Open Left - ideology

More Republicans think Obama stole election than Democrats think Bush stole either 2000 or 2004

Chris Bowers — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:07:03 GMT

A new survey from PPP (PDF) shows that 26% of Americans, most of whom are Republicans, think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama.

For the sake of comparison, a Gallup poll immediately following Gore's concession in the 2000 election showed that 18% of the county, a significant percentage of whom were African-American, believed that Bush stole the election.

In 2004, the numbers for Bush were even lower. Back then, in the wake of Kerry's concession, a Gallup poll showed only 13% of the country believed that Bush stole the election. (FWIW, I was among the 5% or so that shifted from 2000 to 2004.)

This is simultaneously a demonstration that hard-core conservatives live in an entirely different reality than the rest of the country, and that the hardcore conservative base is as much as twice as large as the hardcore progressive base. As both a media figure and a political organizer that operates primarily in the hardcore progressive world, I'd be lying if I didn't admit the size of the hardcore conservative base made be pretty jealous.

With the exception of 1995, polling has consistently shown that there are more Americans who believe Republicans are too liberal than there are Americans who believe Democrats are too conservative. Further, a larger percentage of Americans are Republicans who would prefer less-electable candidates with whom they largely agree on issues, than are Democrats who hold the same belief (source, PDF). And there are even more conservatives who think the 2008 election was stolen than there are progressives who think the 2000 election was stolen, which is pretty remarkable given the difference in margin between the two elections.

Many dismiss the importance of an active, engaged, ideological base, but such a base seems to have far more benefits than negatives. The base provides the resources to win elections. They provide turnout in low attention and enthusiasm elections. They fuel the primary challenges that keep party members in line, and thus allow you to pass legislation. They make your entire party appear to believe in something, rather than being wishy-washy and attempting to win for its own sake. The continuing base gap between conservatives and progressives is a major factor in why progressive governance remains so much more difficult than conservative governance.

Only fiscal conservatives would say we can't afford to reduce the deficit

Chris Bowers — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:30:00 GMT

Blue Dogs like to say that they are fiscal conservatives. In fact, "fiscally conservative" is the first way that Blue Dogs describe themselves on their website. That description is right next to a deficit clock, because I guess reducing the deficit is their number one priority.

Fortunately for the Blue Dogs, there is a health care bill in the House right now that the CBO projects to reduce the deficit in both the near term and long term. From the CBO:

CBO and the staff of JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3962, incorporating the manager's amendment, would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $129 billion over the 2010-2019 period. (CBO has not completed a comprehensive estimate of the legislation's potential impact on spending that is subject to future appropriation action.) In the decade after 2019, the bill would probably result in slight reductions in federal budget deficits.

Great! Reducing the deficit is what Blue Dogs are all about, right? This should be a slam dunk for them!

Not so much. More than half of the 52 Blue dogs are going to vote against the bill:

The number of Blue Dogs leaning toward or committed to "no" votes could be in the 30s, according to members, although Blue Dog leaders stress that they've done no whip count.

Why are they going to vote against the bill? Blue Dog Gene Taylor sums it up nicely:

"I've been spending a lot of time with my members who are kind of going from pillar to post saying, 'Look, we don't need this; we can't afford this,' " Taylor explained.

Truly, only fiscal conservatives like the Blue Dogs would argue that we can't afford to reduce the deficit.

Scozzafava is a Conservative Republican...In New York? Maybe, Maybe Not, But...

Paul Rosenberg — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:30:00 GMT

Political scientist Boris Shor has a blog post premiering results from a forthcoming paper (pdf) where he goes to town mapping the ideological distribution of state legislators from 1996-2006. The post is titled, provocatively, "Scozzafava is a Conservative Republican (in New York)", and his reasoning is fairly straightforward: although the right is so upset with Scozzafava for being far too liberal that they may well be handing NY 23 to a Democrat, they aren't looking at the context:

Despite the laundry list of liberal issue positions held by Scozzafava, my research with Princeton's Nolan McCarty on ideology in American state legislatures shows that the Assemblywoman is actually a conservative Republican. Wait for it. Wait for it... In New York.
Her ideological "common space" score is 0.02. These scores, similar but far superior to interest group ratings, put state legislators around the country on the same scale with each other, as well as with members of Congress. Liberals have lower scores; conservatives higher ones....
Scozzafava's score puts her in the 58th percentile of her party, which makes her slightly more conservative than the average Republican legislator in Albany, so she's a conservative in her party. For example, she's more conservative than James Tedisco, who lost a special election to succeed Kirsten Gillenbrand in the 20th District (score: -.22 and in the most liberal fifth of the party). In the legislature as a whole, she's in the 83rd percentile, which makes her a conservative in Albany in general

Here's his chart of all the partisan state legislatures (Nebraska is officially non-partisan):

However, in the comments someone manages to throw some serious water on the claim, given that it appears Scozzafava has shifted ideologically while in office--a relatively rare phenomena in politics. So maybe the diary title is not really on the mark after all--but the larger point remains: there's an enormous difference in where Republicans and Democrats fall ideologically depending on the stat that they're from. You can see it simply by noting the lack of overlap between the bulk of Democrats to the left of the left-hand vertical grey line in states like California, New York, Washington, Wisconsin and Utah, and the bulk of Democrats to the right of that same line in state like West Virginia, Nevada, South Carolina, Arkansas, etc. A similar visual comparison can be made for Republicans as well.
There are actually two comments questioning the conclusion that I found particularly salient. First:

David Ditch Says:
October 22, 2009 at 9:00 am
An interesting line of thinking, but the proper context is upstate politics/voting patterns, not New York State. Downstate is dark blue, while upstate (depending on where you draw the line) is either 50/50 or very very light blue. Upstate Republicans are almost never liberal, and upstate Democrats are more likely to be moderate. Scozzafava would make sense as a Republican running in Long Island or Westchester, but not in the Adirondacks.

And second:

Izengabe Says:
October 22, 2009 at 9:42 am
The problem with your ideological "common space" score is that it looks at the year 1996-2003. (In fact the Senator you mention as the most conservative Robert DiCarlo hasn't been in office since he lost re-election in 1996!)
A lot has changed since the years you look at.
Her years in Albany has moved Ms. Scozzafava to the left. In 2003 she got a 46 rating from the Conservative Party of NY (meaning she voted against them 54% of the time). By 2008 her Conservative Party rating was down to 15%. That 15% score is by the way is the same score they gave Rosie O'Donnell's brother Daniel O'Donnell in 2008.
For further comparison sake Assemblyman Tedisco got a 55% score, Sen Morahan who you called the most Liberal Republican got a 50% (although in fairness he is a Senator not an Assemblyman and not voting on the same bills as Ass. Scozzafava).
Why the drop? Why the move to the left? Well since 2003 Ms. Scozzafava has been willing to get into bed with organized labor and the Working Families Party. They endorsed her in 2004 and 2008. So stricky looking at her record from 6 years ago and saying she was a conservative is really not fair.
You need to look at where she is now and what she has voted for lately. She has voted for raising taxes, supported the stimulus bill, supports pro-card check and hasn't said a word about foreign policy (her web site doesn't even have a foreign policy section so we have no idea how she feels about Iraq, Afghanistan or the War on Terror).

