CE Week #9: “It’s Not Easy Bein’ Blue”
America remains a center-right nation—a fact that a President Obama would forget at his peril.
It was a grand evening. On Thursday, Dec. 5, 1985, at the Plaza Hotel, William F. Buckley Jr. rose to toast the president of the United States on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of National Review. Charlton Heston was the master of ceremonies; the audience included William J. Casey, Nancy Kissinger, Roy Cohn and Tom Selleck. Thirteen months earlier Ronald Reagan had been re-elected, carrying every state in the Union except Walter Mondale’s Minnesota. “As an individual you incarnate American ideals at many levels,” Buckley said to the president. “As the final responsible authority, in any hour of great challenge, we depend on you.” Buckley was 19 when America dropped the bomb at Hiroshima, he said, and he had just turned 60. “During the interval I have lived a free man in a free and sovereign country, and this only because we have husbanded a nuclear deterrent, and made clear our disposition to use it if necessary. I pray that my son, when he is 60, and your son, when he is 60 … will live in a world from which the great ugliness that has scarred our century has passed. Enjoying their freedoms, they will be grateful that, at the threatened nightfall, the blood of their fathers ran strong.”
You can almost hear the trumpets. The scene from the Plaza, in a ballroom resplendent with flowers, full of guests cheered by wine, is glittery, and emblematic of the days of the Age of Reagan. Buckley’s cold-war remarks were primal, reflecting the ancient human urge to protect one’s own from gathering dangers.
A month before, in November 1985, Al From, the former staff director of the House Democratic Caucus, had been in North Carolina, flying from Raleigh to Greensboro, on a trip to talk wavering Democrats into staying in the fold after Mondale. “The common charge we heard from voters was that ‘we didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left us’,” says From, whose organization, the Democratic Leadership Council, was trying to move the party rightward toward the center. Dick Gephardt, Joe Biden, Sam Nunn and Lawton Chiles were among those flying with From, and things were not going well. “It was a miserable day, and our trip was about to be aborted,” From says. There was congressional business in Washington, and From had already canceled the last leg of the journey, an event in Charlotte. Landing in Greensboro in the rain, the group made its gloomy way to an airport hotel for a fundraiser. “We were sure no one would show up,” From says. “But when we got there we saw people lined up out the door.” As he recalls it, the message of the occasion was straightforward: “We were trying to reconnect the Democratic Party with mainstream America.”
In these two moments from a now distant year—the dinner at the Plaza and the gathering in Greensboro—lie the roots of our politics. It is easy—for some, even tempting—to detect the dawn of a new progressive era in the autumn of Barack Obama’s campaign for the presidency. Eight years of Republican rule have produced two seemingly endless wars, an economy in recession, a giant federal intervention in the financial sector and a nearly universal feeling of unease in the country (86 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with how things are going, and 73 percent disapprove of the president’s performance). Obama—a man who has yet to complete his fourth year in the United States Senate—is leading John McCain, and Democrats may gain seats on Capitol Hill. In 2007, the Pew Research Center published a 112-page report subtitled “Political Landscape More Favorable to Democrats,” and the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 55 percent believe Obama’s views are neither too liberal nor too conservative but are “about right.”
But history, as John Adams once said of facts, is a stubborn thing, and it tells us that Democratic presidents from FDR to JFK to LBJ to Carter to Clinton usually wind up moving farther right than they thought they ever would, or they pay for their continued liberalism at the polls. Should Obama win, he will have to govern a nation that is more instinctively conservative than it is liberal—a perennial reality that past Democratic presidents have ignored at their peril. A party founded by Andrew Jackson on the principle that “the majority is to govern” has long found itself flummoxed by the failure of that majority to see the virtues of the Democrats and the vices of the Republicans.
The pattern has deep roots. FDR had a longish run (from 1933 to 1937), but he lost significant ground in the 1938 midterm elections and again in the largely forgotten wartime midterms of 1942. After he defeated Barry Goldwater in 1964, LBJ had only two years of great success (Ronald Reagan won the California governorship in 1966) before Vietnam, and the white backlash helped elect Richard Nixon in 1968. Jimmy Carter lasted only a term, and Bill Clinton’s Democrats were crushed in the 1994 elections. The subsequent success of his presidency had as much to do with reforming welfare and managing the prosperity of the technology boom as it did with advancing traditional Democratic causes.
Republican presidents, too, are frequently pulled from the right to the center. Nixon instituted wage and price controls and created the Environmental Protection Agency. Reagan cut taxes, then increased them, presided over the expansion of the federal government and wound up successfully negotiating with what he had once called the Evil Empire. George H.W. Bush swore he would not raise taxes, but did.
So are we a centrist country, or a right-of-center one? I think the latter, because the mean to which most Americans revert tends to be more conservative than liberal. According to the NEWSWEEK Poll, nearly twice as many people call themselves conservatives as liberals (40 percent to 20 percent), and Republicans have dominated presidential politics—in many ways the most personal, visceral vote we cast—for 40 years. Since 1968, Democrats have won only three of 10 general elections (1976, 1992 and 1996), and in those years they were led by Southern Baptist nominees who ran away from the liberal label. “Is this a center-right country? Yes, compared to Europe or Canada it’s obviously much more conservative,” says Adrian Wooldridge, coauthor of “The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America” and Washington bureau chief of the London-based Economist. “There’s a much higher tolerance for inequality, much greater cultural conservatism, a higher incarceration rate, legalized handguns and greater distrust of the state.”
The terms we use in discussing politics and culture can be elusive and elastic. The conservative label is often applied to people of all sorts and conditions: libertarians, evangelical Christians, tax cutters, military hawks. (There are just as many, if not more, varieties of liberal.) But in broad strokes I mean “conservative” in the way most of us have come to use it in recent decades: to describe those who value custom over change, who worry about the erosion of the familiar and the expansion of the state, and who dislike those who appear condescending about matters of faith, patriotism and culture. (In other words, think of figures ranging from Edmund Burke to Thomas Jefferson to David Brooks to Sarah Palin. It is an eclectic crew.)
