US Ideological Distribution, 2008

The Pew Research Center has presented a simple linear chart that places the ideology of the three Presidential contenders and the current President on a left-right scale, along with the median ideology of the voting public.  A two-axis chart would be more informative, but this one-dimensional distribution reveals a great deal :

1) The center of gravity of the US public is significantly right of the center, no matter what leftists may say/wish.  McCain, thus, is far closer to the center of gravity than Bush, who in turn is closer than Obama or Clinton.  The GOP is far less dependent on centrists to win elections than Democrats are. 

2) The notion that McCain is 'not conservative enough' does not stand up to statistical evidence.  Those who whine about McCain's support for amnesty of illegals or compromises on judicial appointments forget that even Ronald Reagan did three things that were not purely conservative.

a) Reagan granted amnesty to illegals in 1986

b) Reagan appointed two moderate Supreme Court Justices, Kennedy and O'Connor, and only one conservative, Scalia. 

c) Reagan did increase income taxes, after first lowering them

No President will be purely conservative, nor should he/she be.  So I reject the initial conservative hostility to McCain (which seems to have somewhat abated).  The job of a political party is to win elections, and the fact that Republicans span a wider ideological spectrum than Democrats should be a source of pride, which brings us to observation #3.

3) The Democratic Party has been enslaved by fringe leftists.  Obama and Clinton are nearly identical in ideology, yet very far to the left of the center of gravity.  The purple oval I have inserted, along with the question mark, represents a vacuum in the moderate left.  A large number of voters clearly reside there, but the Democratic party of today will not nominate someone who resides in the purple zone, leaving these voters as ideological orphans.  Thus, Clinton and Obama have to lie (assisted by a complicit leftist media) to appear more moderate than they are, and hope that the public doesn't figure that out. 

Joseph Lieberman, the VP candidate against Bush/Cheney just seven years ago, was run out of the Democratic Party simply for not being opposed to bringing democracy to Iraq.  Bill Clinton's actions of supporting free trade agreements like NAFTA, sending troops to fight proto-Al-Qaeda terrorists in Somalia in 1993, reforming welfare, cutting taxes on capital gains in 1997, attacking Saddam Hussein to remove his WMD programs in 1998, etc. are all actions that the modern Democratic party would not take. 

I am a political moderate, in that I care about only three issues.  These are :

a) aggresively fighting against terrorists and other enemies of democracy and women's rights,

b) the preservation of free market meritocracy, and the use of market forces to solve problems, and

c) a judicial system that punishes crime, instead of ignoring justice and proceeding to reward the criminal as a poster-child for some perverted cause. 

I have a neutral/uninterested position on abortion, gay marriage, gun ownership, prayer in schools, and many other domestic issues.  Yet, I am considered 'right wing' by some extreme leftists, on account of holding the above three positions alone.  Until 2001, it did not even occur to me that only one of the two parties still advocates these three basic principles - I assumed that these were values held by any logical person.  I wish I had a true choice between two parties, but I don't.  In the words of once-Democrat Ronald Reagan, I did not move away from the Democratic Party, it moved away from me. 

The moderate left died in 1968, when two of their most promising young leaders were assassinated.  Since then, Democrats have only won three of the last ten elections.  After the disaster of Jimmy Carter, Democrats never again won 50% of the popular vote in SEVEN attempts, while Republicans achieved this feat 4 times over that period (1980, 84, 88, 2004).  This is a truly shambolic performance from the Democrats of the modern era.  Jimmy Carter did more to ensure a generation of GOP dominance than Reagan, Gingrich, Limbaugh, or Rove ever could. 

Furthermore, Democrats are not capable of getting a majority of voters who earn over $30,000 a year.  The middle class earning between $50,000 and $75,000 voted just 44% for Democrats.  A party that is soundly rejected by the middle class and upper class is not positioned for long-term success. 

