good take ...
And how about my korean war uncles who are dying off , raised dem , black people and the hippies were bad enough for these types , but the LBTG agenda sent them over the edge even further ..
But look at just 15 years ago , the gay agenda was radical left , now a different generation is moving forward , and gay rights are not that big of deal any more , in the dem party any way , but when we look to move such a huge population of people in a different direction , it really is mind boggling to imagine even doing it ..
That is why focusing on the platform helps IMO , but actually making our representatives stick to it also ...Then standing up for things like slave reparations and gay rights is fine also , but not demanding it from people who can not relate is wise also ...
What makes me ill is listening to the obama team say social security and medicare are on the table ( while hiring wall st flunkies )....A dem pres should never even get away with saying such things about established dem platform issues ..
A Reminder conservadems like to forget also , we had a choice between clinton part 3 , or a new president , we chose obama ....Bill clinton sell out $hit still makes me want to puke ... Proud dem here , never voted for that guy though
Texas Aggie on February 24, 2012 12:41 AM:
Which St. Mary's College is Todd Eberley from? The one I know is just slightly to the left of Richard Santorum which means that anyone who is mentally capable of looking both ways before crossing the street is considered a dangerous leftist aligned with the Trotskyites.