New Democrats: listening to the middle third
I’m encouraged by the following:
The complexion of the Democratic presence in Congress will change…Party politics will be shaped by the resurgence of “Blue Dog” Democrats, who come mainly from the South and from rural districts in the Midwest and often vote like Republicans. Top Democrats such as Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., see these middle-of-the-road Democrats as the future of the party in a nation that leans slightly right of center.
I’m in the center myself. And I’m for parties that don’t ignore the Law of Thirds.
What’s the Law of Thirds? Take a look here. It still holds, I believe, and I’m glad of it:
Basically, my law refers to the fact that the populace of the US seems to be divided roughly into thirds, at least in the political sense: one-third on the entrenched left, one-third on the entrenched right, and one-third in between. It was something I’d noticed over and over in public opinion polls, and it seemed to be stable over time.
You all know where I stand–in that middle third. I think it’s actually where I’ve always stood, although I used to be positioned towards the leftish end of that middle, and now I stand pretty much in the very middle of that middle. It’s from this moderate middle third that elections are generally decided…
And here’s my warning to those on either side who ignore that all-important middle third:
Those who are considerably to the right or left often seem to have another thing in common: when their party happens to get into power, they believe it means that the Law of Thirds has been repealed, just for them. It hasn’t. As far as I know it’s still in operation, and has been for quite some time. Anyone from either radical third who thinks the American people will be happy to give his/her third a permanent ascendance in American political life is quite wrong, IMHO, and that person will be soundly rejected by said American people if he/she arrogantly and openly displays the hubris of thinking so–whether that person’s name be Howard Dean or Newt Gingrich or whomever else would be an even better example of the genre.
So the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party begins. Or continues.
One more thing: I’m heartened by the re-election of Lieberman and the defeat of Lamont in Connecticut. It’s a signal from that middle third; let’s hope the Democrats heed it.
Can I have a pat on the back from everyone? 🙂 I was about to feed a troll but realized my mistake before it was too late. Thank you. Thank you.
While it is true that Lieberman won, he didn’t win the Democrat primary, which means Democrats are not pro-war……
So what is Pelosi going to do about her “base”?
I wouldn’t hold my breath on the dems going moderate and reaching out. It hasn’t happened since I began watching politics nearly 20 years ago. You do not put Pelosi, Dean, and the others as your party chiefs if you believe in a moderate platform.
Right now, the dems are in a hard position. One group – the Netroots, George Soros, and the dems “base” want what most of us call radical and anything else is a betrayal. Leiberman saw what happens there.
However, they got their majority through unhappiness that the republicans are not tough on the border, not prosecuting Iraq hard enough, and a few other things that their base is in the exact opposite direction, many used vague wording like “I will fight for a stronger America and win the war on terror”. Now that got got elected by letting people think what they want they have to actually take a stand.
So, do they appease their base and loose the moderates or do they appease the moderates and loose their base? If they do what they have done for the last 50+ years the moderates are going to learn that the stove eye really is like many have told them – hot (and the dems will also learn that they can’t do the radical and have the media spin/hide it anymore – first time they have been in power since the change there). Better to learn now than in 2008.
Finally, will the republicans realize (they haven’t in those same 20 years except for a brief period in 1994) that they can be conservative, appease their base *and* appease the moderates? If so then the dems are going to pretty much be dead for a LONG time.
“I’m in the center myself”
I don’t think so neo. You are an ultranationalist. That is the extreme right with the neocons.
BTW If you look at the house results for the Dems, you’d have to say that Rahm Emanuel’s candidates were the least successful of all and the anti-war candidates were the most successful.
The Dems did well in the house despite Emanuel, not because of him.
No, I don’t think the electorate wants bipartisanship, I think they want blood and guts in Washington. They want impeachment and they want it now.
Liebermann won because he got nearly all the Republican vote and a minority of the Dem and Independent votes. He is still a Benedict Arnold.
Talk of impeaching Bush “is off the table.”
— Nancy Pelosi
Holy crap, you yanks voted a socialist into your senate?! Who’d a thunk it?
The horrors of the far left! The horrors! …
“In terms of socialism, I think there is a lot to be learned from Scandinavia and from some of the work, very good work that people have done in Europe. In countries like Finland, Norway, Denmark, poverty has almost been eliminated. All people have healthcare as a right of citizenship. College education is available to all people, regardless of income, virtually free. I have been very aggressive in trying to move to sustainable energy. They have a lot of political participation, high voter turnouts. I think there is a lot to be learned from countries that have created more egalitarian societies than has the United States of America.”
– Senator elect Bernie Sanders
Hide the children!
Neo can’t be the ultranationalist, because I am the empire guy. I got that position already. Sergey probably has a part of that pie as well. I never heard from Neo about any wish on her part for the Empire model.
He is still a Benedict Arnold.
Gotta dodge those net roots boys, strcpy, they’ll tar and feather you quick as a lick.
Republicans lose when they go Middle. If they stay conservative, they win more, because lower taxes and smaller government are always popular themes. They ignored this and lost.
Interesting site. I consider myself to be a Scoop Jackson type Democrat and agree that Joe Lieberman’s re-election is a good thing.
The Democratic Party is slowly shifting back toward the center. Of course, there is a far out activist fringe on the left just as would have the nut case right within the Republican Party.
Despite the growing polarization, parties still win elections by appealing to the center.
The nut cases protesting at American funerals with “God hates you signs”, were last time I checked, Democrats. Well, the truism still applies. Go far enough right, and you’ll hit the left.
Too bad you weren’t at the funeral, you could have taken out the lefties with your martial arts moves.
