[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: War among the moderates (click to view)
Date: October 10, 2010
Amidst a backdrop of hyper-partisan mudslinging between Republicans and Democrats, a few prominent politcos in the US have been trying to stand out from the crowd by branding themselves advocates of the lost art of moderation.

Michael Bloomberg, the nonpartisan mayor of New York City, for instance, has been touring the country as of late, giving his endorsement and support to candidates of both parties, so long as the man or women in question is sufficiently independent from standard party orthodoxy.

Another wealthy New Yorker, Donald Trump, has recently speculated that he may run for president in 2012, as a way to shake up the existing party regime. This is nothing particularly new; Trump contemplated a similar move back in 2000, when he came close to seeking the Reform Party's presidential nomination (in the days when that was still a thing). Then, as now, The Donald argued that there was simply too much difference between the Republicans and Democrats, and that America needs some some sort of middle ground, centrist figure — like himself — to bridge the divide.

And of course, by now we're all well aware of Jon Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity," planned for the end of this month, where the talk-show host plans to utilize his considerable celebrity to call on Washington to tone down its partisan bickering. Though Stewart's own beliefs may be identifiably liberal, his dislike of dogmatic ideologues is just as well known. From his infamous appearance on "Crossfire" onward, his most spiteful barbs have always been reserved for those who are too rigidly partisan to think for themselves.

What is interesting to me is that people like Bloomberg, Trump, and Stewart are all clearly disillusioned with the existing state of America's two-party system, yet observe a very different reality than many other self-described moderates and independents. Though some see the greatest failing of the status quo as a vast and insurmountable ideological gap between liberals and conservatives, others seem to think the gap is not nearly wide enough.

Right-wing independents in the Tea Party, for example, have been waging their insurgency against numerous Republican politicians on the basis that the GOP is not different enough from the Democrats, and needs to work harder at carving out a new identity. Left-wing independents, similarly, have greeted the departure of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel with great glee, viewing him as a man responsible for helping minimize the policy differences between the Republicans and Democrats on a host of contentious issues. Such critics are the same sorts who probably voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, nodding at his rhetoric about Bill Clinton's great betrayal of liberal principles for the sake of bipartisan popularity.

So what is it? Are the two parties too alike, and in need of inner revolts to make them more ideologically pure, or are they too polarized and different, and in need of moderate leaders to soften their hard edges? It may say something about the state of politics in the US at present that even the disillusioned folks can't agree amongst themselves what they're disillusioned about.

[The_Doctor]

Well we do have the Modern Whigs. We hope to bring sanity in this government by creating a 3rd party that can stand in between these two parties.

www.modernwhig.org

[thealmightynarf]

That's not the issue... the issue is that neither side is ever willing to compromise with the other. It really doesn't matter how ideologically similar or different they may be. They just need to stop the petty politically bickering and be willing to work together. Adjusting ideologies or even adding a 3rd party won't change that.

[CKASlacker]

The_Doctor wrote:

Well we do have the Modern Whigs. We hope to bring sanity in this government by creating a 3rd party that can stand in between these two parties.

http://www.modernwhig.org

Interesting - have to say that I would agree with most, if not all of their goals from a brief read of the website. Whether it gets any traction with voters at large is another issue -- so much of the US system seems to be set up as a de-facto 2 party system, that I wonder whether *any* 3rd party could actually work.

[Teikiatsu]

thealmightynarf wrote:

That's not the issue... the issue is that neither side is ever willing to compromise with the other. It really doesn't matter how ideologically similar or different they may be. They just need to stop the petty politically bickering and be willing to work together. Adjusting ideologies or even adding a 3rd party won't change that.

The 'bickering' as you call it is very much the issue when the compromise that is put forward is detrimental to the country.

It'd be like me walking up to you with a chainsaw and we have the following conversation:

Me: I want to chop off your leg.
You: Please don't
Me: You are so argumentative, fine. Just your foot.
You: No, I like my foot.
Me: Obstructionist!

As for whether or not the parties are too alike or too different, it depends on the point in time. The 1994-2000 Republicans were conservative enough to force Clinton to become a pro-small business moderate. The 2000-2006 Republicans followed Bush's 'compassionate conservative' model and became as irresponsibly pro-tax&spend-big-government as the Democrats.

The Republicans that survived the 2006 and 2008 voter pogrom have either widespread popular support or maintained some semblance of conservative credentials. The Republican senators from 2004 that rode in on Bush's second election have either lost their primaries or maintain strong support from the public.

