"Moderation" 's Only Constituency Is In The Beltway

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 07:16:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

What is called "moderation" in the Beltway has proven unpopular in the country. In his column today, E.J. Dionne elides this point:

On health care, months of delay in a futile quest for Republican support got the Democrats the worst of all worlds. The media gave them no credit for reaching out to the other side but did blame them for an ugly, gridlocked process. The demands of moderate Democrats for concessions [. . .] made the process look even seamier. [. . .] Nobody wants to admit that on health care the moderates won all the big fights. [. . .]

And if the Republicans refuse to cooperate, this will not mean that the bill isn't moderate. It will mean only that Republicans refuse to vote for a moderate bill. But if all the media talk about the "failure of moderation" is nonsense, this doesn't get liberals or Obama off the hook.

(Emphasis supplied.) 2009 was a year of "moderate" governance. And no one except the Beltway liked it. That is the political reality.

Speaking for me only

< "If It Is Realism We Need" | Defending The Health Bills: Hey, They Might Work >

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.

"Moderation" 's Only Constituency Is In The Beltway | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What the Democrats need to learn (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by andgarden on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 07:36:33 AM EST

from Judge Lippman:

"I am a result-oriented person," Judge Lippman said, "and the result I am looking for is not necessarily unanimity."

Every party in the world knows this (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by observed on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 07:47:14 AM EST

except for the Democrats.


That's exactly it. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 09:27:26 AM EST

The Obama Administration and the Democratic Leadership signaled early and clearly that results were not nearly as important to them as unanimty. The fatal flaw in their appraoch is that if the results are disappointing and/or dissatisfactory, any so called unanimity that might have been achieved at passage of a bill is effectively canceled out by the disappointment and dissatisfaction with the results.

Singin' Kumbaya as you drive over a cliff doesn't make the landing at the bottom any softer or more appealing.


I propose a bipartisan commission (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by observed on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 11:12:18 AM EST

to determine why Democrats are always getting run over by Republicans. Newt Gingrich can be the Republican chair, with the distinguished Alan Colmes representing the Democrats.


: HAHAHAH! (none / 0) (#16)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 11:22:41 AM EST

<wheeze!> Very, very funny.

Great quote andgarden (none / 0) (#23)
by cal1942 on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:24:05 PM EST

and as Jim Hightower said 'the only thing found in the middle of the road is road kill'

The pursuit of unanimity means we'll stand (or more likely die) in one place.


I think there is a (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by JamesTX on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 07:57:00 AM EST

qualitative difference between the types of people in our society. I don't think it is a matter of degree. I like the Overton window idea, but that is about rhetoric, not about underlying philosophy. There is no such thing as a moderate. That is a cover-up for something.

A moderate is:

...a Republican who compromises for some Democratic votes

...a Democrat who compromises for some Republican votes

...a person who can't decide what is right

Lakoff's framing theory is important in this regard. Our current Dems will not publicly embrace the metaphor that defines our party because that metaphor has become the object of sophisticated ridicule over the last few decades, and it actually evokes revulsion because it has been associated with ideas and images that are completely false and contrived. This is what people mean nowadays when they say "Democrats have no integrated message". We have a message. It is just unpopular, and the population has been conditioned to react violently against it without even thinking about it. Our politicians thus hide it from public view.

The things people like myself are going to have to face is that there simply aren't as many of us as there are of them anymore, and that they have won. When you get complete political control to take your philosophy to extremes for an entire generation, then you get the opportunity to actually shape the future by the way you educate and socialize children. We overlooked that, and now we are essentially defeated.

If we had candidates who said that (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by observed on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 08:05:43 AM EST

Reagan was an abomination and his philosophy has nearly destroyed our country, that would be a start. I think a lot of people are ready for that message, too.
W. was nothing---Reagan is the worst President of the last 90 years.


but possibly not the next 90 (5.00 / 0) (#9)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 09:22:41 AM EST

Evan Bayh Predicts Third-Party Candidate Could Win Presidency: 'Ross Perot Moment'


Evan Bayh (none / 0) (#11)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 09:49:19 AM EST

is flipping crazy- a third party canidate, even if they somehow overcame all of the institutional barriers would be hosed- the voters have become increasingly polarized- if you try to appeal to the middle then you're going to end up below the necessary line- seriously, the reason running to the middle works is that major party canidates have a rough lock on their bases- Clinton in the 90s and Obama now had strong holds on large sections of the democratic party base (the non-religious middle class and African-Americans respectively), Bush had a similar hold a significant portion of the GOP base (evangelicals) for a third party canidate to work they'd have to have a similar lock on a major voting bloc which would then allow them to pivot to attract a plurality (without losing that bloc).


wrong (none / 0) (#12)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 09:50:53 AM EST

all around


: How so (none / 0) (#17)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 01:22:46 PM EST

Clinton was able to do things like reform Welfare without alienating his base, Bush was able to push something like No Child Left Behind without alienating his (remember as loathsome as NCLB is his base are people who want to eliminate the Department of Education). A Third Party canidate would have literally no built in base, making their support almost entirely based on policy positions that could draw from both the left and the right.

