The Politics of Polarization

[Gunslinger]

I read this on Foxnews.com (pause.......ok now that we lost all those that will naturally stick their heads in the sand)  today and thought it was a GREAT article.  Couldn't agree with it more.

Before the rest of you chide it for it's source here's the info on the author:

Martin Frost served in Congress from 1979 to 2005, representing a diverse district in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. He served two terms as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, the third-ranking leadership position for House Democrats, and two terms as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Frost serves as a regular contributor to FOX News Channel, and is currently a fellow at the Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He holds a Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Missouri and a law degree from the Georgetown Law Center

The Politics of Polarization

Monday, October 17, 2005

By Martin Frost

As the son of an engineer, I have always been fascinated with the mathematical side of politics. Numbers don’t lie, and a new report just issued by the think tank ThirdWay provides some interesting statistical analysis of the electorate as well as some important suggestions about the future of the Democratic Party.

The report is entitled “The Politics of Polarization” and was prepared by William Galston of the University of Maryland School of Public Policy and Elaine Kamarck of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

First and foremost to understanding the current political environment is a review of voters’ self-identification by political philosophy: “In 2004, the electorate was 21 percent liberal, 34 percent conservative and 45 percent moderate,” according to the report. “This is practically a carbon copy of the average of the past thirty year – 20 percent liberal, 33 percent conservative and 47 percent moderate – with remarkably little variation from election to election.”

In other words, for every two liberals, there are three conservatives with almost half of the electorate being in the moderate middle.

If the numbers have remained stationary for the past 30 years, why have Republicans won more elections than Democrats? According to the authors, one of the main reasons is polarization. Democrats used to get the votes of a significant number of conservatives (30 percent in the 1976 presidential election).

Today, the electorate is much more polarized with liberals voting Democratic and conservatives voting Republican. Since there are more self-described conservatives than liberals, this means that for a Democrat to win, he or she must win a larger share of the moderate vote (in excess of 60 percent according to the authors) than in the past.

Therein lies the rub. In 1976, Democrat Jimmy Carter won the presidency with only 51 percent of the moderate vote; in 2004, John Kerry won 54 percent of the moderate vote and still lost the presidency by 3.5 points.

The authors also trace another alarming trend for Democrats -- a significant decline in support among married women. Republican support among married women went from 40 percent in 1992 to 55 percent in 2004. The authors note that concern about moral values was the most important issue for married women, topping even a concern about protection from terrorism.

So how do Democrats do better with political moderates and married women? The authors make a number of interesting recommendations.

First, “The Democratic Party must be able to articulate a coherent foreign policy that is based on a belief in American’s role in the world…Democrats must emphasize the importance of the American military as a potential force for good in the world.”

Specifically, they recommend that “Democrats must seize the opportunity to offer compelling alternatives to current Republican policies concerning homeland defense and the ultimate nightmare of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.”

On the social issues, the authors recommend that Democrats “show tolerance and common sense on hot-button social issues."

Specifically, they suggest that Democrats “could continue to support the core of Roe v. Wade while dropping their intransigence on questions such as parental notification and partial birth abortion. They could oppose court-imposed gay marriage while favoring decent legal treatment for gay couples and insisting that this is a matter for the people of the several states -- not the U.S. Constitution or the judiciary -- to resolve.”

Third, they recommend that Democrats adopt a more free trade position (“an economic policy that embraces global competition”) while at the same time providing a social safety net for people who lose their jobs in the process. That, of course, is the single most controversial of their recommendations because it goes contrary to the position of organized labor, a key part of the Democratic base.

Finally, they make a very interesting recommendation about the personal quality of candidates, particularly candidates for president. The authors note that “recent Democratic candidates have failed to establish the bond of trust with the electorate that is so essential to modern elections. Specifically, they note that Democratic candidates need to demonstrate, “strength, certainty and conviction.”

The authors posit that the last three losing Democratic Presidential candidates (Dukakis, Gore and Kerry) tended to talk primarily to highly educated upscale professionals who make up a significant part of the liberal base of the Democratic Party, rather than to less well educated working class voters who are also necessary for victory.

“If Democratic candidates do not ‘speak American’ as a native language, average Americans will find it hard to believe that these candidates really understand or care about them.”

Galston and Kamarck may not have all the answers for the Democratic Party, but their report deserves serious discussion by both Democratic leaders and the rank and file.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,172518,00.html

[bj229r]

In short, the Democrats must STAND for something, other than, "Bush lied"

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I read this.... and thought it was a GREAT article.  Couldn't agree with it more.

I am completely at odds with you on this one.  I couldn't disagree more.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I am completely at odds with you on this one.  I couldn't disagree more.

could you care to enlighten me as to why?  I think the democrats have an oppertunity here but they are failing miserably to capitalize on it.  With Bush's numbers in the tank and all the indictments present and future you'd think they'd be viewed alot better in the publics eyes.

[Hangtime]

why?

is it so hard to fathom the majority might think that both sides suck ass?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
could you care to enlighten me as to why?

You see, I was... I was  taking the polar opposite position....

It's a... It's a joke son, I made a funny...

