Agreeing With Laura Ingraham

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:59:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Me:

Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle.

Laura Ingraham, via Crooks and Liars:

[N]ot to defend the Daily Kos, when you’re constantly targeting the middle or the moderates as Harold [Ford] called them…it’s pretty tough because the middle is always shifting…it’s shifting to where the left or right is more persuasive. It’s not like the moderates are an identifiable group—-identifiable positions on a number of key issues. They kinda move to either where conservatives or liberals guide them either successfully or not so…I think targeting the middle is a very risky political strategy . . .

The Republican have always known this. The DLC still has not learned this. Harold Ford and the DLC are bad at politics. But so is the Beltway Establishment, the home of Broderism.

< Republican Candidates Push the Fear Buttons | Obama Wavers on Crack-Powder Sentencing >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Agreeing With Laura Ingraham | 30 comments (30 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

So many truths about politics (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 02:16:58 PM EST

escaped me till recently. I've always been solutions oriented and I acted politically in that fashion as well and I was part of the America that got its A$$ handed to me and stood there stunned and unable to comprehend. My grandmother understood all of these things, grew up during the depression and was an FDR Democrat. She understood holding up her portion of the fight though so the masses could find the working solution. She was often frustrated with me and my middle of the road mindset that was courtesy of a lot of her hard work. We were always a political family. She always worked at the local Democratic headquarters and every single election when she was older she had a list of registered Dems that she called from her livingroom chair to make sure they were able to make it to the booth and if they were having problems she would find a way to fix them. Vera passed on in 2003. I guess she probably now knows that I get it. It took a tragedy that I'm still living through to get it, but I get it.

Politics, confidence and convictions (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Peaches on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 02:46:32 PM EST

Only a small part of politics has to do with winning and elections. Obviously, there are important differences between candidates. But, there are greater and more fundamental problems. Naomi Klein speaks very elegantly of these problems and what it might take to overcome them.

The real problem, I want to argue today, is confidence, our confidence, the confidence of people who gather at events like this under the banner of building another world, a kinder more sustainable world. I think we lack the strength of our convictions, the guts to back up our ideas with enough muscle to scare our elites. We are missing movement power. That's what we're missing. "The best lacked all convictions," Yeats wrote, "while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Think about it. Do you want to tackle climate change as much as Dick Cheney wants Kazakhstan's oil? Do you? Do you want universal healthcare as much as Paris Hilton wants to be the next new face of Estee Lauder? If not, why not? What is wrong with us? Where is our passionate intensity?...
We who say we believe in this other world need to know that we are not losers. We did not lose the battle of ideas. We were not outsmarted, and we were not out-argued. We lost because we were crushed. Sometimes we were crushed by army tanks, and sometimes we were crushed by think tanks. And by think tanks, I mean the people who are paid to think by the makers of tanks. Now, most effective we have seen is when the army tanks and the think tanks team up. The quest to impose a single world market has casualties now in the millions, from Chile then to Iraq today. These blueprints for another world were crushed and disappeared because they are popular and because, when tried, they work. They're popular because they have the power to give millions of people lives with dignity, with the basics guaranteed. They are dangerous because they put real limits on the rich, who respond accordingly. Understanding this history, understanding that we never lost the battle of ideas, that we only lost a series of dirty wars, is key to building the confidence that we lack, to igniting the passionate intensity that we need.

It's confidence and energy..... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 03:02:00 PM EST

I mean whose got the energy left after working all week to provide for ourselves and our loved ones to do battle with the elites. We all have only so much energy to give....the elites have the time and resources to ever expand their power and wealth, the rest of us use all the energy we have just to try and maintain what we've got, or maybe improve our lot a little.


: Maybe (none / 0) (#11)
by Peaches on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 03:18:51 PM EST

but, I wonder if it has more to do with convictions. We are soft. We'll die for money and call it patriotism and doing service for our country (the oil companies), but we won't put it on the line for democracy. There won't be another Seattle, because we don't want to be labeled terrorists after being beaten by billy clubs and thrown in the paddy wagon. We don't want to see our blood on our streets, we'd rather watch it on TV and call them terrorists or insurgents.
I'm as soft as anybody. I don't want to put my life on the line for ideas. I got energy, Kdog, I'm just scared to get hit or gassed or faced down by the rubber bullets. We're all soft, so we do our battles on the internet and talk about why Hilary is better than Obama and why Rudy is the embodiment of evil. We discuss politics as the elites have defined it for us and think we got it figured out, raising a toast in Victory on Nov, 2006 and again in Nov. 2008. Then we watch the Wars continue and the spread of our military around the world while global capitalism continues to increase the wealth gap and more and more people become disenfranchised as democracy continues to take a backseat to global capitalism under the guise that socialism is bad and free markets are separate and should always trump democracy - even if we have to send in our arsenals to enforce it.

So (none / 0) (#14)
by Alien Abductee on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 06:03:19 PM EST

Is greed a stronger motivator than altruism?