You (none / 0) (#30)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 06:43:13 PM EST

are wrong because you are looking at it from the wrong way. It's not left vs. right so much as populism vs. elitism and with Obama and probably another GOP candidate espousing elitism it leaves a large opening for a populist candidate. Bayh doesn't see the whole picture because he's too steeped in the legends of Versailles.


C'mon observed (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by cal1942 on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:29:51 PM EST

you can push Reagan back much farther.

Reagan put the nation in reverse. He didn't just stop and hold place he actually moved the nation in reverse.

Ya gotta go deep into the 19th century.


: Well, I agree--I was just making (none / 0) (#27)
by observed on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:05:59 PM EST

the easy layup.
Reagan was a consequential, effective President who placed this country on a clear trajectory towards economic and environmental disaster, all to help the richest few.

Almost Correct (none / 0) (#20)
by DaveCal on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:50:42 PM EST

You're right when you say "We have a message. It is just unpopular..."

But where you go wrong is when you finish the thought with:

"... and the population has been conditioned to react violently against it without even thinking about it."

Maybe the population HAS thought about it and is rejecting it. Why does disagreement with, or rejection of, your ideas have to be the result of a person/party/conspiracy "conditioning" people to reject it without thinking? Maybe your ideas really ARE outside the mainstream...

Just saying.


No, because (none / 0) (#32)
by JamesTX on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 09:34:12 PM EST

the ideas themselves are false -- exaggerations which people now believe were actually true. It isn't that these things never existed, they just simply were not the norm, as conservatives have convinced the population. For example (but nowhere near the only examples),

...welfare Cadillacs and welfare queens

...all criminals "plead insane" and get off

...slap on the wrist for murder--out the next day

Then there is the idea that we bankrupt our children and destroy the future with any social programs whatsoever, while military and police spending is never questioned, regardless of how ridiculous and exorbitant.

When they "think" about it, these are the things they think, I believe. At least, they seem to say that is what they are thinking.


The trouble is "they" (none / 0) (#34)
by DaveCal on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 03:11:39 PM EST

So if anyone disagrees with you, or rejects your ideas, you assume that they believed false statements or exaggerations? You don't assume that they can decipher the information for themselves? They disagree, so they must have been misled?

I'm guessing you consider yourself smart enough not to be misled by these false/exaggerated ideas (whether from the left or the right). So why do you believe other people are too stupid to think for themselves and not be misled by some false/exaggerated ideas?

This sentence is illustrative of your assumptions:

"Then there is the idea that we bankrupt our children and destroy the future with any social programs whatsoever, while military and police spending is never questioned, regardless of how ridiculous and exorbitant."

I've never heard or read anyone who said that "any social program whatsoever" would bankrupt or destroy us. And I've heard losts of people question military spending.

Perhaps you're too busy pidgeon-holing people into your own views of what perople on the left/right believe. I think there are a whole range of views out that that you're not allowing for.

So, again, maybe some of these ideas from the left really ARE outside the mainstream and have been rejected for that reason, and NOT because people were misled by some Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

I'm just saying...


: I guess I am (none / 0) (#35)
by JamesTX on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 05:23:01 PM EST

seriously deluded!

Oh puh-leeze (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by DancingOpossum on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:57:52 PM EST

Put down the Kool-Aid bottle. Obama comes from a wealthy background, not a "middle class at best" one. He had advantages most Americans could only dream about. And he did not "do well" at a top level law school, he did like he always does--mediocre at best. Anyway, the point is moot. College grades are about the last thing to look to in choosing a world leader. Things like experience and real-world accomplishments--both of which are extremely thin on Obama's resume--are better predictors of a politician's performance.

Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. What "brilliance" has Obama shown in office? He's had a year to do something "Brilliant." Where is it?

What is moderation in this country? (none / 0) (#1)
by observed on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 07:23:41 AM EST

Tax cuts for the upper 2.1 % instead of tax cuts targeted at the top .1%??

