Centerfield

I think you're right to call establishment Democrats on the carpet for this. But I'm not sure Republicans are much less chummy from the likes of Limbaugh or Coulter. Wasn't the Vice President a guest on Rush's show recently?

I think the rabid factions in each party are fairly intertwined, at this point, with parts of the establishment.

Just as a small example, I participated in some of the discussions on Little Green Footballs a few weeks ago. I ultimately got a sense for just how "out there" their perspective is -- they come close to suggesting that Muslims are inherently inhumane and violent.

There was an incident where the guy who runs that site posted a really incendiary quote and suggested it was written by a certain pro-Palestinian activist. He was incorrect in his attribution, which was pointed out by several people.

Meanwhile, his post was picked up by the online version of the Wall Street Journal and repeated as fact.

The Journal ultimately discovered that the attribution was wrong, but they were still all chummy about it with Charles Johnson, the guy who runs Little Green Footballs. Didn't seem embarassed that they had bought into his gratuitous vitrol.

I think, honestly, that there are groups of established professionals on both sides who feel comfortable with the more extreme stuff. There's a lot of stuff on both sides that ought to be radioactive, but isn't treated as such.

Extreme appeals are the consequence of a shift in how professional political advisors look at elections.

For most of the last 50 years, political professionals have operated under some version of the "median voter theorum" -- the idea that the candidate who appeals to the voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum will win. This idea reached its pinnacle with Dick Morris' "triangulation" campaign for Clinton's 1996 reelection.

In the last 5 years, however, this has gradually shifted towards the idea that whichever candidate succeeds in obtaining turnout among their base will win. This is grounded in the observation that, in any given election, up to 50% or more of the voters won't show up. Thus, the important part is making sure your voters show up and/or making the other person's voters stay home.

Two has produced two consequences, both of them bad. The first is an even greater incentive towards campaign styles that are both negative and free from actual issues in an effort to personalize the election and make opposing voters have no one they want to vote for (and thus stay home). The second is a strong incentive to ignore the middle and work instead to mobilize the base, using "red meat" appeals targeted at the extremes of the party.

Implicit in this shift is the idea that moderates either don't vote at all or will split more or less equally between two bad options when given a forced choice. Because of the nature of the electoral system (see Duverger's Law in political science) a third party is not a viable way to combat this cavalier attitude from the political establishment. What moderates need to do, then, is to become radicalized in our own way, putting forward our own coherent set of activists and voters that will draw attention from the political operatives that control campaigns by crunching the numbers and segmenting the electorate into voting blocs.

In short, we don't need to become a party -- that's a waste of time, money, and effort. We need to become a pressure group. Then they will deal with us.

Will,

I am not saying the GOP doesn't have it's extreme elements, or even that it's establishment doesn't pander to the those elements too much. Dick Cheney went on his show, he didn't throw him a party and praise him as the reason George W. Bush is going to win the election (and I do think that in the end he is going to win the election).

All I am saying is that we have a two party system. It is not ideal, nor is it favorable to those of us with moderate leanings. I do believe, however, that at least since the 2000 election one party has moved closer to the extreme elements of it's base and the other has moved closer to the center, and I think that although the GOP is far from center the lineup presented at it's national convention is an indication of a move in the right direction. I do not in any way get this sense from the Democrats.

Bush has made recent allusions to Limbaugh, even though he made light of the Abu Ghraib incident. Coulter, Newsmax and the WashTimes all are friends of the admin (with WashTimes writers regularly given access to right admin-friendly books). Even back to 2000, Bush still had to pay homage to the radical wing of the GOP by going to Bob Jones and appointing Ashcroft as AG.

I'd like to add to Tutakai's list of the causes of political radicalization my favorite dead horse to beat: gerrymandering. Ignoring for the moment the disdain it shows for the workings of democracy, it makes a strong appeal to the base the most effective means of holding on to power.

Whether one side is more moderate than the other is something that needs to be judged less on political rhetoric and more on actions. Anyone who has ever heard the phrase "compassionate conservative" knows the image that the GOP is trying to put forth, but I think it's more important to judge the president on his actions regarding education, health care, and the poor than on his photo ops with inner city children. For the same reason, trotting out popular moderates at the convention does not impress me, since Bush's policies on issues such as abortion, not to mention his huge increase in government spending, is at odds with what makes those moderates popular. I'll be impressed when he starts listening to the moderates on policy issues rather than using them to put a centrist face on his administration.

Well, if you were looking for evidence of democratic party moderation, look no further than the guy they nominated as opposed to the guy they rejected (Dean.)

But let's face it, there's no good way to keep score in a game of "this wing is more centrist than that wing." Policywise, they're going to preach to the choir of their base and act in ways that please it. The GOP will keep looking for ways to cut taxes on business and the wealthy regardless of the merit of the cuts, and keep pandering to social conservatives. Democrats will keep suggesting new entitlement programs financed by increased taxes on the wealthy (and sometimes the GOP will vote for the program sans the tax-based funding). Like we've all said recently, let's look at actions. Conventions, speakers, speeches, talk shows, pundits? That stuff is all marketing, it's not content or product.