The argument I am making—that we are at heart a right-leaning country skeptical of government once a crisis that requires government has passed—is probably going to look dumb, or at least out of step, for many months to come. A big blue tsunami appears imminent. Election night and the first phase of a possible Obama administration may feel as though we have left the old categories behind, striking out on a bold new path in which pragmatism trumps dogma. (Bold new paths are a specialty for new administrations, until they become safe old paths.) Economically, the deficits are so vast that we’re all supersized Keynesians now, and there will most likely be political and intellectual cover for a stimulus package of new spending in the new year.
The American relationship with government is so fraught with hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance that it is difficult to discuss with any degree of rationality. Many dislike the state, except when the state is helping them; many hate paying taxes, except they expect the government to be able to fulfill the obligations (war, infrastructure, emergency relief, the rescue of investment banks) they think it should fulfill. If we are in a season in which government appears to hold answers to certain problems, then there will be much talk for a time about an emerging Democratic governing majority.
Such speculation is not crazy. From the Adam Smith-inverting bailout of the financial system to evidence of slightly less religious intensity, there are signs that the Americans of 2008 are far from the crusading townspeople of “Inherit the Wind.” Context is all, however. Yes, the country may show signs of a receptivity to more-activist government and to a gentler tone on social issues involving religion and sexuality, but when we compare ourselves with, say, Europe—which the left loves to do, especially when assessing our foreign policy—we remain strikingly conservative. In the Pew survey, the number who say they have “old-fashioned values about family and marriage” has declined 8 percentage points since 1994—but from 84 percent to … 76 percent. That is hardly a landslide toward the libertine. In California, at least one poll suggests that social conservatives may pass an anti-gay-marriage ballot proposition next month (perhaps boosted by a high African-American turnout for Obama). “If you compare the Democratic Party to European Labor, in lots of ways [the Democrats] look quite conservative,” says Wooldridge. Will a Democratic administration, he asks, “ban handguns? No. Will it throw its weight behind legalizing gay marriage in every state? No. So even if you have, as we will, a Democratic Washington, America will remain a fundamentally conservative country.”
Like the apostles of Jesus who expected their Messiah to return in triumph before they themselves died, many liberals are almost certain to be disappointed in a President Obama. “I think right now people are in a pragmatic mood, not an ideological mood,” says David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist. Perhaps, but on the off chance that ideology is on the mind of a voter or two, Axelrod’s candidate has taken care to avoid the L word. Obama opposes gay marriage; talks about tax cuts, God and veterans’ benefits; and is spending money to try to remain competitive in traditionally Republican states such as Virginia, North Carolina and even West Virginia, where Hillary Clinton trounced him earlier this year. “I think he will govern a little right of center,” says Harold Ford Jr., the former Tennessee congressman and chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. “He is not an ideologue.”
An Obama presidency would be one of the few exceptions to a 40-year-old historical rule. Why do Republicans tend to win the White House? Not surprisingly, each party’s answer to the fundamental question about the GOP lock on the presidency is less than satisfying. Republicans say the policies and values they represent are wholly American, and so it is natural that they win so often. Democrats explain their failures by asserting that the Republicans are evil geniuses and fearmongers who exploit whatever is at hand to scare people into having their resentments win out against their better angels. In this scenario, Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes won only through the dark arts of the Southern strategy, of Atwater and Rove.
The truth, as it so often does, lies somewhere between these extremes. The Republicans have seemed fatherly and tough (see Bill Buckley’s paean to possible Armageddon), the Democrats motherly and soft. Understanding the forces behind the usual Republican hold on the White House explains much about the country, and is essential to Obama’s potential success if he were to win, for the most effective presidents have had an appreciation of the nation’s intrinsic tendency toward conservatism.
Contrary to caricature, to be conservative is not necessarily to be racist, or retrograde, or close-minded. It is, rather, to be driven by a fundamental human impulse to preserve what one has and loves. Liberals and moderates share this impulse, of course; and many conservatives, like many liberals and moderates, are generous, future-oriented and interested in reform. The point is that history suggests America is more likely to tack toward the familiar on big questions of politics and culture than it is to enthusiastically embrace radical change. If you doubt this, ask an African-American or an advocate of universal health coverage.
This is not a new phenomenon. In introducing his classic 1948 book “The American Political Tradition,” Richard Hofstadter quoted John Dos Passos: “In times of change and danger, when there is a quicksand of fear under men’s reasoning, a sense of continuity with generations gone before can stretch like a lifeline across the scary present.” The need for that lifeline transcends any given generation’s political labels. In the popular imagination the conservative epoch that may well be coming to an end this November is generally considered to have begun with Reagan’s election to the White House. But a wider reading of history suggests that the impulse we now think of as conservative—that politics can help us recover a lost, better world, if we heed custom—is one that, in varied manifestations, stretches back to at least the 1820s and ’30s, when Americans nostalgic for the Revolutionary generation spoke of the Jeffersonian “old republican” school. As Hofstadter argued in the 1940s, the Progressive Era was in many ways driven by a sense of restoration: William Jennings Bryan, Robert La Follette and Woodrow Wilson were, he said, “trying to undo the mischief of the past forty years and re-create the old nation of limited and decentralized power, genuine competition, democratic opportunity, and enterprise.”
Hofstadter encapsulated the center-right point about the country better than most, writing: “The sanctity of private property, the right of the individual to dispose of and invest it, the value of opportunity, and the natural evolution of self-interest and self-assertion, within broad legal limits, into a beneficent social order have been staple tenets of the central faith in American political ideologies; these conceptions have been shared in large part by men as diverse as Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Cleveland, Bryan, Wilson, and Hoover.” To this list we may safely add Barack Obama (and John McCain, for that matter).
