Centrism is for "LOSERS" -- what Thomas Frank says about Carter/Obama is a MUST READ

[nashville_brook]

Actually, Frank is taking off from Rick Perlstein's "The Invisible Bridge" which is a deep dive into the Carter/Reagan years, but the thesis is just as bright coming from either writer: when we unburden ourselves of values we lose.

It's really simple, and yet we make the same mistakes again and again. It has nothing to do with the left not being action-oriented, or "achievement-minded." It has to do with how you losing your soul translates directly into losing votes. It's instant karma, yo.

But don't take my word for it -- look at where the unions, advocacy groups and (gasp!) party members are flocking now: paid sick days, raise the wage, and equal pay for women. These have been long-standing progressive values…and we WIN ELECTIONS WITH THEM.




http://www.salon.com/2014/10/26/thomas_frank_we_are_such_losers/

Thomas Frank: “We are such losers”
Liberals yearn to believe in post-ideological blank slates -- and get disappointed every time. Will we ever learn?

(snip to the chase)

The job required much more than that, however. Carter could work out solutions on paper, Fallows acknowledged, but he failed “to project a vision larger than the problem he is tackling at the moment.” More bluntly: “Carter cannot explain what he is doing.” Narrative is always a problem for post-ideological Democrats, of course, but it has been a notable obstacle for Barack Obama, who (unlike Carter) is one of the great orators of our time and yet who is convinced, according to Jonathan Alter’s book “The Center Holds,” that presidential oratory doesn’t really matter.

The final ironic lesson of the Carter presidency should be a cautionary tale for any centrist Democrat who dreams of striking a “grand bargain” with the right: No matter what conservative deeds Democrats undertake, as Rick Perlstein told me in conversation a few days ago, they will never win respect for it. It was Jimmy Carter, not the Republicans, who enacted the sweeping deregulation of transportation. It was Carter, not Reagan, who recommitted America to the Cold War and who slapped a grain embargo on the Soviet Union after that country invaded Afghanistan. (Reagan is the guy who lifted it.) And yet, in the mind of the public, Carter will stand forever as a symbol of liberalism’s fecklessness.

Barack Obama survived his re-election, but he is suffering a form of Jimmy Carter’s fate nevertheless. The ambiguous idealism of Carter’s first run for the presidency was precisely what set the table for his downfall later on. Being a “blank screen” or the personal object of the enthusiasm of millions—these may play well when a candidate is unknown, but they are postures impossible to maintain as president. In both cases, they led inevitably to disappointment and disillusionment.

The moral of this story is not directed at Democratic politicians; it is meant for us, the liberal rank and file. We still “yearn to believe,” as Perlstein says. There is something about the Carter / Obama personality that appeals to us in a deep, unspoken way, and that has led Democrats to fall for a whole string of passionless centrists: John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Gary Hart and Bill Clinton. Each time, Democratic voters are enchanted by a kind of intellectual idealism that (we are told) is unmoored from ideology. We persuade ourselves that the answer to the savagery of the right—the way to trump the naked class aggression of the One Percent—is to say farewell to our own tradition and get past politics and ideology altogether. And so we focus on the person of the well-meaning, hyper-intelligent leader. We are so high-minded, we think. We are so scientific.

We are such losers.

[bananas]

1. "That we are living through an endless repeat of the 1970s is becoming more apparent all the time."

So it's not just me?

Actually, I think we're moving into a repeat of the 1980's.

[nashville_brook]

4. if only the music was as good.

but, i totally agree with that on the political level. you could say that the 2010 right-wing emergence is completely analogous to the Reagan win in 1980 -- Perlstein posits that it responded to the same political pressures.

[hifiguy]

158. More like the widespread Repub upset wins in the 1978 mid-terms actually,

as the Teatalitarians were also a phenomenon that emerged in a mid-term election. Their 1970s counterparts didn't have anything quite like the Kochtopus behind them, though as Perlstein points out at length the Reichwing money machine got its start back in the 1970s.

[Warpy]

5. Well, at least we got rid of the harvest gold and avocado appliances

and the huge platform shoes that wrecked our ankles when we fell off them but yes, economically speaking, we're taking the same beating over and over again and no one in power is speaking up for us.

The problem with the "centrists" in the halls of power is that it looks like they'd sell their grandmothers for a quarter. As long as the cash flow is positive, they don't give a damn about what's happening to the country or the people who live and work here.

[nashville_brook]

7. those appliances were proof there's no dignity in austerity

now the sign of that is rotting teeth, crumbling (looted) schools, and toll roads. turns out the "third way" runs right through your living room.

[Warpy]

11. I was shocked when I moved here to NM

to find out how few people kept up with good dental care. Then again, I had to because my teeth were trying to kill me.

It's even worse now that Stupid said everybody who pops over the border for reasonably priced family dentistry in Juarez now has to have expensive passports for the whole family. I wish that would be overturned, just one more misery Stupid piled onto us that served no useful purpose.

[nashville_brook]

14. dang, i had no idea there was a barrier to that!

that's, well, highway robbery.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. A passport card to drive into Mexico costs $30 for an adult and lasts 10 years

Minors cost $15 and the duration is 5 years.

[former9thward]

93. First time applicant costs $55.

Minors cost $40.

http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/passports/information/card.html

[nashville_brook]

98. that's plenty high enough to create a barrier.

that's just cold. and wrong.

[mountain grammy]

34. yep.

[fasttense]

60. Any analysis involving Raygun must include Iran hostages

How anyone can look at Carter's reelection without the traitorous acts of Raygun's deal with the Iranian terrorists is beyond me. It's such a glaring betrayal of this country that to ignore it is to ignore reality.

[nashville_brook]

78. check out Perlstein's book, there's a lot more to Reagan winning than the October Surprise

but that's also discussed.

[merrily]

139. There were so many factors in that election. Yet, I see people here use it as an excuse

to do away with primary challenges. Any excuse to take choice away from Democratic voters.

[daleanime]

2. K&R....

[DirkGently]

3. Well here's a nice antidote to Sunday Hippie Punching.

"Pragmatic capitulation" is the failed philosophy of neoliberalism.

Not the, you know, ACTUAL LEFT.

[nashville_brook]

9. capitulation is neither pragmatic nor effective...

so why do some keep trying to sell this bogus bag of goods?

it's always easy to sell happy horseshit. "no problem, we'll deliver BOTH an energized base AND deep-pocketed investor class donors. we can square that circle, because we're THAT GOOD at what we do."

it's the siren song of consultants everywhere.

[Warpy]

12. Either they're trying to sell us on their own spinelessness

or, more likely, their cash flow is still positive and they don't want mean old leftists derailing their gravy train.

[99Forever]

6. Centrism sucks...

... and is for losers.

[nashville_brook]

8. centrism brought us the 2010 shellacking...

so in 2014 the party changed their tune with every candidate stumping on raising the minimum wage. even Rs are trying to triangulate this message.

values matter -- now to make sure they actually complete the policy.

[DirkGently]

20. Clintonian conserva-dem think won't cut it now.

Just like generals trying to win the last war, beltway boobs think attitudes America accepted in the 1990s, before deregulation and neocon wars broke the world, are viable today.

