But we must face a hard truth: America remains conservative. The Reagan revolution has not ended -- in fact, the Reagan revolution has become the Reagan religion.
Progressives despise both Clinton and Obama for courting the center. Progressives insist that the sure way to win in 2008 is to go for that all-important 2% Kucinich vote, and damn the consequences.
Why do they think that way? Because progressives don't read polls. Polls like this one:
The latest Rasmussen Reports survey of Election 2008 shows Republican frontrunner Senator John McCain with single-digit leads over Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. McCain now leads Clinton 48% to 40%. He leads Barack Obama 47% to 41%.
McCain does better than either Democrat with unaffiliated voters in the new survey, but especially when Clinton is his opponent. Against the former First Lady, he leads 52% to 31% with unaffiliateds.If you think that the Iraq war is universally despised, how do you explain away the fact that the Republican front-runner -- a man who still offers robust support for this obscene conflict -- commands more affection than does either Democratic front-runner?
John McCain is viewed favorably by 52% and unfavorably by just 43%. His favorables have been in the 50%+ range since late November.
Hillary Clinton is currently viewed favorably by 47%, unfavorably by 51%. Barack Obama is viewed favorably by 51%, unfavorably by 45%.
It's astonishing. After seven years of George W. Bush, after a failed economy, after innumerable scandals, after Katrina, after outsourcing, after six years of Republican pork and crony capitalism, after the worst foreign policy decisions in the history of this nation, after a non-stop political disaster that should have destroyed the current president's party -- the GOP candidate leads the national polls.
How will the progs respond to these numbers? I can hear them now: "Well, that's because the MSM wouldn't give enough attention to Edwards or Kucinich! Millions of people who now say they prefer McCain would rush toward Dennis if they heard his message..."
Oh, stop it. Just stop it.
My job on this blog is to keep snapping my fingers in front of your face until you awaken from your trance. Progs live in a halluci-nation; I live in the United States of America. And here's the miserable truth about the place where I live:
Republicanism is hard-wired into the national psyche. Conservatives still write the storylines. Rush and Rupert still control how your fellow citizens frame reality.
Most Americans believe that we can best revive the economy by lowering taxes on the rich. Most believe that Milton Friedmanism is a fresh new idea, not a failed theory.
We live in a country that is conservative to the core. That situation will change only when our faces get hit by the same kind of economic haymaker that struck in Hoover's time.
Until that happens, the only way for a Democrat to slip into the White House will be to play to the right. Even the most liberal candidates must say things that will infuriate the folks who loiter around Democratic Underground, Smirking Chimp and other prog-blogs.
That's the truth. I do not like this truth, but I refuse to ignore it.
And I'll be very amused when my prog readers (assuming some still lurk around these parts) hold their hands over their ears and say: "I'm not listening to you! LA LA LA LA..."
25 comments:
Amen, Joe. Amen.
Americans aren't conservative. They're just dumb. That or too busy to pay attention.
The effect may be the same -- but the strategy to counter it is different. And trying to out-warmonger John McCain isn't going to cut it.
the only way for a Democrat to slip into the White House will be to play to the right
Or obfuscate their true policy intentions, as you've suggested they should.
Nothing like having the courage of one's convictions.
Hey, starroute, who is dumber? The conservative political activist who is able to focus, maintain discipline, and consistently win, or the ultra-sophisticated super-liberal, who can alwasy be counted on to withdraw from the real contest to sabotage the less objectionable candidate by not voting, or voting for some unelectable dreamer?
The truth is, the US has always been conservative. They/we may be more misinformed today (that is arguable) but the majority have always supported what they believe to represent smaller government, lower taxes, and less spending, except in war.
I can't explain the warrior part, but there it is.
And isn't it interesting that another false-fla...uh, I mean terrorist attack just took place in Baghdad?
For the proverbial shits and giggles, take a look at this:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R1972
That's the 1972 Republican Party platform.
Can you imagine the GOP running on such a thing in 2008?
Can you imagine the Democrats running on such a thing in 2008?
Mazoola, that's a very interesting site. The Democratic platform from 1932 is pretty appealing.
A fun story: Marvin Kitman ran in the New Hampshire Republican primary in 1964 on the Republican platform from 1864, because almost none of it had been achieved. (Several southern states hadn't yet ratified the abolition of slavery, for example.) He got just nine fewer delegates than Goldwater (who got ten).