The two Arthur Schlesingers, father and son, believed American history was cyclical, with periods, as they saw it, of liberal action followed by conservative reaction. There is much to commend this construct, though history and politics, like so much else in life, do not lend themselves to easy categorization. Liberal ideas flower in conservative eras and vice versa, just as liberals sometimes enact conservative dogma and conservatives embrace liberal shibboleths. Eisenhower chose not to roll back the Roosevelt-Truman expansion of the state, essentially codifying the New Deal; Nixon was crucial in the rise of affirmative action.
So the lines are blurry, the terms squishy—and there are plenty of skeptics about the conservative-America thesis. Rick Perlstein, who published the excellent “Nixonland” earlier this year, makes an interesting argument. “As far as public opinion goes, the American public is generally not center-right,” he says, pointing to data like those in the Pew poll. “The younger generation is more progressive than the last one. What we do have is a center-right political system.” In Perlstein’s view, the system is set up to make it difficult for voters to achieve a government as liberal as their beliefs. Because of the veto, the filibuster and powerful interests, he says, a supermajority is needed to reform government. America’s Founders “wrote a Constitution designed to make change a slow and deliberative process.”
Yes, they did, and it has served us rather well over time—not perfectly, God knows, but it has enabled us to muddle along for well over two centuries, always expanding, not contracting, individual liberty under law. Perlstein’s well-considered view is widely shared on the left. Asked why it is that more Americans identify themselves as conservative rather than liberal, he replies: “There’s been a concerted 30-year propaganda campaign to make the word ‘liberal’ synonymous with all that’s distasteful and alarming. Frankly, I don’t care if people call themselves a liberal, a conservative or a ham sandwich if they support progressive positions, which they do.”
What is also true but less noticed of late is that people of good will can, looking at the same facts, come to different conclusions. In the half hour after the final presidential debate, Brian Williams of NBC News interviewed Hillary Clinton on his broadcast. Citing fears of one-party control in Washington, Williams asked Clinton what the Democrats “will do with power, with majorities [in Congress] and the White House.”
“Well, the last time we had a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president was in 1993,” Clinton replied. “And what the Democrats did then is what we’re going to have to do again.”
With respect, Senator Clinton is recalling those days rather more rosily than many others do. The first two years of the Clinton administration gave way to the Gingrich-led Republican landslide of 1994 (one of the GOP victories that night: George W. Bush’s win over Ann Richards in Texas). Bill Clinton brought in his old pollster Dick Morris, moved rightward and recovered his old Democratic Leadership Council bearings.
The lesson is one with bipartisan relevance: parties nearly always overreach. That is one reason the Republicans lost the argument over the role of government in 1995, and it is why they are in such trouble at the moment. “I wouldn’t be so grandiose as to say that if Obama wins, that is a harbinger of a 30-year era,” says Axelrod. “Karl Rove made that mistake when Bush was elected. No one can foresee the future to that degree.”
But one man’s hubris is another man’s genuine reform. It is a fact of our politics that presidents usually have limited windows of opportunity to do big things. With Johnson, it was 1964, 1965 and 1966; with Reagan, at least domestically, it was 1981. “There could be an opening for real reform,” says Charles Peters, the founding editor of The Washington Monthly, who first came to the capital to work for President Kennedy’s new Peace Corps. “It may be briefly possible, but Obama has to remember that the natural tendency of the country, at least in my lifetime, is to settle just right of center.”
The son Bill Buckley spoke of at the Plaza 23 years ago, the writer Christopher Buckley, has had an eventful autumn. After endorsing Obama on the new Web site TheDailyBeast.com, Buckley faced charges of apostasy from his father’s old comrades on the right. He offered to resign his duties as the back-page columnist of the magazine his father created, and the incumbent editor accepted with alacrity. Aside from the vague “Hamlet”-like overtones of a son’s expulsion from his late father’s kingdom—and given the Buckleys’ upper-class Catholic ethos, it is more Evelyn Waugh than Shakespeare—the incident is interesting because Buckley chose Obama for largely conservative reasons. The right, he believes, has lost its way, and he thinks “President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves.”
I spoke to Buckley briefly last Friday. “My hope is that Obama will govern, in that dolorous phrase, from the center,” he said. “I think his instincts are conservative—he is a churchgoing, Christian family man. If his family resembled Sarah Palin’s family, can you imagine the howls from the right?” Buckley paused. “He will have to be an artful dodger, for sure. But he knows the country is basically conservative.” It is something Obama needs to remember as the trumpets begin to sound—not for a Roosevelt or a Reagan, but for him.
With Eve Conant, Suzanne Smalley, Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey
““Is this a center-right country? Yes, compared to Europe or Canada it’s obviously much more conservative… There’s a much higher tolerance for inequality, much greater cultural conservatism, a higher incarceration rate, legalized handguns and greater distrust of the state.” That is what it means to be leaning more to the right? A higher tolerance for inequality and a greater distrust of the government? I guess that does make some sense given that the left is said to be a supporter of Affirmative Action, but I thought that equality was something we continuously strive to maintain. A distrust in the government is nothing new as we created our Constitution with that sediment. This article made me think especially hard about what the author was trying to say but to be perfectly honest I am still not sure. The author managed to make both political ideologies sound rather bad. “Republicans say the policies and values they represent are wholly American, and so it is natural that they win so often.” This quote definitely backs up that SNL skit about Sarah Palin and some states being more American than others. “Democrats explain their failures by asserting that the Republicans are evil geniuses and fearmongers who exploit whatever is at hand to scare people into having their resentments win out against their better angels.”