[J_A_B]

"The authors posit that the last three losing Democratic Presidential candidates (Dukakis, Gore and Kerry) tended to talk primarily to highly educated upscale professionals who make up a significant part of the liberal base of the Democratic Party, rather than to less well educated working class voters who are also necessary for victory."
“If Democratic candidates do not ‘speak American’ as a native language, average Americans will find it hard to believe that these candidates really understand or care about them.”


Yet another liberal unwittingly confirming the stereotype that liberals think themselves smarter than the ordinary "riffraff".  I don't think any of those three candidates lost because stupid people couldn't understand them.  I think they all lost because the population understood them perfectly well--and didn't like them.  They'll continue losing as long as they feel they have to talk down to middle america.

J_A_B

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You see, I was... I was  taking the polar opposite position....

It's a... It's a joke son, I made a funny...

we must be at polar opposites cause I just didn't think it was all that funny.

[Clifra Jones]

It will be interesting to see the reaction of the standard bearers of the Democrat Party regarding this study and article. If it is met with the same disdain and vilification that other inside critics of the current Democrat Party, such as Zell Miller and members of the moderate DLC have, then nothing will be gained by this.

It is interesting that we have 2 opposing political/economic philosophies in this country.

One that is proud of what they believe in, is not afraid of identifying themselves as such, presents ideas and proposes solutions to the issues of the day, and is open to vigorous debate within it's ranks. -- The Conservatives

One that seldom admits what they actually are, they shy away from any attempt to identify themselves as proponents of this philosophy, are quick to offer criticism of their opponents but offer no real solution to the issues of the day, vilify and misrepresent any who oppose or deviate from the stated dogma of their ideology and seek to suppress any dissenting opinion within their own ranks. -- The Liberals

The one single complaint that I have regarding Conservatives, and I can say this because I am one, is that we still have some among us, mostly the older generation of Conservatives, who still have within them this fear of the Liberal media and smear machine. In the era of free information, the Internet and the Blogosphere it is evident that the Liberal slander machine has been effectively neutered. Why some Conservatives and specifically the current president seem to dance around these guys instead of meeting them head on is beyond my comprehension.

On another notes.

In regard to approval ratings. The current administrations approval ratings are quit low. What this means for an administration that is not seeking re-election and is not presenting their VP as the next candidate, I can't say. Congress' approval rating is even lower than the president and that does give me cause for concern.

Ronald Reagan's approval rating was at 42% in '83. He then went on to win a landslide victory in '84. I think this proves what little stock we should put into approval ratings.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

I don't understand why the focus is on the Democrats becoming a viable option. One of the most glaring problems with the Democratic party is that it currently believes the citizens need to be nannied and have a big government. There are other issues associated with that nannying and big government that completely disgust me.

Then on the other side you have the Republicans that have completely lost what they stand for. States rights? Smaller federal government (less bloat, less intrusive)? Not infringing on personal freedom?

Politics are polarized alright. From one end of suck bellybutton to the other end of totally ****ed.
-SW

[Hangtime]

'zackly.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I don't understand why the focus is on the Democrats becoming a viable option. One of the most glaring problems with the Democratic party is that it currently believes the citizens need to be nannied and have a big government. There are other issues associated with that nannying and big government that completely disgust me.

Then on the other side you have the Republicans that have completely lost what they stand for. States rights? Smaller federal government (less bloat, less intrusive)? Not infringing on personal freedom?

Politics are polarized alright. From one end of suck bellybutton to the other end of totally ****ed.
-SW

Yup that's something I can agree with.  What sucks is when you introduce a third party who just can't seem to get the message out you end up with usually the worst of the three.  (see: clinton)

[rshubert]

Originally posted by J_A_B
"The authors posit that the last three losing Democratic Presidential candidates (Dukakis, Gore and Kerry) tended to talk primarily to highly educated upscale professionals who make up a significant part of the liberal base of the Democratic Party, rather than to less well educated working class voters who are also necessary for victory."
“If Democratic candidates do not ‘speak American’ as a native language, average Americans will find it hard to believe that these candidates really understand or care about them.”


Yet another liberal unwittingly confirming the stereotype that liberals think themselves smarter than the ordinary "riffraff".  I don't think any of those three candidates lost because stupid people couldn't understand them.  I think they all lost because the population understood them perfectly well--and didn't like them.  They'll continue losing as long as they feel they have to talk down to middle america.

J_A_B

Excellent point, J_A_B.  There has always been an air of "We know better than you how things should be" from the liberal side of politics.  Heck, I am an educated professional, and many people think I am arrogant.  If I think somebody is acting arrogantly, then it must be off-the-scale arrogance.

And I really do think that the libs are arrogant and superioristic.

[Gh0stFT]

AKS\/\/ulfe,

sorry to interuppt here as a european, but do you know that we will
have more and more poor people in the future who needs help? not everbody runs a company and drives a big mercedes, some are depending on the government, and more to the directions the government leads them.

Look what natural disaster like the last hurricane can accomplish,
"the government is there for you, dont panik" how would you call this?

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

I'll say this, my dad started out in a family of 6 brothers and 5 sisters with his mom staying home to raise the kids and his dad working the rail lines making poor money. My dad worked his way through college to pay for it. I did the same. No government grants, no government assistance whatsoever.
-SW