Because, of course, they pay better if your bread is buttered with Wall Street and oil industry cash.

But that's not a brand anyone's buying now. Minimum wage policy resonates now. Wars and free for all speculative bubbles do not.

We can't head fake at bits and piecemeal reform, sprinkle in some talk of inclusion, and keep taking Pete Peterson's checks to gut Social Security anymore.

No one's buying Republican Lite or "heart liberal; head conservative" Goldwater Girl bullshit in the post global economic meltdown world.

[nashville_brook]

23. well, you know who was a "Goldwater Girl"...

Hillary will most certainly run in the third way mold and, it won't surprise me at all if she loses the primary b/c of it.

there's no way to paint her as anything but a DLC, Blue Dem, New Dem -- anything but a "true blue" FDR Democrat.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. My complaint with the tagging of Hillary as a 'Goldwater Girl' is that it is used by people who

promote as alternative a woman who was a full time, active Republican until 1996 and says she still sometimes votes Republican. Hillary was a Democratic First Lady while Elizabeth Warren was voting for Bush, just as she's touted Reaganomic and supported all of Reagan's dreadful, bigoted policies.

[rhett o rick]

64. I agree. The fact that she was a Goldwater Girl pales in the face of her support for the Iraq War.

She stabbed her party in the back, her nation in the back, the many thousands of dead and wounded troops, and the million plus Iraqi's that died, wounded or displaced. She took the side of George Bush in spite of the fact that everyone knew he was lying. She has since apologized but that can't repair her integrity.

[nashville_brook]

75. ^^shazam!

[L0oniX]

92. Snap!

[DirkGently]

112. Youch!

[merrily]

136. Yep. She did not only vote for the invasion, she urged her fellow Senators to vote for it.

She advocated for that shit.

And, her "racially-tinged" primary campaign against Obama was shameful.

[rhett o rick]

167. Democrats trusted her. Where they might not listen to the Dim-Son, they

would listen to her. They assumed she had integrity. Here is a short quote from her 20 minute speech:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports have shown that Saddaam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-qaeda members.”

In my opinion there are only three possibilities: 1. She was totally fooled by the crappy intelligence that Bush was pushing, 2. She wasn't fooled but thought it was politically expedient to go along, or 3. She supported the neocon vision to capture the oil in Iraq for the big oil companies. It doesn't really matter to me. "She betrayed us once so shame on her......better not betray us again HRC."
I vowed never to support anyone that sided with Bush/Cheney on the illegal and horrific invasion of Iraq.

[merrily]

168. By her own statement, she did not read the NIE. And now, she says her Iraq vote was a mistake.

Sorry, Hills, you don't get a Mulligan on a war vote, unless you can figure out a way to give dead and disabled troops a Mulligan, not to mention the Iraqis. Not to mention figuring out how to reverse Al Qaeeda in Iraq and IS.

As stated, I also have a lot of problem with her primary campaign against Obama. At first, it was just "leaks," then just leaks and surrogates, including Bill. But, it ultimately boiled down to her identifying "her" voters as "hard-working white people." I like to say that I was a Democrat by the age of four, the first time I watched my Democratic father listening to election returns as though all our lives depended on who won the Presidency. However, equal rights for all humans and the lesser of two evils as to war mongering p were both a huge part of why I consciously chose Democrats when I actually got old enough to vote.

[Marr]

175. +1

[hifiguy]

162. Blammo.

You have it in one.

[merrily]

134. "says she still sometimes votes Republican" I don't think Warren has said that since she ran as a

Democrat.

Before Warren ran for the Senate, I was very skeptical of her, based a lot on her wiki and sources cited in her wiki and, on another board, blasted those who gushing over her based on almost nothing (or so I believed at the time). I hope that I am always at least somewhat skeptical of all politicians, but Warren has not disappointed me much since she ran for Senate. I don't know when she said she still sometimes votes for Republicans, but she is currently doing a bang up job campaigning against them in many states.

And choosing Bill Clinton is what made Hillary a Democratic First Lady. IMO, it's also what made her a Democrat. (I know the bit about her leaving the Rockefeller convention because of her changing views on Republican racism, but I do not buy it, especially in light of her "racially-tinged" campaign against Obama. Panetta also cites Republican racism as the reason he became a Democrat and I don't buy his story, either.)

[nashville_brook]

140. some are starting to wonder if Hillary is serious about running

her appearances lately have featured some sloppy (unserious-seeming) rhetoric -- uncharacteristic of Hillary in campaign mode.

meanwhile, Warren is at the top of her game with roaring crowds and a full dance card of speaking engagements. it's very strange. we might be seeing a shift happening.

[merrily]

145. A good friend IRL keeps reminding me that politics is cyclical.

I think the Vietnam Era lefties may have shell-shocked their WWII era parents as much as Roe v. Wade shocked the religious right. And those things, I think, began a pendulum swing. The rich, greedy and corrupt jumped all over that, and lobbyists in D.C. grew exponentially, right along with politicians who sold out to them. I really hope the pendulum swings back soon, but the barriers to a strong left are formidable.

[nashville_brook]

154. i'm finding young people way more bitter and ready for real change than my peers in the 80s

the problem is that many aren't savvy enough to tell the difference between Ron Paul and Alan Grayson, but at least there's less apathy.

and we have to take some of the responsibility for their not being able to discern progressive and libertarian principles. there's not been real progressive fighters for American workers and families in far too long. as soon as these leaders emerge (as with Elizabeth Warren) people respond. we're not entirely stupid

the pressures on young people right now are absurd. so few can realistically launch from home to getting their own homes and families. student debt and low-paying jobs are crushing them. that's real pressure that's creating a real shift.

[merrily]

159. Very shortly after MTP deigned to have Sanders on, Ed Shultz interviewed

some Iowans whose eyes lit up when Schultz mentioned Sanders to them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025541280

Yep, give a people an economic crash like 1929 or 2008 and they certainly to respond to populist politicians and the promise of "change". Scratch that. It doesn't even take a crash. They just respond.

That's why, even on DU, the attempts to discredit and/or neutralize leftists are so vigorous and persistent.

[Wellstone ruled]

10. We as a Nation are still in the

grip of the Third Way Political policies Carter Raygun. When Carter was checkmated by Kissenger and Ed Messe and the Washington Establishment,things just went all Corporatist. Knowing Carter was a Centerest Democrat,and Mondale a milk toast DFLer,the die was cast. From my view of what happened,many of the old guard FDR Democrats had been chased purged from local and state wide positions by a short sighted type person who wanted instant me me type of change. The old guard was always looking to the future and continuing the the philosophy of the what made the Democratis Party the party of the people. When the shit hit the fan in Chicago at the Dem Convention,that was the major turning point for policy in our party. We shiffed to a Centrist model after that and with passing years it's become more and more right of center with the money control of Wall Street.

[nashville_brook]

13. it was a leveraged buyout of the party.

all the strength from the grassroots was transferred to those at the top. it made us weak, same way it makes businesses weak. there's no meat on the bones.

[cui bono]

32. And Obama didn't bother to change most of the R positions that he could have

when he took office.