To which the author replied:

bshor Says:
October 22, 2009 at 11:03 am
Izengabe - I wouldn't put too much stock in interest group ratings. They've got really well known problems that I explore in my latest paper draft.
But still, it's quite possible things have changed since 2003. Nearly all the time, politicians remain consistent in terms of issue positions, but some do change (party switchers especially - but getting crosslisted with a new party like the WFP might be similar). Luckily, we're getting new data on New York state through 2008 shortly, which I'll use to update this post.

My observation is that while Shor is certainly correct about interest group ratings, ideological parties are likely to be a more reliable indicator. What's more the shift from being cross-endorsed by the Conservative Party to being cross-endorsed by the Working Families Party strikes me as pretty damn significant. It's not the same as Jeffords leaving the GOP, but it's probably at least somewhat like that.

Still, this is hardly the main point of this post. Scozzafava is just a handy example for driving the main point home: we may be one nation, but there are still fifty state parties for both the Democrats and the Republicans, and those parties matter, no matter what anyone in Versailles may think.

How they matter is not always so well understood in Versailles, either, as Brian Leubitz notes over at Calitics ("Proof That California's Republicans Are Crazy"), writing:

Do you remember the 2008 primary, when all of the nation's media was in love with talking about how California's Republicans were sooooo liberal. And remember how us Democrats here in California laughed at that notion? Well, here's some proof....
As you can see California's legislative Dems are amongst the most liberal, and are about the same as several other states that you'd expect to see us tied with: New York and Washington, and some that you wouldn't Utah and Arizona. But to those who say that you'd expect California Republicans to be moderate: hear me now and believe me later: They are as wingnut as you get.
No other state is even close to our wingnut Republicans. They are waaaay to the right of even states like Georgia and Wyoming. No other state is really even close.

This is really not news at all to Democratic activists in the state. But a whole lot of other people have long been in denial about it. I'm sure that 99% of them will stay that way. But at least we'll have a fancy graphic to rub their noses in.

Liberals Largest Ideological Swing Vote In 2008

Chris Bowers — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:00:00 GMT

It is a truism in politics that there are more swing voters in the middle of the electorate--self-identified moderates and Independents--than at the edges. However, exit polls indicates that is not necessarily the case. In fact, from 2004 to 2008, Democrats appear to have gained more votes from self-identified liberals than from any other ideological group.

In 2004, according to exit polls, 17.85% of the electorate were self-identified liberals who voted for Kerry
In 2008, according to exit polls, 19.58% of the electorate were self-identified liberals who voted for Obama.
From 2004 to 2008, exit polls estimate that the Democratic Presidential nominee improved his overall vote percentage by 1.73% entirely through self-identified liberals.

By way of comparison:

In 2004, according to exit polls, 24.84% of the electorate were self-identified moderates who voted for Kerry.
In 2008, according to exit polls, 26.40% of the electorate were self-identified moderates who voted for Obama.
From 2004 to 2008, the Democratic Presidential nominee improved his overall vote percentage by 1.56% entirely among self-identified moderates.

So, according to exit polls, Democrats actually gained more from 2004 to 2008 among self-identified liberals than among self-identified moderates. Conservatives were not far behind, either:

In 2004, according to exit polls, 5.44% of the electorate were self-identified conservatives who voted for Kerry.
In 2008, according to exit polls, 6.80% of the electorate were self-identified conservatives who voted for Obama.
From 2004 to 2008, the Democratic Presidential nominee improved his overall vote percentage by 1.36% entirely among self-identified conservatives.

Swing voters from 2004 to 2008 were spread fairly evenly across the ideological spectrum, with liberals, moderates and conservatives all making up significant portions. Although it is within the margin for rounding error, exit polling actually suggests that liberals were the largest swing voting block of all.

If elected officials primarily consider themselves accountable to voters who can potentially change their voting habits, and thus change the results of elections, it would be unwise to focus solely on the middle of the electorate. Roughly one-third of the swing voters that put Democrats in office are liberals, and as such Democrats need to keep those voters happy. Further, even apart from votes, the partisan and ideological base drives resources--donations, volunteers, positive messaging to family, friends and co-workers--which can in turn be used to acquire votes from non-base groups.

As such, while some Democrats may think there are no repercussions for using the partisan and ideological base as either a foil or a corner in a triangulation scheme, there are good reasons to think that that dissing the base is an extremely dangerous electoral strategy. While the 2000 election should have already made this obvious, these numbers further show the liberal vote is not static. The liberal vote can change in ways that can result in Democrats winning, or losing, elections.

You Only Get Kicked To the Curb If You Can Be Kicked to the Curb

Chris Bowers — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:59:10 GMT

In a diary at Daily Kos, icerbergslim has a pretty good discussion going asking whether or not President Obama is kicking "us" to the curb. It is based on the same anonymous White House source in the Politico that has been widely quoted today:

On health care, Obama's willingness to forgo the public option is sure to anger his party's liberal base. But some administration officials welcome a showdown with liberal lawmakers if they argue they would rather have no health care law than an incremental one. The confrontation would allow Obama to show he is willing to stare down his own party to get things done.

My response to this quote is more value neutral than most other bloggers. The progressive netroots and other supporters of the public option will only be "kicked to the curb" if kicking us to the curb is the most politically expedient option available for the White House. By contrast, if the White House does not feel it is possible to kick us to the curb on health care and still maintain what it considers an acceptable level of political viability, then we won't be kicked to the curb. To put it another way, we will only be kicked to the curb if we can be kicked to the curb.

There is no reason to expect that people who have managed to rise all the way to the White House will stick by their ostensible policy allies just out of principle. It would be nice if that were the case, but it isn't. Don't expect people who have risen to perches of extreme power to give up that extreme power just to be nice to you. That might be the sort of thing you expect from family members, or your best friend. To think that an elected official will do the same is to mistake that elected official for a family member or best friend.

I wish it wasn't all about too many politicians being more concerned with maintaining acquired power than with following through on principles, but oftentimes it certainly seems to be. For decades, throwing progressive under the bus has consistently proven be the most expedient option for Democratic elected officials. This is why it keeps happening. If all we can do is sit around and worry about whether or not Democratic leaders will throw us under the bus, then it is guaranteed we will keep being thrown under the bus. However, if doing this to progressives consistently causes an unacceptable level of political damage to elected Democrats, then it will stop happening almost immediately.

I don't like talking about politics this way, but progressives often get walked over because they can get walked over. By contrast, Moneyed interests and large corporations don't get walked over because most politicians don't think they can walk over them. That is a power dynamic we need to reverse.

The Dearth of Republican Attacks on Individual Mandates

Daniel De Groot — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:00:00 GMT

Awhile back, Ian Welsh wrote:

Republicans understand opposition politics: when you're in the opposition, you don't smile bipartisanly, you gnaw at the ankles of the ruling party. Nothing they do is right, everything they do is wrong.

Generally Ian is spot on, and he's right in terms of the burnt earth style of Republican opposition to Obama/Democrats but I'm going to quibble on this one because I've detected a dog that is not barking, and I think the silence of this particular hound says a lot about the utter sham and fraud that is movement conservativism. Namely, where is the conservative/Republican opposition to the Democratic proposal to enforce individual mandates to purchase health insurance?
A recent synopsis of the health care debate notes:

An individual mandate is proposed in three versions of health reform, but not by Obama or Republicans in the House of Representatives. The president would require that all children be insured, and House Republicans don't propose any kind of individual mandate.
The mandate would be enforced by tax penalties on people who don't buy coverage. One version, proposed by House Democrats, would impose a 2.5 percent income-tax penalty.

