Full Version: The excluded middle
For some time now, American politics looks like it is being conducted by two opposing factions.
Nothing new there - two-party politics have been the norm in the USA pretty much since party politics began there, just as they have in British politics (except for brief periods here, one of which is current, where a third party commands wide support).
However, in the past in the US, and for most of the last 20 years here, the key to political dominance by one party or the other was to gain the support of the political middle - ordinary voters who are neither right or left-leaning. My perception is that this way what won Clinton his two terms - the left didn't get it's own way, but had to compromise and negotiate.
Tony Blair's electoral success, like the Thatcher/Major government before him, was founded on his ability to frame the debate around issues that were important to the political middle. His grip on this is pretty secure - so much so that losses of support from the left, over Iraq, for example, haven't greatly damaged him. (Much less than some of us on the left might have hoped, anyway
).
And the new Tory leader announced yesterday, David Cameron, has pretty much announced his intention to battle squarely for this centre ground, reversing the strategy of being rightwing that has lost his party the last three elections.
However, the Bush administration in particular seems to have relied on mobilising the hard right (though not the far right to my knowledge) and pretty much ignoring the middle and the left, at least in their public pronouncements.
One side effect of this seems to have been a polarisation of the electorate, and certainly a polarisation of the media - very little commentary seems to come from the middle these days.
Increasingly, it seems that the moderate left and moderate right are being driven apart; that the core assumptions being made on either side are so diametrcially opposite that its next to impossible to have a conversation about a particular issue, especially today's hot topics like abortion, gay marriage, Iraq, etc. The political centre ground appears to be completely empty, or to have just vanished.
Example - here on
this week, we've had a thread from the right that talks about whether criticism of the conduct of the Iraq War constitutes treason, and another from the left that assumes (I'm paraphrasing) the Bush administration lied over Iraq and asks (at the time of writing, in a way that breaches rules) whether the motivation for those lies was malice or stupidity.
Is the political middle ground being ignored by politicians and/or the media? Why?
Has it disappeared altogether? How and why?
What are the consquences of the current polarisation? Do compromise and negotiation even matter?
How can the right and left talk to one another when they seem unable to agree on anything, including the parameters for debate?
Nothing new there - two-party politics have been the norm in the USA pretty much since party politics began there, just as they have in British politics (except for brief periods here, one of which is current, where a third party commands wide support).
However, in the past in the US, and for most of the last 20 years here, the key to political dominance by one party or the other was to gain the support of the political middle - ordinary voters who are neither right or left-leaning. My perception is that this way what won Clinton his two terms - the left didn't get it's own way, but had to compromise and negotiate.
Tony Blair's electoral success, like the Thatcher/Major government before him, was founded on his ability to frame the debate around issues that were important to the political middle. His grip on this is pretty secure - so much so that losses of support from the left, over Iraq, for example, haven't greatly damaged him. (Much less than some of us on the left might have hoped, anyway
). And the new Tory leader announced yesterday, David Cameron, has pretty much announced his intention to battle squarely for this centre ground, reversing the strategy of being rightwing that has lost his party the last three elections.
However, the Bush administration in particular seems to have relied on mobilising the hard right (though not the far right to my knowledge) and pretty much ignoring the middle and the left, at least in their public pronouncements.
One side effect of this seems to have been a polarisation of the electorate, and certainly a polarisation of the media - very little commentary seems to come from the middle these days.
Increasingly, it seems that the moderate left and moderate right are being driven apart; that the core assumptions being made on either side are so diametrcially opposite that its next to impossible to have a conversation about a particular issue, especially today's hot topics like abortion, gay marriage, Iraq, etc. The political centre ground appears to be completely empty, or to have just vanished.
Example - here on
this week, we've had a thread from the right that talks about whether criticism of the conduct of the Iraq War constitutes treason, and another from the left that assumes (I'm paraphrasing) the Bush administration lied over Iraq and asks (at the time of writing, in a way that breaches rules) whether the motivation for those lies was malice or stupidity. Is the political middle ground being ignored by politicians and/or the media? Why?
Has it disappeared altogether? How and why?
What are the consquences of the current polarisation? Do compromise and negotiation even matter?
How can the right and left talk to one another when they seem unable to agree on anything, including the parameters for debate?
Is the political middle ground being ignored by politicians and/or the media? Why?
I would actually place this as a result of 9/11.Just before it the middle was the determining factor. The results of 9/11 and the war had many centrist type voters vote republican because of the dismal reputation that the democrats have created for themselves in regards to military and defense. I would also say that the GOP has been really great at building a coalition of similiar interests. Unlike the dems however it isn't a mass of interest groups but people with similiar philosophies.
Example--fiscal conservative--social conservatives. While their interests do not match 100%--they are in no way dissatisfied enough to vote Democrat. They also are able to still vote one party even though they don't support the whole platform. Better some than None. Democrats who are disatified have lately abandoned the party for either greens or Nader.
The growing number of independents also seems to be a factor.
However I suspect were the war not an issue the division electorally would be much slimmer.
Has it disappeared altogether? How and why?
No it is just being overridden by fear at this time.
What are the consquences of the current polarisation? Do compromise and negotiation even matter?At this point no. One need only watch FOX to see that the powers that be have no intention on finding solutions or ideas. It is all "My way or Nothing".