“I mean “conservative” in the way most of us have come to use it in recent decades: to describe those who value custom over change, who worry about the erosion of the familiar and the expansion of the state, and who dislike those who appear condescending about matters of faith, patriotism and culture.” Well, if that is what the Left is up against, it certainly is not easy being blue. “Many dislike the state, except when the state is helping them; many hate paying taxes, except they expect the government to be able to fulfill the obligations (war, infrastructure, emergency relief, the rescue of investment banks) they think it should fulfill.” That’s America for you.
Connection: On page 194, voters are placed in categories to attempt to explain the reasoning behind choosing to vote a certain way. It is stated that 12% connect their opinions and beliefs to candidates or parties, 42% are considered group benefit voters, 24% are “nature of the time” voters, 22% don’t use ideology or issues but routinely vote for a party or make an opinion based on the candidate’s personality. Since the Republicans have been the “Party in Power” for the greater part of the last few decades, of those who turn out, it could be said that the Republicans benefit groups and receive a positive answer to “what have you done for me lately?” So, the claim that America is right-center is fairly justified.
So the electorate in America is center-right… I guess that makes sense. The largest generation right now is the baby boomers. They are fairly old. They’ve probably accumulated some wealth and they’d like for their retirement funds not to be taxed into oblivion. Same goes for Generation X. The youngest a Generation X person could be is about 27. So some of them are young, but almost middle-age, some with families, so they’re going to want tax cuts, and, therefore, they’ll be conservative. Looking at the numbers, about 34% of the population is from the Baby Boomers, and 30% of the population is Generation X. I doubt all of Generation X is conservative, especially amongst the younger half. I bet that the most progressive thinkers are Generation Y. Actually, Generation Y is as big as the Baby Boomers: about 34%. However, 74% of Generation Y can’t vote. I think that the author of this article is right about conservative trends. People are conservative because they want to hold tight to custom and tradition. I think there will be a lot more change in the future, when Generation Y can vote, because it’s huge, and because those traditions and customs aren’t my traditions and customs. And I’m right in the middle of Generation Y. I hope that change is coming (perhaps in the form of Barack Obama), because that would reform and outdated system. It will come eventually. Generation Y will be able to vote completely in 11 years. That’s too far off.
Connections: I think connects to conservative trends in the United States, particularly the Republicans beating Democrats. The generations that are conservative grew up in fear during the Cold War. Their realities are no longer reality. They vote Republican because of what they remember from the Age of Reagan. That’s why America tends to be ideologically more conservative.
First off, could that article have been any longer? [YES - Kautzman] There were a lot of terms in there that I was unfamiliar with, when I started reading this, I was going to list them, but the list became so long that I decided against it.
I don’t really know what to say about this article. I guess the whole feel was that Obama is going to have to think a little bit more conservatively if he does win the election, since most of the country is conservative. I agree with this, but there is something I don’t quite understand. If more of the country is conservative, why is Obama, who is a liberal, ahead in the polls? It seems like it would make more sense for McCain to be ahead if the country is conservative. I just don’t understand it. I guess most things about politics don’t make much sense when it really comes down to it. I felt that this article wasn’t even giving McCain a chance anymore. Obama hasn’t won yet, but they kept calling him President Obama. If I’m not mistaken, President Bush is still president, and Obama, along with McCain, is still a senator. There’s still a week. I doubt anything will happen to give McCain a huge lead in that week, but there is still a week.
Connection: To be honest, I don’t really have anything to connect this to. I guess it could kind of go along with what we’ve talked about with liberalism and conservatism, along with leaning to the left or right. If you’re a liberal, you lean to the left, if you are conservative, you lean to the right.
NO CREDIT – In the future ask your questions about terms and concepts if you cannot make the connection.
The quote of “Americans are ideological conservatives, but operational liberals,” seems to be right on for the most part. The only thing wrong is that if Americans are “operational liberals” then why have most presidents been Republican? But even then it seems that when they are elected, as the article stated, they all seem to come towards the middle to make everyone happy.
But then again yesterdays liberalism seems to be today’s conservatism. 30 years ago McCain’s idea of offshore drilling would have been seen as liberal and Obama’s idea of “sharing the wealth” he would have been probably jailed for being a radical communist. Now in todays political those things are the norm to agree with. If you think about it anything thats changed since the government was first constructed is in fact liberal. And with each election the definition of conservative and liberal changes. And with the way things are advancing in technology people’s opinions and perception of these two types of politicians are constantly changing.
Personally, I think that the reason for having more Republican presidents is because people are afraid of change. Unless it is absolutely necessary people are going to stick to what they know works and if everything works what is the point of fixing it?
Connection: “Americans are ideological conservatives, but operational liberals.” This article has shown that people don’t want change but as time goes on things are going to change because of the little things.
I agree with this article completely. While the Democrats may, and probably will, take the White House and both houses of Congress come next Tuesday, there is no doubt in my mind America will find much disappointment in Obama’s administration. There is so much hype over him right now it will be nearly impossible for Obama to live up to his expectations. I believe that the only reason Obama is winning right now is because of the economy and his charisma, two things that, in different ways, don’t mean a lot in the future. The economy is a grave concern, one that needs to be dealt with swiftly and effectively. But once it’s back up and running again (and yes, we’ve been at worse times and yes, we’ve come out of them) then what will the Democrats do for us? Personally I think destroy the economy again. Higher taxing leads to less spending in the economy. Sure it’s not that simple, but that’s the doctrine I believe in. Also, I don’t think Obama would have the lead he has right now if it wasn’t for his charisma. I too often hear, “I’m voting for Obama because he’s a great speaker and will make a great president!” The latter may very well be true, but certainly not because of the former. Like the author of this article states, people don’t realize the nature of our government. Capitalism runs on a somewhat-regulated system of every-man-for-himself. Socialism runs on redistributing wealth (Obama calls this “fairness”) and government regulation of the economy (sound familiar?). This to me is very scary, and unfortunately, it will be too late for most Americans by next year. Obama will be president, and things will have gotten worse. That’s only my opinion though; I may be completely wrong. But I do think in the end, most citizens will begin to realize the benefits of conservatism outweigh those of liberalism.