In my opinion the 2000-2006 Republicans had become Democrat-lite. Same general direction, same big government, same deficit spending, just a little slower. There does need to be a new direction, a near 180 degree turn away from the cliff they were both headding towards. Once we get far enough away from the cliff we can worry about where we go from there.

[Pseudonym]

Bipartisanship is a nice word, but should not be set up as an ideal in and of itself. Truth is an actual ideal for us to strive towards, and it ain't always pretty. Seek peace and harmony when you can, but don't use that goal to override the desire for truth.

[Trenacker]

Quote:

Bipartisanship is a nice word, but should not be set up as an ideal in and of itself. Truth is an actual ideal for us to strive towards, and it ain't always pretty. Seek peace and harmony when you can, but don't use that goal to override the desire for truth.

Precisely.

With respect to the OP, I can't help but point out that it's a matter of precision. From the American perspective, Democrats and Republicans are too divided; from the international perspective, they are too alike.

Since Republicans have defined themselves as something-other-than-Obama, Americans are now able to identify stark differences between the parties. It is also the case that, for the most part, Republicans, and especially their candidates emerging from the primaries, skew "hard" Right on social issues, whereas Democrats are generally scattered from the moderate center to the near Left. The Right has tended to run on social issues since the 1990s, with the addition of a largely inarticulate criticism of "socialism" founded on opposition to "Obamacare," and, now, an ironclad commitment to tax cuts as the basis for a poorly-conceived plan for restoring the economy that is all talk and no thought. The Left has been solidly on the back foot for more than a decade, and usually offers vague promises of economic stimulus and social programmatic reform.

From the international perspective, however, arguments over tax cuts and healthcare reform in the United States seem to get down into minutia. Even Obamacare is a far cry from the socialized medicine practiced in the EU. Moreover, the fact that the Republicans get so much traction with their stance on sexuality and reproductive rights, and the relative disinterest of liberals in spending much capital pushing more aggressively for positive outcomes on those fronts, gives the impression that most Americans are more or less content with the status quo. Since that is really what Republicans are defending, Democrats get swept into the same boat by default. Then also, both seem to be committed to the Afghan War. Obama is clearly caught up in many of the defense and security problems experienced by his predecessor. His answers, perhaps because of the institutional character of the organizations to whom he must turn for advice, tend to be almost identical.

[Pseudonym]

One thing I have never really understood - what is a center position, and who gets to define it. Could I have an example?

[Trenacker]

In the United States, the generally accepted convention is that the Right is defined as the generally more conservative position on social and economic issues, and the Left as the generally more liberal, or "progressive," position.

If we envision a scale of eleven points, five to the right of center, and five to the left, then populate that scale with issue positions, we actually see that there is a bit of truth to the old adage that the spectrum is better conceived of as a horseshoe: the extreme wings of both Left and Right are closer to one another -- in outcome, if not in spirit -- than either in relation to the middle. We might also observe that (1) there actually tend to be few persons on either extreme, and (2) many people will identify strongly with a given party or directional affiliation, but hold more nuanced positions on specific issues. Although one might say that each individual will collect or aggregate issue positions in some kind of mental bucket, that image only takes us so far: we all weight the issues differently, and, in the end, can end up casting a ballot for a politician on the basis of his/her stance on one or two issues of major importance to ourselves, while disliking his/her stance on virtually all the others. That is, issue voting.

At the far right wing of the spectrum, we generally see the following:

Social Policy: Legislation prohibiting homosexuality.
Economic Policy: Extremely low marketplace regulation.
Welfare Policy: Abolition of social welfare.
Tax Policy: Steep tax cuts.
Business Policy: Privatize government functions where possible.

At the extreme left wing:

Social Policy: Total sexual equality, vigorously enforced by federal intervention.
Economic Policy: Vigorous regulation of the market.
Welfare Policy: Generous and comprehensive public welfare.
Tax Policy: High taxes, with measures to reduce wealth inequality (e.g., "squeeze" high income earners).
Business Policy: Public services increasingly nationalized.

As you can see, there is not necessarily 1:1 equivalence. That is, the extreme right wing and the extreme left wing in the United States are not polar opposites. Moreover, the extreme right wing positions tend to be more popular then the extreme left wing positions. Also, while many Americans tend to support action to deny homosexuals the right to vote or to ban abortion, a large segment of the population does not feel much urgency about gay marriage, in spite of polling that suggests that they would not opposite legislated equality. You will also tend to find more calls for privatization in the U.S. than for movement of the government into things like public transportation or utilities. You will find a great deal of support for public healthcare among liberals, but not so much support for abolishing Social Security on the Right. The idea of replacing Social Security with private investments seems to have gone bust. Most politicians are also generally approving of tax cuts for businesses, small businesses especially.