Anyway, Joe, I think the reactionary progressives aren't asking for Clinton and Obama to appeal to the Kucinich bloc; instead, they're hoping for them to use their "political capital" (a check that hasn't yet been written, of course) to somehow make the populace acknowledge facts it has gladly ignored for several decades, and thereby shift the whole nation to a more progressive place.
It may take decades more Republican mismanagement before America takes any serious steps in that direction, and it won't start with anyone doing CNN debates.
three points
a) Referring to "stupid", I prefer the phrase "uneducated". And frankly with privatized education system which prevails in the US how do you expect normal people to have any sensible ideas about the world? A friend points out to me that calculus is no longer standard on high school curricula. I cannot believe this was true in the 1960s. Someone very smart must have figured out that an uneducated electorate was more easily "guided" by the "media", and consequently have been working to dumb down high school curricula ever since. If you want a swedish style democracy, then you need a swedish public education system.
I listen to my blue-collar fiances family talking. Her father - retired postal worker - thinks that it is unpatriotic to critise the president. Her mother doesnt care about politics other than there are too many immigrants. Her sister is strugging financially but focuses on immigration as the main cause of her woes. Her friends vote republican cos they think only the president can protect them from Iraqi terrorism - they truely believe that Iraqis attacked the world trade centre. If you cant persuade these people then the Dems have no chance.
b) Propaganda is an exercise in rhetoric. Dems in the US need to understand this. Messages have to be simple. The constitution is the essence of patriotism, not the flag. Americans are equal, and americans should not die because they are poor. The rich have a responsibility to fight for freedom and democracy too. Returning soldiers deserve decent heath care. After the second world war, society in the US was fairer than it is now. Do people really think todays soldiers deserve less?
c) Joe mentioned a Hoover-style economy. Dont worry mate, you wont have to wait too long. The powers that be know whats happening which is why watching Paulson is so striking now. Its not hyperbole. He is terrified. Rather than reap the whirlwind now, they are desperate to postpone what is coming. So the Fed will slash rates, and the fiscal package will be delivered, and the dollar will stay weak, and commodities wont drop much in price . But within the next four years the adjustment will come. And standards of living for the average american will plunge even further. It will be horrible - I just havnt decided whether we will be watching the 1970's rerun or the 1930's.
I wonder which party will be blamed?
Harry
Just goes to show you that we are at the mercy of the ignorant.
I think we're going to have to go through some very very hard times to shift the nation away from conservative political and economic views. As the last several years demonstrate, reality has to hit us hard over and over before the majority starts taking it seriously. Before they do, they'll turn to every conceivable rationalization or would-be savior to avoid the effort of evolving their own philosophical outlook to deal with it. Our relationship with conservatism is very much like co-dependence with a violent partner.
What a terrific blog-entry this was from Joe, one of your best ever! It's so good I'd like to put it into a book I'm writing, as a boxed item. Would I have permission from you to do that, Joe? Of course, I'd credit you saying it's from Joseph Cannon, and give the blog-entry's URL. This request signed Eric Zuesse.
PS: The only objection I have to this entry is your equating the Naderites with "progressives." To me, a progressive is someone like Obama, who recognizes that in a democracy you can't and shouldn't try to FORCE the public to agree with you, and who simultaneously does all he or she can to nudge public beliefs into a direction which supports maximizing the general welfare, heavily emphasizing the interests of society's weakest and neediest. Nader is instead a communist who is trying to wreck democracy altogether, so that "the proletariat" will supposedly rise up in frustration and establish their dictatorship. Hillary is just a liberal, because she has no ideology at all. (Liberalism is nothing but a weak form of conservatism.) Republicans are pure and all-out conservatives because they worship power, and that's the essence of conservatism: conservative parties chose Hitler as Germany's Chancellor for that very reason.
You can't trust a Rasmussen poll - these people are nearly as inaccurate as Quinnipiac. I do believe Rasmussen showed Bush winning in 2004 by nine points going into the election, repugs winning key house and Senate races last year, and Bush winning the popular vote by a significant margin in 2000.
In any sane media environment, noone would eeven report on their polls. they are ALWAYS sampled to overweight republicans, to teh point of dishonesty, and I suspect that with the huge swing to the dems in registratios the last couple of years, their numbers will be even farther off the mark in teh coming year.
The reason McCain is showing well in any poll is that he's the one that's been on the rise. Once the public takes a closer look, his numbers will drop just a Giuliani's and the Huckster's did.
In all of this, keep in mind that the Dem turnout at all the primaries has overwhelmed the repug turnout. The environment's not as bad as you think, and definitely don't let Rasmussen scare you.
