Media Narrative: The Mainstream Is Now "The Left"

by DemFromCT

One fascinating piece of fallout from the collapse of Bush popularity is the now-entrenched media idea that Democratic presidential candidates will "tack left" as they are "pushed and prodded" by the netroots and others on their way to the 2008 primaries. However, responsible coverage also adds just how far out of the mainstream current Republican thinking is:

Reconciling the divergent needs of economically-downscale voters, culturally liberal upscale voters, and essential swing- and/or centrist voters will not be easy.

These difficulties pale in comparison, however, to those facing the Republican Party and its candidates for the nomination.

In a reversal of past patterns, the conflicts in this cycle between the Republican primary electorate, on the one hand, and general election voters, on the other, are far more severe than on the Democratic side of the aisle. The continuing support among Republican voters for both President Bush and his policies in Iraq has pushed all the leading GOP candidates well outside mainstream views on ending the war, the issue most likely to dominate 2008.

The potential for conflict between Republican Party orthodoxy and more moderate general election voters was graphically displayed at a Columbia, South Carolina Republican Party debate on May 15, when the audience erupted in cheers as Rudy Giuliani endorsed the use of torture.

The rallying cry that Bush isn't a conservative is a weak one. And Digby has already captured the angst as the self-appointed centrists (who really are Establishment conservatives) try and apply outdated and inaccurate labels that better position themselves far more than enlighten their audience.

In any case, as Rasmussen points out, progressive has a more positive connotation than moderate or conservative (liberal is out of favor). When it comes to conservative, Bush and the GOP have sullied the brand.

For some, it may seem strange to distinguish between a candidate who is like Reagan and a candidate who is politically conservative. But, that gap has arisen because the definition of conservative has been altered by the more recent GOP leadership in Congress and the White House. Also, of course, being compared to Reagan ascribes some personal characteristics that cannot be captured in an ideological label.

These two themes – Reagan good, Bush bad and the American consensus on issues like Iraq, stem cell research, health care and government's (non-Norquist) role in tackling the problems of the 21st Century – will flavor the description of where the public and the candidates are described as falling within the political spectrum, particularly by the establishment punditocracy. And the more the political center moves away from the failed establishment (not just Bush but the people that supported him, including the pundits) and back to mainstream sensibility, the more that the 'left' label will be hurled in desperation, as if it matters to the pragmatic American public. It's good for fund raising on the right, I suppose, but it won't help the GOP come election day.

Comments

[BillE]

Interesting take on the Decider.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/dangers-of-a-cornered-geo_b_58429.html

[JeffinBerlin]

There is an interesting comparison to be made if one looks at UK politics. Pre 1997 there was the "Labour" (left wing socialist) and the Conservative (right wing monetarist) parties. What Blair did was to steal the Conservative policies and move his party to the centre. He was able to do this because Mrs. Thatcher (and John Major) had left the country with a robust economy and demoralised Trade Unions. Over the next few years he "stole" all the Conservative policies on Law and Order, the economy, security, etc. What is left in the UK now is 2 (3 if you count the Liberal Democrats) fighting over the centre ground. There are still a few traditional Labour and Conservative voters who will never change (similar to Bush's 28%), but the key vote is the centre.
Here in Germany we have a similar situation with a coalition of the right-wing CDU/CSU and the left-wing SPD (they are really left of centre and right of centre). We also have 3 other parties in Parliament, 2 left-wing and one right-wing, but they are more extreme than the ruling coalition. (Obviously what we call right-wing in Germany is probably slightly left of the mainsteam Democrats!).
Labels do not work, you must address the needs of the electorate and tell them what they "want" to hear. Your party structure in the US is not as comprehensive and co-ordinated as the party machines in Europe. If the Democrats are to sweep aside the Republicans, forget the 28% Bush supporters, they will never change. Go for the middle and working class votes with universal health care, free (or affordable education) and social services and you will win.
Stop labelling yourselves as "liberal", "progressive" or "looney left" and get the message across that you are for the people.

[oldtree]

we are a dull, yet interesting lot. we look at the buildings we have built and think they will stand forever. once complete, no further work required. this is our god like view of things, we created it, it must be perfect. such confidence is not merited, but it is the mantra. we talk about everything except the things that are really happening, because we simply can't adjust ourselves to maintain the polish on that which we know will tarnish when exposed to the air. we prefer to ignore the tarnish.
is it because of hollywood? overconfidence? what is it that causes normally rational people to ignore the carnage? perhaps we will one day have post traumatic stress disorder when the country just isn't here.

why is it that our government and all of it's officious little cliques, never discuss how the country is the victim of entropy? We ignore the children that we say we are building the future for. we ignore all signs that the water is poor, the method to get the water around is ancient. we ignore the fact that the oil won't be here, and our houses heated by petro won't be warm any more. the bridges that support your movement from here to there, are in almost every case, not going to survive an earthquake, and we have earthquakes. the towns and cities in tornado alley don't stand up to tornadoes. the gulf states don't build to protect themselves from the hurricane, but they know they will have another. people continue to rebuild their homes next to the big river, even though they know that river will wash them out. what is it that causes such behavior?

since nothing we do collectively makes all that much sense, this is considered normal. the irony hits you between the eyes as you watch it approach. guess it's all about the priorities we embrace. or the absence of any logical priority. it seems much like a vacuum. it sucks, sure. but a vacuum means without air and a pressure different from the norm. what are we waiting for? the switch to be turned off?