Could it be conservatives are in favour of the US Federal government forcing the free citizens of the United States to purchase health insurance, whether they choose to or not? Doesn't this represent a rather large increase in Federal authority, and a significant intrusion into the lives of US citizens? Precisely the sort of thing that so-called "conservatives", suspicious of government growth should vociferously oppose? Let's take a look.

"No," "No" Everywhere, but not a Mandate to Link (to)

Let's start with that recent RNC health care strategy memo. The only mention of mandates relates to employer mandates.

Of course, that's just an internal strategy memo, what is the RNC doing publicly? How about this web ad, in the guise of one of those cloying drug ads (it is kind of clever actually), lists the many purported downsides of "Reforma" but neglects any mention of mandates.

Next, there's the Senate Republicans, who published this pamphlet to their site. Purportedly about what CBO found with the Democratic plan, and despite being concerned about the many people who might be "forced" into a public option ("Millions More Americans Will be Forced onto a Government-Run Plan") this too has no evident problem with an individual mandate.

Ok, forget offical Republicandom, what about the broader conservative movement? In the last week, I found the Washington Times upset over euthanasia, government "control", over healthcare and euthanasia again which they call the "Euthanasia Mandate" - but nothing on individual mandates.

How about this Heritage Foundation summary of the House and Senate bills? I found some criticism of employer mandates, but nothing on individuals.

I was beginning to think I had just misunderstood conservatives, and that they did in fact support Individual Mandates (despite the graf from that Richmond Times Dispatch piece quoted above), until I found this bit at Freedomworks:

FreedomWorks Analysis: Requiring each individual to have insurance by law contradicts our freedom to choose and distorts the market for health care.

It's hardly prominent, and in browsing a half dozen other Freedomworks pieces on the health care debate, there are no further mentions of individual mandates.

Conservatives Used to Oppose Mandates: When Hillary and Romney were Viable

Rivals Chide Romney on Health Care Plan
Mitt Romney's top rivals are reminding voters that Massachusetts residents have until Thursday to sign up for health insurance or face possible penalties _ a requirement that Romney signed into law when he was governor.
[...]
It's also something opponents for the Republican nomination are trying to turn it into a political liability for Romney.
Such mandates are anathema to fiscal conservatives and other bedrock GOP voters who oppose government intrusion, explaining the silence by Romney and the criticism from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and other candidates also vying for conservative votes.

McCain: No Health Insurance Mandate

Giuliani attacks Democratic health plans as 'socialist'
[...]
"We've got to do it the American way," Giuliani said during a town hall forum in Rochester, New Hampshire. "The American way is not single-payer, government-controlled anything. That's a European way of doing something; that's frankly a socialist way of doing something."
"That's why when you hear Democrats in particular talk about single-mandated health care, universal health care, what they're talking about is socialized medicine."

Giuliani Attacks Romney on Health Care Record While Campaigning in New Hampshire

It Wasn't Just Republicans Opposed to Mandates

"The way Hillary Clinton's health care plan covers everyone is to have the government force uninsured people to buy insurance, even if they can't afford it." - Obama campaign mailer

This is precisely the sort of thing that Republicans love to leap on. In fact, wasn't the entire 2004 campaign predicated on Kerry's flip flop? It's a perfect opening with which to club Obama repeatedly. I'm sure the RNC could dig up some choice debate clips of Obama opposing such mandates.

In fact, the remaining PUMAs have seized on this, yet Republicans have not?

Maybe Mandates Are Just too Damn Popular?

Well, I won't run down all the polling, but as an example, a USA Today/Gallup poll from mid-July says:

"Do you think all Americans should be required to have health insurance, or not?" N=1,518 (Form A), MoE ± 3
Should - 56%
Should Not - 42%
Unsure - 3%

That's popular, but not overwhelmingly so. The Public option was far more popular and Republicans did not hesitate to oppose it. In general, conservatives have proven very effective at beating down support for some very popular policies. Putting on my liberal ideologue hat, this sort of thing is essential to the survival of conservative politics: If they can't convince the public to oppose popular policies that would likely benefit them, there wouldn't be a conservative movement. There are other polls which show mandates more popular than 56%, but again, given the record of Obama, McCain and Giuliani attacking Clinton and Romney over mandates, it certainly didn't stop anyone before.

Wrapping Up

Ok, I'll drop my feigned surprise at this. Of course I, like many of you would generally conclude the obvious, that conservatives aren't opposing individual mandates because this would be a major bonanza for the insurance companies. My shock at the gambling going on in the casino is really to drive home the empty cynicism that is the vast right wing conspiracy. Where is the conservative outrage over the "Dimmycrats" making them buy insurance? While I'm not a giant fan of the idea, if you're going to try and make private insurers behave themselves via regulation (or have them at all), it is sensible to then discourage free riding in some manner.

Let's recap the situation:

A major policy proposed by Democrats, which has actually passed several Congressional committees
It's easy to misrepresent and demagogue
The most popular Democratic leader is open to charges of flip-flopping on it
You can use it to paint the Democrats as being in bed with big insurance
You can use it to seem like the GOP is defending the interests of the poor
It is definitely against stated conservative ideological principles

If Ian's dictum was in full effect, one would expect the conservative movement to leap on this. That they don't, shows they have sold out their stated principles (small government etc) in favour of their true principle: empower the powerful, enrich the rich. They don't mind if a broken version of health care reform passes a Democratic congress and President that requires the nation to purchase health care. They'll gut everything else about it that might infringe on the Murder-by-Spreadsheet industry, but authoritarian capitalism by government dictate is evidently ok by them.

Is Left-Wing Governance Possible In America?

Chris Bowers — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:19:19 GMT

Over the past month, I have been wondering if, given the current structure of our federal government, it is even possible to have the federal government operate to the left of national public opinion in the way that it often operates to the right of national public opinion. More specifically:

Considering that where 60-votes are required to close debate on most pieces of legislation in the Senate;
Considering the amount of money behind the right-wing corporate PAC and (especially) lobbying complex;
Considering that and given the way that this complex is able to exert disproportionate influence over the Senate due to the small-state bias of the chamber;
Consider the incredible effort necessary for large Democratic majorities to even pass overwhelmingly popular ideas like the public option (supported by 60%+ of Americans);

Considering these four things, the amount of organization that progressives need to do in order to pass any left-wing legislation that is opposed by 51% or more of the country is almost unimaginable. Can Congress ever pass legislation that is even slightly to the left of the country?

During the 75 year history of public opinion polling, there are virtually no examples of Congress passing left-wing legislation into law against the wishes of the majority of the country. The only example of unpopular, left-wing public policy orchestrated in during 2009 was the federal takeover of the auto industry. That move was both unpopular (39% favored it, 53% opposed) and very left-wing (government and worker ownership of a major industry). However, even that wasn't actually passed through Congress, at least not directly.