2008 is a year where more factors, from a weak economy to an unpopular incumbent, are working against Republicans than at any time since 1976.  Thus, Democrats should be in a position to win by a landslide, but even now are trailing in the polls, and have at best a 50/50 chance of winning the White House in November, with a nominee far more distant from the voting public than John McCain is.  Even if, say, Obama wins, he might repeat the Carter-esqe phenomenon of ensuring another generation of GOP dominance starting from 2012.  If 2008 is 1976, 2012 could be 1980. 

Once again, the job of a political party is to attract the votes of 50% of the public, and Democrats can only hope to achieve this by fluke.  If Democrats want to become a national party again, they must move into the purple zone, period.  I sincerely want them to do this, as this will force the GOP to compete to become a better party as well, rather than stagnate into mediocrity with the knowledge that they only have to be better than the most pathetic of opponents. 

When will Democrats purge the leftists and move to the center?

Comments

[jeffolie]

Clinton seemed to move toward the center a little today. She attacked Obama regarding guns.

Still Clinton and Obama are hopelessly tied to the liberal, progressive movement in the Democratic Party.

I have managed to persuade my wife and four adult children to vote for McCain because of Clinton and Obama's positions on illegal immigration. That is five votes for McCain that I have switched from HillBama.

[GK]

jeffolie,

You are a great American.

But also consider that many times, people will tell you that they have switched allegiances just to get you to leave them alone, while still changing their mind at the last minute and voting for HillBama on election day. Remember that their friends, etc. would be pressuring them in the opposite direction. You can never know for sure.

If the RNC were smart, they would be running TV ads with the Pew Research chart above.

[jeffolie]

Barack Obama's Black Liberation Theology

I'm not sure how much of this theology that Obama is aware of and subscribes to: That's Obama's problem, no one knows who he is or what he believes. But one has to assume he believes in it 100% since he's unwilling to address it. He won't even say the words "black liberation theology", which is surprising since that's what he's been worshipping for 2 decades. I am willing to assert that he's a full-on subscriber judging from passages I've read from two of his books.

Black Liberation Theology...

"Black Theology refuses to accept a god who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against the white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of the Black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community..."

Here is a video by cable syndicated talk show host Glenn Beck and his guests:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=928_TLwSl1I

What does his membership in the Trinity Church with its Black Theology say about Obama's judgement and credibility. Will he appoint followers of Black Theology as judges?

It is frightening to me that a follower of this Church will be the President of the US.

-----------------

The media's love affair with Obama makes them ask us to believe that Obama was courageous for defending Wright in his Philadelphia speech on race and also courageous for throwing him under the bus six weeks later for the exact same opinions.

The only plausible realities are that either the speech was naïve and the press conference realistic, or the speech was pandering and the press conference politically expedient. Neither paints a pretty picture of a politician who is supposed to change Washington.

Indeed, the press had characterized Wright in that role quite often. For example, the Chicago Sun Times described him as "a close confidant" in an article about people Obama "seeks out for spiritual counsel," and the New York Times described Wright as his "spiritual mentor."

Another source even called Wright the man "who helped introduce" Obama to his "Christian faith," who "counsels" him, is "like family," "a friend," "a great leader" and a "sounding board," who was a member of Obama's spiritual advisory committee and who officiated his wedding and baptized his children.

That source? Barack Obama. I wonder where "the press" got all those crazy ideas.

Do I think for a second that Obama believes the government created the AIDS virus to kill African-Americans? No. But at this point it's rational to wonder whether he is either lying or has an awful sense of judgment. He either knew Wright's views and didn't tell the truth about them, or he somehow missed the core beliefs of the man who was spending his Sunday mornings teaching core beliefs.

I'm glad Obama has come to the same conclusion that Wright's critics came to long ago. I just wonder why it took me two minutes and him two decades.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/05/beck.obamawright/index.html?section=cnn_topstories&eref=yahoo

---------------------------

USA Today said the results showed the Wright controversy had raised questions for some voters about Obama's values, credibility and electability.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's standing has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his former pastor, according to USA Today/Gallup poll published on Monday.