[emptypockets]

The abortion debate is a nice microcosm of how a debate where the mainstream runs on the left is presented as split-down-the-middle in the media. The NYT has a piece http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30abortion.html?ex=1343534400&en=af2fb83f502dead1&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink>yesterday about the struggles among Republicans to find a staunch anti-women's-rights candidate to head their ticket.

I've been wondering who to root for here: do I want two pro-choice nominees, say Giuliani on their side, to guarantee a pro-choice Presidency? or should I hope the Republicans will nominate another real reactionary, to alienate them even farther from the mainstream and keep women's rights a top issue in the campaign?

And is there anything that progressive bloggers can do to influence the process? Romney is already twisting himself into a pretzel (the kind you can choke on) on this issue. Would unwelcome attention from the left regarding their wishy-washy anti-choice stands push the current field even farther to the right -- and is that desirable?

[demtom]

JeffinBerlin, just for your info, here in America, proposing universal health care is not seen (in the dominant pundit view) as going for the middle -- it's still, as Demfromct suggests, considered beyond the pale.

But that argument doesn't fly with most of America anymore, and hasn't for some time. Even in '92, the idea that Clinton/Gore were crazy-ass liberals was floated (remember Rich Bond's "Jane Fonda will be secretary of state; there'll be dinners for Castro"?), to no avail. In '96, the GOP Senatorial campaigns were all some variation (courtesy Arthur Finkelstein) on "Disgustingly liberal/nauseatingly liberal" -- all the incumbents won their races anyway. Even in '04, "the two most liberal Senators" -- one from Massachusetts -- came within an eyelash of knocking off an incumbent president.

We're already most of the way through a political transition; voters have become accustomed to Democrats' representing their views. They barely opted to keep Bush around -- almost solely in response tO the trauma of September 11th -- but the collapse in the past 2 1/2 years has ended the truce, and the situation is now starkly similar to the last part of the Carter administration. In that case, voters had clearly undertaken a philosophic shift to the right (the Nixon landslide had made it obvious), but the fluke of Watergate made them conditionally go with the opposing party. Carter was unable to balance the conservative bent of the electorate with his still-left-leaning party; that, combined with bad situations in Iran and at gas stations, persuaded the voters it was time to line up with their developing ideological preference and put the conservative GOP fully in charge for the first time in 50 years. This time around, polls have been showing for years a voter tilt toward liberalish ideas, on health care, taxes, etc.; now, the foreign policy and domestic disasters of the Bush administration are pushing them to put those ideological convictions into voting practice.

The press' problem is, by and large, they've lived too long in one perception of reality, and they've grown fat off that perception. Just as it was inconceivable to the press in the mid-70s that the GOP could take over en masse (Time Magazine said, upon Carter's narrow election in '76, that "America's natural Democratic majority" had asserted itself), the Versailles-ists of DC can't imagine a Beltway run by a popular Democratic movement; Bill Clinton was as far left as they can imagine ever going. (And isn't it piquant, after the way they flayed Bill, to watch them heap praise on Hillary now, as the best way of fending off the prgressive possibilitties of Edwards or Obama? That, too, recalls 1980: the way the press tried to build up non-entity GHWBush as a way of fending off Reagan)

The day of reckoning is nigh: not just for the GOP, but also, as Dem says, for the pundits who have made common cause with them.

[Mimikatz]

Emptypockets: There is some evidence that Rudolph Giuliani was pro-choice in NY because that's where the voters were. He has promised to appoint Alito-type judges, who are no doubtr more in tune with his real preferences. His views on gays do seem to be genuine, but I don't trust him on reproductive rights. Plus, he's crazy and VERY authoritarian. Be careful what you wish for. We learned that in California in 1966 with Reagan for Governor.

[Crab Nebula]

Superb post by Demtom above.

[centerfielddj]

I think the labeling of positions that are held by 60% or more of the American public as "liberal" or "left" is EXCELLENT. For example, if opposition to our Iraq occupation makes someone a "dirty f***ing hippie", that will begin to inoculate millions of Americans from that propaganda.

Keep it up, Fox News.