He never even did the sweep of the US Attorneys as well as many other federal positions that BushCo had filled.

[ancianita]

45. Did not know that. THAT pisses me off.

[Legalequilibrium78]

79. Whether one like it or not, most of these appointees

Were selected not based on their political affiliation or allegiances to the Republican party. That is just really fucked up, if people on the left would implement such an idiotic, ideological methods on political appointments. This idiotic suggestion is what they employ and pracrice in third world countries like the Philippines. We select individual based on their respective merits, not on who you know, connected to and or solely based on party affiliation.

No one party, no one person, and certainly not one's political ideology has the monopoly on what is right for the country, has all the right answers to the nation's ill nor should it trump competency on selecting important people for gov't. and leadership positions. I am not really surprised that there are amongst us (the left) that want to see these method be put in placed.

[rhett o rick]

105. With due respect, that is the biggest bunch of horse pucky I've read in a long time.

You are intimating that Obama selected the best people for their positions and the fact that they are all hard and fast conservatives was coincidental. I apologize if I got your post wrong.

The people on the left that you are disparaging want appointees that work in the favor of the 99% and not the 1%. We don't like fracking, the environmental time bomb called the XL Pipeline, the horrible TPP, Wall Street dominance, Bankster bailouts, etc.

Tell me if you support any of those things. Like, do you support fracking? Pres Obama does. And so does H. Clinton-Sachs. And so do the ruling Oligarchs. Fracking makes profits for the 1% and f'ups the drinking water for the 99%. But I am guessing you support fracking because Pres Obama does.

[nashville_brook]

157. spot-on. the continuation of regulatory capture is just one example of this failure.

[merrily]

170. Totally untrue. The Bushites selected people not only for party, but religious views as well.

Anti-gay, for example. There were hearings in Congress on that very issue, meaning the very issue of using improper criteria, like politics and religion for civil service positions. Those criteria were allowed for political positions, which is why Presidents who take over from a President of the other Party fire all the political appointees. Dimson decided to do it gradually, as opposed to in one fell swoop, as had Clinton and Reagan. Obama is the first I know of not to do it at all. Of course, he had fewer choices, given that one of Cheney's second term moves was to convert as many political appointments as he could to civil service slots, thereby locking in Dimson's appointees for as long as they cared to be there.

Besides, elections should have consequences. Until Obama, one of those consequences was cleaning out the other party's political appointees, and, until Dimson, very shortly after taking over from "the other side." People who vote for a Democratic President or a Republican President assume that the administration as a whole will reflect their views. It's not just a beauty contest.

Civil service slots, of course, are a different issue from political appointees.

[former9thward]

102. He replaced the U.S. Attorneys.

Almost all of them in the first two years just as presidents before him have done. He left a few because they were in the middle of sensitive investigations and replacement would have been disruptive.

http://www.mainjustice.com/us-attorney-update/

[merrily]

171. Dimson replaced them gradually. Presidents before Dimson did it much faster. However,

Obama had very good reason to replace them as quickly as humanly possible because of how Dimson had hired them.

Even civil slots were filled under Dimson based not only on political views, but also on religious views, including anti-gay views.

Instead, Obama fired more slowly than prior Presidents.

http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/10/02/one-third-of-us-attorneys-are-bush-holdovers/

[former9thward]

173. I worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Phoenix while in law school.

During the Bush administration. Your views are just not true.

[merrily]

174. My "views" about hiring during Dimson's administration came straight out of C Span's coverage of

Congressional hearings on improper hiring practices during the Bush administration.

The woman responsible for a lot of the hires was given immunity. Even then, her testimony was highly guarded, but she did admit to imposing the kind of restrictions on even civil service hires. A lot of the attorneys were hired from religious law schools that, at the time of the hires, were not even accredited.

Start here for info on improper hiring criteria, even for civil service hires. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Goodling

And, of course, there was also the issue of improper dismissals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

And improper use of US Attorneys. http://www.salon.com/2007/03/21/us_attorneys_2/

ETA: Not only were the Christian law schools not accredited, but many of the hires could not pass the bar. Goodling did pass the bar, but she may have been the only one.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/?page=full

[MisterP]

15. well to be fair we're starting to defend policies: unfortunately that just means bluewashing stuff

from the Heritage Foundation and attacking Bush for getting us out of Iraq after 4.5 years of praising Obama for getting us out of Iraq

so, again, just "be combative" doesn't do that much for real change

[geek tragedy]

16. Thomas Frank knows nothing about winning elections.

He sells books and gets his rants published, but he generally has a hostile attitude towards anyone who takes a reality-based approach to politics, as opposed to his "clap louder and click your heels together three times" exhortations.

People want to believe that the key to success in politics is for politicians to just agree with them.

[nashville_brook]

19. hahahahaha!

noted.

[geek tragedy]

22. How many elections has he won himself?

How many candidates have been elected while retaining him as an advisor? As an outside consultant?

Just what expertise has he demonstrated in persuading voters?

I mean, even Sarah Palin has had to go out and court actual voters--which makes her more of an expert than Frank.

[nashville_brook]

25. what expertise? look, this isn't rocket science -- you either have values or you don't

anyone can recognize that -- Frank included.

carry on.

[geek tragedy]

39. lots of people with pure principles wind up irrelevant. nt

[PassingFair]

74. and lots of people with murky principles ....

wind up fucking up our country.

[nashville_brook]

88. you make me laugh.

[cui bono]

38. Step 1: Attack the messenger. Check.

Step 2: You need a better step 2. What you posted as your reason is pure gibberish and unsubstantiated attempt at an insult. If you don't agree with him them argue the points. Swiftboating with smarmy retorts is unbecoming.

I do not think "reality-based approach to politics is what you want. That would be following Frank's and other's analysis that you need to stand for something to get elected. Look at the elation and momentum there was when people believed that Obama stood for something, when they believed that we were finally going to turn things around and set the country on the right course. But then we had to be "with us or against us" no matter what he did because people like you said we were supposed to be pragmatic - which you are now calling reality-based for some odd reason because the two are not at all the same thing - and that we should just support him no matter what he does or stands for.

That is NOT reality based, that is blind following and idol worship. And that is exactly what waters down politics. It's not a team sport and needs to stop being approached as that. It's not our team no matter what. It's not "you're either for us or against us", we all know how we reacted when BushCo says it, why do so many DUers say the same thing in different words? Time for that to stop.

We need to be for our principles, when we stand for those the rest will follow. Without them we are nothing.

[Jackpine Radical]

49. Just for the hell of it, lemme try to explain the difference

between "reality=based" and "pragmatic."

"Reality-based" is accepting the evidence for climate change, knowing that human misery increases as a function of all the money being sucked to the top, and understanding that enterprises for the collective good such as education and health care do not function well when left in greed-motivated private hands.

"Pragmatic" is either not accepting or not knowing any of the above, but in any case not doing anything about them because any substantive action will piss off more wealthy donors than it will attract.

[Caretha]

87. Bingo!

[merrily]

189. "Pragmatic" is also declaring, based on zero evidence, that whatever actually got done was the best

that anyone possibly could have gotten done and expecting anything else is pie in the sky unrealistic. And ignoring that what actually did get done was entirely consistent with New Democrat* principles and no one broke a sweat trying to do anything else. In fact, if any said sweat was broken, it was broken scolding (or cursing) those who wanted something other than New Democrat principles.