The poll showed Hillary Clinton leading Obama 51 percent to 44 percent nationally among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters, in contrast to a CBS News/New York Times survey released on Sunday that had Obama leading Clinton by 12 points. The USA Today/Gallup results were a sharp reversal from two weeks ago, before the latest controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, when Obama led Clinton by 10 percentage points.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080505/pl_nm/usa_politics_democrats_poll_dc;_ylt=AqsDhH9WSUp1gflohjagAses0NUE

[Lord Voldemort]

Out here in the SF Bay in California, if you try telling people that there's statistical evidence that the nation as a whole is right of center, they go ballistic.
They'll claim it is all a Karl Rove lie, that I shouldn't be taken seriously at work now that they know I am 'one of those neocons' and they'll insist that the nation is really left of center instead.

And if you ask for proof, the change the subject or they say they its just flat out impossible that America is otherwise but only that because stupid voters get 'tricked' by Republican dirty tricks and misinformation that is seems that the nation is right of center.

The only time they will *briefly* consider other possibilities is only when undeniably forced to do so -- like when Kerry lost in '04. It reminds you of the hedonists of Logan's Run being forced out of their bubble city at the end of the movie and how they had to deal with the reality of the world on its own terms for the first time in their lives.

But otherwise, these people are so removed from reality that I wouldn't be hopeful for any purge soon of the fringers. The fringers are not 'on the fringe' as far as the Democratic Party is concerned. They -- and the wacked out views they hold -- are in the hard center of how the world works, in their view.

I can see a future where the Democratic Party gets replaced much like the Whigs got replaced by the Republicans more so than I see it reforming itself.

[GK]

Lord Voldemort,

I know, I live there. Being a 'Republican' is worse than being a criminal, especially if you are a person of color.

The best way to tease SFBA people is :

1) Remind them about which party their Governor is from. You know, the guy who won 60% of the vote in 2006?

2) Remind them how not long ago, California was a Republican state (until 1988), and Texas was a Democrat State (until the 1970s). Few Bay Area residents know this.

3) Show them the voter distribution in 2004 by income.

4) Show them this table of how many tech industry execs donated to Bush, particularly if it is a company that they work at.

The key is, don't defend Bush, but rather expand the debate landscape in your favor :

a) Force them into a position where they have to say that even McCain and Schwarzenegger are 'extremists', due to being part of the Republican Party.

b) Force them into a pro-US vs. anti-US debate, rather than an R vs. D debate. Especially if your opponent is an immigrant. Make him explain why he came to the US, whether he thinks taxes are too low, whether America has too much racism, etc. When he doesn't have good answers, challenge him on why he is merely copying the views that appear the be fashionable, rather than putting in the effort to learn about his new country.

The fringes will be marginalized on a national level - the Bay Area itself is a concentration of fringe leftists. Exclude the Bay Area, and California becomes a swing state - seriously. SoCal is much redder than most people realize. Exclude the SFBA, and CA is no more blue than Pennsylvania or Ohio.

[Lord Voldemort]

Yup GK,

All those facts and observations do keep me sane in an Insane Unfree Zone. :)

Oh, and don't forget to mention how people at cocktail parties nearly ask you if you are retarded or something for choosing to be a Republican. (It's in their body language and tone of voice)

My favorite tactic is to not even bother shifting the 'debate' at all. When they spit (sometimes literally) in your face about how 'Bush lied', you simply respond 'yeah, to suckers like you...and you fell for it. And Bush is SUPPOSED TO BE the dunce?' and grin like a Cheshire Cat while doing so. They aren't used to getting boomeranged like that and it is sure fun to pull on them at a purely emotional level.

In my experience, most immigrants here are rather rational. They think that the 'native born' Americans are spoiled brats who don't know what privation really is and how surreal everything about these 'debates' are because of all the opportunities that abound around us in the Bay Area yet all the 'natives' can do is bitch, bitch, bitch and behave as if they don't have any common sense.