Let's instead spend some time looking at Bush's and Kerry's products. Bush's primary products are a substantial tax cut that benefitted most income earners, a medicare program that provides some relief to seniors, what appears to be a rebounding economy, a giant budget deficit, and an expensive and painful war whose prospects for long-term benefit are currently unknown. Oh, and an amendment to ban gay marriages unlikely to ever fly, plus the prospect of additional conservatives on the supreme court as part of a long term goal of further restrictions on abortion, not to mention restrictions on individual rights to sue.

Kerry's proposed products are increased taxes to upper income earners (which it seems like he's going to spend 4 or 5 times, LOL), a higher minimum wage, an expensive college entitlement program that is unlikely to get off the ground, a continuation of that war of unknown outcomes with increased emphasis on diplomacy. There's the prospect of additional liberal voices to the supreme court, meaning continued access to abortion and probably a halt to decisions viewed by many as incremental erosions to civil rights. There's probably less likelihood under Kerry of laws restricting the right to sue.

What are some things I missed?

Brian,

The Democrats didn't nominate anyone that was more moderate than Dean, they simply nominated someone who packages liberalism better. I think you have a lot of good points though.

Like bk, I don't think there's any good way to answer the question. Who represents a party? Do we look at words or deeds? Votes? Congressional scorecards? There are too many valid answers.

My sense is that the Democratic leadership is publicly embracing / giving lip service more extreme elements like Moore while not supporting more extreme policies, while the Republican leadership is publicly embracing / giving lip service moderate elements (e.g. showcasing moderates like Arnold at the convention) while supporting more extreme policies.

But that's just my sense backed up by zero evidence.

Oberon, well summarized, I think that's my general sense as well. If this is accurate it suggests that the GOP believes its base is rock solid, allowing them to fish for swing voters, while the democrats are busy shoring up their base.

I wonder to what extent this is a function of incumbency. If you are an iuncumbent, your base tends to be solid because you can showcase achievements geared to that base while courting the middle. If you are running to oust, like Kerry, you are still trying to sell to your base somewhat, becuase you are not legitimate until you win, really, just a wannabee.

A lot of great information and analysis, here.

I would add the following. There seems to have been a relatively distinct shift in the role of moderates in the Democratic party at the time of the Iraq war. Before the debate on the war, the DLC had a prime position in the party. Back then, I was told by a few activist Democrats that a lot of Democrats were coalescing behind Joe Lieberman in advance of his looming presidential run.

When the war came, a rift opened up between Lieberman and the base of the party, and broadened into almost open warfare between the Dean crowd and the DLC crowd.

As for the Republicans, I think Oberon's observation is about right. The Republicans have an impressive bench of high-profile moderates -- McCain, Powell, Guiliani, Whitman.

Notice that only one of them has actually run for president, and the one who did is the only one of the four with a conservative voting record on cultural issues. The bold moderates who challenge cultural conservatives have stayed out of the presidential arena.

Prior to the 2000 election, a prominent group of party and business leaders went down to Texas to urge George Bush to run. They conveyed the message that he had the party behind him if he chose to do it.

I suspect Colin Powell was far more popular nationally, at that time -- an experienced, establishment Republican who worked his way up -- and happened to be loved by the American people. Ask yourself why they made the pilgrimmage to Crawford instead of getting with Powell and urging him to run.

"Ask yourself why they made the pilgrimmage to Crawford instead of getting with Powell and urging him to run."

Because when your party is trying to take back the White House after eight years of being out of it you tend to look for somebody with a track record of winning elections.

See, that was easy. :)

You think George W. was more likely to win, as the Republican nominee, than Colin Powell?

Who, of the two of them, was more popular?

For that matter, who was more experienced and accomplished?

George W's entire resume consisted of two elections to the Texas governorship (I think he also lost a race for the House way back when).

Texas isn't exacly a swing state. So my money -- if I'm betting on a winner -- is on Powell.

Of course, the real reason they went to Crawford could have something to do with the fact that George W. wanted to be president, and Powell didn't. But who tried to change his mind?

Powell was urged to run. They skipped pushing him because Powell said not just "No," but "No ****ing Way!"

Mrs. Powell was cited as having had the final say, and her say was apparently quite unmoveable.

I've heard that Mrs. Powell was the reason too. But I seem to recall him publicly considering a run for a while before rejecting it.

What I'm wondering, I suppose, is if the party establishment sent out the posse to convince him, like they did with George W.

I was involved in an effort in 1996 to get Powell to run... He chose not to citing that "he did not have the fire in his belly" to be a candidate for office. In 1998 he announced he had no desire and would not consider running for office in the year 2000 before the campaign even got started. I do think his wife had a lot to do with it, but I generally feel Powell did not want the job.

The theory that a moderate cannot win nationwide in the Republican Party is in my opinion unsubstantiated and mostly made by people who are not Republican and know little to nothing about the conservative movement. The social issues just are not the polarizing issue that some of you say they are within the Republican Party. Some big players in the conservative movement, such as Grover Nordquist, have proposed that the party take no position on issues such as gay marriage and abortion, and the President of the United States himself has said that although he is pro-life he does not believe it is the time or place to make abortion illegal.