*This use of "New Democrat" is consistent with the New Democrats own use of the term, as in "New Democrat Caucus." Hence, I am simply following their lead, not the lead of Republicans who use Democrat as an adjective in an attempt to offend Democrats.

[grasswire]

54. did you read post #39?

"Pure principles are irrelevant."

[LondonReign2]

115. Yup

And there are our conservadems, in all their glory.

Hey, at least this one doesn't try to hide the fact.

[nashville_brook]

76. precisely.

[LondonReign2]

114. Fuck the phrase 'reality based'

Stop hiding behind this bullshit phrase and just come out and say it-- you want the Democratic party to continue to run rightward. Because that "wins elections".

[geek tragedy]

117. I want Democrats to win elections.

President Obama certainly accomplished more than President Mondale.

[LondonReign2]

119. You want the person with the D behind their name

to win, regardless of what they stand for, or if they stand for anything at all, even if they spout warmed over Republican ideas.

[geek tragedy]

122. I know that the worst Democrat is better than

the best Republican.

I also know that a lot of people only embrace losers and disdain winners. They would rather lose with Kucinich than win with Obama.

And while we are on the subject of losers and winners, Barack Obama is one of three Democrats (FDR and Andrew Jackson being the others) to twice win a majority of the popular vote. Something tells me Thomas Frank will not be considered his peer in that regard.

[LondonReign2]

123. The worst Democrats

are trying very hard to BE Republicans, with the full support and urging of the "reality-based" contingent.

[geek tragedy]

124. That is substance- free ranting, not a fact-based

or analytical conclusion.

[LondonReign2]

126. The Swarm really needs to brush up on their debating skills

You recycle the same lame assed phrases to try to shut down conversation time and time again.

[geek tragedy]

130. Sorry someone disagreeing with your opinions

is so oppressive.

[LondonReign2]

132. Nah, it's not the disagreeing

It's the promoting Republican Lite

[geek tragedy]

151. I promote winning, you prefer pure losers.

We obviously disagree as to whether a pure minority party is a better idea than a flawed majority party.

[AgingAmerican]

163. Another tripe slogan

And strawman

[geek tragedy]

164. As opposed to complaining that every Democrat who was become

president is really Republican
Lite. That is certainly not trite around here.

[LondonReign2]

172. Congratulations on your tireless work turn the Democratic Party into the

Republican Party.

As you've made clear-- Principles, who needs'em anyway?

[geek tragedy]

191. Why do you equate winning with Republicans? nt

[nashville_brook]

127. irony alert.

[geek tragedy]

129. Tell us, what experience does Tom Frank have in

winning elections?

He is a professional ranter. Not an expert or even knowledgeable person regarding elections--just another guy with opinions.

[nashville_brook]

131. by your standards Karl Rove is king.

[geek tragedy]

152. Not since 2006 and "the math."

His 2012 track record was ugly too.

[treestar]

183. Yes, and I don't agree with you about what they stand for

You are spouting that meme close to the election.

[rhett o rick]

194. As much as Pres Obama accomplished the great wealth divide will soon

eliminate the middle class altogether. Electing any-ole Democrats isn't good enough to save us. We need drastic economic help and that includes major cuts in defense spending. H. Clinton-Sachs will not do that. What we gained can be wiped out quickly unless we regain our democracy. We are living in a plutocratic oligarchy.

[Marr]

176. +1-- hillarious that the "Reality-Based" line is always coming from the same people who

say "Hope" wasn't a bullshit sales pitch.

It's basically just a condescending put-off, saying 'shut-up and eat your peas'.

[Doctor_J]

17. This should have been obvious to all at DU and elsewhere after the 2010 debacle

caused by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi giving in to the Repukes who had been thrashed in 2008.

It is really difficult to bash the non-voters when regardless of who they vote for we will still get corporate healthcare, "NAFTA on steroids", the decimation of public schools, more fracking, more offshore drilling, and more war.

[nashville_brook]

21. it was so craven -- not even a slap on the wrist for Bushcrimes.

had so many people wondering what the hell they walked their precincts for.

[deurbano]

35. That was demoralizing.

And then the Republicans pop right back up as soon as they retake the majority (after our leaders are too spineless-- or something-- to even attempt to hold them accountable for their actual CRIMES) with endless hearings/outrage about NOTHING...

[cui bono]

41. Completely demoralizing.

I can't believe that a faction even exists on DU and elsewhere that blindly defends that behavior all the while purporting that they still stand for Democratic values.

This is exactly what makes voters apathetic. And guess which voters it does that to? The very voters the Dems need. The R's are still riled up, as they should be based on their leaders' actions (all the and fear/hate mongering). Based on our leaders' actions the left and undecideds get depressed and give up hope feeling that there's no point to it all, what they vote for makes no difference. In fact, they are not given a reason to vote at all.

If Dems came out charging and rallying for all the basic values and needs of the people, the people would get energized and turn out again. But this pragmatic bs has got to stop soon if we want any real change.

[nashville_brook]

77. many Dems ARE coming out charging for Dem values, and they might even win

races in 2014 doing it. we'll see.

i think there's spin already as to what the midterms will mean vis a vis 2016.

[Doctor_J]

47. Bad morals = bad politics

The voters in 2008 wanted complete housecleaning. The advantage we had after that election is now gone for at least a generation.

[nashville_brook]

99. right, and after 8 years of not-so-much with the housecleaning, more... not-so-much

with the housecleaning isn't going to take us over the finish line. we'll have an R in the White House with that strategy.

[jtuck004]

66. Makes me wonder. We know from records that, historically, people with little or no income correlated

positively with people who have less education < and that group votes less than nearly anyone. That group is now bigger, but with people who very likely thought they would never be there.

- There are 1.1 million new millionaires since 2008, but about 12 million people who were not in poverty in 2008. Who are now. On top of that are tens and tens of millions now living in near poverty after losing homes, jobs, families and family members, many working in dead-end part-time jobs with the same life ahead for their children <-who used to vote more
- About 4 million families of the 7 million foreclosed on happened since 2008 < homeowners vote more
- About 9 million home loans are underwater and more to come when we quit artificially depressing interest rates < again, homeowners who used to have $/time to vote
- Tens of millions of people who had jobs that provided a living wage who have found those jobs replaced with lower wage jobs, IF they got one at all, jobs that will not support even half a family without some permanent government handout < used to vote, now among those who traditionally don't
- Banks, on the other hand, after creating an ongoing criminal conspiracy, have reported profits higher than any in history.

Will they vote now? And if so, how?

When people ask me what I want, I show them how Mondragon was started under a dictator much worse than today, and things like we used to do, "When Poverty Was the Enemy, Not the Poor", Here. There is no comparison or equivalency between those policies and the neo-liberal policies that are burning up the lives and assets of most Americans to support the wealth of a few because, we are told, the alternative would have been worse. Worse for the banksters, maybe. With any luck.