In teh end McCain would be very strong against Hillary. Obama would wipe the floor with McCain, who is old, frail, and embodies the Washington establishment people want to purge. Barack would pummel him with that club.
Sometimes it just seems futile. I depressingly agree with this post. I live in a well-educated, upper-class suburb--which is worse, someone ignorant not despising this administration or someone who should know better not despising this administration.
When the poll asks voters about specific policies - health care, Iraq, social security, etc. - the majority hold positions that are associated with the left wing of the Democratic Party. The choice voters are usually given is one that pits a far-right ideologue who is relatively honest about where he/she stands on the issues and a center-right candidate who talks like a liberal and votes like a moderate.
Voters are given a choice between clear cut policy positions: We must win in Iraq to defeat Islamo-fascism; and a complicated, nuanced position that may or may not extricate us from Iraq in the next 4-8 years. If the Republicans succeed in making National Security the big issue (and they will), their clear understandable paternalistic position wins the day.
A charismatic, young politician such as Barack Obama could win with progressive policies. A candidate like Kucinich couldn't win regardless of his policy positions. Americans vote image, not substance. Emotion, not intellect. The feel it in their gut (like someone else we know).
If early polling meant much of anything, we'd be eventually facing a nominee named Rudy Giuliani, and he'd beat any and all of the Democratic nomination hopefuls.
Oh, wait... Giuliani just dropped out, having spent $50 million or so for but 1 delegate. He trailed RON PAUL in almost every primary or caucus.
Based on the last 4 elections, the Democratic Party's candidates have officially won the popular vote 3 times despite the dreaded 'they're LIBERALS!!!' being the primary slogan against them. In the 4th election, the Democratic candidate gained more votes than anyone ever in the history of American presidential voting (except for one number, which was his opponent's fraudulent total).
Now, because a single poll says so, and the man the movement conservatives say they will not support under any circumstances because he is no conservative is leading by margins within the MOE of the polls, an essentially hysterical 'analysis' claims the American people are so conservative that Democrats advocating a progressive message are setting up a party suicide pact for the fall election.
Balderdash. McCain has his cachet with the voters, mainly with the unaligned and independents, precisely because of his 'maverick' 'straight talk' image (i.e., he's not only not a conservative, but not really a mainstream Republican in what it's come to mean).
So his numbers, just now and possibly only temporarily higher than his two possible opponents, say almost nothing about the conservative/liberal divide in the country.
If the last 16 years show a trend, it is that the liberal side of the country is as large, and a bit larger, than the conservative side. Not that the conservative side is a small percentage, but that they are a smaller percentage, at least marginally, than the liberal side.
...sofla
Language cannot come close to encompassing the whole of our intelligence. Many aspects of perception are not easily verbalized, or not accessible through language at all.
Things like appearance, facial expression, body language, and voice inflection produce gut feelings for reasons that are, more often than not, valid.
To deride or ignore a "gut feeling" completely is as wrongheaded as the failure to apply verbal logic when making important decisions. Both approaches eliminate important components of the whole of our intelligence.
Joseph, getting back to the original topic, there is one other "HARD TRUTH" that deserves mention: As conservative as this country may be, the entrenched power structure is far more conservative. A President must work within this structure to accomplish anything. If by some miracle we got a President acceptable to the "purists" elected, (s)he would be immediately isolated and obstructed with the full fury of both elected and bureaucratic institutions. If (s)he managed to find a way to be extremely effective in advancing the "purist" agenda, that power structure would put all of its weight behind discrediting or destroying the administration politically, and if unsuccessful, (s)he would be removed by force.
People seem to forget that the barely left of right President Clinton faced just this kind of political resistance during his administration, and JFK, who the "purists excoriated mercilessly while he was alive" was apparently too effective and politically potent to neuter, so he was handled through "other means".
Any change of great magnitude will have to be pursued in increments over a very long time - most likely accross generations. Unless the "purists" suddenly develop discipline and a long view, it will never happen.
Thanks Cannon for mentioning this cool website, the Smirking Chimp.. I do not understand your animosity towards it though. Just read this brief statement from an editorial and share with us your responses to it. It seems very clear headed and very important amidst all the swirling subject matter and abundant issues that are being bandided about on both sides.
as follows..
Nancy Pelosi recently restated her opposition to impeachment, saying that it would be divisive. As I noted at the time, she's absolutely right. On one side of the divide would be those who support the Constitution and the rule of law, and on the other, whether from party loyalty or personal philosophy, those who don't. It's a division that, were it to be explicitly drawn, would benefit the country and those Democrats who stand on the better side of it even if impeachment were to fail, which is possible, or if impeachment succeeded and the Senate voted, as is all but certain, to acquit.