Reaching out? (none / 0) (#6)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 08:06:51 AM EST

What a hoot. "Reaching out to Republicans" is not the reason for no tort reform, no 50 state market, a one size fits all plan with little or no consumer choice, a plan so bad that it requires the threat of fines or prison, taxes on medical devices that raise everyone's cost of care, the Medicare Advantage carve out for special seniors in select states with Dem senators, etc., etc.

Those "features" are evidence of a take a hike attitude rather than reaching out.

Oh go away (5.00 / 0) (#7)
by Salo on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 08:44:54 AM EST

The bill removed anything that resembles what liberals wanted or needed. Please stop doing a jig on the grave.

: Then let's thrpow it away (none / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 10:22:40 AM EST

and start over.

Reach Out! (none / 0) (#26)
by cal1942 on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:42:22 PM EST

Rather than reach out, it would benefit the nation immeasurably if we pushed that gang of rotted degenerates over the cliff.


Lost direction (none / 0) (#8)
by mmc9431 on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 09:11:12 AM EST

Republicans have done a very good job of defining their party. They have a platform and they just keep pushing it along. Republicans that don't adhere to the agenda are purged from the party.

Democrats, on the other hand, made the decision to be the party for everyone and now are at the point where they're becoming the party for no one.

I saw President Obaminous (none / 0) (#14)
by observed on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 10:42:44 AM EST

on the news just a while ago, beaming from ear to ear as he formally announced the bipartisan commission to cut the deficit.
He's going to be worse than Bush, in the near term evaluation, because unlike Clinton, he is going to preside over a collapse, unable with his meager intellect to understand that scolding grown adults as if they were 4 years old, and telling them they have to work things out is NOT leadership.
Ugh^1000

Worse than Bush (none / 0) (#18)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 01:23:41 PM EST

"his meager intellect" seriously dude the ODS is just insane in you.


That's your opinion. (none / 0) (#19)
by observed on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 01:34:47 PM EST

The idea that there is ANYTHING brilliant in Obama is what's nuts. He's President Peter Principle.


Just going to throw this out (none / 0) (#21)
by Socraticsilence on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:38:30 PM EST

there- the Peter Principle generally doesn't apply to people who rise from middle class at best backgrounds to leader of the free world, nor do people with weak intellects generally do well at top level law schools.


There are a lot of people with (none / 0) (#25)
by observed on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 04:36:31 PM EST

great resumes on paper who don't impress in real life. I've listened to Obama many times, and read several of his speeches. The man is a canny politician, but he doesn't understand the nuts and bolts of any policy area, except possibly foreign policy.
He was totally at sea answering questions from the Republicans. It was all "My experts say this" and "My experts say that". He got kudos because he was held to the Bush standard: he didn't fall apart, which means he excelled. I could go on, but let's just agree to disagree. You are judging Obama by his past; I'm judging him by what I have seen in the last 6 years.
While I don't think Bush is brilliant by any stretch of the imagination, I think he was quite underrated as to intelligence; Obama, conversely, is the most overrated I"ve seen.
Nixon, head and shoulders about Obama, intellectually---probably the smartest President since WWII.
Carter: much smarter
Clinton: much smarter.
LBJ: smarter and incredibly savvy, politically.
JFK: smarter, and a much better speaker.
GHWB: smarter and a better President than Obama, for how he managed the peaceful end of the Cold War.
Ford: definitely dumber
Reagan: Not bright, and senile as President. Of course Obama's smarter---so why does he praise that monster so much?


: BTW, I wouldn't care about (none / 0) (#28)
by observed on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 05:38:01 PM EST

him using dumbed down language to talk policy, if I agreed with the WH goals. I'm just saying that he's nowhere close to brilliant.

: Nixon had to be "smart" (none / 0) (#31)
by jondee on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 07:58:11 PM EST

the way the unabomber was smart to give the go ahead to all those politically suicidal, dangerously paranoiac projects that marked the period between the secret bombing of Cambodia and Watergate.

Well, Dionne is right (none / 0) (#29)
by lilburro on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 06:08:24 PM EST

the question is, did Obama think he would change Washington, or did he just think Washington would change somehow? Beltway Wisdom is all that's going on in the Senate, surely, in the House, to a lesser extent. By leaving these groups to their own devices in writing your healthcare bill, what did you think would happen?

In retrospect, it all seems a little odd to me. It's rather smug to ask now, but what were the 11th dimensional chess folks thinking?

moderate (none / 0) (#33)
by jedimom on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 08:56:23 AM EST

i argue the country wants more moderates. of course I am a moderate so I would see it that way lol.
the people voted for Obama thinking they would get Big Dawg Mach II, instead they got Carter on steroids so far....Brown is a moderate. He won MASS. MASS. yeah that was a vote for moderation.