There aren't many examples further in the past, either. I was talking with a friend about this last night who the Civil Rights Act as a possibility, but only a few months after signing it into law LBJ was re-elected with a still-record 61.05% of the popular vote. The tax hike on the wealthy in President Clinton's first budget is a possibility, but I have never seen a poll showing income tax increases on the wealthy as unpopular.

Are there any examples of Congress passing left-wing legislation against the wishes of 50% or more of the country? That I can't point to even one makes me wonder if, given the structural difficulties I described above, if it is even possible. If anyone can think of examples, please post them in the comments.

Not All Democrats Are Our Fellows

Chris Bowers — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:45:00 GMT

While logically fallacies are still a fresh topic in my mind, allow me to take issue with another one that has always annoyed me. Specifically, I am referring to the idea that Democrats, a partisan organization, are interchangeable with ideologically left-wing organizations:

"The President discussed how the current tone and culture in Washington made it more difficult than it has been in the past to work in a bipartisan fashion. In particular, he singled out Republican Senators who are trying to work in a bipartisan fashion even in the context of a vocal minority in their party who doubt that the President was born in the US. In this context about the less productive tone of the debate in Washington, he said he didn't like to see 'left wing groups attack fellow 'Democrats.'

Since President Obama isn't actually asking any of the left-wing organizations running ads against Democrats on health care to stop doing so, I find this irritating primarily on a logical level rather than on a political one.

First, if President Obama assigns such high value to non-partisanship, why does he wish that left-wing groups would stop attacking "fellow Democrats?" Attacking "fellow Democrats" would be a non-partisan act. As such, one would think that President Obama would praise it, rather than wish it would stop. Make he only values bi-partisanship, rather than non-partisanship.

Second, partisanship is not interchangeable with ideology. Just because a group is left-wing does not make them a Democrat, and just because someone is a Democrat does not make tem left-wing. Many of the Democrats being targeted by left-wing ads would agree. Check out the Blue Dogs explaining the etymology of their name:

The 52 conservative and moderate Democrats in the group hail from every region of the country, although the group acknowledges some southern ancestry which accounts for the group's nickname. Taken from the South's longtime description of a party loyalist as one who would vote for a yellow dog if it were on the ballot as a Democrat, the "Blue Dog" moniker was taken by members of The Coalition because their moderate-to-conservative-views had been "choked blue" by their party in the years leading up to the 1994 election.

It is hypocritical for Democrats who describe themselves as "conservative and moderate" and who attack the Democratic Party for choking them blue to say that they should be exempt from attacks by left-wing groups on the grounds that both they and the left-wing groups are all Democrats. If Democrats want to be exempt from attacks by left-wing groups, then at a minimum those Democrats should at least describe themselves as left-wing. Otherwise, a double-standard in simply being invoked.

Leaving the logical nitpicking aside for a moment, one thing I do like about this story is that President Obama is offering vocal support to a center-right position (getting left-wing groups to stop attacking conservatives and moderates), but then not doing anything to make that center-right position a reality. It is nice to see that he sometimes only offers symbolic support to center-right wing positions, too.

Progressives On the Hook For Democratic Trifecta Policies

Chris Bowers — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:42:01 GMT

The public is becoming increasingly antsy as they wait for the stimulus to have an impact. The number of people who think it has had no effect on the economy is actually rising as time goes on:

CBS News Poll. July 9-12, 2009. N=944 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"So far, do you think the federal government's stimulus package has made the economy better, made the economy worse, or has it had no impact on the economy so far?"

Date Worse Better No effect

July 12 15% 21% 60%

June 16 15% 32% 48%

As more people think the stimulus has had no impact, the more people think using government spending as a means of stimulating the economy is not worthwhile (from the same CBS poll):

"Which comes closer to your own view? The federal government should spend money to stimulate the national economy, even if it means increasing the budget deficit. OR, The federal government should NOT spend money to stimulate the national economy and should instead focus on reducing the budget deficit."

July 12: Reduce Deficit 61%--33% Stimulate economy
June 16: Reduce Deficit 52%--41% Stimulate economy

No matter what you think of the wording of that question, the trendline is still important. An increasing number of Americans do not believe that the stimulus has had any impact on the economy. As such, an increasing number of Americans are turning away from the idea of using increased government spending as a means toward economic improvement. It is a perfectly rationale response, even if it demonstrates a lack of patience.

All of this underlies a larger point about how, even though the legislation that has been signed into law in 2009 has been, due to a variety of factors, much more moderate that progressive, the success or failure of that policy will still determine the public perception of the efficacy of progressive policies and ideology for a long time to come. Whether or not the Democratic trifecta actually passes progressive legislation, the legislation that is passed and the policies that are followed will still be perceived as progressive. We simply can't avoid that.

For example, right now the stimulus package pretty much equals left-wing economic philosophy in the eyes of the American people. If it doesn't produce results, we are all going to see our ideas become discredited in the eyes of the American public, even if we thought policies of the Democratic trifecta did not go nearly far enough. The country is never going to say "well, that idea didn't work, so let's try a more extreme version of it." People just don't think that way in America.

Many conservatives felt the same way under the Republican trifecta, and are now roundly mocked for arguing that conservatism can't fail, but people can fail conservatism. I imagine that if the economy doesn't turn around, many progressives will sound quite similar in their critiques of the Obama administration. Problem is, we will sound just as silly as they will. Whether we like it or not, progressivism is on the hook for the success or failure of the policies passed under the Obama administration and the Democratic trifecta.

"Extremes" Feel More Left Out Than "Middle"

Chris Bowers — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:39:51 GMT

There is an almost overwhelming argument from the "mainstream" political punditry, led by David Broder, that both the Democratic and Republican Parties have been taken over by "extremists." It is one of the fundamental tenents of Village philosophy that the extremists are ruining America, especially on the left, and must be shunned at all costs. However, it turns out that the so-called "extremes" are actually the ones who feel the most left out, not the "middle."

According to a recent Gallup poll, 25% of Americans feel either than the Democratic Party is "too conservative" (8%) or that the Republican Party is "too liberal." (17%) Both of these positions would generally be considered "extremist," at least within national American politicsl discourse. 25% is a fairly sizable "extreme," but so be it for the purposes of this post.

More in the extended entry.
Now, assuming that we are dealing with a rational country (I know that is a big assumption), let's assume that the 8% who felt Democrats were "too conservative" also thought that Republicans were "too conservative." Further, let's assume that that 17% of the country that thought the Republicans are "too liberal" also though that the Democrats are "too liberal." Taking these groups out of the picture, we are left with the following view of the two parties according to Gallup's data:

Democrats: About right 42%--29% Too Liberal
Republicans: Too conservative 35%--34% About Right

Not only does this make the Democratic position look very strong relative to the Republican position, but it also shows that, at the absolute most, 29% of the country thinks that both Republicans and Democrats have gone too far in abandoning the center. If all 29% of the country who are "non-extremists" but think that the Democratic Party is "too liberal" also think that the Republican Party is "too conservative," then 29% hold the Village view that the extremists are taking over both parties. While that is just over the 25% of the population who would be considered "extremist," it is hihgly unlikely that that all of the "non-extremists" who think that the Democratic Party is too liberal also think that the Republican Party is "too conservative."