Connection: Well this whole post is a connection I guess. The election is just around the corner and like this author states, will probably go against its traditional (although obviously not absolute) style of voting Republican. Personally, I believe that is a bad thing
. Within the next year, we will know for sure how Obama (or McCain) will run his administration, the policies that will guide it, and how the public reacts. I believe the approval rating will be just like President Bush’s. But we will see.
This article definitely seems to be more conservative, and it seems to be the opposing views in comparison to the other blog about a left leaning America. Going in order of the article, I like the quote about how many Americans call themselves republicans, but in turn act more democratic and call for liberal reforms. He writes, “Many dislike the state, except when the state is helping them; many hate paying taxes, except they expect the government to be able to fulfill the obligations (war, infrastructure, emergency relief, the rescue of investment banks) they think it should fulfill.” This is so particularly true for our times and is a main reason why I disagree with the author that more of America is conservative. People may think however they want, but it’s what happens in action that changes America-not just a handful of ideas and ideals. The article argues that democrats are soft and that republicans have been more like the tough loving father, but as I pointed out before, who is truly the softer party if no significant changes are being made?
I do have to agree that our country thinks more conservatively, even if their policies remain the same to satisfy the majority of moderate voters. I also agree with the author’s statement that, “social order is the staples of America”. We are driven by our emotions and general sense of instinct to put, or keep actions from being put into order. This article also argues that even though many democratic comparisons can be drawn between the US and Europe, and that we are extremely conservative in this comparison that Obama will still have to enforce policies that mainly support conservative views. I am more in agreement with the other article which argues that Obama will have to enforce his democratic platforms since they are more pending and are more global.
Connection: As a direct comparison to the article that argues for realignment in the government (which I agree with), this article could support dealignment. America cannot seem to make a particular party preference, and thus both parties are losing voters to independents or just a general lack of political efficacy. The article seems to lean more to the republicans, but does mention a good degree of civilian uncertainty, as many people do support Obama, too. The parties are de-aligning due to this uncertainty and because of a general disapproval of both parties/party candidates.
I like this article, in terms of what it discusses and what it describes. It seems like a largely moderate article, discussing how liberals and conservatives are largely similiar, despite the caricatures that try to separate the two. The argument that we all have conservative and liberal impulses appeals to me greatly, because polarization of us vs them invariably leads to merely demonizing an opponent, and disparaging their ideas, even if they’re reasonable. I saw Christopher Buckley on The Daily Show, and I have to say I feel it’s unfortunate that simply because of how his father was, he is judged on that family legacy. It should be his volition of whose candidacy he endorses, not party lines. I am also fond of how Presidencies on both sides, have worked to include ideas from the other side. Nixon having a large hand in affirmative action makes me chuckle, despite that president’s vilification for Watergate. I think that just being a traditional, or stereotypical left politician won’t work for Obama, and thus far he seems to understand that. His agenda is not all liberal, all the time, and it seems to be working for him. Buckley seems to think Obama has conservative instincts, and he could very well be right. I think it will take a right-leaning president to lead our right-leaning nation back to the top.
“As far as public opinion goes, the American public is generally not center-right,” he says, pointing to data like those in the Pew poll. “The younger generation is more progressive than the last one. What we do have is a center-right political system.” Our history shows that America has been growing moderate (independent) away from the two parties, until 2000 when the parties became more polarized. It is shown that our country is more conservative voting, but liberal in ideology. I agree with the above quote in the sense that our political system is more to the right and the increasing younger generation tends to be more liberal. In reality, the country does not want a radical liberal nor a radical democrat to take position as President. We as Americans are content in the more moderate stance. That is why candidates go more “liberal” or “conservative” in the small elections because that is where the radicals participate in and then in the campaign for the general election, they tend to swing more to the middle to win the people’s vote. This article basically talks about the differences related to Republicans and Conservatives; in regards to previous voting history, issues, and how Obama will lead our country from the center. The truth of the matter is, most people are not completely liberal or conservative, many people, like myself, agree with policy views on either side. So the big issue is, who is going to carry-out those policies the best way, who is more likeable, and ultimately who will get the job done.
Connection: “People are ideologically conservative, but operational liberals.” This basically points out that people are conservative with ideas on the surface, but are liberal when it benefits themselves. Another connection is with a balanced government with both the legislative branch and the executive branch controlled by the same party. This could very well happen with Obama coming into presidency and the democrats gaining control in Congress.
It’s true that Americans, on a whole, are reluctant to change. But so is a majority of the planet. People are content with the way their lives are running, unless, of course, some sort of monkey wrench gets thrown into their plans. Then all they want are new reforms to help restore some level of sanity to their existence. Americans, mainly the middle and upper classes, are only conservative because they like the way capitalism helps them in life. The poorer are more inclined toward change because it would increase their chances of a social and economic boost. The same can be said for other minority groups as well. Very few people are storming around, advocating extremely radical change. Everyone enjoys just being in the center, a little inclined toward the right.
Connection:
In class we talked about how people are mostly conservative, yet liberal at heart. They don’t like big government or change, but they will accept government help. People don’t like to be infringed upon. Our book even talked about the dominant conservative nature of Americans. It attributed that to the reason why we’ve had so many Republican presidents as opposed to Democratic ones. However, as critical elections have shown, the liberal undertones in people show when there’s a crisis, such as the Great Depression. People then felt the need to have government help them by providing the necessary change to get out of it.
