Towards the Political Center
I think both sides of American politics are starting to realize that extremism and polarizing politics are not as “fashionable” as they once were.
I’m still not confident that the reason politicians are beginning to shift towards the center are because they have truly have a heart change or just for pragmatics after seeing the polls. But at this point, I think I’ll be happy with either. Baby steps right?
On the Republican side of things . . . the leading candidates for their party at this point are Rudy Giulanni (a pro-gun control, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, 2x’s divorced) and Mitt Romney (who also supports gay-rights, gun-control, and abortion rights). Even John McCain (who I think is starting to flip as much as John Kerry did) is a much more centered and social Republican than his predecessors.
On the Democratic side . . . Barack Obama is leading the way in a centered and honest platform. While I think Hillary is slippery and changes to her surroundings everytime you see her . . . even that is a sign that she is respecting the polls where people (us) are wanting something much more centered and less extreme. And outside the presidential race there is a reason why Joe Lieberman is so popular.
Just on a side note, I think the fact that she keeps pulling the “Bill” card so often in the early stages . . . is a sign that she’s unsure of her standing in the Democratic party. So she keeps reminding her party of her husband who everyone in their party loved.
All of this to say . . . that I think politicians are finally starting to realize how tired most of us are with partisan and polarizing politics. And while there are still “true Democrats” & “true Republicans” . . . I think a much more moderate middle is emerging that is post-partisan . . . in the same way that many are becoming post-denominational . . . relying less and less on labels and more and more on values and issues. Perhaps even a generous politics. Although that might be a bit too ambitious at this point.
And while there are still extremist and polarizing figures on both sides (H. Clinton, Sharpton, Falwell, Robertson) and the constituents that they represent . . . I’m inclined to think that the majority is now with the moderate middle. Although I don’t think we realize it yet. We are a group that is still finding its voice and trying to connect with a larger community and platform after so many years on one end of the spectrum of the other.
I think the days of the Moral Majority are over. And now what is taking shape is the Socially Responsible Majority made up of the Cultural Creatives. Again . . . mark my words . . . the presidential election will be determined by this middle group of 20-35 year olds who are web, tech-savy, socially responsible, and culturally creative.
[tags]Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Mitt Romney, Bill Clinton, Rudy Giulanni, Republicans, Democrats, Partisan Politics, Cultural Creatives, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Al Sharpton, Partisan Politics, Moral Majority, 2008 Election, John McCain[/tags]
There’s a good reason why “moderates” seem to be rather dominant… it’s because most of the country has more in common with a Libertarian political viewpoint than they do either Republican or Democratic. A distrust of government solutions and a belief in limited government, a basic belief in personal liberty, and even the desire to not be involved in foreign wars - those are all cornerstones of the Libertarian party. If they’d ever get their act to together, the two current predominant parties would be left fighting over the scraps of the electorate.
Hmm aren’t 20 to 35. . . the people that don’t vote?
hmm…i am not so sure that Obama is moving to the center. Outside of Kucinich, Obama is probably the most “liberal” or “progressive” candidate among the democrats.
At the same time, while Hillary may be extremely polarizing, her politics are pretty centrist (as were her husbands).
i agree nick. but not in this election. this demographic is finding a voice.
derek. i like the libetarians but they need to find some more candidates who seem like normal people and not librarians who put you to sleep. any type of life would be appreciated. but i do like the majority of the platform.
dave. i just think hillary is slippery. and a chameleon. but i can certainly understand your take on obama being the most progressive and hillary being centric. i just think obama’s faith makes him more moderate and hillary’s adoption of faith at the right time makes her liberal. and a snake.
i just think obama’s faith makes him more moderate and hillary’s adoption of faith at the right time makes her liberal.
I don’t disagree with you on Hillary. She will not get my vote.
But I do disagree about Obama’s faith making him more moderate. I believe that it may make him appear more moderate and appealing to moderate religious voters, but in reality his faith has, for the most part, been a driving force in his very progressive politics. And that is why I like him!
It’s only normal for the candidates of the 2008 presidential race to tend to drift towards the center. After all, they are trying to win the trusts of the voters. Being the politicians that they are, they will shift their views readily.
no i agree dave. i think faith is a real part of obama’s life and politic. which is why i love him. and as of now, will have my vote. i don’t think he’s using it at all. if anything i think he’s been keeping it quiet so as not to cause problems. i wish he would be twice as vocal as he is.
I’m generally not in favor of politicians pushing for the government to step in and do the job of the church. Two reasons: (1) because the government will confiscate money from taxpayers, rather than allowing people to give (thus taking away the character-building experience of giving) and (2) because the government does a poor job at just about whatever it does, including charity (and those who receive do not do so humbly when they receive from the government).
Why is it that we deplore those who would use government to enforce religious standards on some issues, but encourage those who would use government to enforce religious standards on others? Instead, I think the role of the government should be quite limited, and we should encourage the church to step up and do its job.
All of which why I find myself leaning more and more libertarian. But I agree with Josh, they need to find some candidates who are as engaging as they are intelligent. Unfortunately, most of those end up running as Republicans just so they’ll have a chance at taking office.
On a final note, about the “moderate” Clintons - the only reason Bill Clinton came across as a moderate president is because Dick Morris did his job very well. Hillary is following the same plan, but all you have to do is remember her health care plan to know how moderate she’s not. And the “HillaryCare” plan will be quite the center of attention if she becomes the Democratic nominee, if not sooner (and appropriately so).
Derek, well stated about the role of government and the church. I’ve been of that thinking or a while now and have felt very alone in my thinking. I completely agree. It’s almost as if we try to elect politicians to do our charity work for us so we can sit back and feel good about ourselves. And if we elect someone who wants to cut government programs for the poor etc., it is considered un-Christian or whatever you want to call it. If you want to see a Christ-like church, look at the people who go into the streets and physically feed the homeless, not the ones who get Obama or anyone else to do it for them.
The 20-35 crowd do not typically vote much, so if they are going to find their voice, they need to do it in the next year, for sure! I think you got it Josh, in that most of the country is actually moderate, but the media are coastal, and thus on some extreme or another (sweeping generalization). So, do the politicians pander to the media to get coverage and “face time”? or do they pander to the people who actually watch the news and “present” moderate in order to get elected?
Do candidates really believe they can make the changes they talk of, or are they simply playing politicians to get elected?
I may be speaking out of complete ignorance, but has many politicians in the last two decades really accomplished much of what they said they’d do in their stump speeches while trying to get elected?
Has getting elected become the goal?
And, it appears that he/she who has the most money will get elected. Yes?
Hillary is following the same plan, but all you have to do is remember her health care plan to know how moderate she’s not.
Right…because one issue means she is not a moderate? Come on?
She has a very hawkish foreign policy record, she is fairly moderate on a lot of social issues, she even voted for a ban on flag burning. There is no question that she is liberal on some issues, but she is far from being “liberal” or “left.”
[...] is a good article/insight. It falls in line with my predictions here and [...]
oh no hillary is very liberal and would have us all as socialists if she could. wouldnt vote for her if she were the only candidate, would start a write in campaign. still trying to decide about the others. they seem to be changing to fit public opinion too much for me, as politicians tend to do.
[...] for Barack. And while I have blogged about my affection and interest for the Senator (here and here) . . . I also haven’t written much here about what I think of the process and the election, [...]