Centerfield

Bushies For Dean

David Brooks wrote a piece yesterday called Republicans For Dean, by which he did not mean the bloggers here, who have actually given up on Bush and support Dean, but pro-Bush Republicans salivating over Dean as the Democratic Party nominee.

Brooks has some fascinating observations about polarization in the American electorate.

Over the past few decades, the electorate has become much better educated. In 1960, only 22 percent of voters had been to college; now more than 52 percent have. As voters become more educated, they are more likely to be ideological and support the party that embraces their ideological label. As a result, the parties have polarized. There used to be many conservatives in the Democratic Party and many liberals in the Republican Party, groups that kept their parties from drifting too far off-center.

Now, there is a Democratic liberal mountain and a Republican conservative mountain. Democrats and Republicans don't just disagree on policies — they don't see the same reality, and they rarely cross over and support individual candidates from the other side.

Some expert now argue that independent voters should be ignored, with emphasis given on mobilization of core Democrats and Republicans. Others disagree:

They argue that there still are many truly independent voters, with estimates ranging from 10 to 33 percent of the electorate. Moreover, the Inclusiveness folks continue, true independents do have a coherent approach to politics. Anti-ideological, the true independents do not even listen to candidates who are partisan, strident and negative. They are what the pollster David Winston calls "solutionists"; they respond to upbeat candidates who can deliver concrete benefits: the Family and Medical Leave Act, more cops in their neighborhoods, tax rebate checks.

By this line of thinking, Dean is a terrible candidate. His partisan style drives off the persuadable folks who rarely bother to vote in primaries but who do show up once every four years for general elections.

Brooks concludes:

Which is why so many Republicans are quietly gleeful over Dean's continued momentum. It is only the dark cloud of Wesley Clark, looming on the horizon, that keeps their happiness from being complete.

For a different perspective, check out Polygon, who recalls that Democratic strategists in 1980 were gleeful about facing Ronald Reagan in the general election.

(cross-posted at Independents For Clark)

Posted by rickheller at September 17, 2003 06:05 PM