That's not to say that there aren't a lot of them who want to 'Ape the Americans'.

Perhaps I hang around different immigrants than you do. Or, most likely, I don't get exposed to the same things because I am one of those 'native born' and white to boot. As for Indian-Americans, I get a kick over the whole ABCD thing (American Born and Confused Desi). Most Americans don't know about that and I only found out because I befriended and trained an Indian co-worker who was fresh off the plane and thus relaxed around me.

But still, getting an answer to 'What is ABCD mean?" was was like pulling teeth because none of them wanted the White Guy to know about that little cultural detail.

ABCD was my best friend on scoring with Indian chicks, too. "Well...if you are going to continue to get crap from your friends and family back home no matter what, you might as well have an American boyfriend."

I saw some article a few years ago showing how California is going to become a Red state again simply because more Republicans have replacement level numbers of children than the Dems do and that 80% of all children grow up to adopt the same ideological outlook as their parents. Before that, Ohio will beat California to the Red state finish line for the same reason.

[World Citizen]

OMG, a very POINTLESS post, GK. Your posts about technology are way better then this left<>right brain expletive deleted by site administrator ;)

[GK]

"World Citizen",

It is pointless to want the Democrats to move closer to where more voters reside, rather than the fringes?

I see that you cannot contest any specific points in the article.

Also, you still have been hiding from the many questions that I have posed to you again and again :

What are you doing to stop the violent massacre of peaceful Buddhist monks in Burma? In Tibet? Of innocents in Sudan and Zimbabwe? Where is your so-called 'world community' in preventing these atrocities?

Also :

If you think Al-Qaeda is a creation of the CIA to get Republicans elected, then why is not a single Democratic Senator saying this? Why do you believe something that not one Democrat thinks is credible?

I'll throw in another :

Taiwan is not recognized by the UN. Yet, it is a democratic, wealthy country. Does it deserve to exist as an independent country?

How long will you keep hiding from these questions?

[brokerdavelhr]

GK,
Good article. I like what you said about how neither candidate should not be purely conservative. Sure tradition has it’s place, but history has proved over and over again that failure to adapt either dooms a country into a state of perpetual middle age (comparatively speaking), or gets it wiped off the map completely. I think you have stated the problem very well. I noticed that the media focuses on Hillbama and Mccain, but say nothing at all about the libertarian parties. Actually, I have yet to meet a single person who even knows that Ron Paul is still in the race. I have also noticed that the big D parties focus mainly around what the other side is doing wrong (in their opinion) vs. stating in detail how they would come up with a real fix to the problem that would actually work. The media also tends to leave out the discrepancies of the candidates voting record. It is sad to note that (on the rare occasion) that they point out such a discrepancy, that the politician still gets free media. Meanwhile, the straight shooters who actually back up their statements, are placed on the back burner.
While I do not believe that tradition is the answer, I would also argue that history cannot be ignored. The country has evolved a great deal off of what our founding fathers envisioned, yet this is not unexpected given the principles this country was founded on. Even back then, our nation had found many problems with herself. Problems that not even our founding fathers could figure out. Every action has a reaction, and I believe that everything happening today, is the result of those actions made hundreds of years ago. Likewise the actions we take today to fix those, will cause even more repercussions later.
What is your take on all this? (As you can probably tell, I am not much of a politician. I am way outclassed in this area, and will not be arguing as I am in a ‘shut up and learn mode).

Thanks

[World Citizen]

"GK",

US was never "Leftist vs Rightist", it was always "Liberal vs Conservative". There will never be anything like in Soviet Union or China... USA has different grounds, yet very young ones. If you think that the majority of US population is "conservative", you may not be totally correct, and I think they tend to be more "liberal". "Conservative" means "stale" to me...
If you ask me, I dont think Obama is "leftist", he is far from that... Wishing for the nation to be stronger and healthier does not necessarily mean to be "leftist" ;)

The bottom line is: the final votes will show the true national position, not a chart on someone's blog.