...
Today, rather than a war on poverty, we seem to have a war on the poor. Wealth inequality is growing. State support for education is withering. Social safety-net programs are under attack in Congress. Many Americans believe that if people are poor, it’s their own fault. The only “solution” for poverty that many people advocate is allowing companies to create jobs offering wages too low to support a family.

Although it is now widely—and inaccurately—portrayed as a costly welfare program, the War on Poverty was not a failure. If not for government anti-poverty programs since 1967, the nation’s poverty rate would have been 15 percentage points higher in 2012, according to a study published recently by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
...
At its core, the War on Poverty was not about a handout, but a hand up. It was about creating economic opportunity and giving poor people the skills and support they needed to take advantage of it. And it was about giving poor people a voice in decisions affecting their lives. A half-century ago, Americans made a commitment to fight a war on poverty, and we could do it again. Creating a society that is more fair, just, and prosperous for everyone is a fight worth winning.

That was back when government investment was for growth, and relief was something between better things, not just spending to create an imaginary lifestyle.

It will be interesting to see how this new philosophy plays out going forward. I wonder if it will have an impact in November?

[nashville_brook]

121. this is a good point. economically disenfranchised are less likely to vote, that's why...

it's so important to put money in field campaigns (as opposed to TV ads) that target these voters and make it easier for them to cast a ballot by signing them up for vote-by-mail (absentee voting).

also, in terms of down-ballot races, people who are economically disenfranchised are less likely to be aware of state/local politics. good field work can address that too.

[mopinko]

18. jim hightower

There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos
http://www.jimhightower.com/store/middle_of_the_road

[kentuck]

24. Probably a lot of truth in that?

Liberals can blame no one but themselves.

[cui bono]

42. Liberals? Which liberals?

I thought we were talking about centrists? They are not the same thing.

[Doctor_J]

50. I think it posted in the wrong thread

although turd way/BOGers, like Limpballs and Fox, tend to blame liberals for everything.

[heaven05]

26. I will vote

but...............

[leftstreet]

27. DURec

[woo me with science]

28. Follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

It's not a failure of vision. It's that our government is PURCHASED by a tiny elite.

It has been purchased and systematically restructured to increase their power and reduce ours.

Yes, centrism is for losers. And, yes, we need the party to reclaim its soul. Doing that means being clear about why this is happening and continues to happen.

[antigop]

29. +1000 nt

[nashville_brook]

30. first thing, reject hippie punching

the third way bullying and hippie punching we see here on DU is meant to say, "toe the line, if you suck this up we'll lose." it's a lie, always has been, always will be. when we sell out our values we lose.

they might have the dollars but we have votes.

[woo me with science]

113. Hear, hear.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. Thomas Paine

[nashville_brook]

86. such good words to live by.

[DirkGently]

104. Excellent. n/t

[Cryptoad]

33. Papa and Babino Paul grin,,,,,,,,,,,,

[zentrum]

36. Wish Frank

...would now write about the following: Since the string of vapid centrists is indeed what we Dems have accepted since Johnson, why is the right still so fervent and passionate and hard core?

Since the weak Democrats, devoid of progressive instincts as they are, give the Republican power structure everything they want except for a few social issues now and then----why is the right so always fired up? Fired up enough to vote during midterms?

Why haven't they calmed down? The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is dying---isn't that what they want? ---So why aren't they less insane? It's not just racism---(though that's the main rallying point for them now)---they wanted to absolutely destroy Clinton too, when in fact, he was a happy deregulator.

[truebluegreen]

57. They haven't calmed down because it is in the interests of the rich

to keep them riled up. As the middle class crashes that becomes easier every day, but in truth it was always easy with that fearful bunch. Look at the Christianists, for example: by far the majority religion in the country, virtually unopposed in Congress, the states, the Supreme Court (we'll leave the Kenyan Muslim imposter aside for the moment) and yet they feel persecuted...like they were confronting Nero and his lions. Partly they like to think of themselves as Suffering For Their Faith, but mostly it is just fear. Cowardice. And wanting someone else to blame for their miserable lives.

[Maedhros]

37. Let me post this here as a topical example. Third Way apparatchiks take notice:

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/10/merkley-wehby_race_candidates_2.html#incart_river

Merkley-Wehby race: Candidates near finish line with differences as wide as ever

. . .

Polls show Merkley with a healthy lead in the race. A big-money group connected to billionaire industrialists David and Charles Koch pulled their anti-Merkley advertising last month – leaving Wehby heavily outmatched on the airwaves.

"I see nothing to indicate she's been anywhere near competitive since June," said veteran Portland pollster Tim Hibbitts, who thinks the police reports marked the turning point in the race.

[geek tragedy]

40. Oregon is a deep blue state.

A liberal Democrat should be winning there.

Oregon ain't Georgia or Montana.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. And yet Jeff won that seat in 2008 from Republican Gordon Smith. It was hard won too.

By no means a landslide. That whole 'well it's a deep blue state' routine is bullshit, States that elect Democrats do so by virtue of having good organization and good Democratic candidates, not because of something in the water.

[geek tragedy]

56. Oregon voted for Dukakis in 1988.

Smith was successful at posing as a moderate. But his number came up in a Presidential year .

[hootinholler]

58. Portland is a deep blue city

Get out of Portland and you have a very different political landscape. Out towards Idaho it's Mississippi without the humidity.

[geek tragedy]

61. That's how most blue states are.

Statewide Democrats are at a big advantage.

[eridani]

107. It's deep blue cities, suburbs and university towns in a sea of red n/t

[emulatorloo]

43. John Kerry is a Centrist?

Not sure his voting record backs up that conclusion. Guess I will have to read the book.

[AtomicKitten]

44. Especially when the center keeps moving right.

[L0oniX]

95. Centrist goal post is on corporate wheels.

[DirkGently]

166. Nicely put! n/t

[Legalequilibrium78]

46. Have any of these so called Liberal experts on how

To win elections, have run for elections themselves or actually held elective offices? If not then all of these bloviation about how Pres.Carte shoulda done this, coulda done that, or Pres. Obama is this etc. are nonsense.

Many of you here seem to think that the left ought to have their own version of the "Tea Party" brigade, have candidates run as left as they possibly can. These ideas are all fine and dandy, but none of you seem to recognize that if running as a liberal was a sure way to win elections, then I can assure you the book mentioned here would not have been written. There would have been no need for it, thr best antidote to losing is winning. I do not know the answer to that and I won't pretend I have the solutions either. Let us not be too sure of ourselves in terms of our own ideological biases as liberals that somehow "If only so and so run as a true liberal then so and so candidate would surely win elections or scare off the right wingers to capitulate and bend them to our will. That is dangerous thinking and naive to say the least.

[Doctor_J]

48. how's republican light working for you?

[nashville_brook]

71. +1

[Legalequilibrium78]

80. You are a Doctor right?

Well Doc, since you seem to be the expert in how to win elections as uber Liberal, then why are you not running yourself? Why are you not being consulted by anyone running for political office by Democrats?

Look it is very easy among us to criticize poliricians for not heeding or voting on things that are near and dear to each of us. Most of us have their own pet issues that is a make or break deal. But the thing is even amongst the political constituents of the most liberal politician, have also a sizable very vocal conservative voters. Surely, just because those people who happen to belong to a different political party and have different political persuasion, still deserves to have their voice be heard and it should still matter.