I asked Gallup if they kept data on how many people thought both that the Democratic Party was "too liberal" and that the Republican Party was "too conservative," but unfortunately they did not. Still, even lacking the specific data, it is extremely likely that many, if not most, of the "non-extremists" who think that the Democratic Party is "too liberal" are probably people who think that the Republican Party is "about right." As such, one possible way to estimate the number of people who hold the Village view comes from a study of perceived new media bias from mid-2004.

The study showed that 53% of self-identified Republicans believed the news media was biased in favor of Democrats. This sort of partisan perception ("I'm a Republican and the media likes Democrats too much") is comparable to believing that the Republican Party is "about right" and that the Democratic Party is "too liberal." So, if we assume that 53% of those who feel the Republican Party is "about right" also feel the Democratic Party is "too liberal," that means we are probably talking about 11% of the country believing that both parties are too extreme (0.29 - (0.35 * 0.53) = 0.11). That is about half as many as the 25% of the population who feel left out on the "extremes."

While I don't have any specific data to back up that there is far more "mainstream" political media whining about both parties becoming too extreme than there is about both parties being sell-outs in some capacity, but I would be absolutely gobsmacked if the margin wasn't at least 10 to 1. This is even though there are roughly twice as many people who feel left out at the edges. Kind of makes you wonder how most "mainstream" political media was taken over by such a narrow segment of the population.

Is there enough support for a progressive third party?

Anthony de Jesus — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:45:36 GMT

Since comments to Quick Hits are not working and fedupliberal wanted to post a reply to something I posted, I think this is something worth talking about. I'd normally reserve this for the weekend, but I plan on being out of town with sporadic internet access and I do plan on having a series of diaries about third party politics.

I posted a Quick Hit noting that in a recent Gallup poll, only 8% of respondents said that the Democratic Party is too liberal. Doing the math, if we assume that few Republicans would say that, then 10% of independents feel that way and 15-20% of self-identifying Democrats think so, with most of the other Democrats being satisfied with the party as is. I suggested that this is evidence that the ground isn't as fertile for a third party challenging Democrats from the left as some here would hope.
fedupliberal was moved to make the following response:

The problem with a third party is loyalty. So much of an American's political preference is based on preconceived notions and tradition. We know that Democrats are not "New Dealers" anymore and that Republicans have had conservatism co-opted by an extremist agenda. Yet so much of our identity is wrapped up in being this or that, we literally fear the face in the mirror will be a stranger if we abandon our loyalties. "I am a Democrat." "I vote Democrat." But are you a Democrat or a liberal?
One in no way means the other, and as I have moved more liberal, I am becoming comfortable with rendering the two party system a relic. But then again, I have a Wife with a chronic and potentially fatal disease, so my loyalties to my party end if corruption conflicts with her welfare. It is similar to realizing you need rehab. All this time you thought the drug was your friend. It is a painful realization to find out it is not. Recently, I found that out, and have broken free of Democratic Dogmas and have embraced progressive principles. In order for a progressive third party to work, we must make the acceptance of progressive policy the new tradition, and stop the knee jerk support of labels. I am not center right, I am left, so therefore, based on current policy, I am not a Democrat. What do I do about it?

My response would be that the two-party system is hardwired into the Constitution and I don't think it is something that can easily be changed. (This is why I am rooting a bit for a complete meltdown of California that forces it to adopt a new state constitution, so that the idea doesn't seem as foreign when it comes to such change at the national level.) Despite that, there are ways in which a third party can influence the national political discourse, which I will get to in future diaries.

In the meantime, I will repeat my theory that the Democratic Party functions more like a coalition of mostly center-left parties rather than as an actual party.

Here are the conclusions of my theory:

A Democratic president with a Democratic-controlled Congress will still have to be able to negotiate with the party's various factions in order to pass an agenda
To maximize their influence, progressives should caucus and agree to vote together on all legislation as a group and to negotiate compromises with other blocs within the Democratic coalition. This requires some Democrats stepping up as real leaders.
Progressive primary challenges should focus on replacing members of the New Democrat Coalition rather than the Blue Dogs in order to strengthen the leftmost position when compromise is eventually sought
The Democrats are ill-suited to being a minority party. Because they are effectively multiple parties joined together, the Democratic coalition falls apart when in the minority because there is not majority power to bind the coalition together
If the U.S. shifted to a parliamentary system right now and the two-party system fell apart, a left-of-center government would probably resemble the current Democratic status quo in the House of Representatives, with a prime minister perhaps resembling Nancy Pelosi or perhaps Steny Hoyer.

To fedupliberal's question of what a progressive disenchanted with the Democratic Party should do, my short answer is to advocate for the formation of and give support to a progressive sub-party within the Democratic Party. My first step would be to find a more colorful label (sorry Mr. Bowers, Progressive Block just doesn't strike my fancy, and neither does Coalition of the Unwilling, Senator Sanders) that people can develop loyalty to.

But my general point is that the obstacle toward getting more progressive government is sometimes going to be the American people themselves, and I don't think some people are as mentally prepared as I would like to accept that it isn't always the fault of the Blue Dogs or the DLC or corporations or the media.

The Crime and Reward Theory of Government

Chris Bowers — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:52:56 GMT

The past year has revealed a comprehensive philosophy of government championed by conservatives and moderates when they oppose major progressive economic reforms. I call it "crime and reward." The philosophy is summed up as follows:

The flaw in progressive legislative proposals is that they don't give enough money to the corporations that caused the problem(s) which overall legislative effort is supposedly trying to solve.

It applies in all major cases. Check it out:

The way to lower health care costs is to give companies that have increased health care costs even more money: As Olympia Snowe and many others have articulated, the problem with a public option is that it lowers the cost of health insurance rather than increasing the amount of money private health insurers generate in revenue. While one would think that the purpose of health care reform legislation is to lower the price of health insurance, it appears that for many the purpose is actually to make sure that the companies ratcheting up health care costs receive even more money from the process (ie, through mandates to buy their over-priced insurance and no lower priced, public option).
The way to fix climate change is to give the companies that are the main cause of climate change even more money: As Collin Peterson and Claire McCaskill have articulated, the problem with climate change legislation is that it doesn't give enough money to the energy and agricultural conglomerates that are primarily responsible for global warming.
The way to fix the financial crisis is to give the financial institutions that caused the financial crisis even more money: This one is pretty straightforward and has been covered extensively. From the Wall Street bailout program itself, to making sure that Congress doesn't pass laws restricting executive bonuses out fear that financial institutions won't take our money, the government's solution to fixing the financial crisis is to give the people and companies that caused the financial crisis even more money. The progressive alternative, temporary nationalization, should be opposed because it wouldn't make enough money for shareholders.

On the three major areas of public policy that were addressed by the federal government over the last twelve months--health care, climate change, financial crisis--the "moderate" solution has consistently been to give hundreds of billions of dollars to the corporations that caused climate change, the financial crisis, and skyrocketing health care costs. It is a crime and reward ideology. When powerful private sector companies cause major national and global problems, the "moderate" solution is to give those who caused the problem hundreds of billions of dollars.

Crime and reward. Through a conservative-moderate alliance, it is the system of government under which we live, even in the era of the Democratic trifecta.

Obama's Reliance On Left-wing Criticism and Caricatures

Chris Bowers — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:19:03 GMT

In a joint interview with his energy policy team yesterday, President Obama positioned the climate change bill that passed through Congress as the moderate position:

So I think that at the end of the day this bill represents an important first step. There are critics from the left as well as the right; some who say who doesn't go far enough, some who say it goes too far.(...)