The rewards of selfish goals as in the examples you give tend to be immediate and tangible and often personal, whereas the rewards of altruism are long-term, abstract and social.

This is a major reason for institutionalizing those sorts of goals within government and why it's been so damaging to let conservatives demonize the very idea of government and atomize through privatization our ability to shift that burden when outcomes are meant to benefit society broadly.


Greed vs. altruism (none / 0) (#30)
by Peaches on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:07:11 AM EST

Greed is a very powerful motivator and must be checked by social inhibitors and sanctions. Altruism also must be fostered with institutions promoting societies interests over the individual.

But, it isn't only a question of liberals who want gov't to replace the market vs. conservatives who want gov't to be limiting so individuals can pursue their own self-interest.

Liberals recommending large government programs to meet the needs of everyone also demonize institutions whose intent is to benefit society broadly - because these programs are inherently faulty and inefficient as bureaucracies form eventually serving only the interests of the institution over the broader society. The goal of government should not be to grow large institutions meant to equalize wealth or protect the broad interests of society. Rather, government needs to protect the individual from these large institutions - free markets among them. Also, government should be decentralized to the point that most protections of individuals are done through the local level. Communities should provide the social sanctions that keep greed in check while also keeping large corporations, bureaucracies, and public entities with the potentials to destroy the community out. Federal gov't should exist to protect the ability of local communities to make these decisions in their own interests, even if some communities seem to have agendas that are not similar to the nation as a whole, such as a mormon community practicing polygamy or a cult community like koresh's in Waco. There is a balance there, and sometimes a state should step in to allow individuals to leave a community, but the state should not enforce its rule to such an extent that it destroys the community. What I want to argue is that by allowing diverse communities to exist versus one monogamous American culture where we are all the same, even in our practice of diversity and multiculturalism, we strengthen democracy and enrich society.


: It does come down to goals (none / 0) (#31)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:45:42 PM EST

Yours is maybe closest to the ideas of the Founders as I understand them - that government is a necessary evil to be kept in check, with the best way to do that being to set the levers of power in opposition to one another in every way possible. But that theory hasn't kept tyranny away, has it, with the BushCo Unitary Executive steamrollering all those theoretical checks and balances. And in the meanwhile Americans haven't had the benefit of a government that provides for them what they cannot do themselves, which is the other part of that classical liberal view of how government should be organized, and its purpose and benefit.
Other places have different views of government that at least thus far haven't led to tyranny, while providing a better quality of life for their whole body of citizens. It does come down to goals. I don't think the goal of anyone is to grow large bureaucracies or government elites that are only out to benefit themselves. But I do think those grow when the goals of government aren't clear, or aren't agreed upon, or worse, when they're obfuscated to look like one thing when they're really something else. And I think the latter is an inevitability when you consider government an evil that should be done away with but then don't actually manage to do away with it.
I don't think there's any right or wrong about this - it's all a huge longterm human experiment in how to be with one another. But in a very interconnected world I think Americans will be increasingly at a disadvantage with this approach to governing themselves compared to societies that choose to work together on a larger scale for their own mutual advantage.

Birds of a feather (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:16:28 AM EST

with being a "centrist," no?

Not sure I follow you (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:23:43 AM EST

But the reason I call myself a Centrist, and I see Markos is really pushing his "mainstream" theme, is by doing so, I am tryng to define the middle.

Harold Ford tries to define Democrats as the Left. He should be trying to say Democrats are with him, in the middle.

The entire DLC philosophy is the worst bit of political work imaginable. It is nosecret why DLC types and Lieberman types are so loved by Fox.


That is exactly what I mean (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:26:57 AM EST

We are the center. It's why I think TINS was so wrong the other day.


What a silly diary (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:53:14 AM EST

Centrist and Moderate are the same thing.

The key is defining what Centrits, Moderate and the Middle mean. And Mainstream too for that matter.

That was one of the most clueless threads I have ever read.


That was pretty much my reaction (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 12:00:11 PM EST

And the gist of my comments there.


Here's another: (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 01:44:03 PM EST

It has often been observed that the far fringes of the political spectrum are so much alike that they can overlap, such that the spectrum more closely resembles a circle.

By Kagro X


I couldn't get it so I moved on (none / 0) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 02:05:40 PM EST

There Is No Defining (none / 0) (#13)
by talex on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 04:42:01 PM EST

what Centrist, Moderate and the Middle mean. How can anyone define what each of millions of individuals who identify as one or the other means? What defines one is way off base on defining the others. Each has their own idea of what issues and values they are Left on and Right on.

Given that what 'the middle' is only really matters during elections the challenge is not defining them. The challenge is determining what identical core values and issues the majority of them subscribe to.

Then it is up to the candidate to articulate those core values and issues and win their vote. You will never appeal to all of them as they are all so different. But if you can figure out how to appeal to the majority of them you can win.