None of you (far left brigade) here have the perspective to think or consider political landscape on a much broader perspective. It is not as easy to run as a pure liberal nor would it also be so easy to implement a very liberal ideas and programs that most of you think is the best for the country.

[nashville_brook]

84. 2014 has actually been a progressive-messaged campaign cycle

to imply that there's no progressives running or in office. and this "why don't you run" stuff that keeps popping up today in various threads should be beneath adults talking at the big table.

[Legalequilibrium78]

193. What part of the country are those "progressives" running

I may ask? If those progressive candidates can win on red state countries then yeah, you will prove your point. But until that fantasy become a reality your wishful thinking will remain just that; wishful thinking.

[BlueEye]

55. I agree.

When you look at the United States as a whole, it's a very centrist nation, arguably center right. That orientation pre-dates big money in politics.

Although I personally would like to see more left-leaning candidates, I have no doubt that Bernie Sanders would be crushed in a general election. People from the East coast should spend some time in the Midwest and realize that swing states like Ohio and Iowa will not vote for a man that claims to be a socialist.

The Clinton brand is a proven winner. Bill won two elections commandingly, and Gore won the popular vote running on the same brand of Democratic platform. Hillary may not be the same politician that her husband is, but I am confident the Clinton brand will resound with voters as "common sense" when contrasted with a right-wing zealot that the GOP are sure to nominate.

[nashville_brook]

72. Hillary can't win a primary against a true FDR dem

[wyldwolf]

94. Who is a "true FDR Dem?"

[YoungDemCA]

135. Maybe someone who would intern an entire ethnic/immigrant group in "relocation camps"...

Or someone who would illegally and unconstitutionally attempt to stack the US Supreme Court.

Or someone who would court and count on the support of the rabidly racist/reactionary Jim Crow Southern Democratic Party for his New Deal.

You know, those "true FDR Dem" policies we all long for.

If this sounds like an unfair and overly negative post toward FDR, then you might as well stop lionizing FDR, turning him into a Patron Saint (like the Right does for Reagan), and actually have some goddamn perspective about President Obama.

[nashville_brook]

143. sorry my perspective on Obama differs from yours -- i believe policy matters and that people matter.

these are the values that win elections. do you see Obama out stumping for candidates? why is that?

[BlueEye]

109. You think?

I'm in Ohio, and the overwhelming majority of my Democratic friends are pro-Hillary. The College Democrats at my school are practically an extension of the Ready for Hillary organization, two-years out. I'm not sure if it's like this elsewhere, but I suspect this is not the only place where Hillary has an extraordinary advantage over virtually any other Democratic candidate.

Maybe primary debates can change that, but it will be an uphill battle for other candidates. Other than perhaps Elizabeth Warren, most potential Dems will have to overcome the name recognition barrier for states outside of their sphere (not everybody is as politically savvy as us here on DU). And that's to say nothing of overcoming the pro-Hillary primary voter sentiment.

[LondonReign2]

116. "arguably center right"

False.

But I wouldn't expect anything less from a "common sense" supporter of Hillary.

[treestar]

67. Yeah, why not just try it.

Go to some district in the red part of a state and run as liberal as possible. That could be done in my state legislative district, where the Democratic party doesn't even bother with a candidate.

The Greens are running a candidate in the district this time. I intend to vote for them. It'll be interesting to see if they can win just because they will come out with far out cool liberal values!

[YoungDemCA]

137. The logic here is:

Democratic candidate runs as a boring centrist, gets a smear campaign directed at him/her, is called "the L-word" or "socialist" or "Marxist" or "crazy treehugger PC liberal elitist." The Democratic candidate loses by 10-15 points.

The solution?

Run someone who actually IS super-duper liberal-lending credence to the smears, who calls themselves a "democratic socialist" (!), and who promises to NOT compromise.

Yeah, that's a sure-fire way to win.

[DirkGently]

169. Wait. Republican "smears" should control who Dems run for office?

Sort of hard to follow you here.

Step 1.
Republicans call every Democrat a wild-eyed commie regardless of their actual positions.

Step 2.
So Democrats should run to the right, which will not impact the name calling, but will annihilate any real difference between the parties.

Step 3.
Profit???

Seems a bit more face-palmy to try to run to the right of Republican name-calling, as opposed, to, say ... offering voters better policies, doesn't it?

I hope this is not what they're teaching in "real life politics" seminars these days.

[treestar]

178. They should run for where their district might be

If they will lose no matter what, sure, run as far left as possible. If they might win by being more moderate, though, we need them in the legislature rather than the Republican. It's a matter of judgment in each district.

[treestar]

177. I can sort of see the passionate view that truly believes that it would work

But then reality sets in.

[nashville_brook]

82. "many of you here" seems to imply you don't identify with Democratic Underground posters

it's a far cry from "brothers and sisters," but the decorum usually is "us" and "we." you don't have to call us "comrades" or anything. but, the whole "you people" thing is a little odd.

i swear we won't get any lefty cooties on you.

[Legalequilibrium78]

103. okay thanks for the suggestion, duly noted.

[WillyT]

59. K & R !!!

[the_sly_pig]

62. Centrism is for losers....

We are homogenized. Degradation of the media and education has brought us to this point. Degradation of the media and education benefit the right.

Thomas Frank has a right to his opinion, but his opinion is not an epiphany.

[Man from Pickens]

63. "Centrism"?

The use of that term is deceptive. What is being done isn't "moderate" or "centrist" in any way. It's putting a finger to the wind to see what 50%+1 of people will put up with as a means of maintaining office, while following a hardcore radical corporatist agenda behind closed doors.

[woo me with science]

68. Amen.

[DirkGently]

69. THIS should be an OP. n/t

[nashville_brook]

70. so well said.

[L0oniX]

97. ^^^THIS^^^THIS^^^THIS^^^

[Marr]

141. That's about it.

It's been demonstrated over and over, but this thread is sprinkled with Third Way types who argue as if these politicians would be fighting for liberal legislation if only they didn't have to compromise with Republicans. That doesn't actually seem to be the case at all.

[hifiguy]

165. Amen to that

[riqster]

182. Damn straight. Thanks.

[treestar]

65. There's always going to be a center

How do you get around that fact? It'll be the center compared to the people farthest to right and left. It's generally going to include most people.

It's silly to attack the center when you have the right to attack. You want to win the center over, and how are you going to do that insulting them?

The right attacks the left. Gives them a bigger chance of getting the people not so far right as they are and the center.

The left attacks the center. Loses them the center and they give up on the right, I guess. They simply want to be above it all and not part of the solution and will always lose and thus continue complaining and being the victims of the horrible Average Person who is closer to the center.

[nashville_brook]

73. just b/c there IS a center, doesn't mean it will win elections, much less 2016

[wyldwolf]

81. Seems to have won elections plenty.

[nashville_brook]

85. worked out well for Reagan and Bush Jr, both.

[wyldwolf]

91. Well, I don't consider them centrists but if you do, you just defeated your own argument

Because Reagan won two landslide elections and Bush Jr. did win ONE election.