Should the next president be a Democrat, he or she would benefit considerably from serving with a Congress in which Republicans were stigmatized by having been forced to side with Bush and Cheney against the Constitution and Democrats were clearly identified as standing with it. A Republican president would be constrained by the same circumstances.
The refusal to impeach leaves a lack of clarity about the legitimacy of the things Bush and Cheney have done. It creates a situation in which some of their excesses may be rolled back by the next president and Congress without explicitly identifying what was wrong with their actions or holding anyone accountable. It provides Republicans the opportunity to disavow Bush and Cheney once they're out of office without being formally associated with the lawlessness and irresponsibility that have been the administration's hallmarks, an opportunity that Republicans will surely seize.
see? That makes a lot of sense to me.
"Smirking Chimp" used to be a fine site. However, it has become an anti-Democratic party forum. As I still have an affection for the party, I no longer have much affection for that site.
Joseph - I agree with most of what you say, especially with your over-arching view of the nature of present conditions. Of course those conditions are deeply conservative, even in these times of rapid technological revolution.
Do the Democrat pols believe the horseshit they have to come out with? No, of course they don't. You're right. Like all pols, they don't believe anything they say, or have any principles whatsoever. It's all media, all show-business.
You omit to mention, though, that if they get elected, they will continue to come out with very much the same horseshit. They won't say, 'Ha ha, we only pretended to be centrist to get votes. Now we're going to start showing the iron fist to big corporate capital'. Nor is there any possibility of an end to American support for the nuked-up apartheid regime called Israel, in the foreseeable future.
And the main apologies for their line, spun by any pol facing leftwards, will always be based on "realism".
(This is assuming they'll get elected. Personally I don't think they will).
I'd love to see the rich get taxed until the pips squeak; welfare payments quadrupled; and health provision greatly improved for those who aren't rich.
But that's no more likely under a Democrat president than it is under a Republican one.
You and the 'progessives' are both wrong. They - or the honest among them, that is - want to inject some sort of truth and honesty into the political system.
But the reality is that that can't happen. It's impossible.
Parliamentary democracy is what it has always been - a fig-leaf for the highly-centralised ruling circles of the bourgeoisie.
It's not a matter of my or your liking or disliking that fact. But it's still a fact.
b
Hell, Joe--the Democrats could put up a dog and still beat the Repubs in 2008.
Bettors currently think otherwise, Perry. The betting market currently implies percentage probabilities of 41:31:22:6 for Clinton:McCain:Obama: Someone Else. You can check the prices here.
b
Looking at the Clinton v. McCain matchup polling over the years, going back to '04, we have to realize that it indicates the country has been becoming far less conservative on that measure.
Back then, McCain had a 50%+ to 32% kind of margin. Somehow, in this allegedly conservative country, McCain suffered a long slide with respect to his support over Hillary's, until she finally reached and surpassed his level of support!
So, let's ignore that several years of recent history of polling, and look only at the snapshot picture of one poll, which shows McCain back in the lead after falling all the way from a commanding lead into second place against her, and pretend that this is the most acute analysis possible on such a shift in the polls? Are you kidding?
Polls are not even that helpful of a marker unless taken in context. The context is that McCain enjoyed over a 20 point lead in presidential preference polling over Clinton not that long ago, and now is scrambling to only now, and only within the margins of error of the polling, take back the smallest sliver of his prior immense lead.
How does this happen? Is it the conservatism of the country? Or is it the unabashed love affair that the media have for McCain, that gives him unrelentingly good press, with Clinton subject to the opposite effect? And isn't it true that despite bad press, Clinton caught up 20 points and surpassed McCain, and led as recently as the end of '07's polling?
...sofla
I've mentioned this before - was it here? that Karl has said more than once that his dream is that Hillary be nominated. So whomever they decide to run against her can win easily, or at least with a minimum of diebold interference.
Joe's claim of fundamental conservatism I will accept as a factor; however to me the strongest influence would be the pervasive Hillary-hate out there. And you sure can't ignore the (residual) racism that hurts Obama no matter how perfect his leadership and policies might be.
When I posted before, the betting market gave percentage probabilities of 41:31:22:6 for Clinton: McCain: Obama: Someone Else.
Now McCain is in front, and the figures are: 34:32:28:6 for McCain: Clinton: Obama: Someone Else.
Post a Comment