[T]he final legislation that emerges is probably not going to satisfy the Europeans or Greenpeace. On the other hand, I think that when you've got corporate leaders like Jeff Immelt, legislators from coal regions like Rick Boucher, and Al Gore all agreeing that this is worth doing, that's a pretty good coalition to work with.

The mention of Greenpeace is noteworthy, given that they came out in opposition to the bill believing that it was too flawed. It is highly likely that President Obama is aware of Greenpeace's opposition, and was briefed on it as a means of selling the climate change bill as a moderate position.

This rhetorical move, positioning himself to the left of either real or caricatured left-wing positions, is emblematic of Obama's style. Consider comments he made in 2006, even before he was a Presidential candidate (more in the extended entry):

In town-hall meetings, when those who opposed the war get shrill, Obama makes a point of noting that while he, too, opposed the war, he's "not one of those people who cynically believes Bush went in only for the oil."(...)

We're now in a packed room at Eastern Illinois University. A woman stands up and tosses Obama what I assume she thinks is a bit of red meat. What, she asks, does the senator think of the pervasiveness of religion in public discourse these days? Obama doesn't take the bait.
"No one would say that Dr. King should leave his moral vision at the door before getting involved in public-policy debate," he answers. "He says, `All God's children.' `Black man and white man, Jew and Gentile, Protestant and Catholic.' He was speaking religiously. So we have to remember that not every mention of God is automatically threatening a theocracy.

It is remarkable how similar these passages are, even though they are separated by three years, a grueling campaign, and now five months of Obama's presidency. Obama frequently makes a point of noting that he is for change and progress, but that is isn't one of those left-wing wackjobs who think Iraq was about oil, or that the climate change bill was too flawed to support. Barack Obama wants you to know that he is for change, but change that won't freak you out with its extremity.

When he was first rising to national prominence, Barack Obama often contrasted himself with left-wing caricatures (see also Obama's comments on "the excesses of the 60s and 70s" and "Tom Hayden Democrat") in order to present himself as a moderating figure. Now that he is President, he longer appears to have to rely on such caricatures, and is instead using real left-wing criticism of administration-supported legislation to position himself in the same way. In fact, he is reliant upon continued left-wing criticism in order to maintain his moderating image.

What President Obama knows, as President Clinton knew before him, is that without prominent, left-wing criticism of his policies and his administration, then he becomes a left-wing caricature rather than being able to contrast himself with such caricatures. Two weeks ago Bill Clinton told me a group of a dozen other progressive bloggers about how he wished that there was more progressive media in the 1990's, so that he would be called a sell-out in a far more prominent way. It was a story I had hear before, so it must be a point that he makes quite often. Lacking left-wing criticism, there is no public rationale for left-wing policy, and the drift of policy will be entirely rightward. For lack of a better way of putting it, due to the high number of left-wing caricatures in this country, Democrats need lefties to call them sell-outs.

It is also important to remember how incredibly unpopular President Bush has made not only Republicans, but right-wing policies in general. It is worth wondering if regular, prominent, right-wing criticism of, say, President Bush and Republican spending policies, might have allowed the conservative movement to still appear intellectually honest. Spending, by far, the number one concern people have about the Obama administration (PDF, page 8), but Republican officials and conservative commenters who held their fire during the Bush years have no credibility to attack Obama on those grounds. I bet they wish they could have it all do over again now, rather than deciding to carry the Bush administration's water.

The bottom line is this: progressives who hold back on criticizing the Obama administration from the left are doing a disservice both to President Obama and to progressivism itself. Not offering such criticism bears the real risk of discrediting both President Obama and progressive policies. While it might get you access, and invitations to the best parties, over the long term it is a huge net negative for the causes in which we believe.

BREAKING: I Am Now A Conservative Democrat

Chris Bowers — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:30:00 GMT

After several years of trying to "retake" the Democratic Party and make it more progressive, today I am giving up and becoming a conservative Democrat. Upon careful consideration, the benefits packages are simply too heavily tilted toward the corporate wing of the party. Check it out:

It would be pretty sweet to be able to endorse someone other than a Democrat for President, and then have the Democratic leadership do whatever it takes to keep me in the Party. I mean, if you do this as a progressive, then you are pretty much screwed for life.
Being a conservative Democrats gets you ten times the media mentions that one gets being a progressive. You chances of appearing on Sunday talk shows also skyrockets.
Being a conservative Democrat gets you more money, too. You can proclaim that you are a conservative Democrat, and still have small, progressive, grassroots donors be by far your top contributors. Hard to argue with receiving both enormous big dollar fundraisers held in your honor and huge amounts of money from small progressive donors. So really, who cares if bloggers complain about you. Their readers are still going to fork over huge amounts of money.
If you are a conservative Democrat, you get to hold up, water down, and threaten whatever Democratic legislation you want. And there are no repercussions. In fact...
If you are a conservative Democrat, you get frequent meetings with the President and proclamations that he is one of your own. If you are a progressive, you have to stand at the back of the line, and then get threats about never hearing from the White House again if you step out of line.
Further, if you are a conservative Democrat, you can also refuse to pay your Democratic Party Committee dues, and still receive disproportionate expenditures from Democratic Party Committees. That is just a straight up good deal.
Being a conservative Democrat also makes you far more likely to receive a major cabinet appointment. Not even counting the Republicans, New Democrats outnumber Progressives in President Obama's cabinet by 7-1.
Finally, if one of those crazy progressives decides to challenge you in a primary campaign, if you are a conservative Democrat you can also count on the endorsements of 95% of your congressional colleagues, the entire party leadership, and virtually every progressive advocacy organization. They will stand by you.

So really, why would anyone be a progressive Democrat given the different bonus packages that are on offer? I think my move makes a lot of sense. Every Democrat should be a conservative.

The Phony, Dishonest Big Government Debate Continues

Chris Bowers — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:00:00 GMT

Over the last two months, I have spent a great deal of time pointing out that political rhetoric over "big government" is one of the most dishonest, and utterly phony aspects of American political discourse. For example, the difference between long-term social spending proposals in a the FY 2006 budget, which self-proclaimed right-wing ideologue Tom DeLay declared was "peak efficiency," and that proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was only 3.21% of GDP. Further, most of that difference actualyl caem from increasing health care costs and more people receiving unemployment benefits. The actual proposed differences are under 2% of the economy.

Yesterday, two self-proclaimed proponents of "fiscal responsibility," House Republicans and the Blue Dogs, did a good job of emphasizing just how dishonest and phony this debate really is.

More in the extended entry.
First, in response to a challenge from Presidetn Obama to find more spending cuts, House Republicans produced a comprehensive list of only $23 billion. Further, those cuts were spread over five years:

Responding to a challenge from President Obama, Republican leaders in the House of Representatives are offering up a roster of more than $23 billion in spending cuts over the next five years.

The proposed cuts, which were to be sent to the White House on Thursday, bear little resemblance to the dramatic proposals Republicans unfurled when they took over Congress 14 years ago.

In a budget of $3.55 trillion, and an economy of $14.73 trillion, these cuts represent 0.13% of federal spending, and 0.03% of GDP. If you are looking for a big argument over the size of government, you ain't going to find it from House Republicans. Their proposed cuts would make almost no change in the size of government whatsoever. Even The National Review is surprised at how little difference they are actually proposing.