I would like to start by saying that was ridiculously long and took me like 20 years to read. Honestly the author did nothing but make the same point over and over and over again, who does he think he is Chris Mathews? Anyways he is basically right. Our country is fairly conservative on the whole. I honestly believe however that we are straying away from this trend. Obama is not quite as conservative as this author believes, certainly he is not Comparable to a European liberal and although he does not personally support gay marriage he knows that it is not the governments place to interfere with it. I feel that a Liberal trend has started, it is not such a negative thing anymore, and maybe we ate becoming a left centered nation. It’s not the 50’s anymore, now it is not so crazy to think everyone deserves healthcare, or a college education. Ideas like this are becoming more and more acceptable as time goes on., especially with things such as Liberal media bias. Will Universal healthcare happen or Gay marriage become legal in the near future? Highly unlikely, but maybe these things will be expected someday, who knows. Connection: Liberal media bias
NO CREDIT – Connection not detailed enough. Be specific and “show what you know” rather than name/term dropping.
This article jumps back and forth in between the past presidents and our possible upcoming president, Obama. The author goes on to say that “a big blue tsunami appears imminent”. And with some of the recent polls saying that nearly “86 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with how things are going, and 73 percent disapprove of the president’s performance”, it is easy to see why there is a good chance of this “blue tsunami”. From this article Obama has another thing going for him in the election, his “views are neither too liberal nor too conservative, but are about right” according to about 55 percent of the people in another poll. Many of the past presidents have been pulled more towards the center from their side of thinking, some of them being Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Carter, Clinton, and Roosevelt. In the past eight years there have also been many events that pushed people away from the conservative side. The United States is now engaged in two wars, is in the midst of an economic crisis, and there is a “universal feeling of unease in the country”. All of these events and facts help push whoever the democratic nominee is into becoming the next president, in this case Obama.
Connection: This article has several scientific poll statistics. The polls were used to support the ideas being presented by the author, and ranged from views of Obama to the current president and to whether or not people believed themselves to be conservatives or liberals.
NO CREDIT – Connection needs to be more specific and substantive – “show what you know” and don’t be afraid to elaborate to make your point.
This article does a good job of trying to explain the current view of liberal and conservative in this country. The author says we are center-right and that Obama needs to realize this if he wants to succeed. I really like the definition the author gave for conservative “in the way most of us have come to use it in recent decades: to describe those who value custom over change, who worry about the erosion of the familiar and the expansion of the state, and who dislike those who appear condescending about matters of faith, patriotism and culture.” I think this is a good definition for independents that lean right and for conservatives. It explains a lot about who Americans are.
I also like the concession he makes in the following paragraph: “The argument I am making—that we are at heart a right-leaning country skeptical of government once a crisis that requires government has passed—is probably going to look dumb, or at least out of step, for many months to come. A big blue tsunami appears imminent.” He realizes that there is a very real chance that Obama could win and for awhile at least we could see a flow of liberal legislation, but the author has faith that Obama will eventually find his way back to the center and maybe even lean right a little bit.
Connection: This is kind of comparable to what Mr. Kautzman said about getting elected. In the primaries you have to go a little further to the left or right to get the nomination, but once you get the nomination you have to slowly come back to the center. This proves we are a center-right country. Most Americans don’t have extreme views and that is what puts us at a center-right position.
Wow, I like this week’s articles. This article brings forth really interesting points. Barack Obama has been pushed up into a miracle worker, but people who are gullible enough to believe that anyone, no matter who they are, can do everything the people demand bound to be disappointed. I’m a liberal Obama supporter, but I’m not blinded by everything that is boosting Obama. However, McCain is also boosted up above himself too. Campaigns do that. And the opposition is always quick to jump on top of that. I also like how the author mentions how the term “liberal” has been slandered to be synonymous with unpleasantness. It really isn’t that fair to say. But the one argument that really intrigued me (mostly because I hadn’t considered it) was when the author said “Liberal ideas flower in conservative eras and vice versa, just as liberals sometimes enact conservative dogma and conservatives embrace liberal shibboleths.” That is a very interesting thing to think about, because when you do, you notice times when the author is right, like when Nixon and Eisenhower added to the New Deal programs, or when LBJ beefed up the military forces in Vietnam. So when the article the talks about how Obama needs to tread carefully in this traditionally ideological conservative nation, Obama should heed those words if he wins.
Connection: Political Ideology and how it interconnects is mentioned quite frequently throughout the article.
“There’s a much higher tolerance for inequality, much greater cultural conservatism, a higher incarceration rate, legalized handguns and greater distrust of the state.” Wholy crap, don’t like conservatives do you; talk about close minded jeesh.
Yes we are not England, we aren’t Europe, if you like it so much then why don’t you move there. In case you have not noticed we are the only superpower in the world we must be doing something right. Perhaps it is even that conservatism, or right-leaning, that you claim is at the center of America. Have some patriotism man.
So you think America has not become more liberal, ha (I scoff at you). Take a look at the fifties and look at now. Tell me you don’t see a huge shift to the left, there are so many changes I don’t want to list them. But perhaps it has not gone as far as you wanted as fast as you wanted – one term destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism (or liberal fascism if you want a dictator, hope that’s too far for you but maybe not with your talk of government rule). Oh but it won’t be called that not yet, it is too scary but that’s what it is.
Connection: The author is discussing how party identification is currently center-right but predicts a shift of independents going toward the left.
NO CREDIT – You need more substance to your connections; don’t short change the point you are trying to make by not fully articulating the position.