You and your useless questions... I gave you my opinion several times, yet you insist asking (I'm glad you still remember me :D ) those questions that do not deserve the answer; but, I'll repeat myself, just to amuse you...

What are you doing to stop the violent massacre of peaceful Buddhist monks in Burma?

Training jihadists to make a revolt.

In Tibet?

Training monks to sustain the pain better.

Of innocents in Sudan and Zimbabwe?

Innocents are everywhere. What do you do?

Where is your so-called 'world community' in preventing these atrocities?

Killed by Republicans. Only I left to carry the banner.

If you think Al-Qaeda is a creation of the CIA to get Republicans elected, then why is not a single Democratic Senator saying this?

Why should they? They are not better then Republicans - all bought by corporations....

Why do you believe something that not one Democrat thinks is credible?

Why shouldn't I? It's a free country, if you can have an opinion, so do I.

Taiwan is not recognized by the UN. Yet, it is a democratic, wealthy country. Does it deserve to exist as an independent country?

It's not for me to decide; if citizens of Taiwan want to be independent, so be it. If India wanted to be independent from England and Portugal, it was allowed to happen... Why shouldn't be the same for Taiwan?
Iran wanted to be independent and it was democratic country, yet the so called "the country that brings democracy" (US ;)) came and removed the democratic government in favor of a better controlled puppet... If UN will refuse to satisfy the freedom of Taiwan, then UN is a disfunctional structure...

jeffolie,
You are a great American.

Did you mean: "You are a great Republican"?... And dont forget, there are North America and South America ;) One country cannot be just an "America", nor citizens "Americans"

[World Citizen]

Interesting, my post was moderated... so much for a freedom of speech and wiliness of exchange opinions... very sad... So, GK, you are keeping only posts that really make your blog look like there is no opposition to your opinions? A truly conservative and coward way...
I'm very disappointed in you, GK

[Sam]

To answer your question, GK, the reason political parties don't field more moderate candidates is because it is the activists on the extremes that nominate, work for, and donate to the candidates. The average voter (like me) doesn't want to be bothered until the general election, at which point we are presented with two candidates from either extreme who have spent the last few months trying to fool us into believing that they are more centrist than they actually are. At least, that is my cynical view on the subject.

[GK]

"World Citizen",

At least you finally gathered the courage to answer.

Your ridiculous answers show how little you know about the world. This confirms my opinion that the more one knows about the real world, the more they appreciate developed nations, especially the US. The less they know about the world, the more likely they will consider themselves some 'world citizen' who is not just indifferent to genocide, but actually thinks it is funny.

a) You actually think Taiwan can VOTE for what their relationship with China can be, and that China will allow it? I am amazed that you don't know China is not a democracy, and seeks to take over Taiwan by force, against Taiwan's will.

That you say the monks should 'bear the pain' shows your cold cruelty.

b) You believe absurd conspiracy theories about 9/11, etc. are not a single elected Democrat believes. That is your right in free speech (which most of the countries you defend do not permit, BTW). It also proves you to be quite illogical and distant from the mainstream thinking of normal people.

c) Obviously, you don't think the world community or the UN has any obligation to prevent genocide in Sudan, Tibet, etc. What is the benefit of being a 'world citizen', then, if you are indifferent to evil?

A "World Citizen" that thinks genocide is funny. Nice.

Did you mean: "You are a great Republican"?...

You have just insulted all Democrats, by claiming that Republicans are the ONLY people that can be pro-US.

Interesting, my post was moderated

If you write an obscenity, that one word will be moderated, and it was. No actual argument of yours was moderated (particularly since they are so absurdly laughable), so don't lie that it was.

The point is, Obama is far more distant from the center of gravity than McCain, or even Bush. Period.

You cannot debate any point on its merits, which is why you hid for so long. Now that you have answered, you appear even more bizarre than I thought.