Next up are the Blue Dogs. After over 60% of their members voted for fiscially conservative measures like blank check Iraq funding, the Wall Street bailout, and the deficit-spending funded stimulus, the self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives are demanding that the government increase the amount of money it gives to health care providers in public insurance plans.

Both the trigger mechanism and the prohibition on using Medicare rates are "moderate" ideas, but they're not ideas that promote the coal of fiscal austerity. They do the reverse. Which is fine. Politicians don't need to make austerity priority number one at all times. But this reality ought to be an important part of the context as this debate plays out. Blue Dogs are basically saying they want to put aside one of our best available tools for cost control, while progressive members are fighting for measures that will keep total outlays in check.

The top priority for the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs in health care reform is that public insurance plans make sure that the government spends as much as possible when paying health care providers. That's some real fiscal conservatism for you.

The entire "big government" and "cut spending" debate is utterly phony and rotten to its very core. I wish more reporters would start to question the honesty of this entire debate. Chris Matthews, often criticized online, is actually one of the few media figures I know who does so.

Sotomayor Still Cruising; "Strict Constructionist" Is A Minority Viewpoint

Chris Bowers — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:30:48 GMT

Two judicial polling posts in one this morning:

1. Sotomayor Cruising Toward Confirmation
Another poll came out today showing Sonia Sotomayoor cruising toward confirmation. The AP / GfK poll shows 50% of the country favoring Sotomayor's nomination, with only 22% opposed. This is the third poll asking a direct question on Sotomayor's nomination, all of which have put her in safe territory.

A comparative look at the first three confirmation polls on the four Supreme Court nominees since 2005 show just how safe Sotomayor really is:

First Three Polls, Last Four Supreme Court Nominees
Roberts: +27.3% (Confirm 51.0%--23.7%, AP, ABC and Newsweek)
Sotomayor +23.4% (Confirm 49.7%--26.3% Not Confirm, Rasmussen, AP and Gallup)
Alito: +11.4% (Confirm: 37.7%--26.3% Not Confirm, AP, Newsweek and Fox)
Miers: +8.0% (Confirm 36.7%--28.7% Not Confirm, Pew, Fox, AP)

Public opinion on confirming Sotomayor is far closer to Roberts territory than to Alito or Miers. Roberts sailed through the nomination process, and it is a solid bet that Sotoamyor will sail through as well.

Update: Rasmussen has just released a widely outlying poll on Sotomayor today, showing the public favoring he confirmation by only 41%--36%. Even if that was included in the average, replacing the orginal Rasmussen polls, Sotomayor is still at 47.7% confirm--28.3% Not Confirm, far ahead of Alito, and still closer to Roberts.

However, consider that Rasmussen also has consistently claimed that Republicans are winning the generic congressional ballot, a finding that has consistently been repudiiated by every other pollster on the subject. They also find a lot more Republicans in the country than any other polling firm. In 2009, they are consistently skewing Republican.

2. "Strict Constructionists" Not in the Majority
In looking through old supreme court polling to compile this post, I came along this interesting nugget:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. July 21, 2005. N=500 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.5. Fieldwork by TNS.

"Do you think the U.S. Supreme Court should base its rulings on its understanding of what the U.S. Constitution meant as it was originally written, or should the court base its rulings on its understanding of what the U.S. Constitution means in current times?"

Cuurent Meaning: 50%
Originally Written: 46%.
Unsurer: 4%

In the same vein, a Quinnpiac poll from July 2008 showed a 52%-40% majority in favor of "current realities" over "original intentions," while a Fox poll from August 2005 showed a 47%--36% plurality for "framer's intent" over "meaning in today's world." The questions were all phrased differently, but no majority ever appeared for what conservatives call the "strict constructionist" position. In fact, in two out of three polls, the "living document" argument was in the majority.

This is relevant because I can't remember a single politician ever arguing that we need judges who will interpret the Constitution in a way that is relevant to our own times, even though it appears to be the more common viewpoint among the American public. About all we ever hear from Republicans and Democrats alike is how we need strict interpretations of what the founders intended. I guess it isn't surprising that a piece of conservative rhetoric dominates our political discourse even though it is a minority position. This is hardly the only example of that happening.

President Obama's Center-Right Military Team

Chris Bowers — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:30:00 GMT

I spent a lot of time during the transition criticizing many of President Obama's choices for top appointments as too centrist. Eventually, I dropped the argument, realizing that arguing over abstractions like "centrist" versus "progressive" rarely, if ever, leads to new knowledge. The arguments just never seem to go anywhere.

However, I am going to break the seal on these arguments today, now that there is growing evidence that, at least when it comes to LGBT rights, many key Obama appointees are, in fact, to the right of the American public as a whole. For example, take his senior military advisors on Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

Supporters of the repeal in recent days have pointed out that Obama's senior military team has not been in line with the president's decision to overturn the policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

"So far his senior military team is not on the same page with the president and has not aligned with him yet," said Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a nonprofit organization dedicated to repealing the ban.

"Or if they are, it is certainly not apparent," he added.

Every poll, not matter how it is phrased, shows that only a minority of Americans oppose repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. There is a wide variation, but those opposing repeal are always under 50%:

Quinnipiac University Poll. April 21-27, 2009. N=2,041 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.2

"Federal law currently prohibits openly gay men and women from serving in the military. Do you think this law should be repealed or not?"

Should repeal 56%--37% should not repeal

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. April 23-26, 2009. Adults nationwide.

"Do you favor or oppose the policy sometimes called 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in which the U.S. military does not ask new recruits whether they are gay or lesbian, but prohibits gays and lesbians from serving in the military if they reveal their sexual orientation?"

Favor 48%--47% Oppose

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Dec. 19-21, 2008. N=1,013 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you think people who are openly gay or homosexual should or should not be allowed to serve in the U.S. military?"

Should 81%--17% Should Not

Why are President Obama's senior military advisors aligned more with the conservative minority on this one? Even if you think that the evenly divided 48%-47% poll is the most accurate one, surely a Democratic President, representing the nation's center-left coalition, should have advisors that represent the center-left position. Otherwise, there is no way to ever hope that progressives can become senior leaders within the military apparatus.

Now, I know that one reason for this is that progressives have not done as much successful organizing in the military area as they have in, say, labor and environmental matters. Generally speaking, one should expect more progressive appointments in areas of policy where progressives have done more successful organizing. However, Democrats did retake Congress in 2006 largely because of a military issue (Iraq), and President Obama won the Democratic nomination largely for the same reasons. After all that, it is still extremely frustrating that there seems to be no way to win in areas of military policy.

Conservative Identity Politics

Chris Bowers — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:56:17 GMT

Conservatives are crying "identity politics" over Sotomayor's nomination, as they would have if Obama had nominated anyone except a white male. The lack of self-awareness in these charges is pretty extreme, but also not surprising. Here are just some examples of conservative identity politics:

"America is a Christian nation." Arguing that American government should be largely based on a particular religious identity is identity politics.
"Democrats are socialists." Calling an opposing political party "socialists," when even the left-wing of that party is proposing directing only 3% more of the economy to public social spending, is pure identity politics rather than a charge with any intellectual merit.
"Marriage is between a man and a woman." Given that marriage has taken on numerous forms throughout history, and still takes on numerous forms throughout the world today, this is not an actual historical argument but instead one based on identity preferences.
Mocking people because of what they eat, including arugula, is pure identity politics.
Calling America "the greatest nation on earth" is also pure identity politics. If such claims were simply quantitative, ie that America has the largest economy, or the largest military, that would be one thing. However, abstract claims about qualitative "greatness" are entirely subjective and identity based.
"Traditional values." Oh yeah, that's identity politics, rather than a historical re-enactment.