I think this author made several astute remarks, however, I wouldn’t be able to agree wholeheartedly. “Should Obama win, he will have to govern a nation that is more instinctively conservative than it is liberal.” Yes, in the past few years our nation has been coasting on the “Reagan highway” and has remained more in the center right of the stage. However, I believe that for at least the next four, eight, even twelve years, there will be a significant break-through point for liberalism and democracy. Our nation is sorely in need of a new direction and a fresh outlook and nobody can question what Obama’s main slogan was…think six letter word beginning with a C…Our nation is ready for a liberal after eight depressing years with a conservative. Furthermore, the rising number of women and college educated students plays another substantial factor into a more liberal leaning country. The fact that Bush has a less than one percent approval rating from African Americans, that women lean more Democratic than men, and that post graduates are more likely to vote liberal than conservative all point to a new era of left leaning liberals. Finally, the new outlook on interest groups being more concerned with social and cultural ideas also plays into Obama’s court. Overall, although we can learn from history, it also has it upsets and I think we need to be prepared for a country becoming more and more liberal.
Connection: “Americans are idelogical coservatives, but operational liberals.” When the people are directly benefited it’s all to easy to change one’s mind and lean left.
It is amazing how many problems that our nation, a nation that is high on the technology advancement speed level, can not figure out how to have a decent way to vote and keep track of legal voters. As to the issue with ACORN, they are so questioned and put under suspicion that it is a wander they still exist. Scherer is right though, voter fraud is extremely annoying and a problem that has been around for a while. The main beneficiary of such false registration is… well, no one really. The Democrats might get some more votes out of it if the “person” requests an absentee ballot or the state has mail in ballots, but, in order to vote, a person must have an ID. Ballots are a whole different issue. It is up to the states to find a decent ballot to use but if one of our brilliant minds in our nation could come up with one and then explain it to all the states, we might actually have a decent way to vote. Our nation is very much an equal- opportunity nation. We try t give everyone the same freedoms and advantages as any other citizen. This is hard when a person is of the age to vote and yet is illiterate and has no way to read the ballot. As to dirty tricks, there have not really been any October Surprises as of yet this year.
Connection: Mock Election was a large success this year. In saying that, I also must admit that I saw a great many write- ins on absentee ballots. These write-ins included Mickey Mouse, Chuck Norris, Sally Smith, and many others. This just shows that some people do not take voting seriously. It is very much the same with the nation’s voting. The fact that we have voter fraud can be partly attributed to the attempted overcompensation by others to make up for the silly voters.
NO CREDIT – Late.
In response to Ryan Phillipy, the author is closed minded because you do not think he likes conservatives? Well, he does not seem to favor liberals all that much either. I also do not agree that he should move somewhere else. America is full of different viewpoints and opinions. Those differences and the general acceptance of those differences make us a rather good country. If comparing systems is grounds for the need to leave, well, then much of the country needs to go with him. I also do not think that you fully understand the term liberal in the sense of how the author is using it as you compare the current state of the country to that of the same country in the fifties. In the case of how the author is using the term, he is talking about liberal being holding more of the Democratic views. I think providing some of the items of that huge list of what has happened to make America more liberal would help me understand your argument a little bit better. I also get the impression that you think that Obama could replace capitalism with socialism. I cannot even imagine a way for Obama or the Democrats to be able to do that since we have a checks and balances, limited power. But, such efforts for such a replacement are not even within the aims of the Democrats.
In response to Nicole… I agree with you about this author (or perhaps simply this article) being more conservative by nature. “We are driven by our emotions and general sense of instinct to put, or keep actions from being put into order” (Nicole Thompson). Your previous statement does a wonderful job of connecting our political actions with the primitive level of humanity (reptilian brain, survival of the fittest, etc.). I expected this article to focus more on conservative issues since the first two were more Democratic-based, and that’s just what happened. “Should Obama win, he will have to govern a nation that is more instinctively conservative than it is liberal… The Republicans have seemed fatherly and tough, the Democrats motherly and soft” (Jon Meacham). This may be the greatest argument as to why many Americans find themselves standing “right-of-center [in the country]”. I still don’t know my exact political orientation, but I definitely side with the Conservatives on some issues and with the Democrats on other issues (cross pressure). Foreign policy may be inspiring some traditionally conservative voters to lean more to the right during this election, even though Obama was able to gain a substantial lead in the polls since the recent economic crisis. I agree entirely with the author when he states that presidents have “limited windows of opportunity to do big things.” It brings us back to that familiar debate: the president receives too much blame in times of crisis, yet receives too much credit in times of prosperity. It’s definitely true that if Barack Obama wants to govern this great nation properly and effectively for the next four years, he may need to do so from a more center-right standpoint.
Connection: “Americans are ideological conservatives, but operational liberals.” The co-authors of this famous quote, Hadley Cantril and Lloyd Free, didn’t like the idea of government, but they liked what government does and can do. They argued that when people do use ideological labels, they often apply them inconsistently. Therefore, it seems that no matter what Americans choose to call themselves (on issue after issue), majorities of the public find themselves wandering on the “progressive” side.
In Response to Cole…
Cole, I mostly want to comment on your comment that Obama is going to send a shock wave of socialist policies through America. I completely disagree! While I am not the biggest Obama fan and I am not super liberal, I still believe that Obama wants what he thinks is best for this country. He wants to help people who are less fortunate and try to improve their quality of life. In theory, isn’t that what we want from a president…improvement? I can see Obama wanting to pass some legislation that is slightly unrealistic, but considering his background and how he went from having nothing to running for President of the United States, I can’t see him taking Americans hard-earned money without approval. And before everyone who is reading this response screams because I sound so naïve, I actually do know his plans for taxing the rich, which leads me into my next point and argument against Cole’s post. Not everything Obama proposes is going to be passed. Congress is known for shooting down legislation, so I’m sure the next 4 years won’t be much of an exception. Lastly, HOW CAN THE DEMOCRATS DESTROY THE ECONOMY EVEN MORE? Can is get much worse than the direction we are heading? Maybe we need new direction. However history is known to repeat itself, which makes the outlook look gloom.