[John Lynch]

The Democrats won't win by a fluke. They'll win by bad decisions by Republicans. Eventually, everyone makes mistakes. The Republicans have made enough that they will lose in November unless they win by a fluke.

[stalker]

You might want to look at Krugman's analysis of the situation.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/election-fundamentals-continued/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/phase-two/

1. Republican advantage is, according to you and PEW, that they are closer to the mainstream.

2. Democratic advantages include: a) stagnating or even declining personal income growth, b) an unpopular war, c) impending and almost certain recession, d) Bush's extremely low approval rating.

So really I'd rather be in Obama's rather than McCain's shoes.

For the record I am of the opinion that McCain is an opinionated semi-senile moron who will proudly continue Bush's legacy of alienating the rest of the world. (I may be opinionated too, but then again I'm not a President). If I were an American, I would vouch for Obama. As a Russian however I'd be quite content to see McCain win.

[GK]

stalker,

Your four Democrat advantages are true, which makes it all the more revealing that Obama isn't doing much better against McCain, than he currently is. On your specific points :

a) Debateable, and most Americans recognize that this is not in the control of any President. US per capita wealth is at an all-time high, in real terms.

b) Unpopular, yes, but most Americans do not want Obama's naive plan to 'withdraw in 60 days' and 'talk to Iran/NK'. They know that 2008 is the year of substantial improvements in Iraq.

c) Recession already began in December, as I have said here, and may be finished well before the election. It may have happened too soon for Obama to benefit.

d) Yes, but Obama should be doing much better than he is, given that. Such an opportunity only comes once in a generation, the last time being 1976.

I strongly disagree that Bush has 'alienated' the rest of the world. He just offends the leftists of the world, as he should. If anything, Democrats will damage America's credibility further by :

a) Opposing an expansion of ties with India, the most pro-Bush/pro-US country.

b) Opposing free trade with Columbia, a valuable ally high high potential to help move Latin America to greater prosperity.

c) Abandoning those in Iraq who have allied with the US, notably the Kurds and many assorted tribes of Shias.

France and Germany were the most vocal opponents of the US, and as a result, the voters tossed out Chirac and Schroeder, and installed pro-US leaders. Blair and Howard also won their first post-Iraq elections (as did Bush). Even Berlusconi is back in Italy.

So the 'US credibility in the world' argument holds no water - it is merely a leftist wish that has far too much evidence to the contrary. Jimmy Carter did not increase America's 'standing int he world', he merely made America look weak.

[Eric]

I'm a bona fide leftist. I wonder where you got that median voter ideology data from. What types of issues were used to determine the left-right ideology, and how much weight was given to each issue?

On economic issues like the environment, income distribution and workers' rights, the median voter agrees far more with the Democrats than the Republicans. It is the "values voters" that give the Right so much power, not to mention a successful method of making the moderate left look extremist and the far right look moderate.

The Democrats DID move to the economic center in the 1990s - and it created an opening on the anti-corporate left for Ralph Nader. If the Dems run toward the center on cultural issues but lean toward economic populism they would win easily. Unfortunately their liberalism today is more cultural than economic.

If the Democrats were to embrace Reaganomics-lite all over again, I would become one of millions of leftist Americans to break ranks and support a pro-worker, anti-big money candidate.

[anon]

Hillary and Obama are socialist to the bone.

I watched that man say how if he was president *barf*, he would leave America unarmed, and defensless. He would slow the progression of future Combat systems, stop all work on future and present nuclear weapons designs/research, and call on russia to do the same, and actually expect it to happen, all on "good faith".

Here is the youtube video with what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&eurl=http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2008/03/obama-would-lea.html

Yea, leave america wide open for a terrorist attack, something the last democrat we had in office did.

Socialism is alive and well with these two.

Only one thing could be worse if one of them were to actually get elected, Obama for president, Hillary for Vice...

I have seriously contemplated on Movein to Australia if either of these two idiots become the president of "we the people of the United STates"!