And these are just some examples. Much of conservative politics, like all politics, is heavily based in cultural conceptions about identity. This is largely unavoidable, given that how one conceptualizes the world necessarily requires a conceptualization of how oneself fits within that world. To put it a different way, everyone has an ideology, and you can't have an ideology without an identity.

Identity politics are kind of like linguistic accents: everyone has one, but not everyone realizes it. What is frequently distinct about conservative identity politics is its own inability to view itself as identity politics. From such a viewpoint, women, minorities, homosexuals, and non-Christians have identities, but men, whites, straights, and Christians do not. Note how you have never seen a conservative claim a president is engaging in identity politics when he has nominated a white dude for an important government position.

Even beyond this, the least self-aware aspect of the conservative "identity politics" charge is how consistently making that claim has helped push Republicans into minority status. Conservatives have demonized every growing demographic group in the country: non-whites, non-Christians, and the LGBT community. Collectively, these groups vote over 3-1 Democratic, and will compose well over 100% of the population growth in this country over the next few decades (it is over 100% because straight white Christians are actually shrinking in overall number). That a political party could get crushed in two consecutive elections, find itself in a bigger congressional deficit than Democrats have faced in 80 years, and still think that attacking growing demographic groups is a good idea politically is utterly perplexing.

It leads one too think that American conservatism doesn't actually care about winning either elections or policies, and that attacking people with different cultural identities is the entire point of contemporary American conservatism.

Status Quo Nation

Chris Bowers — Thu, 21 May 2009 20:55:27 GMT

Give the media and blog play the new Pew Survey on political values and core attitudes seems to be getting, I find it necessary to offer a further rebuttal to the usefulness of the insights provided by the poll.

No matter what people might say about "big government" or the social safety net in the abstract, when asked about specific policies, the vast majority of Americans don't actually want to change anything. From a Harris poll two years ago:

These are just some of the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 2,223 adults surveyed online between March 6 and 14, 2007 by Harris Interactive®. Other findings include:

A 71 percent to 15 percent majority of adults do not think "it is necessary to increase taxes to reduce the budget deficit". Large majorities of Republicans, Democrats and Independents feel this way;
Even if taxes "had to be raised", very large majorities oppose raising the estate tax (64%) gas taxes (82%), income taxes (81%), the social security tax (83%), and the Medicare tax (87%);
The only two taxes on the list shown to those interviewed which would be acceptable to majorities of adults ("if taxes had to be raised") are taxes on cigarettes and beer and alcohol, with 73 percent and 72 percent of adults respectively saying these so called "taxes" should be increased;
When it comes to cutting government spending, there is little support for cutting any substantial programs. Given a list of twelve federal government programs and asked to pick two which should be cut ("if spending had to be cut") space programs top the list by a wide margin (51%). Significant minorities, all under 30 percent, pick welfare programs (28%), defense spending (28%), farm subsidies (24%), environmental programs (16%), homeland security (12%) and transportation (11%). Hardly anyone would cut Medicaid (4%), education (3%), Social Security (2%) or Medicare (1%).

By throwing around terms like "socialism" and asking vague questions about political values, we can pretend that there are major policy differences in America. However, when people are actually asked about government programs, the bi-partisan, status quo nature of America is truly revealed.

Miniscule percentages--less than 5%--of the country want to make cuts to Medicaid, education, Social Security and Medicare when given a choice between those and other programs. The percentage of people who want to cut defense spending is down, too. In addition to unemployment, these programs account for roughly 80% of government spending, and very few people want to cut them.

On the other side of the coin, it seems that the only tax increases people favor are taxes on the wealthy, and also cigarette and alcohol taxes. Everything else is pretty unpopular.

The simple fact is that the overwhelming political advice from the American is to maintain the status quo. And so, our politicians do just that. I've said it before and I'll say it again: right-wing Republicans and left-wing Democrats are only arguing over 3% of the economy. We could bother to point that out to the country, but it seems a lot easier to call each other names and pretend that our abstract self-identifications actually constitute large policy differences.

Real Differences Erode, Abstract Conceptualization of Differences Increase

Chris Bowers — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:30:00 GMT

Despite the current façade of a grand ideological argument over the future of capitalism in America, the truth is that the right-wing of the Republican Party and the left-wing of the Democratic Party are only differ from each other on how to manage 3% of the national economy. Both sides agree that about 22% of the national economy should be devoted to public sector social investment spending (schools, roads, health care, pensions, etc), while about 75% of the national economy should be left to private enterprise / spending and other government functions (military, police, interest on the debt, etc). The disagreement is whether the remaining 3% should be devoted to public sector social spending, or toward private enterprise / spending and other government functions. Toss-in the degree of government regulation, and whether or not there should be private Social Security savings accounts, and you have the entire policy difference over the economy in mainstream American political discourse.

And yet, despite this remarkable similarity, differences between self-identified Democrats and self-identified Republicans have never been higher when it comes to answering abstract ideological questions in polls. The Pew Center for People and the Press documents this increasing division over abstract ideological questions in a major survey released today (more in the extended entry):

The overall gap between the two parties in opinions about political values - which increased in 2003 - has hit another new high, with widening differences emerging over the government's overall performance and its responsibilities to the poor. In the wake of the election, Republicans have swung to a much more critical view of government while more Democrats take a positive view than at any previous point in the 22-year history of this study.

Fully 75% of Republicans today say that government regulation of business does more harm than good, up from 57% two years ago. About the same number (74%) say when something is run by the government it is usually inefficient and wasteful, up from 61% in 2007. In both cases, Republican skepticism of government is now as great or greater than in 1994, prior to the GOP takeover of Congress. By contrast, the proportions of Democrats who are critical of government regulation of business and see the government as usually inefficient and wasteful have fallen sharply since 2007.

My hypothesis is that a cause and effect taking place here. The shrinking policy differences are actually one of the causes for the widening differences over abstract ideological positioning. As the substance of our political disagreements declines, the political debate in this country is partially kept alive by increasing the shrillness of the name-calling. Really, the name-calling is increasingly the entire argument. After all, conflict and division sells pretty well for both news media outlets and political parties, so neither will benefit from pointing out the broad similarities.

(There are other factors too, such as the widening ethno-religious gap in America, and the trend of many moderate Republicans starting to self-identify as moderate Independents.)

The abstract questions Pew poses to voters are interesting, but I wish they would be more closely tied to actual policies. In addition to asking vague questions about the role of government, how about asking people if they want to change spending on Social Security, health care, or national defense? Those programs make up nearly 80% of federal spending, but most people will tell you that they don't want significant changes to the amount spent on any of them (except maybe health care). The widest gap of all is probably what most Americans say they believe about the role of government in the abstract, versus the actual changes they would propose to government spending.