Don’t know if it’s really sunk in with you yet, Ymarsakar, but that election was a referendum on your particular breed of conservatism.
Lieberman a a Benedict Arnold? I kinda thought it was the other way around. He was rejected by his party. So far as I know, he hasn’t rejected them. Unless you considerate it betrayal that he think’s for himself about the war based on his own firsthand experience. It’s funny that folks on the left fear and accuse Bush of a kind of totalitarianism, they’ll gladly accept under the banner of their own party. You scare me. I, like this blogs host, I think, tend to limit my loyalty to my country and not merely to a political party. A house divided against itself, cannot stand.
Anyway, my hat’s off to the man. He not only won the election, he comes into this next cycle with more leverage than he had previously.
“Well, the truism still applies. Go far enough right, and you’ll hit the left.”
Amen, Ymar. I think I heard Clint Eastwood say the same thing–go far enough off either end, and you meet the same nutcases coming from the other way.
Great points on the “middle third”. I figured out the reason my lefty and righty acquaintances get enraged with me is that I refuse to sign on to their pathologies. I love divided governments! It’s so much harder to push mischievous crap through the system.
Sign me Middle/3, closet libertarian.
PS, neo, I haven’t followed your troll policies, but wouldn’t it be wise just to leave the posts up long enough to show the idiocy, then just ban the nastier ones? They’re just an irritation and a distraction in the end.
People read their posts, which is sort of why they are an irritation. Neo doesn’t have the flexibility of a forum poster, she can’t give us users the ability to ignore specific folks.
So all she can do, is to delete their posts and ask us not to read the posts of trolls. You can try ignoring them after reading their posts, but, that is harder.
It’s funny that folks on the left fear and accuse Bush of a kind of totalitarianism, they’ll gladly accept under the banner of their own party. You scare me.
Reading your post, you’d think all leftists are communists. When asked what Bernie Sanders means by “socialism,” he replied:
“Well, I think it means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship, all of our people have healthcare; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality childcare, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly. That’s all it means. And we are living in an increasingly undemocratic society in which decisions are made by people who have huge sums of money. And that’s the goal that we have to achieve.”
Alright? That’s what it’s about. You start with the premise that leaving all of society’s interests to the free market isn’t wise. That’s where you target your argument if you want cut through the bullshit distractions and move forward.
The election’s over and it sounds like the Democratic leadership is taking a Mandella-style, reconciliatory approach. This community might as well drop the media-fueled, over-the-top rhetoric.
Tired of my posts? I don’t consider myself a troll, but if you start talking like citizens who share a common interest in the welfare of your country, this place would lose its delicious irony and much of its appeal to me.
It isn’t ideology.
The fact that he accepted money and support from those who his party opposes says it all as to his integrity.
He has none.
That’s just… wow. Did you just say that going contrary to the popular opinion means you have no integrity, or that simply anybody disagreeing with the Democrats means you have no integrity? In either case, that’s an astounding degree of authoritarianism.
The Democrat War Party is churning it out even now.
War is peace now it seems.
Anon 3:31, Olbrandts, check out their websites, their posts, jeezuz its futile, why bother? They are SO full of hate. And halfwits basically. What was that book? The closing of the American mind? Its here on display. Ymarsakar in particular yearns for the sanctuary of a sheltered workshop, no doubt where he belongs….this post wont be up long, but then neither will what passes for ideas here.
really pathetic, unbelievable.
So, the American body politic elected the Dhimmicrats. Yes, the race was won by the center third ‘moderates’, but, guess what? You got all of them. The extreme leftists, who run the party are now in power. Rangel & Co. will raise your taxes, yes, that is what ‘letting the Bush tax cuts die’ means. We will redefine victory in Iraq to be ‘cut-and-run’ from there. Which, if you have been paying attention, OBL says is a WIN for him and his.
Up is down, back is forward. The caviar socialists are going to show you how much they love the common man. You know, like JK loves the troops. They have utter disdain for people they view as the ‘lower classes’. They are the same ilk that won the Communist revolution for Lenin. The intelligensia, the intellectuals, the first ones Beria put against the wall and shot.
Welcome to the new collective.
The Hobo
The “Law of Thirds” is not a law of nature, it is not law of statistic either. This is only empirical generalization, reflecting some tendencies in American political tradition. It applies when distribution of attitudes is unimodal, as a back of one-humped camel. But it does not, when distribution becomes bimodal, as a back of two-humped camel. This occur when the middle sinks; exactly this is called polarization. And there are lots of signs of this process nowadays. The 9/11 was a such polarizing event, and more of this kind can occur in foreseeable future: new Israel-Arab war, nuclearization of Iran and so on. Whether it can overcome inertia of political tradition and when this can happen – this is an open question. Some psychoses tend to be progradient, that is their symptoms became progressively more severe. I would not bet that in 2008 election The law of Thirds would still be applicable.
They have utter disdain for people they view as the ‘lower classes’. They are the same ilk that won the Communist revolution for Lenin. The intelligensia, the intellectuals, the first ones Beria put against the wall and shot.
Hobo, you’re confused. Liberals campaign for higher taxes to pay for the social safety net, which benefits the most vulnerable citizens.
The most vulnerable citizens in France are killing and rioting. It looks more like the “social safety net” only works until the slave force has been established, which then causes slave revolts.
A society is always going to have weak and vulnerable people. The measure of a decent society is how it treats them.
Teach them how to fish. Or how to use a computer. Or how to build things. And while you are at it, treat them like adults and make it a point to encourage them to try.
Don’t hand out fish. You just end up with pissed off serfs that smell funky.
Any questions?