[Taospark]

There are a few Tea Party candidates trying to move on Social Security, but I can't see that getting any traction with the powerful senior citizen voting demographic. I can see both the left and right embracing public works projects to restore American pride in our infrastructure, to say nothing of the need to compete with China's rapidly improving infrastructure.

Both Roosevelt, considered the quintessential big government President, and Eisenhower, arguably the last small government President, pushed through the biggest upgrades in the nation's history. While the mobile carriers (and the poor customers who overpaid) largely covered the expansion of cellphone towers, many other projects will require government direction.

[Pseudonym]

That has always confused me about Social Security reform. Every recent attempt that I have seen has explicitly exempted those collecting current payments as well as many of those who are about to. Why do senior citizens then jump out against the reform? Do the specifics of the reform proposals not get out, or what?

[The_Doctor]

Pseudonym wrote:

That has always confused me about Social Security reform. Every recent attempt that I have seen has explicitly exempted those collecting current payments as well as many of those who are about to. Why do senior citizens then jump out against the reform? Do the specifics of the reform proposals not get out, or what?

They complain because social security does not have to change. It's a pay as you go system. The only thing we need to do is NOT TO TAKE MONEY FROM SOCIAL SECURITY! Also 15 years ago we had a surplus because Regan raised payroll taxes.

[Murray_Smith]

Teikiatsu wrote:

thealmightynarf wrote:

That's not the issue... the issue is that neither side is ever willing to compromise with the other. It really doesn't matter how ideologically similar or different they may be. They just need to stop the petty politically bickering and be willing to work together. Adjusting ideologies or even adding a 3rd party won't change that.

The 'bickering' as you call it is very much the issue when the compromise that is put forward is detrimental to the country.

It'd be like me walking up to you with a chainsaw and we have the following conversation:

Me: I want to chop off your leg.
You: Please don't
Me: You are so argumentative, fine. Just your foot.
You: No, I like my foot.
Me: Obstructionist!

There is a compromise here, depending on the situation. The real argument here is whether the foot needs to be removed. I'd rather keep my leg, but not if it's utterly crushed under something, or gangrenous. If only my foot is gangrenous/bitten by a zombie, I'd argue to remove only my foot before the infection spread. In those cases, a chainsaw would be a messy but practical choice. So I would be an obstructionist in your case, Q.E.D.

[Zipperfish]

Pseudonym wrote:

One thing I have never really understood - what is a center position, and who gets to define it. Could I have an example?

I would argue that the centre position would be the point where 50% of the population is to the left and 50% to the right. You could probably determine it through a poll asking a bunch of standard question. But you'd be hampered by the fact that you are defining people on a one-dimensional scale.

Also, it would be a moving target since the nation naturally undergoes sways from to the left and right and certain high-consequence events (like 9/11) cause sudden shifts in the popular psyche.

By the way you spelled centre incorrectly. ha ha ha

[BartSimpson]

Some of us who are actually conservatives see the Republican Party as having been co-opted by 'neo-cons' (as in, not really conservatives) who dragged the GOP to the left in an attempt to appear nice and moderate. That's because they can't handle the name calling from the Democrats who moved even further to the left when the GOP moved to the left.

What's funny is that my values are somewhat in line with the Democrat Party of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. Those were the values of my grandfather and the Democrats moved way over to the left in the 1960's and when it came time for me to grow up I realized that the Democrats had left me behind in their march to the left.

I'm a Democrat by birth and I'm a Republican by default.

I'm pro union. But I'm also against union abuses.

I fully support the notion of a secular government but a secular government that reflects the values of the people, not a secular government that seeks to change the values of the people.

I'm all for equal rights in the workplace. It was only in the 1960s that the signs in Boston came down that said: "No Irish Need Apply" and when classified ads for work said 'NINA' as an abbreviation of the same. Discrimination has touched my family and I don't want it back.

But I am totally opposed to affirmative action.

I firmly believe in freedom of speech and that's why I also believe in the right to keep and bear arms. The latter prevents abrogation of the former.

I support a flat tax without deductions or loopholes for anyone who can afford a good tax lawyer. Make the income tax 20% if you want, but apply it to everyone. Even if they're poor they'll have a sense of ownership in the country if they pay their way.

And anyone who pays no taxes at all should not have the right to vote taxes upon those who do.

Now good luck classifying me.