Then there are THESE election winners:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition

[nashville_brook]

110. pssst -- they ran against centrists (that's why it worked out well for them)

[wyldwolf]

142. Let's try to think of a time when a "true progressive" ran in a presidential race...

... there was... oh, and then there was... wait a minute... how about... hmmm...

Fact is anyone I put up as a liberal who lost spectacularly you will claim wasn't pure enough or will come up with a similarly constructed excuse.

Humphrey. McGovern. Mondale. Dukakis.

Looks like our best performers are from those who are centrists.

[nashville_brook]

147. Obama *ran* as a passionate progressive -- governed as a passionless technocrat

that's why you don't see him out stumping for candidates right now. The one person who is most in demand for stumping is Elizabeth Warren. That's where we are right now.

[wyldwolf]

148. No. Obama was quite clear on his policy positions when he ran. You just swooned over his war stance

... and maybe because the opportunity to elect the the first black president blinded you to his stated policies.

[nashville_brook]

155. some may fall into those two camps. do you dismiss them?

[wyldwolf]

160. you apparently do. Because Obama ran as a centrist on the ideas from his book.

Audacity of Hope - could have been a DLC playbook.

[treestar]

83. Of course it will

The most votes wins the election, therefore the candidate will cater to the Average, or the center. The elections are not won by extremes on either side. Maybe there are a few pockets of extreme red or blue who will put a Tea Partier or a real Socialist in office, but that's because the elections are divided up by district.

Nobody can win the Presidency without "the center" especially with the Electoral College.

[eridani]

108. To the left of course. I wish people would quit posting this "center-right" bullshit

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/28/gops_30_year_spin_job_is_over_why_we_are_not_a_center_right_nation/

According to these policy polls, an “average American” supports the redistribution of wealth through taxing the wealthy more, wants to increase the minimum wage and environmental protections, thinks that unions are beneficial to society, and opposes attempts to cut anti-poverty programs or entitlements, even if those cuts are intended to balance the budget. On social issues, this theoretical American supports gay equality, reasonable abortion access, universal background checks for gun purchases, wage equality for women and the legalization of marijuana.

In short, this “average American” holds views that line up almost exactly with a center-left political ticket, similar to what many European social democratic parties have run on. It is certainly true that this description of the average doesn’t take into account regional variations (e.g., the South likely holds many extremely conservative Americans whose preferences are simply canceled out in these national poll by the more populous coastal cities), but this is an accurate description of the aggregate opinion of the entire population of the United States.

[nashville_brook]

111. precisely -- the centrist doctrine doesn't resonate with Americans.

It's actually an uphill battle to sneak a trickle-down, socially-regressive candidates past Americans. They have to literally disenfranchise voters to win elections.

[treestar]

185. There is no centrist doctrine

There are people who are moderates. Conservative but not tea party, or liberal but not socialists.

That translates into votes. They aren't going to vote for the extremes on either side in great numbers; that's why they are the extremes.

Moderates are a fact of life. Not everyone is a passionate screaming ideologue.

[DirkGently]

118. Bingo. As noted well by others "centrism" is a code word.

Has nothing to do with the "average American" or moderate views. It's used interchangeably with "pragmatic" to mean "Big money friendly," with perhaps a dab less of social regression for appearances' sake.

[treestar]

186. Why is that?

The center would be the mass of people who are not on the extremes. Simple math.

You don't like the center? It's not far enough to the left? You have to persuade, not complain.

[DirkGently]

188. The "center" isn't what "centrists" represent.

Americans are not overwhelmingly in favor of massive bank de-regulation, pointless foreign wars, massive anti-drug spending, oil subsidies, gutting Social Security, privatization of social services, or a host of other things "pragmatic centrist" Dems embrace.

The "simple math" going on has more to do with the ease of getting campaign dollars from the Pete Peterson's and Exxon Mobiles of the world, not bringing the party to what Americans actually want.

As far as "persuasion" goes, leadership works best from in front.

Chasing 1990s ideas about how we can all live in harmony with banks that gamble with government insured depositor funds is just lazy capitulation traded for campaign funding. The rationale that America is just so "center right" that we can't do anything about it is both flatly untrue and a formula for failure at the polls.

Dems aren't going to persuade anyone they can lead anywhere if the logic is that they need to be just like Republicans.

[treestar]

184. I see that poll type cited a lot

Then all they have to do is vote Democratic.

Maybe they are stuck on some other issue, guns, god, gays, abortion. There are voters who would be fine with more social programs as long as there was no abortion, for example.

It's more complicated than simply saying they are for what the Dems want on this or that issue. That has to translate into a vote.

[democrank]

89. How can not standing for one`s principles in order to "win" be a win?

The "answer to the savagery of the right" is to actually stand for something....like social and economic justice....and not compromise it away, not give in to the point where the average voter can`t even tell the difference between us and the savages.

As far as I`m concerned, the One Percenters have PLENTY of backing in Washington. It`s the "little guy" that needs our help.

[loyalsister]

90. He doesn't seem to include the effectiveness of the religious right and cultural elements

I have been noticing that as the election nears I am seeing more and more of the graphics advocating prayer in school circulating on FB. Then there's the ones about being "raised" and how the country went downhill when people stopped spanking their children. Outrage over flag burning and the pledge of allegiance.

I have seen these reposts coming from liberals and conservatives alike. I have been asking my friends who I know to be liberal minded about it. As I have been gathering my anecdotal evidence, I have noticed that people with histories of "bad behavior" they want to distance themselves from claim that republicans reflect their values. Some even claim to be pro-choice and in favor of gay marriage. Some are very anti-war.

I think there are a lot of voters who truly do not care about policy. They vote based on emotional attachments to the idea of superior morality of republicans. We can claim to have the high ground regarding morality because we have more sympathy for our fellow humans, but that doesn't change the embedded perceptions of millions that think religious affiliation\expression is a hallmark of morality. People don't talk about the immorality of watergate. Rs learned their lesson when Carter was elected with the support of the religious right.

I think Reagan's popularity had a lot to do with paternalism. He also tapped into and manipulated a sense of self interest with rhetoric. The scattered economic booms that benefitted so many white collar and even some blue collar baby boomers convinced them that he was right and Carter and Democrats were wrong about the economy. Reagan raised taxes, but people only remember his rhetoric in opposition to taxes. A belief that taxes are bad and even wrong became a basic cultural value. Republicans have managed to associate it with morality and patriotism while claiming religious superiority. It's not just values voters and 1 percenters who respond to republican rhetoric. It's people for whom basic American values mean more religion and lower taxes. Lower taxes = morality and if we can scare people, al the better.

Frank and others who offer such biting criticisms of the center fail to acknowledge that those of us who are fully aware of policies and how they are reflected in the real world are rare. People support candidates based on knee jerk traditional perceptions and single issues more often than in response to policy proposals.

The voters who are most entrenched in that happen to be Gen Xers and some late baby boomers. They make up significant portions of the voters and candidates. People like to vote for candidates who resemble themselves.