In response to Tyler Konsonlas:
Okay. I think you need some fact checking. First, and we’ve talked about this in class many times, the president always gets undue blame or praise for how the country is going. It seems to me you were sleeping ALL of those days we talked about this. Congress’s approval rating is lower than President Bush’s. And that’s… hmm… Democratic. I do not agree with President Bush on a lot of (if not most) issues. But at least he’s better than Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi has not done our country any good. But does anyone care? No. All they think about is the president screwing everything up. EVEN WHEN Congress approved the bailout bill, the War in Iraq (yes it’s true, Bush is not a dictator), and WON’T vote on energy bills (ask Pelosi why, because it doesn’t even sound like English to me). Basically, my point is that the government is screwed up right now, not just President Bush. If Obama wins the presidency, will he be able to revive our nation? I doubt it, but we’ll see. You might ask why. That’s simply because I believe that if a nation voted on one’s ideas and beliefs rather than charisma and image, McCain would win the election. But Obama is very charismatic, and for that reason many will vote for him instead of McCain. But I guess we’ll see how charismatic he truly is if he has to announce to the nation he is unable to revive the economy or otherwise fulfill his promises because of the nation’s, and clearly yours, tremendously high hopes and expectations.
In Response to Ryan Phillipy:
Ryan, I don’t even understand what you are saying. You’re post was dripping with so much sarcasm that I found it difficult to know what point you were trying to articulate. But I will try. I think you were trying to express how you disagreed with the article. I have to say that I don’t agree with this article either, but I’m not raging on about it.
Like Annika, I think that the author needs to take many things into consideration. I think that instead of remaining conservative, our nation is instead turning more liberal. Bush has received very little approval – and what have we been learning about in class? The party in power, when met with disapproval, will be replaced. The nation wants change. After these few years, they’re not going to pick another conservative. The author also states that “there’s a much higher tolerance for inequality”. Ryan, that made me angry too. I really have to disagree with the author. Our nation has made so many efforts to promote equality and acceptance – putting Spanish in text books, for example. Our nation has also come a long way since the civil rights movement.
In response to Malaika Chandler:
First of all, I do not think that the majority of the planet is scared of change. Most of the planet wants change to have what we have; the ability to make change happen. Also, I think that Americans are afraid of the unknown, they are afraid that the changes that they make may possibly go wrong in some way, and they will be thrown into something like a recession. For that reason, I think, people revert back to the way things have been and are conservative. But in saying that, we are in a “recession” now, so the old way has not worked, so will people still stick with the conservative non-movement? People need to change things up, if the recession gets worse, then we will need “New Deal” type programs to get out of it.
And as far as poor people and minority groups being liberal, I agree. They want change so they can be competitive with people with advantages. If you come from a situation in which you have a disadvantage, would you not like the tables turned in your direction, at least a little bit? People of the lower class are not just asking for handouts to get a “social and economic boost”. From my experience, I think that they just want a level playing field so that they can achieve it themselves.
A question that I have to ask is that do conservatives not believe in equality, or do they believe it comes in a different way?
In response to Alena: I think it is very interesting how our country goes through different trends. Republican, then democrat, then republican again. Maybe now we will switch back to democrat. Who knows? I really do hope that Obama wins not because I like him so much, but because I want to see what kind of a difference, if any, the democratic party will make in the way that we all live our lives when they have control over the white house and Congress. It’s funny how during the times when our economy and everything is going good, the people seem to want to put republicans in charge but when things start to head downhill or have already reached the bottom of the hill, we look to the democratic party and democratic ideas to bail the country out. Democrats always get a lot of support when the people need help, but they seem to forget about the help that they received once things get good again. Since that is the trend, I wonder if our country would stay out of these hard times if the democrats just stayed in power all of the time. Also, what is Generation Y, and why do they assign different generations with letters? What happens when we get to Z?
In Response to Renee:
I agree with this author, that the country is more conservative. If you look at past elections and how each state went you can see that there are only a few states that have been consistently blue. Unfortunately all these states have the highest number of electoral votes in the Electoral College and this leads to Democrats getting elected. The reason Obama is ahead in the polls is because of what his campaign stands for. Many people are not happy with what has happened the last eight years and they are ready for the change Obama is advocating. However, I believe Obama will eventually get back to a center- right view. Maybe not right away but eventually he will because many Americans are conservative. All you need to remember is that Americans are ideologically conservative but operationally liberal. This basically sums up why Obama is leading the polls. Many people think that Obama’s policies will help them and that is why he will get their votes. I completely agree with what you said at the end of your post. McCain still has a chance albeit a slim one but the only way to know if the polls are right is with the election on Tuesday.
In response to Rebecca Rathbun:
The point that I was trying to make when saying that he should move to Europe if he loves it so much is:
I hate it when people demean American policies and ideas with other countries ideas. America is the only super power in the world as I said earlier; trying to make our country like other countries is a stupid idea, our differences from other countries is what makes us great. The author is making the claim that a push for liberalization (like Europe) is better for our country but I disagree, I think that it is the very conservatism at the heart of America is what makes us great. It is much harder to change back to the way thing were than to be careful in changing to something new.
If you must know in what ways we have become more liberal than in the fifties here are some: The acceptance of divorce, gay rights, abortion, non-marital sex. All of these things were unacceptable in the fifties but have become acceptable now some even condoned.
No, I don’t think that Obama could replace capitalism with socialism but I think that he will put regulations in place and create social programs that will remove any type of laissez-faire system, socialism does not need to completely remove capitalism but often does and I think that Obama’s presidency will open the doors for such a system. From there who knows where we are headed.
(and Alexa I hope this clears up my post “dripping with so much sarcasm” that it was hard to understand)