How can the right and left talk to one another when they seem unable to agree on anything, including the parameters for debate? Again they are not really talking. Although at this time I notice that while the
I would actually place this as a result of 9/11.Just before it the middle was the determining factor. The results of 9/11 and the war had many centrist type voters vote republican because of the dismal reputation that the democrats have created for themselves in regards to military and defense. I would also say that the GOP has been really great at building a coalition of similiar interests. Unlike the dems however it isn't a mass of interest groups but people with similiar philosophies.
Example--fiscal conservative--social conservatives. While their interests do not match 100%--they are in no way dissatisfied enough to vote Democrat. They also are able to still vote one party even though they don't support the whole platform. Better some than None. Democrats who are disatified have lately abandoned the party for either greens or Nader.
The growing number of independents also seems to be a factor.
However I suspect were the war not an issue the division electorally would be much slimmer.
Has it disappeared altogether? How and why?
No it is just being overridden by fear at this time.
What are the consquences of the current polarisation? Do compromise and negotiation even matter?At this point no. One need only watch FOX to see that the powers that be have no intention on finding solutions or ideas. It is all "My way or Nothing".
How can the right and left talk to one another when they seem unable to agree on anything, including the parameters for debate? Again they are not really talking. Although at this time I notice that while the
Is the political middle ground being ignored by politicians and/or the media? Why?
Yes, mostly because of the tone set by this administration. These are not people who recognize middle grounds and it dots their speech all the time. These are "right or wrong, good .vs. evil, with us or against us" people. To recognize that there might be some opinions between those poles would be wishy-washy & liberal.
Has it disappeared altogether? How and why?
No, the middle is starting to make itself heard now that the iron hand of the administration has weakened and moderate republicans can voice their opinions once again. The Democrats are a little slow to sieze the opportunity and want to get their frustrations out first, but the middle is there, and there for the taking.
What are the consquences of the current polarisation? Do compromise and negotiation even matter?
The result of polarization is that both sides basically cancel each other out, it takes compromise to get anything done in Washington. We're starting to see that happening on bills currently moving through congress such as immigration reform where the centerpiece of the President's agenda didn't even make it into the bill.
How can the right and left talk to one another when they seem unable to agree on anything, including the parameters for debate?
The extremes will always be at odds, nothing new there, but right now they dominate the debate. As the middle resurges, the extreme elements will simply become less relevant as they get outvoted. They'll continue to burn up the airwaves though on talk radio.
Yes, mostly because of the tone set by this administration. These are not people who recognize middle grounds and it dots their speech all the time. These are "right or wrong, good .vs. evil, with us or against us" people. To recognize that there might be some opinions between those poles would be wishy-washy & liberal.
Has it disappeared altogether? How and why?
No, the middle is starting to make itself heard now that the iron hand of the administration has weakened and moderate republicans can voice their opinions once again. The Democrats are a little slow to sieze the opportunity and want to get their frustrations out first, but the middle is there, and there for the taking.
What are the consquences of the current polarisation? Do compromise and negotiation even matter?
The result of polarization is that both sides basically cancel each other out, it takes compromise to get anything done in Washington. We're starting to see that happening on bills currently moving through congress such as immigration reform where the centerpiece of the President's agenda didn't even make it into the bill.
How can the right and left talk to one another when they seem unable to agree on anything, including the parameters for debate?
The extremes will always be at odds, nothing new there, but right now they dominate the debate. As the middle resurges, the extreme elements will simply become less relevant as they get outvoted. They'll continue to burn up the airwaves though on talk radio.
QUOTE
Is the political middle ground being ignored by politicians and/or the media? Why?
I read a great article concerning this and thought of this thread, but couldn't find it for the life of me for most of today.
I would argue that the middle ground is being considered as an important part of the process. David Broder's Dec.11th column in the Washington Post is aptly titled: 'Center Aisle' Civility and concerns the efforts of a democrat and republican to form a "center aisle" caucus that meets and is gaining a lot of support in the normally caustic House of Representatives. Back up in time to the Harriet Miers episode and you have the bi-partisan "gang of 14" that sabotaged efforts on both the left and the right to get their respective way. Bill Frist wanted to be the head man in charge, but the real head man in charge was John McCain and the democrats and republicans who stood with him, not Frist.
Add to this the influence of the centrist caucus in the senate and what you have is a large contingent of congressmen and senators who are wanting to be seen as "middle of the road" as opposed to being the next Bernie Sanders or "B1" Bob Dornan.QUOTE
Has it disappeared altogether? How and why?
Christopher is more than dead on with the 911 explanation. Clearly, things have changed and people are more willing to give the president leeway in terms of foreign policy and other matters like that. Not that abortion and other issues don't matter at all, but after 911, even the most red-hot partisan issues fail to resonate with the centrists who appear silent, but who are concerned about more pressing matters.
QUOTE
What are the consquences of the current polarisation? Do compromise and negotiation even matter?
As shown above, I'd say it's the party whips and leadership that has to worry, not the centrist coalition or the gang of 14!. How have the former had a victory over the latter?
QUOTE
How can the right and left talk to one another when they seem unable to agree on anything, including the parameters for debate?
Issues sometimes make for some interesting alliances. In regards to the patriot act, you have Bob Dornan and the ACLU rubbing shoulders,
not to mention feminists and fundamentalist christians working together when the issue is pornography,at least, that's how I remember it being during the '80s. The big thing I believe that can be done is that even die-hard leftists and right wing members of the congress and senate can meet on some issues, it takes time and effort-and weak leadership in both parties, which is obviously the case today IMHO.This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.