Patriotism, religion, no taxes, and financial success are the battle cries of republicans and they are also deeply embedded cultural values. Anyone who is financially successful opposes taxes. Might as well start when you're still poor, regardless of if you need food stamps or unemployment (because in the US anyone who works hard can get rich). It was predictable that even after a conservative president was shot, guns could be readily adopted into that philosophy.

People fail to see the contradictions because what republicans use to define themselves at the most superficial level are considered moral conventional wisdom. They also reliably equate financial success with conservatism.

There is a research that indicates that people vote based on emotion rather than intellectual analyses. Republicans benefit from the politics of fear because they always return to the most irrational mode of explanation and comfort. I don't mind a small amount of religious rhetoric but I would most definitely prefer that Democrats avoid using it the way Rs have.

With the republican cultural brand of morality being such a salient part of US politics, how do we untangle conservative economics from religion without participating in one or the other? How do we redefine what people believe to be synonymous with success and Americana if our candidates can't get elected? And, how can anyone look at the make up of congress and pretend those of us who focus on policy and liberal values are in the majority?

I don't know the answer, but I do know that until huge numbers of USAers care less about money, stop equating religion with morality, and buying into fear politics, Democrats are going to have to participate if we want to win elections.

[nashville_brook]

125. despite GOP spin, when polled scientifically, Americans are left-leaning...

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/28/gops_30_year_spin_job_is_over_why_we_are_not_a_center_right_nation/

But, you are correct that voters respond to values -- that's the main idea behind this piece. Carter and Obama were technocrats -- big brains who were blank slates. we could project our values on them, but when pressed they don't claim any ideology other than pragmatism.

That's where we lose elections -- by not framing our candidates in terms of values. We cede that ground to the right and lose.

i like your deep thinking on the rise of Reagan RE the religious right. I think you'd find Perlstein's book very interesting.

[democrank]

96. One thing to keep in mind

is how some in our party call old fashioned basic Democratic principles "far left" now. That`s a good example of how far right the "center" button has been moved.

[nashville_brook]

106. wow, my grandmother is now a "radical leftist"

in the minds of some here. she'd think that's pretty funny.

then she'd want to know who the fuck these democrats think they are, wanting to strike a "grand bargain" on social security.

[DirkGently]

120. There's no sense of left / right perspective any more.

We have a full-time professional Tea Party - type blogger in town, all over social media and county government meetings. Not the overtly nutty type, with the bulging veins birther conspiracies and so forth, but more a low-level paid pro with blogs and carefully calculated Facebook postings on the local political pages. Fond of patiently explaining how local progressive activists are simply the pawns of insidious labor unions and so forth. Ahem.

I saw someone try to engage him on a pro-worker initiative -- paid sick leave at the county level, I think. Someone asked what was so insidious about pushing for workers' benefits. His response?

"Because it's 'now' impossible to be pro-worker without being anti-business."

Sure, it was a line of rhetoric, and not a great one. But he believed it. No perspective at all on 30 years of stagnant wages vs. skyrocketing CEO pay and stock values. The evaporation of any kind of retirement plan or pension for any but the most well off. As he sees it, poor big businesses (most of his propaganda efforts seem to come on behalf of Walmart-connected lobbyists and perhaps the sugar industry) are barely scraping by, and now workers want (what he apparently sees as) ridiculous luxuries like being able to take five or six days a year off when they're sick, without fear of being fired.

That's setting aside the fact that healthier, more secure workers actually help business, of course. But even if it were a zero-sum proposition between profits and people, this person believes PEOPLE are the tyrants, with their petitions and demands to be heard, while business interests with armies of lawyers and lobbyists are being cruelly pushed around.

I can't imagine what people like that see as "centrist" policies.

[democrank]

100. Reread reply #63.

One of the truest responses ever written at DU.

[nashville_brook]

101. i know, right!

no one has said it in such a muscular manner. maybe we're finally figuring some shit out.

[riqster]

128. What a load of projection and ideological revisionism.

It starts with a thesis and either ignores or alters anything that does not support the desired conclusion.

[nashville_brook]

133. passionless centrists lose elections: Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Carter2 -- fact.

[wyldwolf]

146. Is "passionless" your new subjective term prove your case in your mind?

Helps you eliminate Clinton and Obama from the mix? JFK? Truman? LOL. Ask yourself this - why hasn't a single left 'progressive' ever even gotten the nomination?

[nashville_brook]

150. you like that, huh? it's actually from the article. you should read it.

[wyldwolf]

153. Again, why hasn't a single left 'progressive' ever even gotten the nomination?

[nashville_brook]

156. b/c the party hasn't had the stones to stand up for our values -- but that might be changing.

[wyldwolf]

161. ohhh, it's the party's fault, not the candidate's. LOL.

[treestar]

181. The party is made up of all of us

Includes people to the right of you. You can't simply decrees that the center move left, you have to have a party make up. The leaders don't just turn everyone to the left with magic speeches. You're blaming yourself or all of us.

[treestar]

180. When it comes to the Presidency, neither side can get its most passionate

farthest left/right people into that office, regardless of "passion" and "leadership" and "spine." There are Tea Partiers who thought Mitt was too liberal. They'd love to have someone as far right as they can think of to run, but they wouldn't win as the left and center would make up a majority. Same on this side.

[treestar]

179. So Obama and Clinton had passion?

I don't think it's all about passion. Sure they say you will get your dreams to come true if you have great passion, but that's individual life coaching.

[riqster]

187. Oh yeah, "passionless". Another amorphous term used as if it were quantified.

It is a subjective term that lacks any factual basis. Thus it is useless in arriving at a factual conclusion. You can't arrive at factual conclusions by using unquantified criteria.

One obvious counter example: a "passionless" Al Gore made An Inconvenient Truth? Really? Say that with a straight face.

"Passionless" is a word, used "by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

(Apologies to W. Shakespeare)

[nashville_brook]

190. quantified: two passionate unknowns, bill clinton and barrack obama both win primaries and win

the general -- then govern as centrists, making it impossible for a centrist to follow them. Gore couldn't do it, and Hillary won't be able to do it.

[riqster]

192. Again, crap. Passionless means whatever you want it to mean at the moment.

You cannot quantify it and cannot prove it.

Passion is not an ideological position.

[seveneyes]

138. That without a central focus will spiral into oblivion

Left or Right, the target will be missed.

[hifiguy]

144. Just finished "The Invisible Bridge."

It is nothing short of brilliant if a bit long-winded in certain places. Even if you lived through it all, as I did, you will learn a lot from it. I for one didn't know that Reagan's ability to simply delude himself into believing what he wanted to believe, facts be damned, went all the way back to his childhood.

He and Thomas Frank are two of the smartest historians/observers to be found. I strongly encourage every DUer to read their books.

[nashville_brook]

149. i found Reagan's ability to self-delude (in the book) to be terrifying.

he really did have some personal issues that were buried deep in his psyche.

i lived thru it as a young person -- I was 18 in 1984. my family was very political, so discussions of Carter and Reagan (and earlier Watergate) were a big part of my growing up.

Also found it fascinating how he accrued power by not bowing to pollsters and consultants -- just as an aside. He went for broad, sweeping narratives rather than scientifically polled triangulation. This is part of what made him seem decisive, when really he was just an insecure dick.