I believe that Powell because of his military background and Giuliani because of his law and order stances in New York would be embraced by the right and either would win the nomination easily. Whitman would have problems because she is from the northeast and falls more under the socially and fiscal moderate category, rather than socially liberal and fiscal conservative... Some of her tax increases she signed as New Jersey Governor hurt her way more than her stance on abortion or gay rights ever did.

McCain is not a good example of a moderate trying to win the nomination. The man was a right wing ideologue until he hired Lamar Alexander's campaign manager who convinced him to run to the center in order to revive what was otherwise a lifeless effort. His change was abrupt and he was very black and white about it which didn't go over well with a conservative movement who had already chosen their nominee. I am not saying McCain is untruthful, I legitimately believe he is the man who he says he is today, but conservatives would know what they would be getting with Powell or Giuliani before they chose to run (Powell will actually never run).

FYI: Rudy Giuliani has been given numerous awards from some very right wing oranizatiosn for his actions after 9/11, the theory that he is loathed by the right is just untrue.

Very interesting observations, Mathew. You might be right about Powell's history of mulling/rejecting the presidential question.

I would agree, too, that Powell could have run and won the nomination. He brings a unique star quality that could push him through any difficulties based on specific policies.

One more thing to think about, though. Since Ronald Reagan was nominated in 1980, the Republicans have nominated a couple candidates who you might call "moderate". Both Bush Sr. and Bob Dole could be described that way. They had a pragmatic style that involved mixing policies rather than following any sort of rigid ideology. Dole was "the great compromiser" as Majority Leader in the Senate.

In both cases, however, they were vocally pro-life. Bush even changed his position on that issue when moving onto the national stage -- and never seemed to consider changing it back.

This leads to a broader observation. Since Reagan emerged, neither spot on the national ticket has gone to one of the many prominent moderate, pro-choice Republicans. Both the president and VP have been consistently pro-life.

It looks like it's possible to be a moderate pragmatist -- but it's tempting to conclude that you have to be one of the lukewarm types, not the bold ones that directly challenge the religious right constituency within the party.

As I say, I suspect there's an exception for a guy like Powell, who has a strong national following. There might also be an exception, at this point, for Rudy Guiliani -- viewed as a national hero post-9/11.

But on the whole, it's pretty hard to be a bold centrist and occupy either spot in the national Republican ticket. At least not the type of bold centrist that opposes the religious right.

I think Terry McAuliffe will rue the day he embraced Michael Moore, but that's another story. Parties out of power seem willing to do anything to get back in power.

I'm not sure what people commenting on this blog consider moderate or liberal. To me, the centrists still control the Democrats. The fact that Ted Kennedy speaks at the convention is simply throwing a bone to the liberal wing and recognizing that Kennedy is an elder statesman of the party. Look at the candidates that ran for president. Everybody made a big deal about Howard Dean's liberalism, but really it was more about the war than anything else. All the Democrats believe in balanced budgets (ironically, since it used to be conservatives that advocated balanced budgets and liberals in favor of deficit spending), entrepreneurship, a strong military, etc. The only real liberal in the race (other than Sharpton, a real joke) was Kucinich and he got almost no support. Nader certainly doesn't feel at home in the party. The liberals would like to "take back" the party, but you don't really see anyone advocating huge social programs other than health care. And Kucinich was the only one advocating a Dept. of Peace.

The Democrats are certainly more socially liberal than the GOP and, to some extent, distressingly stuck on the liberal social gospel of victimization, but it's more talk than anything else.

Frankly, I think Kerry's problem is not that he's too liberal. If anything, I think he isn't really offering an alternative. (And, no, I don't mean an alternative like Nader.) I think moderates should be concerned about the conditons of the cities and the numbers of people living on the streets. I'm not saying Kerry should argue in favor of bringing back the War on Poverty and I certainly think the issues are more complex than just spending more money, but I don't think its unreasonable that a candidate could at least advocate having the federal government play a role in these problems.

Looking at lots of polling of mederate and indep's lately seems to indicate that they line up solidly with the Dem side in terms of policy -- even more than in their presidential preference.

I really think that the GOP will rue the day it embraced the 'southern strategy' so completely.

Eventually -- of course -- the shoe will be on the other foot! But not now.

Tom,

Do you honestly think any moderate frames the argument as "pro-God" and "anti-God," or "pro-fetus" and "anti-fetus?" And do you really think the only issue in a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is whether people like the idea of gays getting married? Of course a comparison of the issues sound shallow when you frame them that way.

I think few would define "moderate" as making the president's definition of "God" the default basis for morality or amending the constitution specifically to deny a segment of the population a certain right. And the question of whether the war in Iraq is justified is a "moderate" issue only depending on which party is speaking?

I would comment further, but I'm still not convinced your post isn't an elaborate farce, so I'll avoid embarassing myself further should you turn out to be joking.