Ingraham is way off base to say that targeting the middle is a very risky political strategy. What is risky is to not target them - at least if you want to win.

Determining what the identical core values and issues are is what research, polls, and focus groups are for. Those are the tools to use and you can bet they are being used right now.

In reality in 2006 it was not hard to determine what 'the middle' wanted. I don't think much has changed since then. But the new dynamic of 2008 being a Presidential election does warrant an extra close look at what they are looking for in the WH.


The Champion of Triangulation (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 07:00:35 PM EST

Congratulations.

OF course you could not be more wrong.

But I admire your forthright defense of the DLC and triangulation.

Good for you.


Nice Buzz Word (none / 0) (#16)
by talex on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 09:22:32 PM EST

but it doesn't apply. It is not triangulation to appeal to the values and issues voters hold near if you are sincere. That is what all great leaders do - find commonality among those who also hold differing views on other things.

But I acknowledge that not all people understand that in politics or in the general population. From your response it appears you may fall into that group. You say I am wrong but wrong is relative to a persons understanding or lack of.


Excuse me? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 09:34:10 PM EST

Given that what 'the middle' is only really matters during elections the challenge is not defining them. The challenge is determining what identical core values and issues the majority of them subscribe to.
Then it is up to the candidate to articulate those core values and issues and win their vote. You will never appeal to all of them as they are all so different. But if you can figure out how to appeal to the majority of them you can win.

That is the very definition of triangulation.


No it's not (none / 0) (#19)
by talex on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:15:41 PM EST

It should go without saying that 'the middle' is left on some positions and right on others. But just to be clear I noted that in my post:

Each has their own idea of what issues and values they are Left on and Right on.

So a Progressive candidate is going to find those progressive values and issues that the majority of 'the middle' subscribes to which are also values and issues that the candidate subscribes to. That is not triangulation - that is finding commonality.

Triangulation by definition is a candidate presenting their ideology as "between" the left and right sides of the political spectrum. That's DLC. What I wrote was completely different than that.


No (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:17:32 PM EST

Triangulation is trimming your sails to "appeal" to the middle.


We have different (none / 0) (#21)
by talex on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:38:21 PM EST

views of what triangulation is then. I just looked up the definition on wikipedia and theirs is closer to mine. But you are free to define it as you want.

What I wrote was using my definition and subsequently wiki's.

With your definition every Pol who wants to win must then triangulate in order to appeal to the middle because it generally takes a good number of middle votes to win. In that case triangulation would not be a bad thing - if you want to win that is.

This discussion of triangulation is all so subjective anyway as the middle and those who identify as Dems or Repubs are all in constant flux anyway.


What did Wikipedia say? (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:00:17 PM EST

How about a quote?


asdf (none / 0) (#23)
by talex on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:06:53 PM EST

Wiki - Triangulation


That's wrong (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:18:08 PM EST

They've confused stealing an issue with triangulation.

Bad Wiki entry.


That's wrong (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:20:47 PM EST

Moreover. This is also wrong

Triangulation is the act of a candidate presenting his or her ideology as being "above" and "between" the left and right sides of the political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political opponent.

Presenting your ideology as being Centrist is precisely what I advocate.

Triangulation is ADOPTING views that are polling as in the middle. Poll driven is the catch phrase.

Thanks for the info on yet another example of how bad Wikipedia is oin many subjects.


: Hmmmm (none / 0) (#29)
by talex on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 05:14:01 PM EST

Presenting your ideology as being Centrist is precisely what I advocate.
Which is basically what I was saying. You find your positions that line up with the majority of the middle and appeal to them with those. Sure they know your other positions but it is the commonality that they are looking for. No candidate is going to be perfect for any of them anyway.
The only difference in my case versus yours is I don't advocate outright saying your positions are Centrist.
Saying outright that ones positions are Centrist is to Harold Ford for me ;)

Careful, Talex (none / 0) (#18)
by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 09:37:48 PM EST

You are on probation here for insulting Big Tent and others. This comment comes awfully close to crossing the line.


Jesus H., I'm no Talex fan... (none / 0) (#26)
by Dadler on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:31:57 PM EST

...but I don't get the venom he brings out in Tent, whom I genuinely dig. It's like a twisted, abusurdist lover's quarrel, Ionesco with complete sentences (usually), I'm just waiting for a bald soprano to show up. All this arguing back and forth about what the middle is or isn't, or what triangulating is or isn't, it's f*cking tiresome and pointless. If you are both liberals, then rely on the simple original definition of that: from the Latin, liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous. Promote the general welfare or you're promoting the circus.


: I love being a reactionary sometimes (none / 0) (#27)
by Dadler on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:32:26 PM EST

Especially when it's safe.

Does the name Bill Clinton ring a bell??? (none / 0) (#28)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:08:18 AM EST

The DLC still has not learned this. Harold Ford and the DLC are bad at politics

lol

;-)